MUHAMMAD AFZAL Versus STATE
This matter arises from a review petition filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Afzal, aggrieved by the judgment dated 31st of May, 1980, passed in his appeal. The core legal question was whether a judgment delivered by three judges of a four-judge bench that originally heard the appeal, with the Chief Justice's name inadvertently omitted and without his opinion, constitutes a nullity in the eye of law. The Supreme Court held that the submission had substance, as the omission of a member of the bench who heard the case rendered the judgment defective, necessitating a rehearing. The court established the principle that an appeal must be decided by the complete quorum of judges who heard it, and any omission in the panel resulting in a failure to obtain the opinion of a participating judge warrants recalling the judgment and fixing the matter for a fresh hearing.
- Whether a judgment delivered by a truncated bench when the appeal was heard by a larger bench is a nullity in the eye of law?
- Does the omission of a judge who heard the appeal from the panel and judgment sheet merit the rehearing of the appeal?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J. --In this review petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that although the appeal was heard on 18th l.February, 1980, by a Bench comprised of the Chief Justice, myself, G. Safdar Shah and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, JJ., yet the opinion of the Court as delivered on 31st of May, 1980, at Lahore, by only three Judges, that is myself, G. Safdar Shah and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, JJ and as such, it was a nullity in the eye of law. This submission has substance for, in fact, the appeal was heard, as contended above, by the Chief Justice as inadvertence his name was omitted from the panel of the Judges mentioned in the judgment sheet therefore, the copy of the judgment was not circulated to him and he did not give his opinion accordingly which shortcoming opinion, merits rehearing of the appeal. Accordingly, he would recall the judgment dated 31st of May, 1980, and direct that the appeal be listed for hearing before the present Beach, hearing the review petition, on 25th of November, 1980, with notice to the Advocate-General, Punjab. The counsel for the petitioner is notified of the date.
2. Review allowed.