SC directs to vacate Constitution Avenue by tomorrow

[Edevelop]

The direction was given by the apex court while hearing a petition regarding any possible extra-constitutional step in Islamabad today. Five member bench headed by Chief Justice Nasir-ul-Mulk heard the case.

The court observed that workers of political parties bearing batons are scanning the government officials, lawyers and common people on the constitution avenue.

It directed for consultation among the protesting parties, petitioner, Attorney General and the Registrar of the apex court to vacate the Constitution Avenue.

During the hearing, Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamli observed it is regretful that today a crowd of 50,000 people is demanding resignation of the government and anyone who could assemble 200,000 people will again demand it, which is unacceptable.


Justice Saqib Nisar observed that it is painful to hear that a leader has declared democracy as curse. He said Pakistan Awami Tehrik leadership has admitted that they have no control over their workers, therefore placing of containers on roads provide justification. However, the court will consider this issue later on.


Justice Jawwad S. Khwaja said after freedom, the constitution is the biggest blessing of Almighty Allah and it is our obligation to protect at all cost.


Justice Asif Saeed Khosa in his remarks said the constitution and the democracy is in danger and the neurosurgeon who has already operated brain for four times should avoid further operations.

Later the court adjourned hearing for tomorrow.

Meanwhile, the members of the committee formed by the Supreme Court regarding clearance of the Constitution Avenue visited the place of sit-ins.

Later President Supreme Court Bar Association Kamran Murtaza told media that the committee will present its report to the apex court. He said it has been wrongly stated by Pakistan Awami Tehrik before the court that one side of the constitution avenue is open for traffic.

He said the Constitution Avenue is still closed for traffic and report in this regard will be submitted in the court.

Radio Pakistan

 

[Jzaib]

interesting that how SC (sharif Court) is always favour nawaz sharif ,.. yesterday in the history of Pakistan first time a court said no arrest on FIR.. there is no example in history of Pkaistan ..but our court has always been pet of nawaz sharif ..that is why no one get justice in Pakistan

 

[TheFlyingPretzel]

interesting that how SC (sharif Court) is always favour nawaz sharif ,.. yesterday in the history of Pakistan first time a court said no arrest on FIR.. there is no example in history of Pkaistan ..but our court has always been pet of nawaz sharif ..that is why no one get justice in Pakistan

Do you pull things out of your pie-hole on purpose, or do they kind of just fall out? Do you know what pre-arrest bail is? Do you have any concept of bailable and non-bailable offences? Are you in the know of what constitutes cognizable and non-cognizable offences and which of the offences enable the police to arrest without a warrant? Have you any inkling of what a warrant is and who the issuing authority is? Are you aware of the constitutional immunity from litigation which the premiers of the state enjoy by virtue of sections 248 and 249 of the constitution? Did you also know that under section 512 of the Criminal Code the court is empowered to proceed with the examination of the witnesses even in the absence of the custody of the accused?

"there is no example in history of Pkaistan[sic]", lol.

What are you on? I've been a silent spectator to your ramblings always bearing them with a stiff upper lip, hoping I'd never feel the need to call you out, but alas I've been compelled to put an end to your endeavour to spread disinformation.

It's one thing to have legitimate demands but it's a complete travesty to unleash hordes of 17 year-olds on the society each wielding and hurling whimsical and groundless generalizations at the drop of a penny. Like leader, like following. But really, is it too much to ask for a little bit of maturity and an iota of sense?

 

[Jzaib]

Do you pull things out of your pie-hole on purpose, or do they kind of just fall out? Do you know what pre-arrest bail is? Do you have any concept of bailable and non-bailable offences? Are you in the know of what constitutes cognizable and non-cognizable offences? Are you aware of the constitutional immunity from litigation which the premiers of the state enjoy by virtue of sections 248 and 249 of the constitution? Did you also know that under section 512 of the Criminal Code the court is empowered to proceed with the examination of the witnesses even in the absence of the custody of the accused?

"there is no example in history of Pkaistan", lol. What are you on? I've been a silent spectator to your ramblings always bearing them with a stiff upper lip, hoping I'd never feel the need to call you out, but alas I've been compelled to put an end to your endeavour to spread disinformation.

It's one thing to have legitimate demands but it's a complete travesty to unleash hordes of 17 year-olds on the society each wielding and hurling whimsical and groundless generalizations at the drop of a penny. Like leader, like following. But really, is it too much to ask for a little bit of maturity and an iota of sense?

ur post is full of shit, let me justify my harsh words

u r just saying what ever i said .. pre arrest bail is filled after the FIR is lodged . No one in law history have where judge in his judgement said dnt arrest people even before FIR is lodged . find me a case then lets talk about it ...trust me u will not find one ..

then after that tell me who enjoy the immunity ??, there is 25 people named in FIR, u know that right .. let me check ur knowlegde please tell me how does immunity stop from filing an FIR? why Noon leagues are so dumb

 

