Citation Name: 2024 YLR 689 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD TUFAIL vs FAISAL KHAN Ss

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

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 689 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD TUFAIL VS FAISAL KHAN Ss. 337-H(2) & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417(2-A)---Rash or negligent act to endanger human life or personal safety of others, common intention---Appeal against acquittal---Application for rehearing the acquittal appeal, dismissal of---Matter disposed of on merits---Neither appellant nor his counsel appearing before the High Court---Effect---Bare reading of the operative part of the order showed that the same was passed on merits after taking into consideration the material available in the case file---Request of the counsel for re-hearing of the case amounted to review of the order passed by High Court on merits---Counsel, it appeared, under the guise of recalling, was virtually asking High Court to review its earlier order passed on merits---Admittedly, no litigant had a right to abuse the procedure and the practice of seeking continuous adjournments on flimsy grounds as was evident from the application moved by the counsel in the present case---Said application was presented before the Additional Registrar on 25.10.2022 i.e. one day prior to the date of hearing of cases and the same was also brought to notice of the Court---However, it was not entertained for a number of reasons, firstly, there was no important work for an advocate than the appearance before the Court; secondly, merely mentioning that due to pre-occupation, he was unable to attend the Court was not sufficient cause/ground for adjournment of the case; thirdly, the application was also not supported by any document; fourthly, advocate also abstained from appearance before the Court on last date of hearing due to strike observed by the bar association; fifthly, the main entrance of the High Court premises was blocked by the advocates on both the occasions, sixthly, advocate could have managed to assign the cases to his associates in order to help the judicial system towards speedy disposal of cases instead of causing hurdles by way of seeking unnecessary adjournments and lastly, he and another advocate were the main characters behind the whole episode of strike and remained engaged in the process of negotiations with the high-ups of the High Court---Role of advocate in question could not be appreciated for the reasons that on one hand, he was motivating and leading the junior lawyers for observing strike, boycotting video link and blocking the main entrance of the High Court premises and on the other hand moving applications for adjourn-ment of cases---Miscellaneous petition was dismissed.

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 689 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD TUFAIL vs FAISAL KHAN Ss — 2024 YLR 689 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR