lawand law

Correction of entries in revenue record. Civil court has no jurisdiction, Suit Dismissed.
2015 Y.L.R P-53

Mere abscondence is no ground for dismissal of bail.
2009 S.C.M.R P-299
P.Cr.L.J 2012 P-625
P.L.D 2012 S.C P-222
S.C.M.R 2012 P-1273
S.C.M.R 2012 P-1137

Acknowledgement of paternity. Child even if illegitimate by birth become legitimate by force of acknowledgement of paternity.
P.L.D 1973 Baghdad Ul Jadid P-48
P.L.D 1976 S.C P-767
P.L.D 1980 S.C P-228
P.L.D 1988 S.C P-8

Notice of Talaq To chairman is not mandatory, after obtaining Talaq(Divorce) from husband and expiry of Iddat period, marriage with an other person is not invalid.
S.C.M.R 1992 P-1273 ( Shariat Bench)

When a tenant challenged the ownership of the landlord, the tenant first eject and then proceed in accordance with law.
2016 Y.L.R P-274
2016 P.L.D Lah P-123
2014 P.L.D S.C P-347
2013 M.L.D P-1648
2012 M.L.D P-108
2012 Y.L.R P-1464
2011 C.L.C P-961
2009 P.L.D S.C P-546
2006 S.C.M.R P-1068 & 946
2005 C.L.C P-1758
2002 M.L.D P-384
1981 S.C.M.R P-1064
1978 S.C.M.R P-14

It is mandatory duty of Station Police Officer (SHO) to register case under section 154 Cr.p.c.
1993 SCMR 550
Pre-arrest bail is not necessary in private complaint. Court can order to submit bails bond.
2014 S.C.M.R P-1762

30 August ·

Ss. 22-A, 22-B, 173 & 540---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Reinvestigation---Ex-officio Justice of Peace, jurisdiction of---FIR was registered and investigation was conducted on the complaint of petitioner---Petitioner was not satisfied with the investigation, preferred an application before Ex-officio Justice of Peace for direction to reinvestigate the matter---Ex-officio Justice of Peace dismissed the application---Validity---Door of investigation could never close on submission of police report before court and it remained open for discovery of true facts even during course of trial---Petitioner approached wrong forum, who instead of applying to Trial Court for the purpose, approached Ex-officio Justice of Peace---Petitioner should have approached the Trial Court to get examined crime weapon with recovered empties and for production of witnesses who were not associated with the investigation---Sufficient powers were available to Trial Court under the purview of S. 540, Cr.P.C.---Petitioner having failed to avail remedy provided by law, High Court declined to interfere in the matter as no illegality or irregularity was pointed out---Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2016 PCrLJ 76

Hearing of arguments before disposing a case is not necessary for court .
2010 SCMR 1119.

Mst. Gulshan Bibi etc & others Vs Muhammad Sadiq & others.
C.P No 41 of 2008 and C.A.No 2054 of 2007&1208 of 2015.
Larger Bench of Supreme Court of Pakistan conclusively held that scope and application of Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 is not limited to Land Mafia and Qabza group only. Anyone found committing the offence described in S. 3 of act would be liable to prosecution under the provisions of the said act and no past record of the accused needs to be gone into by the Court. Judgements of Mr. Justice Asif Saeed Khosa PLD 2007 LAH 231 & PLD 2010 SC 661 and another earlier judgement of Supreme Court 2012 SCMR 1533, restricting the scope and application of act were over ruled while 2009 SCMR 1066, 2012 SCMR 1254 & PLD 2010 SC 725 were approved

اگر مالک.جایداد دو مختلف افراد سے اپنی جایداد کی فروختگی کا معاھدا کر لیتا ھے تو مالک جایداد کے خلاف فراڈ کی بنا پر ایف أی أر بھی درج ھوسکتی ھے نیز مالک کے خلاف دیوانی مقدمہ میں دونوں خریدار فریق مقدمہ ھونگے اور اگر دونوں خریداروں کا معاھدا ثابت ھوتا ھے تو پہھلا خریدار جایداد لینے کا حقدار ھوگا.
ملاحظہ ھو.
P.L.D 2009 kar 382.. 2013 S.C.M.R 1600

Co sharer would be considered to be in possession of each and every inch of un-partitioned land according to his share.
2016 S.C.M.R P-910
2007 S.C.M.R P-1884
2005 S.C.M.R P-1335
1998 S.C.M.R P-1589
1994 P.L.D S.C P-336
1992 S.C.M.R P-138
1989 S.C.M.R P-130