[TheFlyingPretzel]

ur post is full of shit, let me justify my harsh words

u r just saying what ever i said .. pre arrest bail is filled after the FIR is lodged . No one in law history have where judge in his judgement said dnt arrest people even before FIR is lodged . find me a case then lets talk about it ...trust me u will not find one ..

then after that tell me who enjoy the immunity ??, there is 25 people named in FIR, u know that right .. let me check ur knowlegde please tell me how does immunity stop from filing an FIR? why Noon leagues are so dumb

Lolwut? Do you even make sense to yourself? Why would a judge direct the arrest of persons against whom no FIR has been lodged? The only way a person can be arrested in the absence of an FIR, and in the absence of a warrant from the Magistrate, is either by virtue of section 151 of the CrPC where a police officer, although not possessing a warrant, may arrest a person to prevent the commission of any cognizable offence; or then by virtue of the exercise of a private person's right to arrest any person who, in his, view commits a non-bailable and cognizable offence.

Are you asking me to explain the concept of legal immunity to you? At 1 in the morning? What a deplorable proposal. Let me just reproduce a section from the Constitution for you. It does not extend to the entirety of the cabinet, but it is a remarkable example of the force with which the concept of criminal immunity operates in favour of state functionaries;

Article 248(2):

No criminal proceedings whatsoever shall be instituted or continued against the President or a Governor in any court during his term of office.

There are 5 different aspects of legality operating in the span of a single sentence of the abovementioned article. Drawing from your grasp on matters of law I'd recommend you read it over and over again, slowly in order to help develop your understanding.

Also because I sometimes comes off as being the devil's advocate, allow me to assure you that my heart feels the same plight which your's does at the non-registration of the FIR. It should be registered, that too promptly and the perpetrators of the Model Town incident be brought to face the music, but all the while confining ourselves to the administrative and judicial limits imposed by the constitution.

 

[Jzaib]

Lolwut? Do you even make sense to yourself? 1. Why would a judge direct the arrest of persons against whom no FIR has been lodged? The only way a person can be arrested in the absence of an FIR, and in the absence of a warrant from the Magistrate, is either by virtue of section 151 of the CrPC where a police officer, although not possessing a warrant, may arrest a person to prevent the commission of any cognizable offence; or then by virtue of the exercise of a private person's right to arrest any person who, in his, view commits a non-bailable and cognizable offence.

Are you asking me to explain the concept of legal immunity to you? At 1 in the morning? What a deplorable proposal. 2. Let me just reproduce a section from the Constitution for you. It does not extend to the entirety of the cabinet, but it is a remarkable example of the force with which the concept of criminal immunity operates in favour of state functionaries;

There are 5 different aspects of legality operating in the span of a single sentence of the abovementioned article. Drawing from your grasp on matters of law I'd recommend you read it over and over again, slowly in order to help develop your understanding.

Also because I sometimes comes off as being the devil's advocate, allow me to assure you that my heart feels the same plight which your's does at the non-registration of the FIR. It should be registered, that too promptly and the perpetrators of the Model Town incident be brought to face the music, but all the while confining ourselves to the administrative and judicial limits imposed by the constitution.

Instead of using fancy English and legal terms . Please read what those terms. every other post is negating what every yousaid in last post. Let me tell u in simplified bullet point so u can go check with a lawyer .


1. see the first bold part . This is what i have been arguing that judge have never said in history of Pakistan law that person shouldnt be arrested before FIR is lodge. This happened in the this case. This is special favour in history of Pakistan given to sharif family. as my brother is a lawyer and now he have this reference he plan to use in future, that a judge said dnt arrest them before FIR is lodged. Pre arrest case is totally a different thing . I dont know what is confusing u

2. Yesterday i told you they didn't have immunity. u proved me right. Only President and governor have it but you and I both know that. so while u play devil advocate dnt use it to use the immunity of the state. CM,PM, MINSTERS don't have immunity

3. Kal ap ne chus mari the meray post pe that is why im telling u all this. there is no judicial and administrative limits. uptill now u havent given me anything concrete about this case. PAT case is very strong. U seem like an educated person. The defense you are using is just non sense. BUT let me tell you again clearly. U can go find me one case where anyone was favor like this by a judge in the history of Pakistan . I am telling you know that you will fail.

 

[TheFlyingPretzel]

Instead of using fancy English and legal terms . Please read what those terms. every other post is negating what every yousaid in last post. Let me tell u in simplified bullet point so u can go check with a lawyer .


1. see the first bold part . This is what i have been arguing that judge have never said in history of Pakistan law that person shouldnt be arrested before FIR is lodge. This happened in the this case. This is special favour in history of Pakistan given to sharif family. as my brother is a lawyer and now he have this reference he plan to use in future, that a judge said dnt arrest them before FIR is lodged. Pre arrest case is totally a different thing . I dont know what is confusing u

2. Yesterday i told you they didn't have immunity. u proved me right. Only President and governor have it but you and I both know that. so while u play devil advocate dnt use it to use the immunity of the state. CM,PM, MINSTERS don't have immunity

3. Kal ap ne chus mari the meray post pe that is why im telling u all this. there is no judicial and administrative limits. uptill now u havent given me anything concrete about this case. PAT case is very strong. U seem like an educated person. The defense you are using is just non sense. BUT let me tell you again clearly. U can go find me one case where anyone was favor like this by a judge in the history of Pakistan . I am telling you know that you will fail.

Bro, before I start let me bring to your attention, for the second time, the fact that I am in in favour of the FIR being registered. What happened in Model Town was absolutely horrifying and those responsible for perpetrating it should be brought justice, immediately. The reason I'm starting with this clarification is so that you can calm down a little. It's hard to comprehend the intricacies of legality if one is worked up and simmering with irrationality.

Having said that I'm going to keep it short and sweet for you.

1. The decision allegedly in favour of NS was by the High Court, not the Supreme Court.

2. If your brother is half the lawyer I'm going to assume he is he can confirm the following for you. A person can not be arrested before an FIR is lodged, as I've maintained above, save for the following circumstances:

(i) Where the police applies for a special warrant of arrest to arrest that person;
(ii) Where the police exercises its power to arrest under section 151 CrPC in order to prevent a cognizable offence;
(iii) Where a citizen exercises his power to arrest pursuant to section 59 CrPC where in his view a person commits a cognizable offence.

3. The above situations detail when an arrest can be made before an FIR. None of the them apply to NS for very apparent reasons.

4. Also the High Court's decision does not say that a person should not be arrested before an FIR. No.

5. Instead, the decision says that a person is not to be immediately arrested after the registration of an FIR where there is no evidence against him.

6. From the decision itself:

"The court, however, ruled that no immediate arrest of an accused is required after the lodging of an FIR unless the investigation officer has some incriminating evidence to prove guilt.

The arrest of the accused is to be deferred till the availability of incriminating evidence in order to satisfy the investigation officer regarding correctness of allegations, levelled by the complainant against person named in the crime-report"

7. The court did not say don't arrest NS because he's our overlord and master. No. It said don't arrest him until there is evidence to arrest him.

8. Is that too irrational? A person can only be arrested if there is evidence against him.

9. Also, you're alleging that such a decision has never come to pass from any court, and the High Court has done a special favour for NS. You also asked me to prove you wrong by citing a single case where a similar precedent has been laid down.

10. Not a problem for me.

11. Malik Akhtar vs. Additional Sessions Judge [2014 YLR 1329]

"After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties it has been observed by this Court that the dispute between the parties is issuance of cheque and genuineness of the signatures of the petitioner and these disputed questions of facts cannot be undertaken in the constitutional jurisdiction of this court. Reliance is placed on the case of Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq and Others (2006 SCMR 276). However, it may be added that after registration of a criminal case, the Investigating Officer is not expected to act in a mechanical manner and, in all cases, to arrest the accused as soon as the report is lodged, especially where a criminal case has been registered under 489-F.

Since an arrest is in the nature of the encroachment on the liberty of a person, so incriminating material and reasonable belief that was required to be entertained with regard to the committing of the offence at the time of the arrest of the accused but not necessary at the time when criminal case was registered. It is not necessary that every investigation should result in arrest. The Investigation Officer in exercise of its statutory power couple with duty, after associating accused in investigation of a case, may find that a case is made out against an accused person and his arrest being required may arrest him."

At this juncture, let me quote you:

BUT let me tell you again clearly. U can go find me one case where anyone was favor like this by a judge in the history of Pakistan . I am telling you know that you will fail.

Appears the courts 'favoured' Malik Akhtar too. Lol. No my friend, it's not called favouring - it's called judicial insight and the concept of stare decisis.

Also just to correct your view on exactly what the court said in the PAT FIR case; summary from an article:

The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Tuesday dismissed petitions of four federal ministers of the PML-N against a sessions court’s order, wherein the Lahore police were directed to lodge a murder case against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif and 19 other federal and provincial officials on the application of the Minhajul Quran Secretariat.

The court, however, ruled that no immediate arrest of an accused is required after the lodging of an FIR unless the investigation officer has some incriminating evidence to prove guilt.Relying on the Supreme Court’s verdict, the court further observed that the purpose and object of recording an FIR is to set the criminal law in motion and to obtain first-hand information of occurrence in order to exclude possibility of fabrication of story or consultation or deliberation and to safeguard the accused of such-like happenings.

“Thus the registration of FIR against the petitioners shall not prove their guilt till decision by a court of competent jurisdiction. It cannot be used as a substantive piece of evidence against any accused unless proved in accordance with the law,” the court order said.

About the arrest of accused after lodging of an FIR, the court said, “Arrest of a suspect or an accused is not necessary during the course of investigation and the general impression in this regard is misconceived because a person named in an FIR is not to be arrested straightaway upon registration of the FIR or as a matter of course unless there is sufficient incriminating evidence regarding culpability of the accused."

http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-Ne...R-against-PM-Shahbaz-19-others-remains-intact

Also if you're brother's been spurring you on by giving you inadequate legal information, it's about time you showed him this post and called him out on it. Just because he dons a black suit doesn't mean he's always right.