Study of law

28/09/2025

Voluntary Marriage of Pubescent Girl Deemed Valid Under Islamic Jurisprudence.
WP 47073/25
Taj ul Malook Vs Inspector General of Police Punjab etc.
Mr. Justice Tariq Mahmood Bajwa
27-08-2025
2025 LHC 5628

27/09/2025

25/06/2025

Great News for all LLB aspirants. The Supreme Court of Pakistan has allowed the reduction of LLB from 5 to 4 years as requested by the Pakistan Bar Council/Directorate of Legal Education (DLE) and HEC. Moreover the discriminatory equivalence exam SEE-Law for foreign law graduates has also been suspended by the Apex Court!!

18/06/2025

03/05/2025

Today, we moved contempt application against the police officials. Our lead counsel Mr. Haseeb Jamali urged the Court to take notice of contempt for their refusal to comply with Court order. Upon hearing, the learned Judge was pleased to issue notice of contempt to SSP South, SHO PS Defence, Addl. SHO South for their Personal Appearance on 06.05.2025 whereby they will be present.

We will get justice for the young man and we will inshallah make sure that the guilty persons are punished in accordance with law, and with severity. Everybody will be dealt in contempt who have disregarded judicial orders!

12/03/2025

ملزم ارمغان کے والد پر یہ دفعات تو بنتی ہیں

اگر کوئی شخص کسی مجرم کو بھاگ جانے (فرار ہونے) کی تاکید کرے یا اس میں معاونت کرے، تو اس پر درج ذیل دفعات کا اطلاق ہوسکتا ہے:

1. دفعہ 216 - تعزیراتِ پاکستان (PPC)

یہ دفعہ اس شخص پر لاگو ہوتی ہے جو کسی مجرم کو چھپانے، پناہ دینے یا فرار ہونے میں مدد دیتا ہے۔ اس کی سزا جرم کی نوعیت پر منحصر ہوتی ہے:

اگر اصل جرم سزائے موت یا عمر قید کا مستوجب ہو، تو مدد کرنے والے کو سات سال تک قید اور جرمانہ ہوسکتا ہے۔

اگر اصل جرم کم درجے کا ہو، تو مدد کرنے والے کو تین سال تک قید اور جرمانہ ہوسکتا ہے۔

2. دفعہ 212 - تعزیراتِ پاکستان

اگر کوئی شخص کسی مجرم کی گرفتاری سے بچنے میں مدد کرے جبکہ اسے معلوم ہو کہ وہ کسی جرم میں ملوث ہے، تو وہ اس دفعہ کے تحت مجرم ہوگا۔

3. دفعہ 107 - اعانتِ جرم

اگر کوئی شخص کسی مجرم کو بھاگنے کی تاکید کرے، ترغیب دے، یا منصوبہ بنانے میں مدد کرے، تو وہ اعانتِ جرم (Abetment of Crime) کا مرتکب ہوگا اور اس پر وہی سزا لاگو ہوسکتی ہے جو اصل جرم کی ہوتی ہے۔


Adv Hashim Unar
Study of law
Muhammad Hashim Unar

28/02/2025

📢 Supreme Court Affirms Tribunals’ Power to Execute Their Own Orders! ⚖️

🔹 Case: Khalid alias Muhammad Khalid & others vs. Collector of Customs (Adjudication), Lahore & others
🔹 Bench: Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan
🔹 Date: 09 August 2024

The Supreme Court of Pakistan has delivered a landmark judgment, confirming that statutory tribunals have the power to enforce their own decisions, even if the law does not explicitly mention ex*****on! 🚨

🔹 Brief Facts

Customs officials in Lahore seized gold & a vehicle, alleging smuggling.

The Customs Appellate Tribunal later partially allowed the appeal, ordering the release of some gold and the vehicle (with conditions).

Petitioners demanded enforcement, but customs officials refused to comply!

They filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court, which was dismissed.

Now, the Supreme Court has settled the issue with a clear ruling! 📜

🔹 Key Court Observations

✅ Tribunal orders are fully operative unless stayed by a higher court!
✅ Tribunals have the inherent power to execute their own judgments.
✅ This applies to ALL statutory tribunals, not just the Customs Tribunal.
✅ High Courts cannot be approached for ex*****on if a tribunal has jurisdiction to enforce its own orders.
✅ Customs officials failing to comply with orders can face action! 🚨

🔹 Final Verdict: Appeal dismissed, but the petitioners can approach the Customs Tribunal for ex*****on of its judgment!

This ruling strengthens the authority of tribunals across Pakistan!.

26/02/2025

Witness, given up by prosecution

2020 YLR 313 Karachi
S. 540---Power to summon material witness--- Witness, given up by prosecution--- Scope--- Accused filed application for summoning the marginal witness of memo as court witness because the prosecution had given up the said witness--Validity--- Prosecution had given up one of the marginal witnesses---Prosecution usually avoided cumulative evidence for establishing a memo, if it was satisfied with only one marginal witness--Prosecution had the choice to decide about the number and order of witnesses to be produced before the Trial Court and it could not be forced to examine all the witnesses of the calendar of witnesses--Revision petition was dismissed.

# # # #
2003 ylr 1831 SCAK
--At 130---witness--prosecution had the prerogative to produce any witness, cited in the calendar of challan, or to give up any one of them---Shariat Court, in the present case, while directing the Trial Court on the application of the accused that the evidence of a particular prosecution witness might be recorded earlier had deprived the prosecution of the privilege and prerogative which vested in it--Even otherwise, on the application of the accused persons it was not desirable to order for the recording of statement of prosecution witness out of turn, for such order could give an impression to the litigants in particular and to the public in general that the attitude of the Court was not fair and impartial---Court was to keep in view the maxim that justice should not only be done but it should appear to have been done"--Supreme Court set aside the order of the Shariat Court and directed the Trial Court to proceed with the case by recording the evidence of the prosecution.

