fazan

8 November 2016

Statement u/s 164 CrPC may be recorded not only at the instance of police but also at the instance of the accused, the aggrived person or that of the witness himself.
2008 PCRLJ 986
2005 PCRLJ 1403
2002 YLR 397
PLJ 2002 LAH 533

2015 MLD 1487 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
S. 42---Suit for declaration---Disputed bill sent by electric Supply Company to consumer---Correction/cancellation of disputed bill--- Disputed bill based on audit/investigation report of electric Supply Company---Non-sending of notice to consumer---Consumer not joined in audit/investigation proceedings---Effect---Record showed that electric Supply Company had neither given any notice to the consumer before the issuance of disputed bill nor the consumer was joined in any audit proceedings---Disputed bill was sent to consumer without providing him an opportunity to be heard---electric Supply Company had allegedly constituted a committee to inquire into less billing to certain consumers, however none of the members of the said committee were produced before the Trial Court---Officials of the electric Supply Company who allegedly acted in connivance with the consumer, were discharged from the FIR registered against them---electric Supply Company had not moved any complaint against the consumer before the Federal Investigating Agency---Burden to prove the investigation/ audit report on basis of which consumer was sent the disputed bill was not discharged by the electric Supply Company---Material which formed basis of the said report was also not produced---Trial Court had rightly decreed the declaratory suit filed by the consumer against the electric Supply Company---Revision petition was dismissed accordingly.
عورت پنھنجي مڙس سان گڏ سھري ۽ ڏير جي خلاف پڻ خرچ سميت ڏاج ۽ سامان جي واپسي جو ڪيس داخل ڪري سگھي ٿي اھڙو فيصلو دوستن سان شيئر.ڪجي ٿو. .........منظور پنھور
2007 CLC 1517 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Mst. SHEHNAZ AKHTAR
Side Opponent : FIDA HUSSAIN
---S. 5 & Sched.---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Suit by wife for recovery of dower, dowry articles and for grant of maintenance allowance against husband and her father---Jurisdiction of Family Court---Scope and extent---Necessary parties to suit---Dower amount fixed was prompt and settled as Rs.60,000 out of which plaintiff' was permitted to obtain the plot of five Marlas with one constructed room, transferred in her favour from father of husband on basis of an agreement, in lieu of dower amount of Rs.40,000 which for the remaining amount of Rs.20,000 tour Tolas gold ornaments were to be delivered, which were handed over to her---Question arose as to whether plaintiff could file suit against rather of bridegroom for completion of contract executed by' him for the payment of dower---Held, there was no bar or prohibition in the way of plaintiff in that regard, so as to impede the way of plaintiff from claiming the implementation-and completion of the agreement---Family Court, under S.5, West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 had exclusive jurisdiction to entertain, hear and adjudicate upon matters specified in Part I of the Schedule to the said Act and there was no barring provision that while claiming dower from the husband only bridegroom/husband could be impleaded in the suit for recovery of dower and none else--If another person had stood surety or had guaranteed the payment of dower, he/she could lawfully be impleaded in the suit---Surety and guarantor to the dower were as much party and liable to pay dower as she bridegroom himself---Principles.

Adv Faiza Shaikh

15 November 2016

(
Waseem Ahmed )

INTERIM RELIEF

2006 YLR 1574
2005 YLR 787
2006 PCRLJ 494
2006 PCRLJ 18
2005 MLD 535
2005 MLD 576

Bail in Juvenil Justice

2005 YLR 3196
2006 PCRLJ 542
2002 PCRLJ 657
2002 MLD 1817
2003 YLR 1792
2002 YLR 1045
2005 MLD 1247
2006 MLD 507
2004 MLD 1747
2005 MLD 1468
2005 YLR 838
2002 YLR 176
PLD 2004 PESHAWER 70
2005 PCRLJ 1500
2003 YLR 3204
2004 MLD 630
2006 PCRLJ 1788
2004 PCRLJ 426

22-A

2006 CLC 119
2005 YLR 1408
2005 YLR 3127
2006 MLD 1184
2005 PCRLJ 684
2005 PSC 34
PLD 2005 KAR 285
2006 YLR 1904

CANCELLATION OF BAIL

2006 YLR 1433
2006 YLR 1678
2006 YLR 712
2006 PCRLJ 1087
2006 PCRLJ 18
2006 PCRLJ 1070
2006 PCRLJ 292
2006 PCRLJ 1144
2006 PCRLJ 1009
2006 PCRLJ 249
2006 PCRLJ 986
2006 PCRLJ 405,423,986
PLJ 2006 CRC (LAH)955
PLJ 2006 SC 247
PLJ 2006 CRC (LAH)469,176,883
PLJ 2005 CRC (LAH) 65,268,120
2006 SCMR 93

SECTION 154 CRPC

PLJ 2006 CR.C (LAH) 190(DB)
2005 YLR 1329
2006 PCRLJ 1277
2004 PCRLJ 391
2004 PCRLJ 976
2004 SCMR 868
2005 SCMR 154
PLJ 2005 SC 24
PLJ 2006 LAH 507

INTERIM RELIEF

2006 YLR 1574
2005 YLR 787
2006 PCRLJ 494
2006 PCRLJ 18
2005 MLD 535
2005 MLD 576

249-A power of magistrate to aqcuite accused at any stage of proccedings

PLJ 2004 SC 2
PLD 1981 SC 607
NLR 1999 PCRLJ 137
2003 YLR 274
2005 PCRLJ 252
PLD 1984 SC 428
PLD 1999 SC 1063
2000 MLD 605
1991 PCRLJ 1381
1985 SCMR 257
PLD 1991 LAH 268
1999 MLD 1645
PLD 1999 SC 1063
2003 PCRLJ 12
PLJ 2003 AJ&K
2004 PCRLJ 1068

Locus Poenitentie U/S 121 of General Clause Act

PLD 1997 KARACHI 450
1998 SCMR 2745
2002 CLC 1464
2004 YLR 2047
2003 CLC 1196
2000 CLC 443
PLD 1964 SCMR 407
1001 SCMR 15
PLD 1985 AJK 17
PLD 1975 KARACHI 373
1994 MLD 751

249-A power of magistrate to aqcuite accused at any stage of proccedings

PLJ 2004 SC 2
PLD 1981 SC 607
NLR 1999 PCRLJ 137
2003 YLR 274
2005 PCRLJ 252
PLD 1984 SC 428
PLD 1999 SC 1063
2000 MLD 605
1991 PCRLJ 1381
1985 SCMR 257
PLD 1991 LAH 268
1999 MLD 1645
PLD 1999 SC 1063
2003 PCRLJ 12
PLJ 2003 AJ&K
2004 PCRLJ 1068

Locus Poenitentie U/S 121 of General Clause Act

PLD 1997 KARACHI 450
1998 SCMR 2745
2002 CLC 1464
2004 YLR 2047
2003 CLC 1196
2000 CLC 443
PLD 1964 SCMR 407
1001 SCMR 15
PLD 1985 AJK 17
PLD 1975 KARACHI 373
1994 MLD 751

Pre- Emption

1988 SCMR 892
1996 CLC 161
2001 SCMR 495
1991 MLD 506
2008 PLD MARCH/APRIL
Mian peer v/s Fakir mohammad
PLD 2007 SC 121
1991 SCMR 112

Accused not named in F.I.R

2006 YLR 1664
2006 YLR 712
2006 PCRLJ 423
2006 PCRLJ 1070
2006 PCRLJ 986
2006 PCRLJ 612
2006 PCRLJ 418
2006 YLR 418
2006 YLR 1404
2006 YLR 1872

Check dishounor / 489-F

PLJ 2004 545

PLD 99 KARACHI 121

PCRLJ 2004 343

PLD 95 SC 34

2004 PLJ LAHORE 522

Plea of Alibi

2005 MLD 1756
2005 MLD 1267
2005 MLD 415
2006 YLR 749
2006 PCRLJ 184
2004SCMR 1019
2005 PCRLJ 1269

Identification Parade

2006 MLD 14
2005 YLR 657
2006 MLD 431
2005 YLR 1404
2006 YLR 673
2005YLR 3151
Identification Parade not Held

Benefit of doubt

PLJ2005 Cr.C Lah 47
2006 MLD 614
2006 MLD 595
PLJ 2005 Cr.C.Pesh 999
2006 PDr.LJ 1033
2005 YLR 3141
Benefit of doubt

Custody of minor

CUSTODY OF MINOR

1. 2003MLD 977
2. 2003 CLC 1492
3. 2003 CLC1265 LAH
4. 1994 MLD 1199
5. 1983 SCMR 480
6. 1981 NLR 741
7. 1983 SCMR 481
8. 1996 CLC KAR
9. 2003 MLD 980