Section.115..CPC ..ARTICLE 79..Q.S.O.1984.Revisional jurisdiction....
Power of High Court to set-aside illegal findings of court below rather then remanding the case
SCMR.2016.986

2009 SCMR 141
Accused was in jail for the last over eight months---Not a single witness had so far been examined.- Formalities of SS. 173 and 344, Cr.P.C. had not been complied with and challan against the accused had not been submitted within the stipulated period, resulting in grave miscarriage of justice---Material on file did not make out any offence against the accused.- Charge having been framed by Trial Court was no bar in the way of quashment of proceedings.- F.I.Rs were quashed.
Amendment in written statement can be accepted even after a long period on controverted question.
P.L.D 1992 S.C P-180
Non-applicability of 311 PPC in Case of Compromise under 345 CrPC:
In this case, after conclusion of compromise under 345 CrPC between the complainant and the convicts for an offence under 302(b), the High Court pronounced the punishment of the convicts under 311 PPC instead of acquitting them. The court was of the view that the present case was of the nature which fell within the definition of fasad-fil-arz, because the accused persons acted in a brutal manner and the crime committed was outrageous to public conscious, therefore, the convicts could not go without any punishment. It was argued before the Supreme Court that once a compromise has been arrived between the parties under 345 CrPC, then the court would have left with no option except to exanorate the convicts of the charge and the provision of 311 PPC could not be resorted to for punishing them. The court held that 311 PPC was attracted in cases punishable with 'Qisas' exclusively and not in cases punishable under 302(b) as 'Tazir'. And when a compromise was concluded in an offence punishable as 'Tazir', the High Court was not justified in law to convert the punishment of the convicts to 311 PPC instead of acquitting them. Thus the High Court had committed a legal error in sentencing the convicts under 311 PPC and consequently, the appeal was allowed for acquitting them.
Iqrar Hussain v State (2014 SCMR 1155)

Now, order under section 22A and 22B of Cr.P.C. is a judicial order according to the latest view by supreme court..
--
PLD 2016 SC 581

All sentences must be run concurrently.
S.C.M.R 2001 P-84
S.C.M.R 1986 P-1573
P.Cr.L.J 1997 P-118

Last possession of vehicle is solid ground for superdari.
2004 PLD Peshawar 91,
2001pcrlj428,
2005 scmr 735.
Report of local commission cannot be challenged when it was appointed with consent of the parties.
2009 SCMR 594
A divorced lady is entitled to get her share in estate of her husband if husband died during iddat period.
PLD 1974 SC 22
1998 SCMR 181
Denial of relationship as tenant and landlord. .....
requirements
CLC(Notes)2016 Lah 48

Dissolution of Marriage Before Consummation:
If 'Rukhsati' has not taken place then there is no obligation on wife to observe 'iddat' and she is free to marry immediately. The same principle has been provided in Section 275 of Muhammadan Law by Sir Dinshah Fardunji Mulla.
It follows that there was no obligation on the husband to maintain wife in such situation as such she is not entitled to any maintenance as well even for 'iddat' period.
(PLD 2014 Peshawar 226)
S. 342---Evidence---Conviction and sentence---Scope---Piece of evidence not put to an accused during his/her examination under S.342, Cr.P.C., could not be used against him/her for maintaining conviction and sentence.
2016 SCMR P-267 SUPREME COURT

Paternal Grandfather is bound to maintain grandchildren if Judgment debtor/ father avoided to do so.
PLD 2012 Lahore 148
ﺍﮔﺮ 90 ﺩﻧﻮﮞ ﮐﮯ ﺍﻧﺪﺭ ﺍﻧﺪﺭ ﺍﭘﯿﻞ ﮐﺎ ﻓﯿﺼﻠﮧ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮐﯿﺎ ﺟﺎﺗﺎ ، ﺗﻮ ﺟﺎﺭﯼ ﮨﻮﻧﮯ ﻭﺍﻻ ﺣﮑﻢ ﺍﻣﺘﻨﺎﻋﯽ ﻓﺎﺭﻍ ﺗﺼﻮﺭ ﮐﯿﺎﺟﺎﺋﮯ ﮔﺎ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻣﻼﺯﻡ ﺑﺤﺎﻝ ۔۔۔
‏-2012 PLC - 299
Malik Manzoor Hussain Vs. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal (Lahore
Cheque as security:
S.489-F-PPC, cheque issued as a security recovery of amount could not be effected in criminal proceedings, Before arrest bail confirmed.
2016 P.Cr.LJ P-769 Lhr
Recovery is only corroborative piece of evidence..
"Absence of recovery is not material to disbelieve prosecution case where prosecution otherwise has proved its case"
2016 PCr.LJ Sindh.

