Case laws

Case laws Passionate about case laws and legal precedents, Exploring the intricacies of justice

20/12/2023

PLD 2016 Lahore 667..
Fair Trial and Delay in trial --- Effect..
In Messers Hudaibya Paper Mills Ltd v. Federation Of Pakistan, PLD 2016 Lahore 667, it was, with reference to Khadim Husssain v. The State, 2012 P.Cr.L.J. 1847 observed at its Page Number 697 that the concept of fair trial necessarily includes a trial without inordinate delay, because it is a right of every accused to stand trial within a reasonable time. It is proverbial that justice delayed is justice denied. Inordinate and scandalous delay in trial is not only abuse of the process of Court, but also violation of fundamental rights of access to justice.

12/12/2023

2023 SCMR 2109
توہین قرآن پاک میں سزائے موت ہے اس میں توہین کرنے والے کئ نیٹ ،ارادہ،سوچ مجرمانہ پر مبنی شہادت کا ہوتا ضروری ہے ۔ملزم کو بوقتِ گرفتاری ذہنی طور مریض پایا گیا جس کی تصدیق بعد میں تفتیش کے دوران میڈیکل بورڈ نے بھی کی ہے
295-B --- Defiling of Holy evidence --- Petition for leave to appeal challenging acquittal of accused , dismissal of --- Person of unsound mind --- Possibility of are material false implication --- Record shows that there contradictions in the statements of the complainant as well as the prosecution witnesses --- Apparently , the accused / respondent is uncle of the complainant and a witness is a friend of the complainant , and there was a land dispute between the parties --- Two independent witnesses have been abandoned , thus an adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution ---
Torn pieces and damaged book ( Holy Quran ) which were taken by the complainant from the scene of occurrence to the mosque , as narrated in the FIR , were neither produced during the investigation nor ' moulvi ' who took the torn pieces of Holy Quran , appeared as a witness --- Accused / respondent was found to be an abnormal person by the Investigating Officer at the time of his arrest and was referred for medical examination but the same had not been taken into its logical conclusion --- However . the accused / respondent produced a certificate regarding the fact that he was an abnormal person at the time of incident which fact was not objected to by the prosecution --- Prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused / respondent through sound , cogent and confidence inspiring evidence -- Petition challenging acquittal of accused was dismissed and leave was declined .
2023 SCMR 2109

12/12/2023

اندراج مقدمہ سے قبل 157 ض ف کے تحت کاروائی عمل میں نہ لائی جاسکتی ھے۔SHO دفعہ 157 ض ف کا سہارا لیکر مقدمہ درج کرنے سے انکار نہ کر سکتا ھے
Section 157 of the Code read with Rule 24.4 cannot be employed before the registration of a criminal case under Section 154 of the Code. When information of a cognizable offence is received by the SHO, he cannot embark upon an inquiry to examine the reliability or credibility of such information to refuse the registration of a criminal case. He is under a statutory duty to register a criminal case and then to proceed with the investigation, if he has reason to suspect the commission of an offence, which he is empowered under Section 156 to investigate, subject to proviso (b) to Section 157(1) of the Code read with Rule 24.4 of the Rules, whereby an investigating officer has the ample power to dispense with the investigation altogether.

Conjunctural reading of Section 154 of the Code and Rule 24.1(1) of the Rules makes it abundantly clear that on receiving the information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence, the same shall culminate in the registration of a criminal case. The legislature by using the word 'every' to qualify the word 'information', ultimately left no discretion with an SHO to refuse the registration of a criminal case after receiving information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence. The words 'every information' clearly postulate that the legislature designedly abstained from further qualifying these words. It can be observed that in Section 154 of the Code, the legislature in its collective wisdom carefully and cautiously used the expression 'every information' contrary to Sections 22-A(3)(a) and 54 of the Code wherein the expressions, 'reasonable complaint' and 'credible information' have been used. Apparently, the use of the words 'every information' in Section 154 unlike in Sections 22-A(3)(a) and 54 of the Code is for the reason that the SHO should not have the power to refuse to record the information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence and to register a case thereon on the ground that he is not satisfied with the reasonableness or credibility of the information. In other words, 'reasonableness' or 'credibility' of the said information is not a condition precedent for the registration of a criminal case. A comparison of the present Section 154 of the Code with those of the earlier Codes indicates that the legislature had intentionally thought it appropriate to employ only the words 'every information' without qualifying the said words. An overall reading of all the Codes makes it clear that sine qua non for recording a first information report is that there should be an information and that information must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence.

Section 156 of the Code confers the power upon a police officer to investigate a cognizable offence whereas Section 157 lays down the manner, in which that investigation should be carried out. The commencement of investigation by a police officer under Section 157 (1) of the Code is subject to two conditions, firstly, the police officer should have reasons to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence and secondly, the police officer should subjectively satisfy himself as to whether there is sufficient ground for entering on an investigation even before he starts an investigation into the facts and circumstances of the case. Under the provisos (a) & (b) to Section 157 (1) of the Code, there are situations where investigation can be dispensed with. Firstly, when any information as to the commission of a cognizable offence is given against a person by name and case is of a trivial nature, the investigating officer shall not make an investigation on the spot and secondly, where it appears to the officer incharge of police station that there is no sufficient ground for carrying out the investigation. Section 158 of the Code further lays down the self-explanatory procedure to submit a report under Section 157 of the Code. 7. Comprehensive scrutiny of Sections 154, 156, 157 and 158 of the Code makes it abundantly obvious that Section 157 read with Rule 24.4 of the Rules is post registration of criminal case stage, therefore, Section 157 read with Rule 24.4 cannot be pressed into service before the registration of a criminal case. It is only the registration of a criminal case which activates Rule 24.4 of the Rules read with Section 157 of the Code.

Criminal Proceedings
9549/21
Arsalan Raza Vs JOP Gujrat etc
Mr. Justice Ali Zia Bajwa
07-09-2022
2022 LHC 6953

12/12/2023

اگر بیوی شوہر کے ساتھ رہنے سے انکار کر دے تو وہ کسی قسم کے خرچہ نان و نفقہ کی حقدار نہ ہو ہو گی.

2004 CLC 1700
2016 YLR 371

12/12/2023

فوجداری مقدمات میں عدالت کسی بھی وقت ،کسی بھی سٹیج پر ضابطہ فوجداری کے ملزم کو غیر جانبدار ، آزاد اور خودمختار فئیر ٹرائل کا حق دیتے ہوئے پولیس اسٹیشن میں مختلف اقسام رجسٹرز(جن کی تعداد 25 ہے)کو طلب کر سکتا ہے
𝐃𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭.
𝐏𝐋𝐃 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟑 𝐋𝐚𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝟓𝟕𝟖
----𝐒𝐬. 𝟏𝟕𝟐 & 𝟗𝟒-𝐐𝐚𝐧𝐮𝐧-𝐞-𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐡𝐚𝐝𝐚𝐭 (𝟏𝟎 𝐨𝐟 𝟏𝟗𝟖𝟒), 𝐀𝐫𝐭𝐬. 𝟏𝟓𝟖 & 𝟏𝟔𝟏 𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐑𝐮𝐥𝐞𝐬, 𝟏𝟗𝟑𝟒, 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐩. 𝐗𝐗𝐈𝐈, 𝐑𝐫. 𝟑𝟖, 𝟕𝟎 & 𝟕𝟐-𝐃𝐢𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧-𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬-𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐀𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐮𝐦𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐟 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐚𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐦𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐒. 𝟏𝟕𝟐, 𝐂𝐫.𝐏.𝐂-𝐕𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐲-𝐑𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐧 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧-𝐓𝐡𝐮𝐬, 𝐢𝐭 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐎𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐨 𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬, 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐬 𝐨𝐫 𝐧𝐨𝐧-𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐬, 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐫 𝐛𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐩𝐮𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭𝐬𝐨𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫-𝐑𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐈𝐈 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐝𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐲-𝐑𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐍𝐨. 𝐗𝐈𝐗 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐥𝐞 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐦 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦-𝐑𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐍𝐨. 𝐗𝐗𝐈 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐨𝐟 𝐫𝐨𝐚𝐝 𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚 𝐯𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐮𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐬-𝐑𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐦𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐧𝐨 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐜𝐡 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐡𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐒. 𝟏𝟕𝟐, 𝐂𝐫.𝐏.𝐂. 𝐚𝐬 𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐏𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐤𝐞𝐞𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐧 𝐡𝐢 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐨-𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧-𝐀𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐨 𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞-𝐓𝐡𝐮𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐨 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐯𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐚𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐞𝐝-𝐏𝐮𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐫 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐡 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞-𝐅𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐩𝐮𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐂𝐫.𝐏.𝐂. 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐐𝐚𝐧𝐮𝐧-𝐞-𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐡𝐚𝐝𝐚𝐭, 𝟏𝟗𝟖𝟒-𝐑𝐨𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐓𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫, 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐚 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐫𝐨𝐥𝐞 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐡 𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐭 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐩𝐮𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐫 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐫 𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞---𝐔𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐒. 𝟗𝟒, 𝐂𝐫.𝐏.𝐂. 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐀𝐫𝐭𝐬. 𝟏𝟓𝟖 & 𝟏𝟔𝟏 𝐨𝐟 𝐐𝐚𝐧𝐮𝐧-𝐞-𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐡𝐚𝐝𝐚𝐭, 𝟏𝟗𝟖𝟒, 𝐰𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐮𝐦𝐦𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐮𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥---𝐒𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐥𝐚𝐰 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐚𝐭 𝐚 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧-.-𝐒𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐨𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐞𝐝 𝐥𝐢𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐚 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬 𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞---𝐏𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐬𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐮𝐠𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐝𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐮𝐦𝐦𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐚𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐫.

