M Rafique Law Associates

26/08/2025

25/07/2025

2025 MLD 1165
PLJ 2025 Cr.C 44

Qasim Arain Adv C/f MPBC Lahore seat

1. Delay of nine hours in conducting post mortem examination on the dead body of deceased raises a question-mark over promptness in lodging FIR and it usually occurs when the police remain busy in preliminary inquiry for the purpose of arranging eye witness account by calling close relatives of deceased and fabricating a false narration of the occurrence.

2. Delay of five months and six days in filing private complainant without giving any plausible reasoning indicates that the private complaint has been filed with due deliberation and consultation just to fill up the lacunas left in FIR.

3. Having stamp of injuries on the body, does not necessarily mean that whatever a witness is saying shall be treated as a gospel truth rather evidence of an injured prosecution witness should be considered in the light of settled rule of prudence.

4. Conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence casts serious doubt upon the veracity of eye witnesses.

5. It is true that site plan is not a substantive piece of evidence but the same gives the glimpse of occurrence by indicating the salient features of mode and manner of occurrence. It is not a waste-paper rather it can be used to contradict the eye witnesses and to disbelieve their evidence.

6. Photocopy of any document, if not proved through secondary evidence, cannot be read in evidence. Likewise, any document which is available on judicial file but not exhibited in evidence can be looked into by the Court of law for the safe administration of justice, but the same cannot be referred in judgment.

7. The proposition that "any portion of examination-in-chief, not subjected to cross-examination, shall be deemed to be admitted" is applicable to the cases on civil side and not to the criminal case, which is to be decided on the basis of totality of impressions gathered from the circumstances of the case and not on the narrow ground of cross-examination.

8. General principle in criminal jurisprudence is that the prosecution has to stand on its own legs and this burden does not shift from prosecution even if accused takes up any particular plea and fails to prove it.

9. The witnesses are untrustworthy if they make dishonest improvements in their statements on material aspects of the case in order to fill up the lacunas and gaps in the prosecution case or to bring their statements in line with the other prosecution evidence.

10. It is the responsibility of investigating officer to deposit the crime empties collected from the crime scene to the offence of Punjab Forensic Science Agency within reasonable time and any delay may result into an adverse impression against the prosecution case, rendering the recovery of weapon of offence and positive PFSA report inconsequential. Likewise, it is also the responsibility of prosecution to prove safe custody and subsequent transmission of weapon of offence to the office of PFSA, failing which the same shall become doubtful.

11. If the prosecution asserts a motive but fails to prove the same, then such failure on the part of prosecution may react adversely against its case.

12. In the event of a doubt arising in the prosecution case, its benefit must be given to the accused not as a matter of grace, but as of right.
Crl. Appeal 83167/23
Muhammad Nawaz Vs The State etc

25/07/2023

1. باپ کو اپنی اولاد سے ملاقات کے لیے کم وقت دینا انصاف کے منافی ہے۔
2018 MLD 574

2. ماں چاہے دوسری شادی ہی کیوں نہ کر لے اسے نابالغ بچے کی حضانت سے محروم نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔
2018 MLD 862

3. کسی شخص کا جعلی فیس بک اکاؤنٹ بنانا سنگین جرم ہے۔ ضمانت کی درخواست خارج۔
2018 YLR 329

4. باپ کو بچے کی حضانت کا زیادہ حق حاصل ہے۔
2018 SCMR 590
2018 YLR 649

5. Res Judicata کا کسی دعویٰ میں interlocutory application پر اطلاق نہیں ہوتا۔
PLD 2018 SC 322

6. میڈیکل رپورٹ کسی ملزم کو وقوعہ سے نہیں جوڑتی بلکہ میڈیکل رپورٹ سے صرف زخم کی نوعیت اور استعمال کیے گئے اسلحے کے بارے میں پتہ چلتا ہے۔
2018 PCRLJ 147 Note 120

7. سپریم کورٹ نے اپنے ایک حالیہ فیصلہ میں قرار دیا ہے کہ گارڈین درخواست کے زیر سماعت ہونے کے باوجود بھی ہائیکورٹ میں 491 ضابطہ فوجداری کے تحت نابالغ کی کسٹڈی کسی حقدار شخص کو دی جا سکتی ہے۔
2018 SCMR 427

8. اگر دعویٰ کی ترمیم میں ڈرافٹنگ میں مشکل ہو تو دعویٰ واپس لے کر دوبارہ دائر کیا جا سکتا ہے۔
2018 CLC 82

9. اگر دو ملزمان کو ایک ہی الزام کے تحت سزا ہوئی ہے اور ایک ملزم اپیل میں بری ہو جاتا ہے تو دوسرا بھی بریت کا حقدار ہے چاہے اس نے اپیل دائر نہ بھی کی ہو۔
2018 SCMR 344

10. جسٹس آف پیس کے پاس اختیار ہے کہ جب اس کے پاس اندراج مقدمہ کی پٹیشن دائر کی جائے اور بادی النظر میں قابل دست اندازی پولیس جرم بنتا ہو تو بغیر پولیس کمنٹس منگوائے ہی اندراج مقدمہ کا حکم دے سکتا ہے۔
PLD 2018 Bal 17

11. قانون سے واقف ہونا جج کی زمہ داری ہے وکیل کی زمہ داری نہیں کہ جج کو ہر قانون کی بات بتائے۔
PLD 2018 SC 28

12. فیملی عدالت متعلقہ ایس ایچ او کو کسی بھی فریق کے درست پتہ کے تعین کے لیے حکم دے سکتی ہے۔
2018 CLC Note 51