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

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

Bail granted on compromise in non- compoundable offence.
(S. 365/34 PPC / 2009 SCMR 448) (S.457, 380 PPC / PLJ 2000 Cr.c Pesh. 401)

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

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

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

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.)

Plea not raised in written statement
Effect."If plea not raised in written statement , could not be allowed to be raised subsequently"
ORDER.VIII. RULE.2.C.P.C.
Plea not raised in written statement.
(2016.YLR.PESH.38.)

Relevant Law
Sec.27(b)specific relief act 1877
Sections 41 &53A transfer of property act 1882
Section 48 registration act 1908
Relevant Case Laws...
1980 CLC 1450...
PLD 2011 SC 296....
2014 MLD 677...
2010 SCMR 18....
PLD 1976 SCMR 489...
2003 CLC 138...
2012 SCMR 84...
PLD 2003 SC 494...
PLD 2004 SC 465.....
2010 SCMR 18....
PLD 2011 SC 296....
2010 SCMR 988.....
2010 SCMR 988.....
2010 SCMR 988....
2008 SCMR 1201....
2008 SCMR 352...
PLD 1977 SC 25...
2009 SCMR 1091...
AIR 1932 PC 228....
PLD2011 SC 296 ...
2012 SCMR 345 .....
PLD 1974 BJ 25...
PLD 1969 Lah 762...
2003 CLC 1052...
1992 SCMR 652....
AIR 1960 Madh pra.3...

6 September ·

National Identity Card is sufficient unless rebutted by documentary evidence....
2011 SCMR P-837

Any document can be proved through two witnesses, the document shall not be used in evidence without attesting witnesses about its execution.
Art. 79 QSO 1980
2016 SCMR 986
2008 SCMR 1454...
Justice of peace can initiate contempt proceedings
PLD 2016 SC P- 581

Abscondence alone is not sufficient ground for cancellation of bail
2016 SCMR 676

Co-Sharer in Shamlat Deh. Held could not disposes the other without partition.
2015 M.L.D P-145

The case was patently time barred. can be rejected u/o 7 rule 11 without recording of evidence.
2016 S.C.M.R P-910

Bail Granted. 489-F case does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause and does not fulfill the fundamental elements.
2013 SCMR P-51,
2014 SCMR P-1032,
2014 CrLJ Cr.C P-66,
2011 SCMR P-1708,
2009 PCrLJ P-1418,
2009 SCMR P-1488
Advocate identifying surety for bail on the basis of National Identity Card. The surety turned out to be a fake person. The Advocate was asked to submit his explanation, by the trial Court. The explanation was not accepted and the Court directed that a complaint be lodged against the Advocate in the concerned Police Station. High Court held that the Advocate had not given personal undertaking that he would be personally liable if surety turns out to be a fake person. The impugned order was held to be an abuse of the process of the Court and quashed.
PLJ 1994 Cr.C. (Kar.) 312


