THE STATE vs GHULAM AKBAR LASI
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the State against a judgment of the Balochistan High Court, which had set aside the respondent's conviction for an election offence regarding the submission of return of expenses and remanded the case for retrial. The High Court's decision was influenced by the fact that the respondent remained in custody despite being granted bail. The Supreme Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal, noting that the High Court's order regarding the respondent's release should have been respected by the authorities. The Supreme Court emphasized that all litigants, including the State, must show due respect to orders passed by superior courts. Additionally, the Supreme Court addressed a specific observation in the High Court's judgment that criticized the filing of a petition for special leave to appeal as a violation of court orders. The Supreme Court held that this observation was improper as it could be misunderstood regarding a party's right to seek legal remedies, and consequently ordered that the specific observation be expunged from the High Court's judgment.
- Whether the Supreme Court will exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal when the High Court has remanded a case for retrial?
- Is it proper for a High Court to characterize the filing of a petition for special leave to appeal as a violation of its orders?
- What is the obligation of the State and litigants regarding compliance with orders issued by superior courts?
- Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.--- This petition is directed against the judgment, dated 30th September, 1990 .Of the Balochistan High Court, whereby, in its jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Cr.P.C. The conviction of respondent in an Election offence regarding submission of return of expenses was set aside and the case was remanded for retrial. One of the reasons which weighed with the High Court was that 'in spite of suspension of the conviction order and release of the petitioner (respondent herein) `on bail on 26-9-1990 the authorities have not released him and kept him in custody'. This as we have understood from the arguments advanced at the Bar was, it further appears, due to unnecessary haste particularly after the filing of the petition in the High Court. In this view of the matter even if there might be some questions which might require examination, we would not exercise our discretionary jurisdiction so as to grant leave to appeal.
The relief in this petition, therefore, is being withheld on account of the aforestated reasons with the remark and emphasis that the High Court being a Superior Court in the country and also being a Court at the apex in the Province is required to be shown due and correct respect in so far as its orders are concerned. This applies to all the litigants including the citizens and the State.
2. However, before parting with this order we feel that the following observation in the impugned judgment which relates to the right of party to seek remedy before the Supreme Court in accordance with law, not being proper needs to be expunged....`by filing petition for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court of Pakistan. it is most unfortune aspect of the case whereby the order of the Court is flagrantarily violated'. If the last part of the afore quoted observation; namely, which is underlined is read separately and independently of the first part of observation then it seems to be in line with the finding of the High Court. However, in case it is read as extension of the observation which is not underlined then in the case with respect this part of the observation also is not proper as it is likely to be misunderstood. Therefore, we direct that the entire observation reproduced and quoted above shall be expunged from the impugned judgment.
' With the foregoing directions this petition fails and leave to appeal is refused.
Cited by 1 case
- Syed Mansoor Ali Shah vs Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi 2023 SCMR 636