10/12/2023

گواہ --- قابل اعتماد --- گواہ جس نے تسلیم شدہ حقائق سے انکار کیا اسے قابل اعتماد گواہ نہیں کہا جا سکتا۔

Witness ---Reliability---Witness who denied admitted facts could not be termed reliable Witness.
2023 PCrLJ 1834

10/12/2023

ایون فیلڈ ریفرنس میں سابق وزیر اعظم میاں محمد نواز شریف کی بریت کا اسلام آباد ہائیکورٹ کا مختصر فیصلہ

The matter was argued at length by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Special Prosecutor NAB; during the course of arguments our attention was drawn towards the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.122/2018 wherein observations were made by this Court as to the inculpability of the appellant before us and it was observed that the NAB has not been able to prove its case as their does not exist any document to establish guilt of the appellant. This Court was also apprised that no appeal has been preferred against the judgment of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.122/2018.

2. In view of the referred position and for the detailed reasons to be recorded later we allow the instant appeal; consequently, the appellant acquitted of the charges.
Crl. Appeal No.121/2018
Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif Vs The Chairman, NAB.
29-11-2023

05/10/2023

شاہ محمود قریشی

05/10/2023

Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance of minor --- Quantum --- Financial status of father --- Poverty --- Contention of the defendant was that he , being a driver , was a poor person having no stable source of income --- Validity --- Mere poverty was no ground for interference in the order passed by the Family Court passing decree far maintenance allowance of the minor to the tune of Rs . 10,000 / - per month , which amount was neither exorbitant nor unreasonable considering the inflation and cost of living --- No illegality or infirmity had been found in the impugned orders and decrees passed by both the Courts below --- Constitutional petition was dismissed , in circumstances .
2023 YLR 2233

05/10/2023

2023 YLR 2233

Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance --- Right of defence - Striking off --- Family Court while fixing interim maintenance allowance , ordered the petitioner / defendant to pay , on next date of hearing , the arrears of interim maintenance allowance counting from the date of institution of the suit --- Petitioner / defendant did not comply with the said directions --- Later , the Family Court struck off his right of defence on the application of respondents / plaintiffs --- Contention of the petitioner / defendant was that only one opportunity was granted to him to clear the arrears of the maintenance allowance while fixing the interim maintenance allowance --- Validity --- It was not vested right of the petitioner to claim multiple opportunities for compliance of the order / directions and he was obliged to adhere to the directions of the Trial court regarding payment of the maintenance allowance in order to clear the arrears --- Even otherwise , the record revealed that after the said directions , the case was fixed on multiple dates spanning almost a year and then impugned order and decree was passed by the Family Court , thus the contention of the petitioner was misconceived --- Act of non - compliance of order of the Trial Court disentitled the petitioner from any discretionary relief from the High Court

05/10/2023

Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961. S. 6 --- Provisions of Evidence Act and Code of Civil Procedure not to apply --- Family Court as Judicial Magistrate --- Criminal proceedings --- Scope --- Section 17 ( 1 ) provides that the application of Qanun - e - Shahadat , 1984 , is excluded in respect of proceedings on matters falling in Part I of the Schedule to the Family Courts Act , 1964 --- However , such exclusion has no applicability vis - à - vis criminal proceedings for the offences specified in Part II of the Schedule or S. 20 of the Family Courts Act , 1964 , including the offence under S. 6 ( 5 ) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance , 1961 --- Therefore , the provisions of Qanun - e Shahadat , 1984 , are applicable in criminal proceedings before the Family Court .
2003 YLR 2140

05/10/2023

Family Court as Judicial Magistrate --- Scope --- Section 20 of the Family Courts Act , 1964 , deems the Family Court to be the Judicial Magistrate of the first class under the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1898 , for taking cognizance and trial of any offence , inter alia , under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance , 1961 --- Cognizance of such an offence can be taken on the complaint of the Union Council , Arbitration Council or the aggrieved party and the Family Court is required to conduct the trial of an offence in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XXII of the Cr.P.C. relating to summary trials .
2023 YLR 2140

Address

Behlola Jadeed
Charsadda
24420

Telephone

+923099383123

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Case laws posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to Case laws:

Share