Dying declaration:
Has a degree of sanctity but the case ought to have been considered in all its physical environment. PLD 1970 S.C. 13. Incomplete not admissible. PLD 1949 P.C. 299. All the eye-witnesses present in the hospital. PLD 1970 S.C. 406. Dying declaration can be used as FIR. 1971 SCMR 516 ; 1969 SCMR 85. Dying declaration uncorroborated. PLJ 1977 S.C. 481. Not necessary to have been made under immediate apprehension of death. 1975 SCMR 289. Dying declaration lacking integrity. PLD 1984 S.C. 433. Recorded at Police Station in presence of relative. 1984 SCMR 1094. Deceased not in full control of faculties. PLJ 1980 S.C. 377. After mortal injuries. 1984 SCMR 263; PLJ 1981 S.C. 90. Value. 1994 SCMR 1852; 1994 PSC (Cr.) 717. Corroborated by medical evidence. 1994 MLD 1046. Conviction on. 1994 MLD 1046; 1994 PSC (Cr.) 717. A weak piece of evidence. 1995 PCr.LJ 179. Relevant consideration for determining the evidentiary value of dying declaration are whether the deceased then injured, was capable of making a statement; that whether he did make a statement orally or it was recorded by someone, that whether the statement made by him was corroborated by independent evidence. 2002 PCr.LJ 1798. Imminent apprehension of death not necessary. 2002 PCr.LJ 1798. Dying declaration made soon after the incident or at a time when the deceased expected death deserves great weight and cannot be discarded on the assumption of being the result of consultation. [PLD 2004 S.C. 367]
Dying declaration of the deceased was recorded by I.O., has fully supported the prosecution case. Vital piece of evidence against the appellant was the dying declaration of the deceased which was recorded at the Hospital. Deceased in his statement has provided detail of the motive behind occurrence. No illegality or infirmity has been found in the dying declaration which was recorded by the deceased at hospital under the apprehension of impending death. During the investigation, weapon of offence was recovered at the instance of the appellant and on his pointation from his residential house. PW, ASI in his statement has furnished a credible account of recovery of weapon of offence from the appellant. Although, PW, ASI was a police witness best his testimony cannot be discarded on that ground alone as a police witness is a good witness as any. Testimony furnished by the witness was fully supported by report of Chemical Examiner in which it is stated that chhurri was stained with human blood. Factum of recovery of chhurri from the appellant established at the trial. Ocular account furnished by witnesses has received further corroboration from the medical evidence. PLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Lahore) 996.
43. Empties and crime weapons. Delay simpliciter in dispatching. Not fatal. PLD 1987 Quetta 77; See PLD 1982 S.C. 92; 1982 SCMR 531. No crime weapon recovered from possession of accused at the time of his arrest. Ballistic Expe

Divorce on the basis of Khula would be the one Talaq...Husband and wife can reunion without intervening marriage i.e (HALALA). Even after 10 year and even the Talaq MOUSAR certificate by the union council has been issued....Reliance can be made on the following
2011 CLC 1211..
PLD 2011 Lah 458..
PLD 2003 Pesh, 169.

s

Noor Law Associates

4 September 2015 ·

Release of vehicle 516(a) of Code of Criminal Procedure

1. Bona-fide Purchaser of Motor Car taken in custody by police under S. 550 granted Spurdari on verbal prayer for Spurdari made at time of bearing application under section 497/498.[1]

2. Application and scope- property claimed by an actual owner in respect whereof some offence had been committed could be restored even on personal bond what to say of the surety or security.[2]

3. Registration Book of the car in question was in the name of the petitioner car though allegedly was used for transportation of liquor but the same itself was not such a property as had been described in proviso of section 516-A Cr.PC Car was subject to decay and deterioration.[3]

4. Vehicle Superdari of – Petitioner claiming ownership of the same Held that: As the vehicle was not a stolen property and as it apparently belonged to the petitioner it is directed that the same be handed to him on his furnishing two securities with the undertaking that he would produce before the court when so required.[4]

5. If the police is definite about the title of the truck, we have no hesitation in concluding that it is neither a stolen property not a property used in the commission of offence and hence the application of sections 523/550 Cr.PC is utterly illegal. The recovery being illegal and without jurisdiction, the question arises as to whom the delivery should be given pending the dispute.

6. Riasat Khan claims to be the purchaser of the truck from the aforesaid absconder Muhammad Saleem many months prior to even the commission of the murder attributed to Muhammad Saleem. He has open transfer letter in his possession. Against this evidence there is nothing in rebuttal with the State except the argument that the registration of MR-1696 pertains to a Bus and not Truck with the Motor Registration Authority at Mardan.

7. Last is the stance of the police that the truck in fact belongs to Muhammad Saleem an absconder. Although the SHO was not very clear on the reason that the truck is taken into possession because it belonged to an absconder yet from the conduct of the police it appears to have been taken into custody under such impression. Even if it is kept in custody under such impression and even if the truck still belongs to Muhammad Saleem, the police cannot acquire the possession thereof without obtaining a warrant under section 88 Cr.PC. It is admitted at the bar the; learned AAG as well as the SHO that no such warrant has so far been obtained. The recovery is unlawful on that score as well.
8. As the vehicle No. MR-1696 is not a stolen property and as it apparently belongs to the petitioner Riasat Khan, is directed to be handed over to him on his furnishing a bond in a sum of Rs. 300,000/- with two sureties to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar of this Court.

