ABDUL WAHAB KHAN vs The STATE
This matter concerns four petitions for leave to appeal against judgments of the Lahore High Court, which had reduced the sentences of the petitioner in corruption cases following a concession made by his counsel. The petitioner's counsel before the High Court had explicitly abandoned arguments on the merits of the cases, focusing solely on the reduction of sentences, a position the High Court accepted while noting that the merits of the cases did not favor the convict. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner's new counsel attempted to challenge the validity of the concession made by the previous counsel, claiming it was unauthorized. The Supreme Court held that a mere verbal assertion challenging the conduct of a lawyer is insufficient to invalidate a concession made in court. The Court established the principle that to challenge a concession made by counsel as being without instructions, the party must provide a formal affidavit. As the petitioner failed to provide such an affidavit, the petitions were dismissed.
- Can a party challenge a concession made by their counsel in court through a mere verbal statement?
- Is an affidavit required to substantiate a claim that a counsel's concession was made without instructions?
- Does a court have the authority to dismiss a petition when the counsel fails to provide evidence of unauthorized conduct by previous counsel?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--These four petitions are directed against four judgments dated 28-5-1986 of the Lahore High Court in four appeals arising out of cases of corruption. The appeals were disposed of by substantially reducing the sentences awarded to the petitioner on a concession made by his learned counsel that he would not press the appeals on merits and would urge only for the reduction of sentence. The learned Judge, however, also remarked that there was nothing in favour of the convict, in so far as the merits are concerned.
2. The learned counsel now appearing in support of these petitions initially stated that his client namely, the petitioner herein has instructed him to urge that the concession made by his counsel in the High Court was unjustified. When told that the Court would not accept a mere verbal statement against the conduct of a lawyer and that there should have an affidavit that the concession made by him was without instructions, the learned counsel did not press the petitions any further. They are accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- ABDUL WAHAB Versus STATE 1999 SCMR 1668