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.
Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 1978, decided on 7th June, 1986.
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 30‑6‑1977 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Criminal Appeal No. 172 of 1976).
‑‑‑O. XV, R. 6 read with O. XIX, R.2‑‑Adjournment of appeal‑ Advocate‑on‑Record pointing out that concerned counsel was engaged only for prosecuting petition for leave to appeal and not for conducting appeal‑‑Notice issued to appellants to make arrangements for their representation for prosecuting case.
Fazal‑e‑Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.
K.G. Sabir, Advocate‑General, N.‑W.F.P. for the State.
Date of hearing: 7th June, 1986.
Mr. Fazal‑e‑Hussain, Advocate‑on- Record, appeared before us and stated that Mian Mahmud Ali Kasuri, who is being considered by the office to be the counsel for the appellants, is no longer their counsel. According to Mr. Fazal‑e‑Hussain Mr. Kasuri was engaged only for prosecuting the leave to appeal matter and that he was not engaged thereafter for conducting the appeal. He suggests that notice may be issued to the appellants calling upon them to make due arrangements for prosecuting the appeal.
Issue notice to the appellants apprising them of the above statement made on behalf of Mr. Kasuri and asking them to make arrangements for their representation for prosecuting their appeal.
This case is connected with Jail Petition No. 84‑R of 1977, which presumably is lying at Rawalpindi. Both the matters should be fixed at Rawalpindi.
In the meanwhile, the office should also enquire from the jail authorities whether the appellants have not by now served out their sentences and have since been released.
M.I. Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer