SHAKOOR MUHAMMAD AND Another vs The STATE
The petitioners sought leave to appeal under Article 185 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against the judgment of the Judicial Commissioner for Northern Areas at Gilgit, which convicted them under section 325/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the judgment of the Judicial Commissioner for Northern Areas, Gilgit, constitutes a judgment passed by a High Court so as to attract the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 185 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the appellate jurisdiction under Article 185 pertains exclusively to judgments of a High Court of a Province of Pakistan as envisaged under Article 175 of the Constitution. Since the Court of the Judicial Commissioner is not a High Court for a Province, the appeal is not maintainable. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction under Article 185 does not extend to decisions rendered by courts in the Northern Areas that do not qualify as a High Court of a Province.
- Whether the Court of the Judicial Commissioner for Northern Areas is a High Court within the meaning of Article 175 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Does the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 185 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 extend to judgments passed by the Judicial Commissioner for Northern Areas?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable against a judgment delivered by a court in the Northern Areas that is not a Provincial High Court?
- Article 1, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Article 175, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Article 185, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Section 325, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.-By this petition under Article 185 of the Con--stitution petitioners seek leave to appeal from the judgment dated 25-2-1982 of the Judicial Commissioner for Northern Areas, at Gilait by which they were held guilty under section 325/34, P. P. C. And sentenced to five years' R.1., and also awarded sentence of fine.
2. Since the appellate jurisdiction conferred upon this Court under Article 185 of the Constitution pertains to judgments of a High Court, and High Court in the meaning of Article 175 of the Constitution means a High Court of a Province of Pakistan, the question is whether the judgment of the Judicial Commissioner for Northern Areas, at Gilgit, is a judgment passed by a High Court.
3. Mr. Manzoor Elahi Qureshi learned counsel appearing in support of the petition submits that the Northern Areas are territories included in Pakistan under Article 1(2)(d) of the Constitution, although these do not constitute a Province or a part of a Province of Pakistan. He further submits that the Court of the Judicial Commissioner for Northern Areas, at Gilgit, having been established by law is a Court within the meaning of Article 175 of the Constitution, and being the highest Court for the areas is deemed to be a High Court.
4. The real question for consideration is whether the Court of the Judicial Commissioner for Northern Areas, at Gilgit, is a High Court, and not whether it is a "Court established by law" as provided in Article 175 of the Constitu--petition, for a territory included in Pakistan under Article 1 (2) (d) of the Constitution, for, the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Article 185 of the Constitution does not extend to the Courts other than a High Court.
5. Since the Court of Judicial Commissioner for Northern Areas, at Gilgit, is not shown to be a High Court for a Province of Pakistan as envisaged under Article 175 of the Constitution, appeal from judgments, decrees, final orders or sentences passed by that Court does not lie to this Court under Article 185 of the Constitution.
6. This petition cannot therefore be entertained. Order accordingly.
Cited by 1 case
- AI-JEHAD TRUST Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN 1999 SCMR 1379