0
KARACHI, Oct 31: Ghinwa Bhutto, chief of PPP(SB), on Wednesday received cheques for her share from some of the assets of her husband, Mir Murtaza Bhutto from Nazir of the Sindh High Court.
The total assets from which the share was distributed was Rs2006013.96.
Ghinwa Bhutto’s share was Rs87,694. Equivalent amount, in the form of Defence Savings Certificate was retained by the Nazir in the name of first wife of Murtaza Bhutto.
She also received a cheque for Rs3,31,291.20 on behalf of Fatima Bhutto, daughter of Murtaza, by filing power of attorney on her behalf.
The share of Begum Nusrat Bhutto from this amount was Rs2,33,852.56. The share of Master Zulfikar Bhutto (Rs6,62,482) was retained by the Nazir in the form of certificates and will be encashed when he become adult.
JURISDICTION: Justice Wahid Bux Brohi of the SHC refused to entertain a matter of concurrent jurisdiction (between sub-ordinate court and high court) when the application filed by Dr Farah came up for hearing.
The applicant had complained with Civil Lines police station alleging that one Naheed, accompanied by three other persons, attempted to kidnap her.
She alleged that she had a dispute with the lady over money. Consequently an FIR was lodged under section 365/ 511/34/504 CrPC by the said PS.
The police after investigating the alleged incident submitted a challan with a request to drop the case under “false clause “.
The SSP police, however, recommended action against the complainant under section 182 Cr.P.C.
Judicial magistrate Rehmatullah Mooro on July 21, allowing the request by the police, ordered proceedings against Dr Farah under section 182 Cr.P.C.
When the matter came up, Choudhry Iftikhar Ahmed advocate appearing for the applicant, said that matter was of concurrent jurisdiction and no illegality was being done by filing this application.
N. K. Jatoi, appearing for Naheed Asif (nominated in the FIR lodged by Dr Farah), submitted that there was no reason to bypass the revisional jurisdiction of the sessions court being the first instance court and that the entire matter can be equally adjudicated upon by the first instance court.
The bench agreeing with the objections raised by the Criminal Branch and arguments by the state counsel disposed of the appeal holding that “in some cases courts have taken a view that under exceptional circumstances jurisdiction of this court (SHC) under section 561 A CrPC could be invoked but such exceptional circumstances cannot be spelt out as a matter of propriety”.
