GHULAM MUSTAFA vs STATE
This matter arises from a review petition filed against the dismissal of a criminal petition for leave to appeal. The core legal question concerns whether an advocate holding a brief for the arguing counsel can be permitted to argue a review petition without satisfying the requirements of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, and in the absence of exceptional circumstances. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that an advocate who did not argue the original petition cannot be allowed to argue the review petition as of right or without lawful justification and permission of the Court, consistent with the practice against relaxing Order XXVI Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. The key principle laid down is that appearance in a review petition by counsel other than the original arguing counsel is strictly regulated and requires exceptional circumstances and the permission of the Court.
- Can an advocate who did not argue the original criminal petition be permitted to argue the review petition as of right?
- What circumstances justify relaxing the provisions of Order XXVI Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 in a review petition?
- Order XXVI Rule 6, Supreme Court Rules 1980
ORDER
Javed Iqbal, J.--The criminal petition for leave to appeal was argued by Dr. Muhammad Akmal Saleemi, learned ASC which was dismissed vide judgment impugned, review whereof has been sought by way of this review petition.
2. Mr. M. Rafiq Warraich, learned ASC appeared and submitted that he may be allowed to argue the matter in a absence of Dr. Muhammad Akmal Saleemi, learned ASC. It is worth mentioning that on the previous date of hearing no such request was made by Mr. M. Rafiq Warraich, learned ASC who was holding brief for Dr. Muhammad Akmal Saleemi, learned ASC and matter was adjourned. It is an admitted feature of the case that Mr. M. Rafiq Warraich had not argued the criminal petition for leave to appeal and cannot be allowed to argue the matter on behalf of Dr. Muhammad Akmal Saleemi, learned ASC without sufficient lawful justification which is badly lacking in this case. It is against the practice of this Court to relax the provisions of Order XXVI, Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 and therefore, Mr. M. Rafiq Warraich, learned ASC cannot be allowed to argue the matter as he cannot appear in the review petition as of right which could only be done with the permission of the Court which cannot be granted in absence of exceptional circumstances.
The review petition is accordingly dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.