13. ماں کی وفات کے بعد بچوں کی کسٹڈی کا حق نانی کی بجائے باپ کا حق ہے۔
2018 SCMR 590

14. سیکیورٹی کی رقم کا یہ مطلب نہیں ہے کہ کرایہ دار مالک مکان کو وقت پہ کرایہ ہی نہ دے۔
2018 CLC 261

15. رہائشی علاقے میں سکول کی تعمیر کے خلاف دعویٰ حکم امتناعی دوامی ڈگری کیا گیا۔
2018 SCMR 76

16. شوہر سابقہ تیس سال کا خرچہ نان نفقہ دینے کا پابند قرار۔
2018 YLR 128

17. انسداد دہشتگردی کے قانون کا ذاتی دشمنی پہ کیے جانے والے قتل پر اطلاق نہ ہوتا ہے۔
PLD 2018 SC 178

18. فوجداری اور دیوانی کاروائی بیک وقت چل سکتی ہے۔
2018 SCMR 839
2018 MLD 1773

19. کسی بھی قسم کے اسلحہ کی برآمدگی کی کوئی قانونی حیثیت نہیں جب تک کہ اس کی پازیٹیو فرانزک رپورٹ نہ ہو۔
2018 SCMR 772

07/03/2023

ایک دفعہ راضی نامہ / مصالحت ہمیشہ مصالحت تصور ہوتی ہے
Compromise 2017YLR1461

06/03/2022

Malik Muhammad Rafique Khan, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan.

24/02/2022

پنجاب بھر کی فیملی کورٹس کی ججمنٹ کی ex*****onکے سلسلے میں لاہور ہائیکورٹ میں جو ٹرانسفر ایپلیکیشن کا سلسلہ شروع ہوا تھا اسکا سیاپا تو ختم ھوا۔
IN THE ORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Transfer Application No. 71691of 2021
Sawera Ikram Versus Amir Naveed
S. No. of order/ Proceeding Date of order/ Proceeding Order with signature of Judge, and that of parties or counsel, where necessary
18.11.2021 Mr. Moazzam Saleem, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Muhammad Mahmood Chaudhry, Advocate as
amicus curiae
This order will dispose of the captioned transfer application as well as following transfer applications seeking transfer of ex*****on petitions:-
1. T.A.No.68040 of 2021 titled Mst. Saba Nasir v. Muhammad Uzman
2. T.A.No.68728 of 2021 titled Muafia v. Zahid Mehmood, etc.
3. T.A.No. 68832 of 2021 titled Sumera Ameen, etc. v. Faryad Ali
4. T.A.No.69289 of 2021 titled Iram Farhan etc. v. Raja Farhan Mehmood
5. T.A.No.68970 of 2021 titled Mst. Rehana Kausar v. Mudasir Hussain
6. T.A.No.68740 of 2021 titled Iram Shehzadi v. Shabbih Haider
7. T.A.No.67912 of 2021 titled Syeda Umm-eLaila, etc. v. Syed Qamar Abbas Shah, etc.
8. T.A.No.55220 of 2021 titled Sitara Iqbal, etc. v. M. Rashid
9. T.A.No.70294 of 2021 titled Khalida Parveen
v. Adnan Bilal Sial
10. T.A.No.67734 of 2021 title Mst. Maryum Yousaf v. Qaiser Mehmood
11. T.A.No.59167 of 2021 titled Mst. Fozia Amjad
v. Amjad Farooq
12. T.A.No.69553 of 2021 titled Mst. Nadaas Bibi, etc. v. Ghulam Rasool
13. T.A.No.56094 of 2021 titled Nusrat Bibi v. Yasir Mehmood
14. T.A.No.69898 of 2021 titled Mst. Tayyaba Nafees, etc. v. Tayyab Ali
15. T.A.No.67606 of 2021 titled Pro. Dr. Umbreen Javed v. Noshad Mahmood
16. T.A.No.65187 of 2021 titled Ayesha Bibi, etc.
v. Ajmal Shahzad, etc.
17. T.A.No.61499 of 2021 titled Azra Parveen v.
M. Shafique
18. T.A.No.59746 of 2021 titled Naveera Irshad v. M. Abdullah
19. T.A.No.59362 of 2021 titled Mst. Noor Jahan
v. Saif Ullah
20. T.A.No.57711 of

20/10/2021

2021 P L C 224

Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---

----Arts.130 & 133---Witness, production of---Presence of person producing witness---Procedure---One who wishes to be present while recording of evidence of his witness is either to record his statement and be cross-examined first or be excluded from proceedings while evidence of other witnesses is being recorded.

The recording of statements of the witnesses of a party prior to recording of its own evidence is not justifiable under the procedure followed by the Courts. This rule has its genesis in common law and is of fundamental importance in administration of justice as pointed out in Sir John Woodroffe and Syed Amir Ali's treatise "Law of Evidence" that to allow a party to remain present during the examination of its witnesses when such party later wishes to be examined, would result in filling up any blanks or lacunae left out in the evidence already given as the party would be privy to the statements and cross-examination made on those witnesses. No justifiable reason has been assigned by the Petitioner as to why his witnesses' evidence should have been recorded before recording of his own evidence. So, the stance of the Petitioner, that he was deprived of his right of a fair inquiry, has no force as he himself boycotted the inquiry proceedings instead of producing the evidence. Said failure of the Petitioner also validates the presumption that he had no evidence to substantiate his version.