Ex. Col. MUHAMMAD AZAD MINHAS vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Defence arts

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Ex. Col. MUHAMMAD AZAD MINHAS VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Defence arts. 184(3) & 199---availing remedy in Constitutional jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or High Courts---Limitation---Laches---Scope---although as a general principle bar of limitation is not applicable to the proceedings under articles 199 & 184 of the Constitution but insistence is placed on initiating proceedings promptly and within a reasonable time to avoid the question of laches---In case the Court finds that the party invoking Constitutional jurisdiction is guilty of contumacious lethargy, inaction, laxity or gross negligence in the prosecution or a cause for enforcement of a right, the Court would be justified in non- suiting such person on the premise of laches. Citation Name: 2024 PLD 235 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case Ex. Col. MUHAMMAD AZAD MINHAS VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Defence S. 97---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 184(3) & 199---Decision of Military courts---Constitutional jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts to interfere in such decision---Scope and grounds---Any order passed or sentence awarded during a Court Martial or other forums under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, is subject to judicial review both by the High Courts and the Supreme Court only on the ground of mala fides including malice in law, without jurisdiction or coram non judice---Before invoking the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or the High Court, the test to pass is strictly confined as to whether the order/ sentence passed during Court Martial suffers from mala fides, or is without jurisdiction or is coram non judice---In absence of any mala fide on the part of the prosecution, the conviction and sentences awarded to an accused by the Field General Court Martial cannot be stamped to be coram non judice. Citation Name: 2024 PLD 235 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case Ex. Col. MUHAMMAD AZAD MINHAS VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Defence Delay in availing remedy---Effect---Delay defeats equity and equity leans in favour of the vigilant---Any person may have an enforceable right but if he fails to enforce such right within the time stipulated by law then the right becomes unenforceable. Citation Name: 2024 PLD 235 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case Ex. Col. MUHAMMAD AZAD MINHAS VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Defence S. 111(5)---Pakistan Army Act Rules, 1954, Rr. 21(4) & 51(7) & 51(8)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 236 & 237---Principal charge/offence under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 not proved---Conviction for an alternative charge/offence---Legality---Whether an accused person under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 can be convicted for an alternative charge/offence in case the principal charge/offence is not proved---Held, that the concept of alternative charge is not unknown in the sphere of Pakistan Army Act---Section 111(5) of the Pakistan Army Act and Rules 21(4) and 51(7) & (8) [of the Pakistan Army Act Rules, 1954] speak about the framing and punishment of an accused under alternative charge/offence---If an accused is charged with one offence but from the evidence appears to have committed a different offence for which he might have been charged under the said provisions of law, he may be convicted for the offence he is found to have committed, although he was not charged with the same---Furthermore cumulative reading of sections 236 & 237, Cr.P.C shows that if an accused is charged with one offence but from the evidence appears to have committed an alternative offence for which he might have been charged under the provisions of that section, he may be convicted for an offence which he is shown to have committed, if supported by record, although he was not charged with the same---Even this aspect is not absolute, as in absence of any alternative charge he can be convicted for any offence if it covers the ingredients of said offence---In the present case, the appellant/ petitioner were not only charged for the main offence but for the alternative charges as well, which is spelled out from bare reading of charge sheet---All courts (below) after evaluating the evidence led by the prosecution found that the main offence could not be proved against them but as there was sufficient evidence to sustain their conviction under the alternative charge, hence, they were convicted accordingly---Appeal and Constitutional petition were dismissed. Citation Name: 2024 PLD 235 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case Ex. Col. MUHAMMAD AZAD MINHAS VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Defence Ss. 55 & 97---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 13(a)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 403---Army oficer dismissed from service after being convicted and sentenced under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952---Membership in housing scheme, allotment of plots and further amenity services meant for the army personnel cancelled after dismissal from service---Legality---Double jeopardy---Whether withdrawal of all such facilities fell within the ambit of 'double jeopardy'---Dismissal from service squarely takes away all the perks, privileges and amenity services from an army personnel conferred in lieu of his induction into the Pakistan Army---All these benefits are subject to service and any action contrary to service structure takes away not only perks and privileges rather the privilege of salary, pension, gratuity etc for which he was otherwise entitled---After dismissal from service, the present appellant/petitioner cannot claim any benefit as their termination was in pursuance of the defiance of the discipline and order of the institution discretely---Case of the appellant/petitioner does not fall within the ambit of Article 13 of the Constitution or section 403, Cr.P.C, hence the claim of the appellant/ petitioner that they are victims of double jeopardy is without any legal foundation---Appeal and Constitutional petition were dismissed.

Ex. Col. MUHAMMAD AZAD MINHAS vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Defence arts — 2024 PLD 235 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLD