https://www.facebook.com/116978417672859/

Aamir , Adeel & Rabbani Law Associates, kachary Road near city police station Mansehra kpk, Mansehra (2026)

Q: What is the address?

Kachary Road Near City Police Station Mansehra Kpk

28/09/2023

شاملات دیہہ کے بارےمیں مکمل معلومات
1849 میں ایسٹ انڈیا پانی کی طرف سے صوبہ پنجاب کی
تشکیل کے بعد غیر آباد زمین کے لئے یہ اصول طے کیا گیا
کہ جو اس زمین پر جا کر کنواں کھودے گا وہ اس زمین کا
مالک تصور ہو گا تاہم اس مقصد کے لئے موضع جات تشکیل
دیے گئے اور کھیوٹیں بنائی گئیں اور کھیوٹ دار کو مالک دہیہ
کہا جاتا تھا

پھر یہ نظام مزید تشکیل ہوتا گیا اور 1901
تک برصغیر کے دیگر علاقوں بشمول موجودہ
خیبر پختونخواہ تک کبھی یہ نظام تشکیل ہوچکا

اعلی مالک اور ادنی مالک
اعلی مالک وہ ہوتا ہے جو جائیداد کا اصل مالک
ہو گا اور جس کے پاس جائیداد شروع سے وراثت
چل رہی ہے جبکہ ادنی مالک وہ ہو گا جس نے
اعلی مالک سے جائیداد خریدی ہو گی ۔

آبادی دیہہ
پھر ان علاقوں میں رہائش ، مندر، مسجد وغیرہ کے
لئے بھی لال لکیریں کھینچی گئیں جنکو آبادی دیہی
کا نام دیا گیا جنکے مالک صرف اعلی مالک تھے ادنی
مالک کو آبادی دہی پر ملکیتی حقوق نہ تھے

پھر وقت کے ساتھ ساتھ چیزیں بڑھتی ہیں جس میں
چراگاہ، جناز گاه، قبرستان، سکول، ہسپتال وغیرہ کے لئے
جگہ بنائی گئیں جن کو شاملات دہی کا نام دیا گیا جو کہ
تناسب کے حساب سے سب مالکان کی زمینوں پر بناے
کئے تھے ان جگہوں کو مالک پچ نہیں سکتے تھے صرف
ان چیزوں سے مستفید ہوسکتے تھے

شالات دیہی کون کلیم کر سکتا ہے
یہ جائیداد اعلی مالک کبھی بھی کلیم کر سکتا ہے مگر ادنی مالک
شاملات دیہہ والی زمین کو کلیم نہیں کر سکتا چاہے اعلی مالک نے
ادنی مالک کو قبضہ ہی کیوں نہ دیا ہو کیونکہ جب لال لکیریں بنی
تھیں تو اس وقت محکمہ مال کے ریکارڈ میں اعلی مالک نام شاملات
وہیں پر تحریر کیا گیا تھا

اسی لئے اب کہا جاتا ہے کہ شاملات دیہہ کا
مالک کوئی نہیں حالانکہ اس کے مالک ابھی تک
بھی مشترکہ طور پر اعلی مالک ہیں اور وہ کبھی
بھی کلیم کر سکتے ہیں

07/03/2023

(ایف آئی آر سے فیصلہ مقدمہ تک)

ایف آئی آر 𝐅𝐈𝐑:
جب بھی کوئی جرم ہوتا ہے تو سب سے پہلے پولیس کو اطلاع دی جاتی ہے اگر وہ جرم قابلِ دست اندازی ہو تو پولیس ضابطہ فوجداری کی دفعہ 𝟏𝟓𝟒 کے تحت 𝐅𝐈𝐑 درج کرتی ہے(قابل دست اندازی جرم وہ ہوتے ہیں ہیں جن میں پولیس کسی بھی ملزم کو بغیر وارنٹ کے گرفتار کر سکتی ہے) ایف آئی آر کا مقصد فوجداری قانون کو حرکت میں لانا ہوتا ہے اگر پولیس ایف آئی آر درج نہ کرے تو پولیس کے اس عمل کے خلاف آپ 𝐃𝐒𝐏 یا 𝐒𝐏 کو درخواست دے سکتے ہیں۔ اگر پھر بھی ایف آئی آر درج نہیں کی جاتی تو جسٹس آف پیس (𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞) کے پاس پٹیشن (𝐩𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧) دائر کی جاتی ہے۔ یہ پٹیشن ضابطہ فوجداری کی دفعہ 𝟐𝟐𝐀 اور 𝟐𝟐𝐁 کے تحت دائر کی جاتی ہے۔ جسٹس آف پیس کے اختیارات سیشن ججز کے پاس ہی ہوتے ہیں۔ مطلب کہ یہ درخواست سیشن جج (𝐬𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐣𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐞) کے پاس درج کی جائے گی اور وہ پولیس کو 𝐝𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭 کرے گا کہ اس وقوعہ کی ایف آئی آر درج کرے۔ اس کے علاوہ آپ کے پاس استغاثہ (𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭) کا راستہ ہر وقت موجود رہتا ہے۔ کسی بھی جرم (چاہے وہ قابل دست اندازی پولیس ہو یا نہ ہو) کے متعلق علاقہ مجسٹریٹ کو درخواست دی جا سکتی ہے۔

ضمانت قبل از گرفتاری:
ایف آئی آر درج ہو جانے کے بعد اگر شخص سمجھتا ہے کہ اسے جان بوجھ کر ایف آئی آر میں نامزد کیا گیا ہے اور وہ بے گناہ ہے تو وہ ضابطہ فوجداری کی دفعہ 𝟒𝟗𝟖 کے تحت سیشن کورٹ میں ضمانت قبل از گرفتاری کے لیے درخواست دائر کر سکتا اور گرفتار ہونے سے بچ سکتا ہے۔

تفتیش:
ایف آئی آر درج ہو جانے کے بعد پولیس دفعہ 𝟏𝟓𝟔 کے تحت اس کے متعلق تفتیش شروع کرتی ہے۔ جائے وقوعہ پر جا کر کر ثبوت اکٹھے کرتی ہے۔ دفعہ 𝟏𝟔𝟏 کے تحت گواہوں کے بیان ریکارڈ کیے جاتے ہیں۔

ملزمان کی گرفتاری:
پولیس کے پاس اختیار ہے کہ وہ دوران تفتیش قابلِ ضمانت یا ناقابلِ ضمانت کیس میں ملزمان کو گرفتار کرے۔ اس کے علاوہ دفعہ 𝟏𝟔𝟗 کے تحت پولیس کے پاس اختیار ہے کہ وہ کسی بھی ملزم کو بے گناہ پا کر چھوڑ بھی سکتی ہے۔
مجسٹریٹ کے سامنے پیشی:
تفتیش کے دوران پولیس 𝟐𝟒 گھنٹوں کے اندر اندر گرفتار شدہ ملزمان کو علاقہ مجسٹریٹ کے روبرو پیش کرنے کی پابند ہے۔
جب پولیس گرفتار ملزمان کو مجسٹریٹ کے سامنے پیش کرتی ہے تو اس وقت تک کی گئی تفتیش بھی مجسٹریٹ کے سامنے پیش کرنی ہوتی ہے اور اگر 𝟐𝟒 گھنٹوں میں تفتیش مکمل نہ کی گئی ہو تو ملزم کے جسمانی یا جوڈیشل ریمانڈ کی درخواست دی جاتی ہے اور دوسری جانب مجسٹریٹ کے سامنے پیشی پر ملزم ضمانت بعد از گرفتاری کے لیے درخواست دیتا ہے۔

ریمانڈ:
ریمانڈ دو طرح کا ہوتا ہے۔ جب پولیس نے ملزم سے کوئی برآمدگی کرنی ہو تو وہ دفعہ 𝟏𝟔𝟕 کے تحت جسمانی ریمانڈ کی درخواست کرتی ہے کہ ملزم کو واپس پولیس کے حوالے کیا جائے۔ اگر پولیس کو ملزم کی حراست کی ضرورت نہ ہو تو وہ دفعہ دفعہ 𝟑𝟒𝟒 کے تحت ریمانڈ جوڈیشل کی درخواست کرتی ہے۔
ضابطہ فوجداری کی دفعہ 𝟏𝟔𝟕 کے تحت جسمانی ریمانڈ کی زیادہ سے زیادہ میعاد 𝟏𝟓 دن ہے لیکن مجسٹریٹ کبھی بھی 𝟏𝟓 دن کا ریمانڈ ایک ساتھ نہیں دیتا بلکہ دو دو یا چار چار دن کا ریمانڈ جسمانی دیا جاتا ہے۔ مثال کے طور پر اب اگر دو دن کا ریمانڈ دیا گیا ہو تو پولیس اس شخص کو دو دن کے بعد دوبارہ مجسٹریٹ کے سامنے پیش کرے گی۔ اس دوران جو بھی تفتیش کی ہوتی ہے وہ مجسٹریٹ کے سامنے رکھے گی اور دوبارہ سے ریمانڈ کے لیے درخواست دے گی۔ اس طرح وقفے وقفے سے مجسٹریٹ ٹوٹل 𝟏𝟓 دن کا جسمانی ریمانڈ پر ملزم کو پولیس کے حوالے کر سکتا ہے لیکن اگر ریمانڈ کی درخواست دیتے وقت مجسٹریٹ کو لگے کہ کہ پولیس نے کوئی خاص تفتیش نہیں کی تو مجسٹریٹ جسمانی ریمانڈ نہیں دیتا بلکہ ملزم کو جوڈیشل ریمانڈ پر جیل بھیج دیتا ہے۔

ضمانت بعد از گرفتاری:
اب ہم دیکھتے ہیں کہ کہ ایف آئی آر درج ہوگئی ملزم گرفتار ہوا اور ہم نے چوبیس گھنٹے کے اندر اندر اس کو مجسٹریٹ کے سامنے پیش کیا۔ ملزم اب بعد از گرفتاری ضمانت کیلئے درخواست دائر کرسکتا ہے اور اگر عائد کردہ جرم قابل ضمانت ہو تو ضمانت ملزم کا حق ہے۔ ناقابلِ ضمانت جرم میں اگر ملزم بے گناہ ہو اور اس کے خلاف کوئی ٹھوس ثبوت موجود نہ ہو اور مزید تفتیش کی ضرورت ہو تو بھی ملزم کو ضمانت مل سکتی ہے۔

چالان (𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭):
اب اگلا مرحلہ چالان جمع کروانے کا ہوتا ہے۔ ضابطہ فوجداری کی دفعہ 𝟏𝟕𝟑 ایف آئی آر درج ہونے کے بعد 𝟏𝟒 دن کے اندر اندر مجسٹریٹ کے پاس چالان جمع کروانا ہوتا ہے اگر 𝟏𝟒 دنوں میں پولیس نے چالان جمع نہیں کرایا تو تین دن کے اندر عبوری چالان جمع کرائے گی۔ مطلب کہ پولیس کے پاس چالان جمع کرانے کے لیے 𝟏𝟒+𝟑 دن کا وقت ہوتا ہے اس دورانیہ میں پولیس نے ہر حال میں مکمل یا نامکمل چالان جمع کرانا ہوتا ہے ( نامکمل چالان اس صورت میں جمع ہوتا ہے جب 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐜 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 تیار نہیں ہوتی اور اس کے آنے میں ابھی وقت ہوتا ہے) تاکہ جتنے بھی ثبوت اکٹھے ہوئے ہیں جتنی بھی تفتیش ہوئی ہے اس کی بنیاد پر عدالت ٹرائل چلا سکے لیکن عدالت کا اختیار ہے کہ وہ مکمل چالان کے بعد بھی ٹرائل شروع کر سکتی ہے۔

چالان کے کالم:
چالان کے 𝟕 کالمز ہوتے ہیں۔ پولیس نے ابھی تک جتنی بھی کارروائی کی ہوتی ہے اس چالان فارم پر لکھتی ہے۔
پہلے کالم میں نام و پتہ مستغیث درج ہوتا ہے
دوسرا کالم اشتہاری ملزمان کا ہوتا ہے
تیسرے کالم میں زیر حراست ملزمان کے کوائف درج ہوتے ہیں چوتھا کالم ان ملزمان کے متعلق ہوتا ہے جو ضمانت پر رہا ہوتے ہیں
پانچویں کالم میں مال مقدمہ کی تفصیل درج ہوتی ہے مثلاً ملزمان سے کوئی ہتھیار یا چرس برآمد ہوئی ہو تو اس کا ذکر ہوتا ہے
چھٹے کالم میں استغاثہ کے گواہان کی تفصیل درج ہوتی ہے۔ ساتویں کالم میں پوری تفتیش کا خلاصہ لکھا ہوتا ہے۔
چالان کے ساتھ مختلف ڈاکومنٹ بھی لف ہوتے ہیں جن میں ایف آئی آر کی کاپی، میڈیکل رپورٹ، فرد مقبوضگی اور نقشہ موقع شامل ہوتا ہے۔ اس کے علاوہ مستغیث اور گواہان کے بیانات جو کہ پولیس نے 𝟏𝟔𝟏 کے تحت ریکارڈ کیے ہوں شامل ہوتے ہیں۔

مجسٹریٹ کے پاس چالان جمع ہونے پر اگر مجسٹریٹ کو لگے کہ وہ ضابطہ فوجداری کی دفعہ 𝟏𝟗𝟎 کے مطابق اس کیس کے ٹرائل کا اختیار رکھتا ہے تو ٹرائل شروع کرتا ہے اور اگر اسے لگے اس کیس میں ٹرائل شروع کرنے کا اختیار سیشن کورٹ کے پاس ہے تو وہ اس کیس کو سیشن جج کے پاس بھیج دیتا ہے۔ ضابطہ فوجداری میں دونوں عدالتوں کے ٹرائل کی الگ الگ وضاحت کی گئی ہے۔ لیکن یہاں ہم ٹرائل کو عام نقظہ نظر سے دیکھیں گے۔

ملزم کو دستاویزات کی فراہمی:
اگر تو ملزمان ضمانت پر رہا ہیں تو پولیس کے ذریعے انہیں بلایا جائے گا اگر تو وہ جیل میں ہیں تو بذریعہ جیل سپرانٹنڈنٹ انہیں بلایا جائے گا۔ جب ملزمان حاضر ہو جاتے ہیں تو چالان، گواہوں کے بیان اور جو بھی متعلقہ ڈاکومنٹ چالان کے ساتھ لف ہوتا ہے ان سب کی کاپیاں بغیر معاوضہ کے انھیں فراہم کی جاتی ہیں۔ یہ ڈاکومنٹس فرد جرم عائد ہونے سے کم از کم 𝟕 دن پہلے دینا لازم ہے تاکہ ملزم کو پتہ چل سکے کہ اس کے خلاف کیا کیس ہے اور کیا کیا ثبوت اکٹھے ہو چکے ہیں۔

ٹرائل کا آغاز:
اب ٹرائل کا مرحلہ آتا ہے۔ ٹرائل کا آغاز ملزم پر فرد جرم عائد کرنے سے ہوتا ہے۔ عدالت ملزم کو بتاتی ہے تمہارے اوپر یہ الزام ہے۔ اس سے پوچھا جاتا ہے کہ آیا وہ اقبال جرم کرتا ہے یا جوابدہی کرے گا۔ ٹرائل کے دوران اگر تو ملزم اقبال جرم کر لے تو عدالت کے پاس اختیار ہے کہ وہ اس کو سزا سنا دے۔ لیکن اگر عدالت کو لگے کہ وہ جھوٹا اعترافی بیان دے رہا ہے تو عدالت اس کے بیان کو رد بھی کر سکتی ہے۔
اگر ملزم اعترافی بیان نہیں دیتا تو پھر باقاعدہ ٹرائل کا آغاز ہوتا ہے اس کے بعد پرازیکیوشن(𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧) کے گواہوں کے بیان ریکارڈ ہوتے ہیں اور ملزم کا وکیل ان پر جرح کرتا ہے۔ پرازیکیوشن کے پاس دو طرح کے گواہ ہوتے ہیں ایک تو پرائیویٹ گواہ ہوتے ہیں جو کہ مستغیث کے گواہ ہوتے ہیں مثلاً کہ چشم دید گواہ وغیرہ۔ دوسرے پولیس کے گواہ ہوتے ہیں جیسا کہ ایف آئی آر درج کرنے والا پولیس افسر۔
جب پرازیکیوشن کے گواہان کے بیانات ریکارڈ ہو جاتے ہیں اس کے بعد ملزم کا 𝟑𝟒𝟐 کا بیان ریکارڈ کیا جاتا ہے۔ جو کہ ہر حال میں لازم ہے۔ ملزم سے مختلف سوال پوچھے جاتے ہیں مثلاً اس سے پوچھا جاتا ہے کہ آپ کے خلاف یہ کیس کیوں بنایا گیا ہے یہ گواہ آپ کے خلاف گواہی کیوں دے رہے ہیں۔ ملزم ان سوالوں کا عموماً یہ ہی جواب دیتا ہے کہ میرے خلاف جھوٹا مقدمہ بنایا گیا اور میں بے گناہ ہوں۔ اس کے علاوہ ملزم سے پوچھا جاتا ہے کہ کیا وہ اپنی صفائی میں کوئی ڈاکومنٹ یا کوئی گواہ پیش کرنا چاہتا ہے۔ان سوالوں میں ایک سوال یہ بھی شامل ہوتا ہے کہ کیا وہ اپنے حق میں گواہی دینا چاہتا ہے اگر وہ کہے کہ میں اپنا گواہ بنتا ہوں تو 𝟑𝟒𝟎 کے تحت وہ حلف اٹھا کر اپنے ہی گواہ کے طور پر پیش ہوتا ہے اور بیان دیتا ہے اور پرازیکیوشن اس پر جرح کرتی ہے۔ لیکن عام طور پر ملزمان 𝟑𝟒𝟎 کے تحت اپنا ہی گواہ نہیں بنتے اور نہ ہی اپنے حق میں کوئی گواہ پیش کرتے ہیں کیونکہ اگر وہ اپنا ہی گواہ خود بنے یا اپنے حق میں کوئی اور گواہ پیش کرے تو مخالف وکیل کو اس پر اور اس کے گواہ پر جرح کا حق ہوگا اور اس جرح میں ملزم پھنس سکتا ہے۔

بحث:
اب اگلا مرحلہ آرگومنٹ کا آتا ہے دونوں اطراف سے دونوں پارٹیز کے وکیل بحث کرتے ہیں۔

فیصلہ:
عدالت کیس کے متعلق فیصلہ سناتی ہے۔ فیصلہ کے لیے ضروری ہے کہ جج پہلے اسے لکھے اور پھر اس فیصلے کو عدالت میں سنائے۔ فیصلہ میں مجرم کو بری کر دیا جاتا ہے یا سزا سنائی جاتی ہے۔ اگر تو فیصلہ اس کی سزا کا ہے تو ملزم کو اپیل دائر کرنے کے لیے اس فیصلہ کی ایک نقل بلا اجرت دی جاتی ہے۔

Lawyer’s Clan

11/01/2023

2021 SCMR 7

Generally, in respect of sale of immovable property, time is not considered as of the essence of the Contract. However, parties may consciously strike a deal to make time essence of the contract by providing certain consequences for breach of reciprocal obligation casted upon them, in such cases, time is treated as essence of the contract.
*اگر آپکی کسی جائیداد پر کوئی اور قابض ہے یا آپ نے کوئی جائیداد خریدی ہو اسکا قبضہ نہ مل رہا ہو تو مندرجہ ذیل طریقہ سے آپ قبضہ حاصل کرسکتے ہیں۔*
*Specific Relief Act ,1877*
مذکورہ بالا ایکٹ کے تحت آپ عدالت سے رجوع کرکے اپنی جائیداد کا قبضہ حاصل کرسکتے ہیں اور دعوی میں مذکورہ بالا قانون کی دفعہ 42 کا حوالا بھی دیں عدالت فریقین کو طلب کرے گی ضرورت پڑنے پر لوکل کمیشن بھی مقرر کرسکتی ہے۔
اس ایکٹ کے تحت دو طریقے ہیں۔ ایک section 8اور دوسرا section 9 کے تحت۔
قبضہ واپسی کے دعوی کرنے کی معیاد 6 سے 12 سال ہوتی ہے
جبکہ کورٹ فیس مالیت کے مطابق ادا کرنے ہوتی ہے اور زیادہ سے زیادہ کورٹ فیس بمطابق شیڈول پندرہ ہزار روپے ہوتی ہے
مزید راہنمائی کے لیے مندرجہ ذیل عدالتی نظائر ملاحظہ کریں۔
*2018 CCLN 40*
*2018 CCLN 19*
*2018 CLC 866*
*2017 SCMR 1851*
[02/02, 11:48 am] In terms of Section 51 of the Contract Act (IX of 1872); where a contract is dependent on discharge or performance of reciprocal promise or obligations to be performed or discharged. The Promisor need not perform his part of promise or obligation, unless the promisee, (here in this case the vendee) “is ready and willing to perform his reciprocal promise.” In cases arising out of sale of immovable property, a vendee seeking specific performance has to demonstrate his readiness and willingness to perform his part of reciprocal obligation as to payment of balance sale consideration.
2021 SCMR 7
[02/02, 11:48 am] +: 2021 SCMR 56
In the wake of supply/provision of natural gas as a new source of energy to the domestic and commercial consumers, the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 was amended through Criminal Law (Amendment Act) 2011 (Act XX of 2011) so as to incorporate a penal regime to cope with cases of theft, pilferage, interference and tampering, etc. with the distribution system and matters ancillary therewith, covering wide spectrum of products under the definition of petroleum. It provided a mechanism for prosecution of offences set out in the newly inserted chapter i.e. Chapter XVII A. Through Act No.XI of 2016, the parliament enacted The Gas (Theft, Control & Recovery) Act 2016 which came into force throughout Pakistan on 23rd of March, 2016. The new law comprehensively deals with the cases of theft, tampering with auxiliary or distribution gas pipelines and with meters thereof including causing wastage or damage thereto. It sets up a tribunal comprising a District& Sessions Judge to prosecute both offences as well as claims for recovery of loss to the public exchequer. A comparative analysis of changes brought about by the Act clearly illustrates that the new regime under exclusive jurisdiction solely deals with the cases of gas with no change in the generic character of the offences earlier enlisted under the Chapter XVII A of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 except that it provided a new mechanism for assumption of exclusive jurisdiction by the Gas Utility Court to try offences as a Court of Session under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898), however, it required a complaint, in writing by a person authorized in this behalf by a Gas Utility Company. The offences listed above remained cognizable as well as non-bailable with only immunity extended to a domestic consumer, otherwise liable to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Code ibid. It is in the backdrop of above statutory changes, the petitioners sought annulment of First Information Report on the grounds enumerated above.
[02/02, 11:49 am] +: There are no shortcuts in criminal prosecutions and it is certainly far less than expedient to pre-empt designated tribunals to exercise jurisdiction so as to try offences on the strength of evidence brought-forth by the prosecution, the only known method both to establish the charge as well as to vindicate a defence. Similarly, while an accused is certainly entitled to a fair trial under “Due Process of Law”, it is also sovereign attribute of State to carry out prosecutions through its agencies in accordance with law with a reasonable opportunity to drive home the charge against the offenders to maintain/enforce its writ and effectively uphold majesty of laws within the realm. It is far more important when at risk is a resource commonly owned by the people. Equality before law without equal protection thereof is a travesty.
2021 SCMR 56
[02/02, 11:49 am] +: It is an admitted fact that the allegation against the petitioners is that they resorted to indiscriminate firing without causing any injury to anyone; however, the deceased sustained only a single shot whereas none of the prosecution witnesses sustained even a scratch. It is no body’s case that the prosecution witnesses escaped from the firing of the petitioners due to some hurdle or safety measure. The occurrence has taken place in open and if there would have been any intent at the part of the petitioners, there was nothing which could restrain them from committing the occurrence on broader spectrum. During the course of investigation though recovery of four empties of pistol .30 bore and three empties of Kalashnikov were recovered from the spot but as no weapon was affected from the petitioners during the course of investigation, therefore, mere recovery of empties would be a question to be resolved by the trial court after recording of prosecution evidence.
2021 SCMR 63
[02/02, 11:49 am] +: There is a wide variety of offences both under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 as well as under various special laws that require prior sanction for prosecution for the purposes of assumption of cognizance by the trial Court, the requirement does not stand in impediment to the registration of First Information Report, arrest of an offender or commencement of investigation thereof as the clog of sanction transiently relates to the steps preparatory thereto by the authority designated under the Statute.
2021 SCMR 56
[02/02, 11:49 am] 2021 SCMR 63

Perusal of the provisions of 497 CrPC reveals the intent of the legislature disclosing pre-condition to establish the word “guilt” against whom accusation is levelled has to be established on the basis of reasonable ground, however, if there exists any possibility to have a second view of the material available on the record then the case advanced against whom allegation is levelled is entitled for the relief in the spirit of section 497(2) Cr.P.C. In the instant case, as no overt act is ascribed to the petitioners except the allegation of ineffective firing not supported by any recovery of weapon and as such the recovery of crime empties from the place of occurrence has no legal sanctity, therefore, the facts and circumstances narrated above brings the case of the petitioners of further inquiry falling within the ambit of section 497(2) Cr.P.C. entitling them for the concession of bail.
[02/02, 11:49 am] +: 2020 SCMR 73
The burden of proof to establish the gifts was on the beneficiaries of the gifts, not the donees.
[02/02, 11:49 am] +: Section 42(1) of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 (‘the Act’) requires the person in whose favour the land has been transferred/alienated to report the same to the revenue authorities, which in the present case would have been the donees of the gifts but they did not do so. And, subsections (6) and (7) of section 42 of the Act require that before passing an order sanctioning change in the register of mutations in respect of any right which has been acquired the person from whom it is acquired should be identified by ‘two respectable persons, preferably the Lambardar or members of Zila Council, Tehsil Council or Town Council or Union Council’ but the two said witnesses were not such persons. In the present case an extremely old man is stated to have gifted his property by excluding his five daughters. These unusual circumstances should have alerted the Revenue staff to be more cautious and before sanctioning the gift mutations they should have ensured the identity of the donor, should have obtained a copy of his identity card, should have obtained his signature and/or thumb impression, should on account of his advanced age and frail state of mind ensured that the donor knew that he was making the said gifts. In the circumstances it would also have been prudent to have issued notices to the donor’s daughters to bring it to their knowledge that their father was gifting away all his lands. The burden of proof to establish that the gifts lay on the petitioners, which they did not discharge. On the contrary there was sufficient material on record to suggest that the petitioners had acted dishonestly and gift mutations Nos. 449, 451 and 452 were illegally made in their favour.
2021 SCMR 73
[02/02, 11:49 am] +: It has become all too common to keep legal heirs deprived and to disobey judgments on the pretext that a higher forum has been approached even when the operation of the impugned order/judgment has not been suspended. Needless to state merely challenging an order/judgment does not suspend its operation. Probably the petitioners will now await the ex*****on of the decree against them and file untenable objections therein, and if their objections are dismissed to commence another round of litigation assailing such order. Judgments and decrees of courts of competent jurisdiction must be abided by.
2021 SCMR 73
[02/02, 11:49 am] 2021 SCMR 69
Visit by the witnesses on the fateful day, cannot be viewed as improbable or unnatural. A father visiting his distressed daughter to mediate an ongoing dispute cannot be characterized as a witness arriving at the scene per chance.
[02/02, 11:49 am] +: The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (the ‘Constitution’) safeguards property (including inherited property) under Article 24(1) of the Constitution and protection of women and children is guaranteed by Article 25(3) of the Constitution. The Constitution sets out the goals which the people of Pakistan have set out for themselves in the ‘Principles of Policy’, which include the protection of ‘mother and the child’ (Article 35) and require the ‘promotion of social justice and eradication of social evils’ (Article 37). Depriving a mother and her child from their inheritance does not protect them but preys on them. Such conduct is a prevalent social evil and inherently unjust. It is expected that the organ and authority of the State will act in accordance with the Principles of Policy as provided by Article 29(1) of the Constitution. Therefore, claims by orphans and widows alleging that they have been deprived of their inheritance must be expeditiously decided by the concerned organ and authority of the State, including the courts.
2021 SCMR 73
[02/02, 11:49 am] + The revenue authorities must also be extra vigilant when purported gifts are made to deprive daughters and widows from what would have constituted their shares in the inheritance of an estate. The concerned officers must fully satisfy themselves as to the identity of the purported donor/transferee and strict compliance must be ensured with the applicable laws, as repeatedly held by this Court,
2021 SCMR 73

29/11/2022

قانون کے طالب علموں/نوجوان وکلاء ضابطہ فوجداری کے 491(CrPC) میں استعمال ہونے والی اصطلاح سیپی cepi,شیرف اور corpus کو سمجھنے کیلئے ضروری ہے کہ معنی،مفہوم انٹرپیٹشن آف سٹیچوٹ (Statute) کی روشنی میں سمجھا جائے
Meaning of Cepi Corpus
یہ اصطلاح 491 Cr.PC میں استعمال ہوئی ہے اور اکثر طالب علموں کو کنفیوز کر دیتی ہے پوری عبارت اس طرح ہے:-

"The highy court may direct that the body of defendant with in such limits be brought in on the Sheriff's return of CEPI CORPUS to a writ of attachment."

سیپی cepi کا معنی گرفتار کرنا, قبضے میں لینا ہے جبکہ corpus کا معنی شخض ، بندہ ہے. wirt of attachment ایسی رٹ ہوتی ہے جس میں عدالت آفیسر کو حکم جاری کرتی ہے کہ اس بندے کو پکڑ کر عدالت کے سامنے پیش کیا جائے جو defendant ہے اور عدالت میں پیش نہیں ہو رہا

شیرف کا مطلب ہے آفیسر..یہ افیسر پولیس کا بهی ہو سکتا ہے اور عدالت کا بهی

پوری عبارت کا مفہوم یہ ہوا. ہائی کورٹ رٹ آف اٹیچمنٹ کے تحت گرفتار شدہ ڈیفنڈنٹ جو کہ آفیسر کے قبضے میں ہے ، کو اپنے سامنے لانے کی ہدایات دے سکتی ہے

18/11/2022

درج ذیل صورتوں میں فوجداری کاروائی Quash کی جا سکتی ہے. U/S 561A.
1. جبکہ پولیس کو FIR درج کرنے کا کوئی اختیار نہ ہو.
2. جب واقعات FIR سے کوئی جرم نہ بنتا ہو.
3. جبکہ سول معاملات کو فوجداری میں تبدیل کیا گیا ہو.
4. جب کہ ملزم کی سزا یابی کا کوئی امکان نہ ہو.

......... (2016 PCrLJ 1144)........

09/08/2022

قبضہ حوالہ نہ ہونے کی صورت میں ہبہ مکمل نہ ہو سکتا ہے.
2019 MLD 1070 (b)
ہبہ کو ثابت کرنے کے لیے ہبہ کا وقت تاریخ، جگہ اور گواہان کے نام دعوی' میں لکھنا لازم ہے. بصورت دیگر ہبہ ثابت نہ ہو گا.
2017 SCMR 402
PLD 2017 SIND 105
مدعی نے ہبہ زبانی کی تاریخ، وقت یا جگہ بیان نہ کی تھی. ہبہ زبانی کو پٹواری کے پاس درج نہ کروایا گیا تھا اور نہ ہی قبضہ ٹرانسفر کیا گیا تھا. دعوی' میں گواہان کے نام درج نہ تھے. ہبہ ثابت نہ ہو گا.
2016 YLR 423
بیٹیوں کو ان کے شرعی حق سے محروم کر کے بیٹوں کے حق میں کیا گیا انتقال ہبہ قابل منسوخی ہے.
2016 SCMR 986 (b)
والدین کی طرف سے نا بالغان کے حق میں خاوند کی طرف سے بیوی کے حق میں، سسر کی جانب سے بہو کے حق میں ہبہ کی صورت میں قبضہ دیا جانا ضروری نہ ہے.
2015 MLD 296

09/08/2022

LEADING CASE LAWS ON
*PAKISTAN PENAL CODE (PPC) *
FROM 1947 TO 2016

In case of accident only 320 PPC will attract even having no driving license. (2000 P.Cr. L.J 230)

Confessional statement which is not corroborated by other independent evidence has got no value in eye of law. (S. 302 PPC / PLJ 2000 Quetta 1357)

Possession implicate of a counterfeits currency notes does not constitute an offence under S. 489 B PPC (S. 489 B PPC / 1996 P.Cr. L. J 815)

Qatal does not means murder. Qatal amount in which intention is involved qatal I khata is not qatal amad and fell u/s 320 ppc (PLJ 1996 Cr.c (Pesh) 733)

Civil suit is pending before civil court. Bail granted. (Ss. 468, 471, 420 PPC / 2007 SCMR 1546, 2005 YLR 475, 2008 YLR 778, 2008 YLR 732, 2008 YLR 2953)

Nobody hit no crime empties were recovered. Bail allowed (u/s 324, 353, 34 PPC / 2007 P. Cr.L.J 98)

Two kinds of abscondance (I ) in which destroy prosecution evidence (ii) abscondance to save himself from harassment of police, no evidence of destruction of evidence. Bail Allowed. Bail allowed. (u/s 324, 430, 425, 34 PPC / PLD 2007 (Kar)127, 2009 YLR 816)

Accused were close relatives of the complainant and is no reasons for their false implication in case (u/s 379, 354, 452, 148, 149 PPC / 2007 YLR 1192)

Material was not sent to expert for opinion. Material was black paper and a bottle of chemical. Nothing on record that such material could be used for counterfeiting the currency . further inquiry allowed (S. 489-D/34 PPC / 2009 YLR 5 Islamabad)

Complainant initially had nominated the accused in FIR but later on through an affidavit he had expressed has satisfied with regard to the innocence of accused and did not want to proceed with matter. Further inquiry. Bail allowed. (u/s 365/34 PPC / 2009 SCMR 448)

u/s 420, 468, 471 PPC and other cognate offences both remedies are available criminal and civil but the preference was given to civil court to decide the matter in accordance with law. (PSC (crl.) 1993 SC PK 676 (a) )

Bail granted on compromise in non- compoundable offence. (S. 365/34 PPC / 2009 SCMR 448)

S.354-A PPC would be attracted where victim was stripped of her clothes and was exposed to public view in that condition. (S.354-A PPC / 2011 YLR 212)

Preparation of CD of scene of occurrence is not a proof of offence had been committed. (S. 371 B 294 PPC / 2011 YLR 353)

S. 420, 468, 471, 419 PPC (2011 YLR 1153, 2011 YLR 1236, 2011 YLR 1599)

Cancellation bail u/s 406 PPC (2009 YLR 1270, 2009 P.Cr.L.J 1302 )

Cheque book was lost application was moved to banks manager for stop of payment. Also to civil court is pending before the civil court. Bail confirmed. (S. 489 F PPC / 2009 YLR 28 Lah.)

Earlier bail application of accused was dismissed, standard of complainant was recorded by trial court who had exonerated the accused. Bail allowed (S. 395 PPC / 2007 P. Cr. L.J 1918)

Absconding of accused effect. Co-accused had already been acquitted by trial court. No recovery was effected. Bail cannot by refused only on ground of ascendance. (S. 392,397,413, 216-A PPC / 2009 YLR 925)

Bail granted. (S. 382/411 PPC / 2010 YLR 2716, 2006 YLR 2987, 2002 MLD 1437, 2001 YLR 2309)

Bail question contention that the case fell u/s 411 PPC. It was not coming on record as to why identification test of the petition was not held. When his name did not appear in the FIR . the non holding of identification test of the petitioner through eye witnesses would weight in favor of his being released on bail when his name did not appear in the FIR. (1995 P. Cr. L.J 88, 1996 PSC (crl.)SC 328)

Not nominated in the FIR no featured description in FIR only recovery of stolen car from the possession of the petitioner does not make the petitioner on accused of theft. (S. 381 A PPC / 209 YLR 106 Kar.)

Complaint got registered FIR and nominated four accused in FIR. After two days complainant on his supplementary statement somersault and aelipsed. Two nominated accused person and introduced three other persons to have committed alleged offence of dacoity. The case of further inquiry. Bail accepted. (S.392/395 PPC / PLJ 2000 Cr.c Lah. 558 )

Such the case would fall under s. 411 PPC. Bail allowed. (1989 ALD 555(1), 1989 ALD 570 (1))

Litigation between the parties is pending before the civil court about same cause of action which is subject matter of present FIR. Petitioner has also leveled allegations against SHO. FIR was lodged after delay of four months which has not been explained. bail confirmed (pre-arrest bail. S. 380 PPC / PLJ 2000 Lah. 193)

Case does not fall under prohibitory clause. Bail allowed. (S. 419, 420, 411 PPC / PLJ 2000 Pesh. 1028)
Case of prima facie there is only recovery of stolen goods from the petitioner and as (S.457, 380 PPC / PLJ 2000 Cr.c Pesh. 401)

An accused of sec. 430 PPC cannot be challenged u/s 379 PPC as 379 PPC is not applicable in a case of canal diminution of water. (S. 430, 379 PPC / PLD 1997 Lah. 689)

Identification parade is necessary when the accused were unknown to the complainant before the occurrence. (S. 392, 396 PPC / 1995 P.Cr. L.J 88)

In case of further inquiry, the bail is the right of accused. (S. 382, 170, 171, 395, 411 PPC / PLJ 2000 Lah. 711)

There is previous litigation between (S. 394, 411 PPC / PLJ 2000 Lah. 828)

Though the offence is not compoundable but the compromise was affected by the investigation of elders of locality at bail stage consideration. (S. 496-A, 365-B, 380 PPC / 2009 YLR 49(a) Pesh.)

No evidence of buying or selling woman agent. Petition allowed. (S.371, 371-B PPC / 2009 YLR 60 Lah.)

Victim is 8/9 years old. He could not rush himself to police station this delay cannot be considered. Even if there is not actual pe*******on, entry of male organ of accused into artificial cavity between the thighs of victim amounted to pe*******on and canal in*******se. Bail allowed.(S. 377 PPC / PLJ 2000 Pesh. 955)

No evidence of enmity between the parties. No reason was shown as to falsely implication os accused person. Specific role was attributed to accused offence is punishable with 25 years. Bail cancelled. (S. 12/7/79 , 377 PPC / PLJ 2000 Lah. 1219)

Both the offences are not compoundable however, parties have compounded out of court and do not want to prosecute the case further. Bail accepted.(S. 377 PPC , 12/7/79 H.O, PLJ 1999 Cr.c Lah. 861, 2009 P. Cr.L.J 260, 2009 P. Cr.L.J 197, 2009 P. Cr.L.J 260)

Victim accompanied the accused voluntarily abduction can not be proved and the S. 346 is bail bale. Bail accepted (S. 12/7/79 H.O, 346 PPC / 2001 P. Cr. L.J 1022)

Free fight between parties using hatchets and latis resulting into lodging of cross cases against each other. Complainant side accused enlarged on bail. Other party is also entitled to bail (S. 324 PPC / 2010 CMR 1219)

Only for this that the accused says that the allegations leveled against accused are false. The criminal proceedings cannot be extinguished. (S.182/211 PPC / PLD 1993 kar. 355)

Punishment is seven years and bail able offence. Bail allowed. (S.201 PPC / 2009 MLD 37)

Offence being punishable with five years as rule. Bail confirmed. (S. 337 A(i), 337 F (i), 504, 34 PPC / 2007 P. Cr. L.J 55, 116)

Pre arrest bail . four culprits had been saddled but no specific injury had been attributed to any culprit. It was impossible to determine with any degree of certainty as to whether the present petitioner were responsible for commission of bailabe offence or the non bailable offence. Bail confirmed. (S. 337 A (i), 337 A (ii) PPC / PLD 2007 Lah 633)

During investigation number of respectable was produce before I.O who stated about the innocence of petitioner. One I.O found innocent and one found guilty case of further inquiry. Allowed. (S. 324/34 PPC / 2009 MLD 88 Lah.)
Two kinds of abscondance. In which destroy prosecution evidence and abscondance to save himself from harassment. No destroy of evidence. Bail allowed. (S. 324, 430, 425, 34 PPC / PLD 2007 Kar. 127)

The role attributed to the petitioner is not repeated so the offence u/s 324 does not sontitute by the petitioner. Delay in lodging the FIR is two hours while the distance between the spot and police station is only 100 steps. Bail accepted. (S.324/147, 148,149, 504/114, 337 A (iii) PPC 2001 P. Cr.L.J 1127)

During police encounter nobody was injured from both sides not any vehicle was hit. Even the firing was attributed with lethal weapons like as klashin cove. So the case of further inquiry. (S. 324,353,148,149 PPC / 1996 P. Cr.L.J 1573, 2007 P. Cr.L.J )

Challan submitted to anti terrorism court challenge to. Offences were committed on account of previous enmity and a definite motive. Hence not tri able by anti terrorism court buy by ordinary court of competent jurisdiction. (S. 365,337,337 F(i), 148,149 PPC / PLJ 2000 Lah. 799)

Petitioner alleged with six injuries but only one is found on skull of victim of assault supported by medical evidence not punishable with 10 years or more no explanation regarding injuries has been offered by prosecution who is aggressor or aggressed is a material question. No more required for investigation. Bail allowed. (S.337 A (ii), 337 L (ii), 34 PPC / PLJ 2000 Lah. 878)

When an accused of same offence declared innocent by police. The other co accused should be given the benefit of doubt. (S.324/34 / PLJ 1997 Pesh. 1120)

State counsel stated that petitioner armed with weapons in furtherance of their common intention to cause hurt, therefore at bail stage their liability cannot be segregated . injuries attributed to petitioner also do not fall within prohibitory clause discretion of bail should be extended to them specially when they are behind bars for the last three months. Bail allowed. (S. 337 A (i), 337 A (iii), 337 L (ii)(iii) PPC / PLJ 2000 Lah. 1384)LEADING CASE LAWS ON
*PAKISTAN PENAL CODE (PPC) *
FROM 1947 TO 2016

In case of accident only 320 PPC will attract even having no driving license. (2000 P.Cr. L.J 230)

Confessional statement which is not corroborated by other independent evidence has got no value in eye of law. (S. 302 PPC / PLJ 2000 Quetta 1357)

Possession implicate of a counterfeits currency notes does not constitute an offence under S. 489 B PPC (S. 489 B PPC / 1996 P.Cr. L. J 815)

Qatal does not means murder. Qatal amount in which intention is involved qatal I khata is not qatal amad and fell u/s 320 ppc (PLJ 1996 Cr.c (Pesh) 733)

Civil suit is pending before civil court. Bail granted. (Ss. 468, 471, 420 PPC / 2007 SCMR 1546, 2005 YLR 475, 2008 YLR 778, 2008 YLR 732, 2008 YLR 2953)

Nobody hit no crime empties were recovered. Bail allowed (u/s 324, 353, 34 PPC / 2007 P. Cr.L.J 98)

Two kinds of abscondance (I ) in which destroy prosecution evidence (ii) abscondance to save himself from harassment of police, no evidence of destruction of evidence. Bail Allowed. Bail allowed. (u/s 324, 430, 425, 34 PPC / PLD 2007 (Kar)127, 2009 YLR 816)

Accused were close relatives of the complainant and is no reasons for their false implication in case (u/s 379, 354, 452, 148, 149 PPC / 2007 YLR 1192)

Material was not sent to expert for opinion. Material was black paper and a bottle of chemical. Nothing on record that such material could be used for counterfeiting the currency . further inquiry allowed (S. 489-D/34 PPC / 2009 YLR 5 Islamabad)

Complainant initially had nominated the accused in FIR but later on through an affidavit he had expressed has satisfied with regard to the innocence of accused and did not want to proceed with matter. Further inquiry. Bail allowed. (u/s 365/34 PPC / 2009 SCMR 448)

u/s 420, 468, 471 PPC and other cognate offences both remedies are available criminal and civil but the preference was given to civil court to decide the matter in accordance with law. (PSC (crl.) 1993 SC PK 676 (a) )

Bail granted on compromise in non- compoundable offence. (S. 365/34 PPC / 2009 SCMR 448)

S.354-A PPC would be attracted where victim was stripped of her clothes and was exposed to public view in that condition. (S.354-A PPC / 2011 YLR 212)

Preparation of CD of scene of occurrence is not a proof of offence had been committed. (S. 371 B 294 PPC / 2011 YLR 353)

S. 420, 468, 471, 419 PPC (2011 YLR 1153, 2011 YLR 1236, 2011 YLR 1599)

Cancellation bail u/s 406 PPC (2009 YLR 1270, 2009 P.Cr.L.J 1302 )

Cheque book was lost application was moved to banks manager for stop of payment. Also to civil court is pending before the civil court. Bail confirmed. (S. 489 F PPC / 2009 YLR 28 Lah.)

Earlier bail application of accused was dismissed, standard of complainant was recorded by trial court who had exonerated the accused. Bail allowed (S. 395 PPC / 2007 P. Cr. L.J 1918)

Absconding of accused effect. Co-accused had already been acquitted by trial court. No recovery was effected. Bail cannot by refused only on ground of ascendance. (S. 392,397,413, 216-A PPC / 2009 YLR 925)

Bail granted. (S. 382/411 PPC / 2010 YLR 2716, 2006 YLR 2987, 2002 MLD 1437, 2001 YLR 2309)

Bail question contention that the case fell u/s 411 PPC. It was not coming on record as to why identification test of the petition was not held. When his name did not appear in the FIR . the non holding of identification test of the petitioner through eye witnesses would weight in favor of his being released on bail when his name did not appear in the FIR. (1995 P. Cr. L.J 88, 1996 PSC (crl.)SC 328)

Not nominated in the FIR no featured description in FIR only recovery of stolen car from the possession of the petitioner does not make the petitioner on accused of theft. (S. 381 A PPC / 209 YLR 106 Kar.)

Complaint got registered FIR and nominated four accused in FIR. After two days complainant on his supplementary statement somersault and aelipsed. Two nominated accused person and introduced three other persons to have committed alleged offence of dacoity. The case of further inquiry. Bail accepted. (S.392/395 PPC / PLJ 2000 Cr.c Lah. 558 )

Such the case would fall under s. 411 PPC. Bail allowed. (1989 ALD 555(1), 1989 ALD 570 (1))

Litigation between the parties is pending before the civil court about same cause of action which is subject matter of present FIR. Petitioner has also leveled allegations against SHO. FIR was lodged after delay of four months which has not been explained. bail confirmed (pre-arrest bail. S. 380 PPC / PLJ 2000 Lah. 193)

Case does not fall under prohibitory clause. Bail allowed. (S. 419, 420, 411 PPC / PLJ 2000 Pesh. 1028)
Case of prima facie there is only recovery of stolen goods from the petitioner and as (S.457, 380 PPC / PLJ 2000 Cr.c Pesh. 401)

An accused of sec. 430 PPC cannot be challenged u/s 379 PPC as 379 PPC is not applicable in a case of canal diminution of water. (S. 430, 379 PPC / PLD 1997 Lah. 689)

Identification parade is necessary when the accused were unknown to the complainant before the occurrence. (S. 392, 396 PPC / 1995 P.Cr. L.J 88)

In case of further inquiry, the bail is the right of accused. (S. 382, 170, 171, 395, 411 PPC / PLJ 2000 Lah. 711)

There is previous litigation between (S. 394, 411 PPC / PLJ 2000 Lah. 828)

Though the offence is not compoundable but the compromise was affected by the investigation of elders of locality at bail stage consideration. (S. 496-A, 365-B, 380 PPC / 2009 YLR 49(a) Pesh.)

No evidence of buying or selling woman agent. Petition allowed. (S.371, 371-B PPC / 2009 YLR 60 Lah.)

Victim is 8/9 years old. He could not rush himself to police station this delay cannot be considered. Even if there is not actual pe*******on, entry of male organ of accused into artificial cavity between the thighs of victim amounted to pe*******on and canal in*******se. Bail allowed.(S. 377 PPC / PLJ 2000 Pesh. 955)

No evidence of enmity between the parties. No reason was shown as to falsely implication os accused person. Specific role was attributed to accused offence is punishable with 25 years. Bail cancelled. (S. 12/7/79 , 377 PPC / PLJ 2000 Lah. 1219)

Both the offences are not compoundable however, parties have compounded out of court and do not want to prosecute the case further. Bail accepted.(S. 377 PPC , 12/7/79 H.O, PLJ 1999 Cr.c Lah. 861, 2009 P. Cr.L.J 260, 2009 P. Cr.L.J 197, 2009 P. Cr.L.J 260)

Victim accompanied the accused voluntarily abduction can not be proved and the S. 346 is bail bale. Bail accepted (S. 12/7/79 H.O, 346 PPC / 2001 P. Cr. L.J 1022)

Free fight between parties using hatchets and latis resulting into lodging of cross cases against each other. Complainant side accused enlarged on bail. Other party is also entitled to bail (S. 324 PPC / 2010 CMR 1219)

Only for this that the accused says that the allegations leveled against accused are false. The criminal proceedings cannot be extinguished. (S.182/211 PPC / PLD 1993 kar. 355)

Punishment is seven years and bail able offence. Bail allowed. (S.201 PPC / 2009 MLD 37)

Offence being punishable with five years as rule. Bail confirmed. (S. 337 A(i), 337 F (i), 504, 34 PPC / 2007 P. Cr. L.J 55, 116)

Pre arrest bail . four culprits had been saddled but no specific injury had been attributed to any culprit. It was impossible to determine with any degree of certainty as to whether the present petitioner were responsible for commission of bailabe offence or the non bailable offence. Bail confirmed. (S. 337 A (i), 337 A (ii) PPC / PLD 2007 Lah 633)

During investigation number of respectable was produce before I.O who stated about the innocence of petitioner. One I.O found innocent and one found guilty case of further inquiry. Allowed. (S. 324/34 PPC / 2009 MLD 88 Lah.)
Two kinds of abscondance. In which destroy prosecution evidence and abscondance to save himself from harassment. No destroy of evidence. Bail allowed. (S. 324, 430, 425, 34 PPC / PLD 2007 Kar. 127)

The role attributed to the petitioner is not repeated so the offence u/s 324 does not sontitute by the petitioner. Delay in lodging the FIR is two hours while the distance between the spot and police station is only 100 steps. Bail accepted. (S.324/147, 148,149, 504/114, 337 A (iii) PPC 2001 P. Cr.L.J 1127)

During police encounter nobody was injured from both sides not any vehicle was hit. Even the firing was attributed with lethal weapons like as klashin cove. So the case of further inquiry. (S. 324,353,148,149 PPC / 1996 P. Cr.L.J 1573, 2007 P. Cr.L.J )

Challan submitted to anti terrorism court challenge to. Offences were committed on account of previous enmity and a definite motive. Hence not tri able by anti terrorism court buy by ordinary court of competent jurisdiction. (S. 365,337,337 F(i), 148,149 PPC / PLJ 2000 Lah. 799)

Petitioner alleged with six injuries but only one is found on skull of victim of assault supported by medical evidence not punishable with 10 years or more no explanation regarding injuries has been offered by prosecution who is aggressor or aggressed is a material question. No more required for investigation. Bail allowed. (S.337 A (ii), 337 L (ii), 34 PPC / PLJ 2000 Lah. 878)

When an accused of same offence declared innocent by police. The other co accused should be given the benefit of doubt. (S.324/34 / PLJ 1997 Pesh. 1120)

State counsel stated that petitioner armed with weapons in furtherance of their common intention to cause hurt, therefore at bail stage their liability cannot be segregated . injuries attributed to petitioner also do not fall within prohibitory clause discretion of bail should be extended to them specially when they are behind bars for the last three months. Bail allowed. (S. 337 A (i), 337 A (iii), 337 L (ii)(iii) PPC / PLJ 2000 Lah. 1384)LEADING CASE LAWS ON
*PAKISTAN PENAL CODE (PPC) *
FROM 1947 TO 2016

In case of accident only 320 PPC will attract even having no driving license. (2000 P.Cr. L.J 230)

Confessional statement which is not corroborated by other independent evidence has got no value in eye of law. (S. 302 PPC / PLJ 2000 Quetta 1357)

Possession implicate of a counterfeits currency notes does not constitute an offence under S. 489 B PPC (S. 489 B PPC / 1996 P.Cr. L. J 815)

Qatal does not means murder. Qatal amount in which intention is involved qatal I khata is not qatal amad and fell u/s 320 ppc (PLJ 1996 Cr.c (Pesh) 733)

Civil suit is pending before civil court. Bail granted. (Ss. 468, 471, 420 PPC / 2007 SCMR 1546, 2005 YLR 475, 2008 YLR 778, 2008 YLR 732, 2008 YLR 2953)

Nobody hit no crime empties were recovered. Bail allowed (u/s 324, 353, 34 PPC / 2007 P. Cr.L.J 98)

Two kinds of abscondance (I ) in which destroy prosecution evidence (ii) abscondance to save himself from harassment of police, no evidence of destruction of evidence. Bail Allowed. Bail allowed. (u/s 324, 430, 425, 34 PPC / PLD 2007 (Kar)127, 2009 YLR 816)

Accused were close relatives of the complainant and is no reasons for their false implication in case (u/s 379, 354, 452, 148, 149 PPC / 2007 YLR 1192)

Material was not sent to expert for opinion. Material was black paper and a bottle of chemical. Nothing on record that such material could be used for counterfeiting the currency . further inquiry allowed (S. 489-D/34 PPC / 2009 YLR 5 Islamabad)

Complainant initially had nominated the accused in FIR but later on through an affidavit he had expressed has satisfied with regard to the innocence of accused and did not want to proceed with matter. Further inquiry. Bail allowed. (u/s 365/34 PPC / 2009 SCMR 448)

u/s 420, 468, 471 PPC and other cognate offences both remedies are available criminal and civil but the preference was given to civil court to decide the matter in accordance with law. (PSC (crl.) 1993 SC PK 676 (a) )

Bail granted on compromise in non- compoundable offence. (S. 365/34 PPC / 2009 SCMR 448)

S.354-A PPC would be attracted where victim was stripped of her clothes and was exposed to public view in that condition. (S.354-A PPC / 2011 YLR 212)

Preparation of CD of scene of occurrence is not a proof of offence had been committed. (S. 371 B 294 PPC / 2011 YLR 353)

S. 420, 468, 471, 419 PPC (2011 YLR 1153, 2011 YLR 1236, 2011 YLR 1599)

Cancellation bail u/s 406 PPC (2009 YLR 1270, 2009 P.Cr.L.J 1302 )

Cheque book was lost application was moved to banks manager for stop of payment. Also to civil court is pending before the civil court. Bail confirmed. (S. 489 F PPC / 2009 YLR 28 Lah.)

