GUL MUHAMMAD And Others vs The STATE
This matter concerns the procedural status of an appeal pending before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, specifically regarding the legal representation of the appellants. The core legal question addressed by the Court pertains to the status of counsel engaged for the limited purpose of leave to appeal proceedings versus the subsequent conduct of the main appeal. Upon being informed by the Advocate-on-Record that the previously engaged counsel, Mian Mahmud Ali Kasuri, was retained only for the leave to appeal stage and not for the appeal itself, the Court held that it was necessary to ensure the appellants were properly represented. Consequently, the Court directed the issuance of notices to the appellants to arrange for new counsel to prosecute their appeal. Additionally, the Court ordered the office to verify the current status of the appellants' sentences with jail authorities to determine if they had already been served and if the appellants had been released. The Court further directed that this case be fixed for hearing at Rawalpindi, alongside a connected jail petition.
- Is counsel engaged for leave to appeal proceedings automatically retained for the subsequent appeal?
- What procedural steps should the Court take when the original counsel disclaims authority to represent appellants in the main appeal?
- Does the Court have a duty to verify if appellants have served their sentences before proceeding with an appeal?
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--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.
2. 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.
3. This case is connected with Jail Petition No. 84-R of 1977, which presumably is lying at Rawalpindi.
4. Both the matters should be fixed at Rawalpindi.
5. 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.