Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: A.R. AWAN and others VS Respondent: CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, KARACHI and anothers
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Hamid Ali Mirza, Rana Bhagwan Das, Sayed Saeed Ashhad Title:A.R. AWAN and others vs CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, KARACHI and
anothers Case No.: Cr.Ps.L.A. Nos.62 to 64-K of 2005 Date of Judgment:2005-12-20 Reported As: 2006 SCMR 1376 Result: Leave granted Judgment ORDER ' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.--- Above said petitions are directed against consolidated judgment of Sindh High Court, dated 27-6-2005 dismissing respondent's appeals against the acquittal of the petitioners for violation of clauses 2, 29 and 31 read with Item No,59 of Part-II of Schedule VI of Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1979 punishable under section 100(2) of the said Ordinance. 2. Precise charge against petitioners appear to be that they have been running dyeing textile factories in S.I.T.E. Area within the territorial limits of erstwhile Karachi, Metropolitan Corporation without obtaining any licence and payment of requisite fee to K.M.C. 3. Upon their trial they were acquitted by Special Magistrate; K.M.C. Karachi vide order/judgment dated 17-10-1995. Respondents' appeals have been dismissed by the High Court through the impugned judgment but the petitioners are seriously aggrieved by concluding paragraph No,28 of the judgment in which the High Court while upholding the order of acquittal has determined the scale of fee payable by the petitioners and left it open to discretion of the respondents to determine the same and collect it with effect from the years 1976-77 to December, 1979 and from the year 1980 onwards. 4. It is inter alia contended that while determining the scale of licence fee in. Appeals against acquittal High Court acted beyond its jurisdiction as it was not competent to determine the question of rate of licence fee in such proceedings and should have left this question for examination by the authority concerned. 5. As important question of law of public importance has been raised in these petitions, leave to appeal is granted to consider whether the impugned judgment of the High Court can be sustained