M.D. CH AUDHARY, ADVOCATE SUPREME COURT vs SUPERINTENDENT OF RANGE CRIME, LAHORE and others
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a High Court order debarring the petitioner, a practicing Advocate, from representing an accused person. The petitioner had applied for bail on behalf of a convict, and upon the police's failure to produce the record, he personally visited the office of the Superintendent of Police (Crimes) to convey the court's direction for record production. The trial judge ruled that by visiting the police station, the advocate had become a witness in the case and was thus incompetent to represent the accused, a view upheld by the High Court in a writ petition. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether an advocate merely conveying a court's order to the police for the production of records becomes a witness, thereby disqualifying him from representing his client. The Supreme Court held that such an act, by no stretch of imagination, makes the advocate a witness. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order as being contrary to both facts and law.
- Does an advocate become a witness in a case merely by conveying a court's direction to the police for the production of records?
- Can an advocate be debarred from representing an accused person on the sole ground that he visited a police station to communicate a judicial order?
- Section 365, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 364, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J.---Facts in brief leading to the filing of this petition for leave to appeal are that petitioner is a practising Advocate. He was engaged in a case emanating out of F.I.R. No,842, dated 18-11-2000, under sections 365, 364, 324, 452, 148, 149/302, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Phool Nagar, District Kasur. Petitioner in his capacity as an advodate applied for bail of one of the convicts before Judge, Special Court (Anti-Terrorism) No,2. Lahore, on which notice to the State as we11 as direction to the Police to produce the record of the case was issued. On the next date of hearing, record was not made available by the Police. Case was adjourned. Petitioner himself went to the office of S.P. (Crimes) to convey him the direction of the Court for producing the record on the next date. On the next date the Investigating Officer brought this fact to the notice of the Court that the petitioner in his capacity as an advocate had come to the Police Station. The learned Judge held that petitioner by this act had become a witness therefore, was not competent to represent the accused. Petitioner challenged the said order before a Division Bench of Lahore High Court, who vide its order dated 9-4-2001 dismissed the Writ Petition and held that the petitioner was debarred from appearing on behalf of the accused in the said case. In the present petition, the order of the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court has been impugned.
2. We have heard both the sides at length and perused the live. We agree with the submissions of the learned Assistant Advocate-General that the petitioner only conveyed the order of the Court to the Police for production of the record. In such circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, it cannot be held that he had become a witness. After having gone through the order impugned, we find that it cannot sustain because it is against the facts as well as law. Therefore, we convert this petition into appeal, allow the same and set aside the order impugned. There will, however be no order as to costs.