# # #$

2018 MLD 489 Lahore

Ss. 265-A, 493 & 540--Authorised person to conduct trial on behalf of prosecution before Court---Scope---Complainant was a necessary party in cases involving murder and hurt to body, which fact did not make him incharge of the prosecution---Section 265-A, Cr.PC. carried a specific stipulation that in every sessions trial initiated upon a police report, the prosecution was to be conducted by the Public ProsecutorSection 493, Cr.P.C. laid down that the Public Prosecution would plead in all cases under his charge before any court and the pleaders privately instructed were to act under his direction---Public Prosecutor had the authority to give up any witness in the case, though he was to consult the complainant/petitioner and his counsei in that-regard---Statement recorded by the counsel for the complainant to give up a witnesses in the case which was contrary to the statute. had no legal effect and was not binding on the prosecution--Record transpired that application under S. 540, Cr.PC was filed by complainant and not by the prosecutor; such application was not maintainable in view of Ss. 265-A & 493, Cr.PC
# # # #

2021 MLD 559 HCAK
Ss.265-F & 493--Right of evidence of prosecution, closure of---Counsel privately engaged to be under direction of Public Prosecutor--Complainant filed application through counsel privately engaged for abandonment of the evidence of certain prosecution witnesses, which was accepted-----

26/02/2025

2024 S C M R 142
KHALID PERVAIZ versus SAMINA and others ---
Civil Petition No. 2734-L of 2023

Dower (Mehr) , recovery of --- Failure of husband to pay dower (mehr) --- Compensatory costs imposed on husband --- Trial Court directed the husband/petitioner to pay to the wife/respondent the mehr (of Rs . 500,000 / - mentioned in the Nikahnama ) and maintenance with annual increase of ten percent --- Validity --- Mehr has to be paid whenever demanded by the wife --- Mehr can be demanded during the subsistence of the marriage , and the husband is under an obligation to pay it --- In the present case the husband / petitioner had two wives , but he did not fulfil his obligations towards one of them ( i.e . respondent ) when he failed to pay the mehr demanded by her --- Wife had to file a suit for recovery of the mehr and maintenance , and the husband unnecessarily involved the wife in litigation , which reached the Supreme Court after six and half years --- Such kind of frivolous litigation was paralysing the judicial system of the country --- Husband took up an untenable defence , and perpetuated it probably because costs were not imposed upon him and the courts did not insist that the decision of the Family Court should first be complied with before entertaining a challenge to it --- Imposing sufficient costs may have had the salutary effect to make the husband act reasonably --- Courts should not hesitate in imposing costs , and compensatory costs too when required --- Counsel for the husband stated that the mehr ( dower ) would be paid to the wife through bankers cheque / pay order / demand draft or will be deposited in the Family Court within one month --- Supreme Court directed that in addition to imposing costs throughout it was imposing compensatory costs to the extent of one hundred thousand rupees on the husband considering the decrease in the value of money , and that if the mehr and the said costs were not paid the Family Court shall execute present order , which may include attachment of the properties of the husband۔

26/02/2025

Remedies Against Police.

A Must-Read Judgment for Every Lawyer especially Criminal Lawyers:

2024 MLD 951
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Amjad Rafiq, J
HAFEEZ ULLAH SHAHID----Petitioner
Versus
ASJ/JOP and others----Respondents

Key Takeaways;

1 Remedies Against Defective Investigation

✓ Sections 166(2) & 186(2) PPC

(Non-Cognizable Offences)

The aggrieved person will first approach the Justice of the Peace (JoP).

The JoP can;

• Issue directions to proceed under Section 155 CrPC.

• Forward the case to the Anti-Corruption Establishment under Section 166 PPC (a scheduled offence).

• Aggrieved to file a Private Complaint.

2 Remedies Against Contempt of Court

Two procedures are available under CrPC for offences under Sections 175, 178, 179, 180, and 228 PPC:

Section 480 CrPC:

The court can take the accused into custody until the rising of the court.

A fine may also be imposed.

Section 482 CrPC:

If the court wishes to proceed further, it must forward the case to a magistrate, who will conduct proceedings as per the law.

Key Note:

Prosecution for these offences requires compliance with Section 195 CrPC (complaint by court or public servant).

Section 228 PPC offences may also be prosecuted under Section 476 CrPC.

3 Remedies Under Police Order, 2002

▲ Misconduct by Police Officers (Article 155)

• Cognizable Offence (Punishment: 3 years imprisonment).

• JoP can order FIR registration, but DIG Police sanction is required for prosecution.

Vexatious Actions (Article 156)

• Covers illegal search, arrest, torture, etc.

• Cognizable Offence (Punishment: 5 years imprisonment).

• JoP can order FIR without an authorized officer's report.

Delay in Producing Arrestees (Article 157)

• Non-Cognizable Offence (Punishment: 1 year imprisonment).

• JoP transfers the case to a magistrate under Section 155 CrPC.

• if cognizable offences arise, they may be investigated along with, even without magistrate permission (reliance on 1998 P Cr. L.J 1718).

4 Administrative Remedies

Police Complaints Authority (Article 106) All offences, except contempt of court, can be addressed by the Police Complaints Authority, which may decide on departmental action or FIR registration after inquiry.

4 Administrative Remedies

Police Complaints Authority (Article 106):

Handles complaints of police misconduct, neglect, or excess.

JoP may refer the complaint to the DPO or direct the aggrieved to the Authority.
Copied