Earlier bail application of accused was dismissed, standard of complainant was recorded by trial court who had exonerated the accused. Bail allowed (S. 395 PPC / 2007 P. Cr. L.J 1918)

Absconding of accused effect. Co-accused had already been acquitted by trial court. No recovery was effected. Bail cannot by refused only on ground of ascendance. (S. 392,397,413, 216-A PPC / 2009 YLR 925)

Bail granted. (S. 382/411 PPC / 2010 YLR 2716, 2006 YLR 2987, 2002 MLD 1437, 2001 YLR 2309)

Bail question contention that the case fell u/s 411 PPC. It was not coming on record as to why identification test of the petition was not held. When his name did not appear in the FIR . the non holding of identification test of the petitioner through eye witnesses would weight in favor of his being released on bail when his name did not appear in the FIR. (1995 P. Cr. L.J 88, 1996 PSC (crl.)SC 328)

Not nominated in the FIR no featured description in FIR only recovery of stolen car from the possession of the petitioner does not make the petitioner on accused of theft. (S. 381 A PPC / 209 YLR 106 Kar.)

Complaint got registered FIR and nominated four accused in FIR. After two days complainant on his supplementary statement somersault and aelipsed. Two nominated accused person and introduced three other persons to have committed alleged offence of dacoity. The case of further inquiry. Bail accepted. (S.392/395 PPC / PLJ 2000 Cr.c Lah. 558 )

Such the case would fall under s. 411 PPC. Bail allowed. (1989 ALD 555(1), 1989 ALD 570 (1))

Litigation between the parties is pending before the civil court about same cause of action which is subject matter of present FIR. Petitioner has also leveled allegations against SHO. FIR was lodged after delay of four months which has not been explained. bail confirmed (pre-arrest bail. S. 380 PPC / PLJ 2000 Lah. 193)

Case does not fall under prohibitory clause. Bail allowed. (S. 419, 420, 411 PPC / PLJ 2000 Pesh. 1028)
Case of prima facie there is only recovery of stolen goods from the petitioner and as (S.457, 380 PPC / PLJ 2000 Cr.c Pesh. 401)

An accused of sec. 430 PPC cannot be challenged u/s 379 PPC as 379 PPC is not applicable in a case of canal diminution of water. (S. 430, 379 PPC / PLD 1997 Lah. 689)

Identification parade is necessary when the accused were unknown to the complainant before the occurrence. (S. 392, 396 PPC / 1995 P.Cr. L.J 88)

In case of further inquiry, the bail is the right of accused. (S. 382, 170, 171, 395, 411 PPC / PLJ 2000 Lah. 711)

There is previous litigation between (S. 394, 411 PPC / PLJ 2000 Lah. 828)

Though the offence is not compoundable but the compromise was affected by the investigation of elders of locality at bail stage consideration. (S. 496-A, 365-B, 380 PPC / 2009 YLR 49(a) Pesh.)

No evidence of buying or selling woman agent. Petition allowed. (S.371, 371-B PPC / 2009 YLR 60 Lah.)

Victim is 8/9 years old. He could not rush himself to police station this delay cannot be considered. Even if there is not actual pe*******on, entry of male organ of accused into artificial cavity between the thighs of victim amounted to pe*******on and canal in*******se. Bail allowed.(S. 377 PPC / PLJ 2000 Pesh. 955)

No evidence of enmity between the parties. No reason was shown as to falsely implication os accused person. Specific role was attributed to accused offence is punishable with 25 years. Bail cancelled. (S. 12/7/79 , 377 PPC / PLJ 2000 Lah. 1219)

Both the offences are not compoundable however, parties have compounded out of court and do not want to prosecute the case further. Bail accepted.(S. 377 PPC , 12/7/79 H.O, PLJ 1999 Cr.c Lah. 861, 2009 P. Cr.L.J 260, 2009 P. Cr.L.J 197, 2009 P. Cr.L.J 260)

Victim accompanied the accused voluntarily abduction can not be proved and the S. 346 is bail bale. Bail accepted (S. 12/7/79 H.O, 346 PPC / 2001 P. Cr. L.J 1022)

Free fight between parties using hatchets and latis resulting into lodging of cross cases against each other. Complainant side accused enlarged on bail. Other party is also entitled to bail (S. 324 PPC / 2010 CMR 1219)

Only for this that the accused says that the allegations leveled against accused are false. The criminal proceedings cannot be extinguished. (S.182/211 PPC / PLD 1993 kar. 355)

Punishment is seven years and bail able offence. Bail allowed. (S.201 PPC / 2009 MLD 37)

Offence being punishable with five years as rule. Bail confirmed. (S. 337 A(i), 337 F (i), 504, 34 PPC / 2007 P. Cr. L.J 55, 116)

Pre arrest bail . four culprits had been saddled but no specific injury had been attributed to any culprit. It was impossible to determine with any degree of certainty as to whether the present petitioner were responsible for commission of bailabe offence or the non bailable offence. Bail confirmed. (S. 337 A (i), 337 A (ii) PPC / PLD 2007 Lah 633)

During investigation number of respectable was produce before I.O who stated about the innocence of petitioner. One I.O found innocent and one found guilty case of further inquiry. Allowed. (S. 324/34 PPC / 2009 MLD 88 Lah.)
Two kinds of abscondance. In which destroy prosecution evidence and abscondance to save himself from harassment. No destroy of evidence. Bail allowed. (S. 324, 430, 425, 34 PPC / PLD 2007 Kar. 127)

The role attributed to the petitioner is not repeated so the offence u/s 324 does not sontitute by the petitioner. Delay in lodging the FIR is two hours while the distance between the spot and police station is only 100 steps. Bail accepted. (S.324/147, 148,149, 504/114, 337 A (iii) PPC 2001 P. Cr.L.J 1127)

During police encounter nobody was injured from both sides not any vehicle was hit. Even the firing was attributed with lethal weapons like as klashin cove. So the case of further inquiry. (S. 324,353,148,149 PPC / 1996 P. Cr.L.J 1573, 2007 P. Cr.L.J )

Challan submitted to anti terrorism court challenge to. Offences were committed on account of previous enmity and a definite motive. Hence not tri able by anti terrorism court buy by ordinary court of competent jurisdiction. (S. 365,337,337 F(i), 148,149 PPC / PLJ 2000 Lah. 799)

Petitioner alleged with six injuries but only one is found on skull of victim of assault supported by medical evidence not punishable with 10 years or more no explanation regarding injuries has been offered by prosecution who is aggressor or aggressed is a material question. No more required for investigation. Bail allowed. (S.337 A (ii), 337 L (ii), 34 PPC / PLJ 2000 Lah. 878)

When an accused of same offence declared innocent by police. The other co accused should be given the benefit of doubt. (S.324/34 / PLJ 1997 Pesh. 1120)

State counsel stated that petitioner armed with weapons in furtherance of their common intention to cause hurt, therefore at bail stage their liability cannot be segregated . injuries attributed to petitioner also do not fall within prohibitory clause discretion of bail should be extended to them specially when they are behind bars for the last three months. Bail allowed. (S. 337 A (i), 337 A (iii), 337 L (ii)(iii) PPC / PLJ 2000 Lah. 1384)

Aamir , Adeel & Rabbani Law Associates

28/09/2023

07/03/2023

11/01/2023

29/11/2022

18/11/2022

09/08/2022

09/08/2022

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Practice

Shortcuts

Share

Category