Adv Syed MaqsoodAli shah

Adv Syed MaqsoodAli shah legal services

15/01/2025

You can search any judgment for free of charge on this website

Easylaw.ai

20/09/2024

حادثہ کیس میں گاڑی، سپرداری پر دیتے وقت، Surety طلب کرنا غیر قانونی ہے.

2005 PCrLJ 1510

20/09/2024

مدعی نہ تو کبھی گرفتار ہوا تھا نہ سماعت مقدمہ ہوئی بلکہ اسے ڈسچارج کر دیا گیا تھا Damages Suit میں وکیل کی فیس کی رسید یا وکیل کا نام تک نہ لکھا گیا تھا نہ ہی وکیل کو بطور گواہ پیش کیا گیا ایسی کوئی شہادت نہ تھی کہ مدعی کے خلاف بلاوجہ مقدمہ درج کروایا گیا تھا دعویٰ ہرجانہ خارج شد۔
2015 CLC 150

20/09/2024

بیانِ نزعی مقتول کے گھر والوں یا رشتہ داروں کی موجودگی میں لکھا جائے، تو مشکوک تصور ہو گا.
(2020 YLR 1169)

بیان نزعی قلمبند کرنے سے قبل ڈاکٹر صاحب سے اجازت نہ لی گئی تھی کہ آیا مریض بیان دینے کے قابل ہے یا کہ نہیں،
ملزم بری
{2016 YLR 1329}.

جرح کے بغیر بیان نزعی کی کوئی اہمیت نہیں.
[2012 PCrLJ 1918].

پرچہ میں ملزم کو اگرچہ Fatal Short منسوب تھی لیکن بیان نزعی میں اس ضرب کا ذکر نہ تھا. ضمانت منظور ہوئی.
(2020 SCMR 452).
نتیجہ ڈاکٹری نہ ہونے کی صورت میں ملزم ضمانت کا حقدار ہو گا.
{2020 MLD 1130}.

20/09/2024

(اہم کریمنل کیس لاذ)

1) Prosecution did not produce evidence even after 8 months of framing of charge.
Accused ACQUITTED . 2017 - SCMR - 19

2) Accused involved in the murder case on account of joint extra judicial confession would be entitled to ACQUITTAL .2012 - PCRLJ - 258

3) In murder case empty handed accused due to common intention would not be entitled to the confirmation of PRE ARREST BAIL.
2015 - PCRLJ - 1531

4) Bail GRANTED to accused by following RULE of CONSISTENCY.
2017 - MLD - 349
2016 - YLR - 2507
2008 - SCMR - 173

5) If weapon is recovered but NO empties were recovered then recovery of weapon will be useless .
2015 - MLD- 432
2013 - YLR - 272

6) In dacoity case plea of alibi will not be considered at bail stage.
2014 - PCRLJ - 1002

7) Even after completion of statutory period if delay is attributed to accused then he will not be entitled to concession of bail . 2016 - SCMR - 1538

8) If evidence of a witness is contradictory to his statement recorded u/s 161 crpc then such evidence would not be believable.
2014 - YLR - 548

9) Recovery of articles of the deceased from the accused at the time of their arrest sixteen days after the occurrence was not believable . 1996 - SCMR - 188 ( LB ) .

10) Non recovery of some of the crime empties was not of much importance as the occurrence had taken place in a field.
2006 - SCMR - 672 ( LB ) .

11) Recovery at JOINT POINTATION of two accused would have no evidentiary value.
2008 - SCMR - 1064

12) EXTRA- JUDICIAL CONFESSION is a very WEAK type of evidence and no conviction can be awarded without its strong corroboration on the record . 2005 - SCMR - 277

13) EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION must be proved by evidence of very high and un impeachable character.
PLD - 2006 - SC - 538

14) Unexplained delay of 10 / 11 hours in lodging of FIR . Such delay would lead to inference that occurrence was un- witnessed . 2008 - SCMR - 6 (LB ) .

15) Site plan loses its evidentiary value if it is not prepared on the pointation of a witness .2001 - SCMR - 424

17) S . 302 / 34 . Art 3 . Child witness . Evidence of child witness possessing sufficient understanding can be believed and relied upon for conviction . 1995 - SCMR - 1615

20) No doubt the conviction can be based on the retracted confession alone but if it is found voluntary true and confidence inspiring . PLJ - 2014 - CRC - 791 (DB ) .

22) S . 426 . S . 302 (b ) . For non fixation or non hearing of the appeal the petitioner can not be held responsible . He has earned a statutory right by now to be released on bail after suspension of sentence . PLJ - 2014 - CRC - 547 (a ) .

