Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 865 of 1983, decided on 19th October, 1983.
(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 9‑3‑1983 of the Lahore High Court. Lahore, in Civil Revision No. 391/1) of 1982).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Educational Institution‑‑Examination‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Difference of opinion in judgments of Supreme Court‑‑Leave granted to settle cleavage of opinion by an authoritative judgment on question whether a candidate who benefits from a wrong can be presumed ipso facto to be responsible for it or whether specific evidence must be adduced to establish his wrong doing.
P L D 1977 S C 838; Rahat Siddiqui v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education 1977 S C M R 213 and Akhtar Ali v. University of the Punjab 1979 S C M R 549 ref.
Ch. Muhammad Farooq, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Muhammad Shamim Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 19th October, 1983.
There appears to ‑be some difference of opinion expressed in the judgments of this Court on the question whether a candidate who benefits from a wrong, he can be presumed ipso facto to be responsible for it or whether specific evidence must be adduced to establish his wrong doing. In P L D 1977 S C 838 it was held that where the candidate's marks were increased by tampering with the record and he was obviously beneficiary of this malpractice, the said sole circumstance would not be sufficient to prove that the candidate was responsible for the said malpractice.
However, a somewhat different view was taken by this Court in Rabat Siddiqui v Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education 1977 S C M It 213 which decision appears to have been followed in Akhtar Ali v . University of the Punjab 1979 S C M R 549 where it was held that the circumstance that the candidate benefited from the malpractice, raised a presumption that he had something to do with it.
It appears desirable to settle this cleavage of opinion by an authoritative judgment. Leave is accordingly granted.
The case should be fixed for hearing at a very early date with the appeal of the learned H.C.J. before a Bench of five HJJ.
The appeal shall be made ready on the present record with liberty to the' parties to add further documents, if any. However, the petitioners' prayer for suspension of the operation of the High Court's order is rejected.
M.I. Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer