Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

GHIASUDDIN versus STATE


Article 185 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (V9 1898), sections 435 and 439 of the interstate order, in which the High Court directed the preparation of documents necessary for examination, was raised by the petitioner in support of the revision petition. The petition should be considered, hardly refusing to challenge the Supreme Court. Holiday refused to interfere

1985 S C M R 989

Present: Abdul Kadir Shaikh, S. A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ

GH1ASUDDIN‑‑Petitioner

Versus

THE STATE Respondent

Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑38 of 1983, decided on 28th April, 1983.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Sind High Court Karachi, dated 15‑2‑1983 passed in Criminal Revision No. 187 of 1980).

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 435 & 439‑ Interlocutory order passed by High Court directing production of documents necessary for examination to consider a plea raised by petitioner in support of revision application‑‑Hardly open to challenge‑ Supreme Court declined to interfere‑‑Leave refused.

Usman Ghani Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court and Rashid Akhtar Qureshi,

Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.

Date of hearing: 28th April, 1983.

ORDER

ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑

‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order of a learned Single Judge, dated 15‑2‑1983 directing the petitioner to produce certain documents which were necessary for examination in order to consider a plea raised by him in support of the revision application. By the same order learned Judge further directed that the complainant in the case be joined as a co‑respondent in the revision application.

Since the learned Judge passed this order as he wished to be satisfied with a plea raised by the petitioner, it is hardly open to him to challenge the order. In any case, the order is of interlocutory nature, and interference by this Court is not called for.

Leave is refused and the petition is dismissed.

M.I. Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
divorce advocates from Jehanian lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.