ABDUL GHANI and 2 others vs THE STATE and another
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a respondent advocate. The criminal case, registered under sections 148, 440, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arose from an F.I.R. lodged by the petitioners. Additionally, proceedings under sections 107 and 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were also quashed. The Supreme Court noted that the petition was time-barred by 51 days, and the grounds for condonation were insufficient. Nevertheless, the Court examined the merits and found no error of law. The High Court had relied on section 78 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which provides immunity for acts done in pursuance of or warranted by a judgment or order of a court of justice while that order remains in force. As the State had conceded this legal position before the High Court, the Supreme Court upheld the quashment, affirming that the High Court correctly applied the law to the facts, and dismissed the petition.
- Does an act done in pursuance of a court order constitute an offence under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can criminal proceedings be quashed if the alleged acts are protected by judicial immunity under section 78 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 440, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 107, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 151, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 78, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Abdul Ghani, Abdul Haq and Nazeer Ahmad, all real brothers, resident of Block No, P.126, Burewala, District Vehari, have filed this petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, dated 28-10-1987.
2. ' By means of impugned judgment, Criminal Miscellaneous Application for quashment of criminal proceedings against respondent Masood Ahmad Dogar, an Advocate of High Court, was accepted.
3. ' A criminal case under section 148/440/149, P.P.C. Had been registered against the said Advocate on the basis of F.I.R. No, 34/85 lodged by Abdul Ghani at the Police Station Burewala. There were other criminal proceedings under section 107/151, P.P.C. Those proceedings were also quashed.
4. ' This petition is barred by 51 days. We called upon the learned counsel to first get over this objection. He repeated the grounds mentioned in the application for condonation of delay which are not sufficient to condone the delay but in spite of that we permitted the learned counsel to address us on merits. He was unable to point out any error of law or any question of law of general public importance. On the other hand, we find that before the High Court, section 78, P.P.C. Was pressed into service by the respondent. The application and operation of the aforesaid section was not controverted by the State (other side) that is why the learned Judge in the High Court observed that "the correctness of this proposition of law raised by the petitioner has not been controverted by the learned counsel for the State who frankly conceded that the law has been correctly pleaded". Section 78 of P.P.C. Is very clear on this point which lays down that "nothing which is done in pursuance of or which is warranted by the judgment or order of a Court of justice if done whilst such judgment and order remains in force is an offence".
5. The High Court has correctly applied the law keeping in view the facts of B the case. The judgment of the High Court as such calls for no interference. The petition accordingly is dismissed.