23) Concealment of facts is also a type of FRAUD .2015 - CLC - 39

24) Courts should not interfere in the policy matters of financial institutions . 2015 - SCMR - 445

25) Due to NON PAYMENT of maintenance allowance right of defense struck off and suit decreed .2015 - CLC - 349

26) It is the duty of the court to take notice of limitation although party has raised objection or not . 2015 - SCMR - 380

27) If process fee is not deposited then due to this reason revision can not be dismissed .
PLD - 1998 - Lah - 342

28) S. 489 - F . Cheque was bounced . Offence with which accused was charged was punishable with imprisonment for three years or fine or with both . No useful purpose to be served by remitting petitioner into custody so as to be released on post arrest bail after expiry of some period . PLJ - 2016 - CRC - 547

29) Two versions registered with the police both sides sustained injuries . There was no explanation in FIR regarding injuries sustained by petitioners side . Pre arrest bail confirmed . PLJ - 2016 - CRC - 546 (a ) .

30) Although accused was armed with 12 bore pump action but he did not raise any lalkara nor caused any injury to anybody therefore it is matter of further inquiry . Bail allowed.
PLJ - 2016 - CRC - 483 (a)

20/09/2024

DEAR FRIENDS SOME COMPLETE CASE LAWS ON CRIMINAL SIDE:

***CNSA***
PLD 2009 Lah 362,
Sec. 9A, 9B, 9C.
Schedule of punishments.

RECOVERY;
1997SCMR 947
Requirements of 103 Cr.P.C. not complied with, entitled for bail.

SAMPLES;
2005MLD 386
Samples sent for chemical examination from only one pack, case to fall under 9a.

CHEMICAL EXAMINER;
2002 MLD 44,
Lab report not brought on record.
2007 CrLJ 913,
Conviction can only be under 9A when sample made from only one piece.
2009 NLR Cr. 126, S.103,
Non compliance fatal for prosecution.

*CHARGE:
2009 YLR 507, Purpose of charge.

*CHILD WITNESS;
2010PLJ SC 1133

*COMPROMISE ON BAIL STAGE;
2002 PCrlJ 1003
2005 SCMR 1342

*COMPLAINT S.200*
1994 PCrLJ 430
Complaint to be recorded by Magistrate himself.

*DISMISSAL of COMPLAINT in COGNIZABLE AND NON-COMPOUNDABLE CASE is VOID AB INITIO.
2003SCMR 59

*CROSS EXAMINATION;
2002 YLR 2362,
No cross-examination means statement to that extent stands admitted.
1991 SCMR 2300,
Omission to cross-examine-- However was rebutted by making
suggestions and denying the same in evidence.
2010 PCrLJ 1253,
Cross-examination of a witness is not just a formality, but is a valuable right of accused and best method to ascertain truth---Where defence counsel is not available at the relevant time, court is under obligation to cross-examine the witnesses in order to ascertain the truth.
2010 PCrLJ 812,
Cross Examination by ACCUSED himself.

**DEFENCE PLEA;
2008 YLR 2910,
Defence plea---Law required that if accused had a defence plea, same should have been put up to the witnesses in Cross-examination and then put up the same at the time of recording the statement under Sec. 342, Cr.P. C.

*DISCHARGE REPORT;
Court not bound to agree,
2003PCrLJ 244(a), 1500.
2004 YLR Lah 836(b) Prof. Nawaz case.

***DOUBLE JEOPARDY;
S.403 Cr.P.C. 2010 SCMR 861
Double Presumption of Truth
2010PLJ SC 513

***FINGER PRINT;
PLJ 2010 SC 575
Non appearance of finger print expert in support of plea is of no help.

***FIR***
PLJ 2010 SC 986,
PLJ 2010 Cr.C. 466,
Accused was not mentioned in FIR.
Contents of FIR revealed that witnesses had seen the accused for the first time. If accused were not named in FIR then identification parade becomes necessary.

***HABEAS CORPUS;
2010PLJ Lah 396
Habeas Corpus against father is not competent. REF 2001SCMR 1782

**INTERIM BAIL;
2003PCrLJ 409

*INJURED Witness -TRUTHFUL WITNESS;
2007SCMR 670
Only affirmative of his presence at the spot but not of his credibility.

***INTERESTED WITNESS;
2010 PLJ Cr.C (Lah) 554
2007 PLJ SC 226
PLJ 2010 SC AJ&K,
Witness made improvement in his statement, could not be considered as independent witness.
2006 NLR Cr.184,
Conduct of eye witness unnatural.

***INVESTIGATION;
2007 PSC (Supreme Court) 182, Investigation, defect in---Effect---
Such defect might not be a valid ground for discharge of an accused, but insufficiency in evidence would definitely be a strong ground to discharge him.

