Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 40‑R of 1983, decided on 4th July, 1983.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 2nd April, 1983 in ‑Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 580‑Q of 1980).
‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Leave to appeal‑Sought on ground that remarks made in judgment of High Court being such which are likely to cause pre judice to petitioner at trial‑‑Leave refused by Supreme Court with observation that High Court having observed in impugned judgment that "nothing contained therein shall influence trial Judge in any way who should decide case on merits", petitioner therefore should have no apprehensions‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 382/161/165 read with Prevention of Corruption Act (11 of 1947), S. 5(2).
Muhammad Nawaz Abbas, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing : 4th July, 1983.
Leave to appeal in this petition is sought from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench; Rawalpindi, dated 2‑4‑1983, whereby a criminal miscellaneous petition of the petitioner made under section 561‑A of the Criminal Procedure Code for the quashment of a case under section 382/161/165 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with sec tion 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Art, 1947 pending against him in the Court of the Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption (Provincial), Rawalpindi, was dismissed.
The quashment of the proceedings was sought on the ground that the Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption had no jurisdiction to try the case. However, it is not denied that the petitioner being a teacher of the Government High School is a Government servant. Whether or not he was guilty of the offence under the relevant provisions of law is a question which will be decided on the basis of the evidence by the learned trial Court.
It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the remarks made in the impugned Judgment are such as are likely to cause prejudice to the petitioner at the trial. The petitioner should have no apprehension in this behalf because of the observations of the learned High Court in the impugned judgment that nothing contained therein shall influence the learned trial Judge in any way, who shall decide the case on merits.
The petition has no substance and is dismissed accordingly.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer