Ordinarily, a criminal appeal would abate on the death of appellant/accused, but S.431, Cr.P.C. had provided an exception to that general rule---Under S.431, Cr.P.C. an appeal against sentence of fine would not abate by reason of death of accused, because it was not a matter, which would affect his person, but would affect his estate---Upon death of accused, his appeal to the extent of a portion of sentence of an imprisonment, would abate, whereas the appeal to the extent of sentence of fine, affecting the property of accused, would not abate
Any order made by Tribunal after passing order of abatement of appeal would itself be without jurisdiction or lawful authority---Impugned order of Tribunal reviving appeal was patently without jurisdiction---Supreme Court set aside impugned order and affirmed appellant's dismissal from service for having attained finality.
S. 52 & O.XXII, R.1---Legal heirs, non-impleading of---Effect---abatement does not take place, if legal representatives of some party are not brought on record---Such legal representatives automatically become party and bound by any decision of court.
Abatment ---- Abatment by operation of law being always ipso facto, it was not necessary to obtain order of the Court wherein application or appeal was pending vis-a-vis abatement proceedings.
Death of a party – Arguments already heard and judgments reserved by the time when party died. Degree passed by Court against dead party - - Not Nullity.
|2011 SCMR 247||2011 SCMR 1988||2010 SCMR 927|
|2010 SCMR 822||2009 PLD 1 SC||2009 SCMR 956|
|2008 PLD 703 SC||2007 PLD 681 SC||2007 SCMR 533|
|2006 SCMR 301||2006 SCMR 95||2006 SCMR 1287|
|2005 SCMR 1385||2005 SCMR 843||2005 PSC 1184|
|2005 PSC 708||2004 SCMR 100||2004 PLD 185 SC|
|2004 SCMR 1811||2003 PSC 1175||2002 SCMR 1023|
|2002 PLD 346 SC||2002 PSC 050 SC||2002 PSC 238 SC|
|2001 SCMR 1318||2001 SCMR 1227||2001 SCMR 328|
|2000 SCMR 1255||2000 SCMR 172||2000 PLD 89 SC|
|1999 SCMR 1549||1999 SCMR 2004||1998 SCMR 448|
|1993 PSC 320||PLJ 1989 SC 41||PLJ 1979 SC 231|
ABATEMENT ORDERS BY HIGH COURTS
|2009 MLD 451||2009 PLC 115||2009 PLC 21|
|2009 PLC 290||2008 PLC 1025||2008 PLC 145|
|2008 CLC 697||2005 YLR 2479||2005 CLC 811|
|2004 YLR 647||2004 PLD 12||2003 YLR 2891|
|1997 CLC 243||PLJ 1997 Lah 1206||1997 CLS 271|
Conspiracy---abetment ---Amalgamating the act of "abetment " with "conspiracy" for commission of offence by the High Court being not legally justified, order of High Court allowing bail, was liable to be set aside for such reason alone.
|2012 SCMR 662||2012 SCMR 524||2012 SCMR 524|
|2012 SCMR 265||2012 SCMR 215||2012 SCMR 184|
|2012 PLD 222||2011 SCMR 863||2011 SCMR 2002|
|2011 SCMR 1893||2011 SCMR 1686||2011 SCMR 1543|
|2011 SCMR 1350||2010 SCMR 1849||2010 SCMR 1735|
|2010 SCMR 1221||2010 SCMR 1090||2007 PLD 93 SC|
|2007 SCMR 1958||2006 SCMR 1886||2003 PLD 250 SC|
|2002 SCMR 1533||2000 SCMR 1585||1999 SCMR 2760|
|1991 SCMR 2018||AIR 1990 SC 1210||PLD 1967 SC 340|
|NL 1991 CR. 153 Contra||PLD 1966 Dac 269||PLD 1959 Dac 833|
Allegations were that Ministry of Health had favoured two companies by extending/granting to them quotas of Ephedrine against the Rules and inquiry into such allegation was being obstructed and hampered---Supreme Court observed that commission of the crime, as disclosed in the F.I.R., was of a serious nature, notwithstanding whosoever was involved and what was his status, and concerned authorities should have allowed a transparent inquiry and investigation instead of causing obstructions and hampering the same for one reason or the other---Supreme Court directed that transfer/posting of Director-General, Regional Director and Deputy Director of Anti-Narcotics Force, in colourable exercise of powers, was not free from extraneous consideration, therefore, Regional Director and Deputy Director of Anti-Narcotics Force were not to relinquish the charge and they should continue with the investigation of the case without being influenced in any manner from any one.
Abetment or instigation---Where evidence with regard to the allegation of abetment or instigation is lacking, the concession of bail can be extended in favour of accused.
Abetment ---Conviction of abetter not sustainable when principal accused acquitted---Where an abettor or any other person is charged, tried or convicted along with the principal offender, then on the acquittal of the principal offender the same benefit would be extended to the ordinary person, because both sailed in the same boat.