Bail in rape cases

PCRLJ 2006 CR.C LAHORE 433
PLJ 2006 CR,C LAH 101
PLJ 2006 CR.C LAH 106
PLJ 2005 CR.C LAH 813
PLJ 2005 CR.C LAH 542
2003 YLR 1757
PLJ 2003 CR.C LAH 640

Bail in Rape cases under hadood ordinance Sec 10/11

1984 PCRLJ 365
NLR 1993 56
86 PCRLJ 1587
PLD 84 SC 23
PLD 59 LAH 677
1990 ALD 92 (1)
1990 ALD 435 (2)

Delay in FIR in that cases

1990 ALD 546
NLR 1993 PESH 480

Decoy witness

1994 PCRLJ 292
1989 PCRLJ 1324/1334

Excused of accused in court

1980 PCRLJ 1---3
PLD 1988 KAR 535
1989 PCRLJ 1652
PLD 1993 373

Bail
Bail means to hand over an accused into the hands of surety from the custody of state.

Definition of bail after arrest U/S 497 Cr.P.C
PLJ 2006 SC (AJ & K ) 65.

Principles of bail after arrest.
1. Prima facie case 1991 MLD 1435
2. Appreciation of evidence 2004 PCr.LJ127
3. Benefit of doubt 199 PCr.Lj 582
4. Recovery 1998 MLD 1366
5. Delay in trial PLD 2005 Karachi 201

Distinction between bail after arrest and bail before arrest

2005 PCr.Lj 546 2005 YLR 3133

Grounds of Bail after Arrest

(i) Further Inquiry U/S 497
PLJ 2006 Cr.C.Lah 885 (Grant)
2005 YLR 2532(Grant)
PLJ 2006 Cr.C.Lah 97 (Grant)
2005 MLD 1072 (Grant)

(ii) Delay in Lodging FIR

PLJ 2006 Cr.C(Lah)117 (Grant)
2006 YLR 1863
2006 YLR 1563
2006 YLR 712
2006 PCr.LJ 1087
2006 YLR 712

Stay order 39 rule 1-2

1989 SCMR 130
1992 SCMR 138
1988 PLD S.C 1509
2000 SCMR 780
AIR 37 LAH 288
2003 CLC 16595

Grounds of bail before

2006 YLR 1305
2006 MLD 559
2006 MLD 1046
2006 PCRLJ 234
PLJ CRC(LAH)173
2006 MLD 491

Neccessary party

1906 MLD 195
1986 MLD 18
1957 LAH 882
1970 SCMR 839
1987 LAH 336/307

Ejectment of tenent for personal use

1996 SCMR 1097
1997 SCMR 1062
1991 SCMR 1831
1991 SCMR 2337

1987 MLD 715
1987 MLD 2367
1987 MLD 1078
1988 MLD 1974

NLR 1997 CIVIL 290
NLR 1999 AC 523
NLR 1997 CIVIL 706

PLJ 2003 SC 65

PLD 1987 KARACHI 180

1991 CLC 1381
1991 SCMR 1759

Judgements for maintainance of children to the father

PLD 1881 LAHORE 280
PLD 1986 LAHORE 272
PLD 1958(W.P)LAHORE 596
1985 MLD 96
NLR 1991 CLJ 430
1987 CLC 247

Judgements on ejectment of tenent for personel use

1996 SCMR 1097
1997 SCMR 1062
1991 SCMR 1831
1991 SCMR 2337

NLR 1997 CIVIL 290
NLR 1999 AC 23
NLR 1997 CIVIL 706

1987 MLD 715

1988 MLD 1974

1987 MLD 2367

1987 MLD 1078

PLD 1987 KARACHI 180

PLJ 2003 SC 65

1991 CLC 1381

1991 SCMR 1759

PLD.2016.LAHORE 663
(CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE.1908)
SECTION.44..A.APPELLANT WAS HOLDER OF DECREE PASSED BY FEDERAL COURT OF A FOREIGN COUNTRY.HE LATER ON FILED EXECUTION PETITION BEFORE DISTRICT JUDGE , WHO DISMISSED SUCH PETITION, IMPUGNED ORDER WAS ASSAILED BY APPELLANT IN SHAPE OF APPEAL WHICH WAS ACCEPTED AND IMPUGNED ORDER WAS SET ASIDE and hold the foreign federal court is superior court under the notification Govt of Pakistan

Sample from all rods/packets were not taken. bail allowed.
2015 S.C.M.R 735
2015 S.C.M.R 308, 291 & 279
P.L.D 2012 S.C 38 (Ameer Zaib Case)
S.C.M.R 2010 1162