***INVESTIGATING OFFICER 👮
2003 PCrLJ 244(a),1500,
Discharge report, Court not bound to agree with Police Report.

***JAPHA;
2010 PLJ Cr.C (Lah) 318

Judge and Law;
2007 NLR Cr. 217,
Law is sometimes called an ass but judge should as far as it is possible, try not to become one.

***337F(v) PPC,
2004 PLD SC 477, 2005MLD 454,
2009 PCrLJ 75

***489-F PPC,
Bail Grant of...Behind the bars for the LAST FIVE MONTHS, had admitted liability to extent of Rs. 400,000,
2010 PLJ SC 1085,1087
(Sec.489-F), Bail granted where suit for recovery had been instituted. 2006 CrLJ 77, 39
2011MLD 311 Bail Refused.

***S.452 PPC
2009 PCrLJ 1259
Previous litigation, S. 452 not attracted.
2008 PCrLJ 915,
Injured not examined, fatal for prosecution case.
NLR 1998 Cr. Lah 10,
FIR not lodged by owner of house, not competent.

***MINOR DISCREPANCIES.
MINOR CONTRADICTIONS;
1968 PCrLJ 1273,
2002 YLR 3620,
When a witness was subjected to a lengthy Cross-examination, it was very natural that some discrepancies would crop up and in such situation minor discrepancies should be ignored.
2006 NLR Cr. 28,
Minor contradictions in statements of PWs as to venue of occurrence would be hardly of any consequence.
2006 NLR Cr. 184,
Statements of PWs in contradictions with each other, no evidentiary value.

*NO ONE is TO be VEXED TWICE for SAME CAUSE;
1995 SCMR 626,
2002 PCrLJ 1712,
PLD 97 LAH 680,
1995 MLD 1563,
1981 SCMR 1008,

***PREVENTION of CORRUPTION;
PLJ 2004 SC 364
Sec.420, 468, 471 PPC.
Court can acquit at any stage. Accused had filed a civil suit, element of fraud was to be ascertained yet.

***POLYGAMY, SEC.6
1980 PCrLJ 122
Complaint by wife
2000 KLR CC 24

***RECOVERY;
Sec.103 Cr. P.C.
2010 PLJ Cr.C. 448
Strict compliance of Sec.103 was not required.

***RECOVERY WITNESS;
1994 PCrLJ 475
(P.O. Recovery Witness)
1993 SCMR 1608,
2004 MLD 1253(b),
2000 PCrLJ 340(b)
Police witnesses are competent witness as any other in absence of any material to indicate that they were biased.
1999 PCrLJ 356,
Recovery ---witness who was accused in a criminal case and was under the influence and pressure of concerned police official could not be associated as a witness in Recovery proceedings.

***Recovery MEMO;
2010 PLD SC 513
Over writing, cutting in Recovery memo...highly doubtful.

***SOLO Witness;
2010. PLD Cr.C. 311,
2006 NLR Cr. 270,
Quality of evidence. Even in murder case testimony of single reliable witness is enough to base conviction.

***Sec. 22A Cr.P.C.
2011 MLD 223,
Instead of filing constitution petition, petitioner could file private complaint.
2010PLJ Lah 699, 309,
Without going into veracity of information, without going into investigation. REF PLD 2007SC 539
2010 PLJ Pesh 52
(Cognizable Offence, case to be registered)
PLJ 2010 L 465,
Justice of peace can direct police to do the needful in accordance with law but not the procedure or give the direction to do a certain act.

***S. 340(2) Cr.PC.
1991 PCrLJ Note 65 page 46, Question not put in interrogative form, prejudicial.

***S. 342 Cr.PC;
1999 MLD 2168,
Mandatory
2000 MLD 370
Incriminating material not put to accused.
2011 MLD 239
Failure to put any piece of evidence, HELD recovery could not be used as evidence.
NLR 2006 Cr, 236 (Lah),
Failure by accused to take before trial court to point out non putting of incriminating material, would show no prejudice caused.

***((((S.540 Cr.P.C;
PLJ 2011 FSC 114,
Technicalities should not stand in way of judge/justice.

20/09/2024

BAIL IN 353/324/34 PPC
2017 YLR 1320 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : DOST MUHAMMAD alias DOSOO
Side Opponent : State
SHARE BY Mumtaz Ali Mehdi AHC.
S.497---Penal Code (XLV of 186 0), Ss. 324, 353 & 34---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault, criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, common intention---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Accused was alleged to have made straight firing on police party while he was stopped for snap checking---Police also retaliated in defence---Accused sustained fire shot injury---NONE from the POLICE had SUSTAINED even a SCRATCH on their BODY or BELONGING---Weapon of offence was recovered which was NOT SENT to BALLISTIC EXPERT---Whether the recovered weapon was functional and was used at the time of occurrence was yet to be determined---Matter was found to be of ineffective firing, which fell in the ambit of further inquiry---BAIL was GRANTED in circumstances.

