KHALID AZIZ vs THE SPECIAL COURT (OFFENCES IN BANKS), LAHORE and another
This matter arises from a writ petition filed before the Lahore High Court challenging a trial conducted in absentia under the Banks Special Courts Ordinance, 1984. The learned Deputy Attorney-General raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, contending that an alternate and efficacious remedy by way of an appeal before a bench of two judges was available under section 10 of the Banks Special Courts Ordinance, 1984. The petitioner's counsel argued that the trial in absentia was void and justified invoking writ jurisdiction. Upon review, the Court upheld the preliminary objection, holding that all grounds, including the legality of the trial in absentia, could be raised in the statutory appeal, and the petitioner could seek condonation of delay under the Limitation Act, 1908. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner had not surrendered and remained a fugitive from law, rendering the petition incompetent. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
- Whether a writ petition is competent when an alternate statutory appeal is provided under section 10 of the Banks Special Courts Ordinance, 1984?
- Can a fugitive from law who has not surrendered maintain a constitutional petition before the High Court?
- Whether grounds relating to an illegal trial in absentia can be raised in an appeal under the Banks Special Courts Ordinance, 1984?
- Section 10, Banks Special Courts Ordinance 1984
- Section 5, Limitation Act 1908
- Section 14, Limitation Act 1908
ORDER
' The learned Deputy Attorney-General has raised preliminary objection that under section 10 of the Banks Special Courts Ordinance, 1984, the petitioner could maintain an appeal which is to be heard by two Judges of this Court, therefore, the writ petition is not competent.
2. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial was in absentia, therefore, void. It is added that had this petition not been admitted to hearing than the petitioner might have resorted to file an appeal.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments and gone through the record. The whole grounds including that of illegal absentia trial could validly be raised in the appeal. The petitioner could explain the limitation with reference to sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act. The preliminary objection is upheld. The petitioner has not surrendered so far. He is for all intents and purposes fugitive from law, therefore, cannot maintain this petition. The same is dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- GHULAM MUSTAFA vs DISTRICT POLICE OFFICER, KASUR and 3 others 2014 PLD Lahore 82