2016 S.C.M.R 908, 806 & 707
3013 S.C.M.R 302
Latest Bail citation on 9c bail was allowed on delay in sending samples
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(b) & 9(c)---Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, R. 4(2)---Possession, import and export, trafficking or financing trafficking of narcotic drugs, etc.---Bail, grant of---Delay in sending samples of narcotics for chemical analysis---Quantity of recovered narcotics falling under borderline cases---Samples of the recovered contraband substances had been sent for chemical analysis with delay of seven days---Lapse on part of the police in sending the contraband substance for chemical analysis within the stipulated period, had made the case of the accused that of further inquiry---Quantity of narcotic substances allegedly recovered from the accused exceeded the borderline case falling between the offence under Ss. 9(b) & 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances, Act, 1997---All prosecution witnesses were police officials; hence, there was no chance of the accused tampering with the evidence---Accused had been behind bars for four and half months, and no prosecution witnesses had been examined so far--- Bail application was allowed accordingly.
Inayat Ullah v. The State 2006 PCr.LJ 840; Dilla Baz Khan v. The State 2008 PCr.LJ 1437; Ghulam Abbas v. The State 2011 YLR 1723; Asif Ali v. The State 2013 YLR 1241 and Sherin Muhammad v. The State 2006 PCr.LJ 726 rel.
Mahboob Ali v. The State 2007 YLR 2968 ref.
Wazir v. The State 2003 YLR 1163; Waris Ali v. The State 2006 PCr.LJ 1745; Hanook Babar Masih v. The State 2007 YLR 3105; Muhammad Javed v. The State 2009 PCr.LJ 1427 and The State v. Abul Ghanni 2010 SCMR 61 distinguished.
2016 P Cr. L J 1315
[Islamabad]
Before Aamer Farooq and Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, JJ
MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE---Petitioner
Versus

UDGE MUST AWARE OF ALL LAWS OF THE COUNTRY:
Judge must wear all laws of the country on the sleeves of his robe and failure of counsel to properly advise is not a complete excuse in the matter.
2011 SCMR 437
2010 SCMR 1425
2010 SCMR 1408
2007 SCMR 307
2006 SCMR 783
PLD 2003 SC 102
PLD 1992 SC 26

2016 SCMR 1781(b)
Attorney cannot transfer the property to himself or his kids & kin without special and specific consent and permission of the principal

Noor Law Associates

17 hrs ·

DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid)
CONSENT OF VICTIM
Ss. 375 & 376…Rape--- DNA test--- Consent of victim, obtaining of--- Scope---Consent of victim was
necessary and he/she could not be subjected to DNA testing or other medical test forcibly for
prosecution purposes because that
would amount to infringement of personal liberty of victim.
(2013 SCMR 203 SUPREME-COURT) SALMAN AKRAM RAJA vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through
CONSENT OF ACCUSED
Rape-----Consent of accused was not required for conducting DNA test or any blood test in order to
ascertain truthfulness of the allegation. (2013 SCMR 203 SUPREME-COURT)
AT THE EARLIEST STAGE
Request for administration of DNA test should be made at the earliest stage of the case. .
(2013 SCMR 203 SUPREME-COURT)
SIGNIFICANCE OF DNA TEST
Rape--- ---DNA test provided the courts a mean of identifying perpetrators with a high degree of
confidence---By using DNA technology the courts were in a better position to reach at a conclusion
whereby the real culprit would be convicted, potential suspects would be excluded and wrongfully
involved accused would be exonerated. (2013 SCMR 203 SUPREME-COURT
FAILURE TO GET DNA TEST…EFFECT
If the rule of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix as sufficient evidence, was accepted, as
absolute without any exception thereto, what shall be the outcome of a case, where a lady claims being
raped or gang raped, but the medical evidence negates it; it was not in every gang rape case, that the
sole testimony should be accepted and relied upon, but each case should be assessed and adjudged on
its own facts---DNA and/or group semen test, in the present case was of immense importance which
could have scientifically determined as to whether the intercourse with the prosecutrix was committed
only by one or by a group of persons---Benefit of such omission should go to the accused, rather the
prosecution. (2011 PLD 554 SUPREME-COURT) State VS ABDUL KHALIQ
Report of Chemical Examiner qua vaginal swabs not obtained---DNA test not conducted---Semen
grouping not done to ascertain involvement of accused---Effect---Semen found on vaginal swabs of the
victim would lose its evidentiary value in such circumstances. (2014 PCrLJ 599 LAHORE-HIGH-COURTLAHORE
) PARVAIZ vs State