Test of Article 4 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973,

The same principle was followed in “MUHAMMAD ANWAR and others versus Mst. ILYAS BEGUM and others” (PLD 2013 Supreme Court 255). By examining the above two judgments, it becomes clear that “BADARUDDIN Versus Mehr AHMAD RAZA, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, JHANG and 6 others” (PLD 1993 Supreme Court 399) is the basic rule that where an order passed by a revisional court does not violate any law and no illegality is found to have been committed therein, then the same cannot be disturbed in constitutional jurisdiction, but when an order suffers from a patent error or grave illegality has been committed in applying the correct law and further the order passed by the revisional court does not qualify the test of Article 4 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, then the same can be rectified in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. For the reasons to be recorded in the preceding paragraphs, this court is convinced that as the order impugned herein does not stand the test of Article 4 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, hence the instant writ petition is fully competent and maintainable.

Used in Judgement of
Lahore High court

Criminal Proceedings 206739/18

2018 LHC 1676