20/09/2024

Citation Name : 2010 YLR 673 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD FAYAZ
Side Opponent : State
S.497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324 /353 /186/34---Attempt to commit Qatl-i-amd and assault or criminal force to deter public servant front discharging of his duty---bail , grant of---Further inquiry---Accused was apprehended by the Police at the spot along with T. T. pistol and magazine containing two bullets---No person from Police party sustained any injury in the encounter---Was yet to be seen whether accused had received injury at the hands of Police; and whether the incident of encounter between the Police party and accused party took place in the manner as claimed by the Police---No objection was raised by Additional Prose­cutor-General to grant of bail to accused---Accused had made out a case for grant of bail as envisaged under subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Accused was admitted to bail , in circumstances.

20/09/2024

*Bail citation for 324,353 PPC ineffective*

*2018 M L D 1559 Sindh*
Before Naimatullah Phulpoto and Shamsuddin Abbasi, JJ

----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.353, 324, 186 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7---Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), S.23(1)(a)---Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, obstructing public servant to discharge public function, act of terrorism---Possessing unlicensed arms---Bail, grant of---Case of prosecution was that encounter had taken place in-between Police and accused; both were armed with deadly and sophisticated weapons, but none from both the sides had received any injury---Accused were armed with pistols and had fired from their weapons to kill the Police personnel---Police, however, arrested them without resistence---Application of S.324, P.P.C., was yet to be determined at the trial---Police had recovered empties of .30 bore pistols from the place of incident, but did not send the same to Forensic Laboratory along with recovered pistols for matching---All the prosecution witnesses being Police Officials, question of tampering with the prosecution evidence did not arise---Case had been challaned and accused was no more required for further investigation---Court in matter of bail, could not go beyond the facts of the case and had to restrict itself to the material placed by the prosecution---Tentative assessment was to be made by the Court and no deeper appreciation was allowed---Accused was in custody since last four months---Prima facie, case for bail having been made out in favour of accused, concession of bail was extended to accused, in circumstances.

2018 M L D 1559
[Sindh]

20/09/2024

BAIL U/S 353/324/34PPC R/W 7 ATA

S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 353, 324 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 199 7), Ss. 6 & 7---Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), S. 23A---Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duties, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd and common intention, possessing of arm and act of terrorism---Bail after arrest, grant of---Contention of complainant was that accused was arrested on the spot with an unlicensed pistol and was nominated with specific role of making firing upon police, as such he was not entitled to be released on bail---Accused plea was that no independent person was cited as mashir or witness and he was a poor fisherman and that police used to demand fish from him without paying money and on his refusal he had been falsely implicated---Validity---Bail of accused could not be withheld as punishment being offence falling under prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.---High Court observed that accused was arrested after firing on police but it was very astonishing that exchange of firing between accused and police lasted for considerable time in which only accused had sustained injuries and neither police nor their official vehicle was hit and even a single scratch was not caused to motorcycle allegedly recovered from the accused---Ballistic examination report of pistol recovered from accused and empty shells of same, were shown to have been collected from place of incident were also not available in police file and such facts created the prosecution case apparently doubtful---Case registered under S. 23A(i) of Sindh Arms Act, 2013 against the accused was an off shoot of main case---Very presence of accused with alleged weapon was a matter of further inquiry---Accused was granted post-arrest bail, accordingly.

2016 PCrLJ N54
KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

20/09/2024

S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324 & 353. ---Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of duty---BAIL GRANT of---Exchange of firing had taken place between the police party and the accused party, and empties of crime weapons had been recovered, but neither any member of the police party had received any injury, nor was there any scratch on the police vehicle; whereas, accused had sustained firearm injury on his leg; as such, it was a case of ineffective firing on part of the accused, which made present case a matter of further inquiry---All prosecution witnesses were police officials and no independent person had been cited as witness---Challan had already been submitted---BAIL was ALLOWED accordingly.

2017 MLD 46 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH.

20/09/2024

2024 YLR 1199
گواہان کا بیان قلمبند کرتے وقت دستاویزی شہادت کب جمع کروائی جائے، مارک دستاویزات۔

Address

Chamber No. S. 47 Rafi Mall Near Nadra Office Malir At
Karachi

Opening Hours

Monday 09:00 - 17:00
Tuesday 09:00 - 17:00
Wednesday 09:00 - 17:00
Thursday 09:00 - 17:00
Friday 09:00 - 17:00
Saturday 09:00 - 17:00

Telephone

+923460398538

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Adv Syed MaqsoodAli shah 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 Adv Syed MaqsoodAli shah:

Shortcuts

Share

Category