Pakistan Case Law
1988 SCMR 1132

MUHAMMAD ARSHAD Versus STATE

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1988 SCMR 1132
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 461 of 1985
Date1988-03-20
Judge(s)Aslam Riaz Hussain., Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan
Authored byJavid Iqbal
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Arshad, challenging the acquittal of the respondent, Muhammad Hafeez. The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed the core issue of whether the petitioner could substantiate the grounds for leave to appeal. Upon review, the Court observed that the learned counsel for the petitioner had prepared a misleading pro forma, which rendered the counsel unable to effectively argue the case before the bench. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition due to a lack of assistance from the petitioner's counsel. The judgment reinforces the principle that it is the duty of the legal counsel to provide adequate and accurate assistance to the Court, and failure to do so, particularly through the submission of misleading documentation, justifies the dismissal of the petition for leave to appeal.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be dismissed if the petitioner's counsel fails to provide adequate assistance to the Court?
  • What is the consequence of submitting a misleading pro forma in a petition for leave to appeal?
leave to appealacquittaldismissal for non-prosecutionlegal assistancemisleading pro forma

ORDER

1. JAVID IQBAL, J. ‑‑This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Muhammad Arshad petitioner against the acquittal of Muhammad Hafeez respondent.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prepared a misleading pro forma on the basis of which he is not able to argue his case before us. The petition is therefore, dismissed for lack of assistance.

3. M.I./M‑429/S Petition dismissed.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.