Dr. AZHAR ATTA MALIK vs CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan through a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, wherein an appeal was disposed of upon the request of the petitioner's counsel not to challenge the conviction but merely to seek an alteration of the sentence under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 8 of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999. The core legal question is whether a petition for leave to appeal is competent when the petitioner's counsel previously gave a statement not to press the appeal on merits. The court held that the petition is not maintainable because a counsel is duly authorized to make binding statements on behalf of their client. The key principle laid down is that a party is bound by the statements made by their counsel in court proceedings, rendering subsequent attempts to challenge such concessions through a petition for leave to appeal untenable.
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable when the appellant's counsel chose not to press the appeal on merits before the High Court?
- Whether a counsel is authorized to make binding statements on behalf of a party in judicial proceedings?
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 8, National Accountability Ordinance 1999
ORDER
1. ' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.--- This petition has been filed against the judgment dated 27th April, 2004 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby the appeal has been disposed of in view of the request so made on behalf of the petitioner namely that (appellant) convict does not want to challenge the conviction but only prays that sentence may be altered to one under section 409, P.P.C. Read with section 8 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 etc. When we inquired from the learned counsel that as to how instant petition for leave to appeal is competent in such circumstances. He stated that counsel appearing for the convict/petitioner had not pressed the appeal on merits against the direction of appellant. We are not inclined to agree with his submission because learned counsel is always authorized to make statement on behalf of the party for whom he is appearing. Therefore, instant petition for leave to appeal is not maintainable.
2. ' Thus, for the foregoing reasons, petition for leave to appeal is dismissed. Leave declined.