9. Without prejudice it can be expressed that the dispute revolves around the ownership of Car No. LHD 6418. The same could not be taken into possession under section 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The police has coined a device to settle the dispute of civil nature of the instant category by projecting its authority. The contesting parties can get determined their ownership from the competent court. The police has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute about the ownership of the Car.[5]

10. Consequently, I accept this application and pass the order that the Car along-with the Registration Book shall be returned to Abdul Ghafoor. Altaf Hussain, Sub-Inspector/Station Housing Officer (SHO), Police Station, Mankera, District Bhakkar has handed over the key of the Car and the Registration Book to Abdul Ghafoor petitioner who is satisfied. He has gone out, checked the Car and has back.

11. Name in registration Book owner has better title hence entitled to the possession.[6]

12. Principle of possessor.[7]

13. Provision Section 516-A Cr.PC empowered the court to deliver on superdari to any person during pendency of trial, any property regarding which any offence appeared to have been committed. Property was not necessarily to be given on superdari to person from, whose possession it was recovered.[8]

14. Property was not necessarily to be given on superdari to a person from whose possession it was recovered.
15. Delivery to a person entitled to its possession.

16. Name in Registration Book.[9]

17. Property claimed by original owner regarding which an offence has been committed.[10]

18. Condition was to be further deteriorated if the same was not granted as superdari.[11]

19. Revision in Superdari.[12]

20. Real owner should not be deprived of custody.[13]

21. Subject of decay.[14]

22. Two claimants’ Name in Registration Book.[15]

23. The owner has given the vehicle on rent if any offence got committed on it.[16]

[1] 2005 P Cr.L J 533 ALD 2004 2011.
[2] 2004 YLR 943(a) ALD 2016 2004.
[3] 2004 YLR 3198 ALD 2019.
[4] 1997 PLR 537 Abbotabad.
[5] 2001 MLD 670 Lahore.
[6] 2000 YLR 1241.
[7] 2006 P.Cr.LJ 311.
[8] 2004 MLD 1259(a).
[9] MLD 1596.
[10] 2004 YLR 943 (a).
[11] 2004 YLR L 358.
[12] YLR 324 2003.
[13] 1991 MLD 2590.
[14] 2003 YLR 791.
[15] 2003 YLR 2744.
[16] PLD 2003 Pesh 87 (

Secondary Evidence.

In absence of original document, its certified copy is not admissible in evidence.
Notwithstanding the presumption of correctness being attached with certified copy of a document pertaining to the official record, if the availability or existence of document is disputed and original is not produced, its certified copy would not be admissible in evidence without proving the non-availability of the original.

PLD 2005 SC 418

2012 SCMR 1147
Applicant, a Hindu lady, had applied for obtaining a passport, but she could not get the same, as she was not in possession of a Computerized National Identity Card, which card had not been issued by NADRA because there was no documentary evidence to establish her tie of marriage with her husband--- Police official of the district from which the applicant belonged had stated that present situation had arisen because of a lacuna in the policy issued by NADRA, but with his intervention NADRA authorities had agreed to issue Computerized National Identity Card to the applicant, subject to her furnishing an affidavit---NADRA official had stated that a Regulation was being framed to ensure that the Fundamental rights of the Hindu community were fully protected, for which a Board meeting had been called, but in the meantime standing instructions had been issued to ensure that the members of the Hindu community faced no difficulty in getting Computerized National Identity Cards

If mother not married with other person, the child who born with in a period of two years will belong to first husband.
2015 PLD SC P-32
Family judge has the power to review his own order to some extent.
2016 P.L.D Lah 73
MARRYING AGAIN WITH ANOTHER PERSON DURING LIFE TIME OF FIRST HUSBAND WITHOUT ADOPTING DUE COURSE OF LAW IS SERIOUS OFFENCE
2016 MLD LAH 294
Disinterment of dead body (Kabar Koshai) can be done even after one year.
2016 PCRLJ 756

VERY IMPORTANT JUDGMENT OF ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT
(FAIR TRAIL----BAIL GRANT OF......PREVIOUS CONVICTED)
2015 P Cr.L.J 224 (Islamabad)
“That applicant/accused is entitle for the concession of bail as a right under the Article 10-A of the constitution of Pakistan to get Fair Trail, despite of being previously convicted, if offence dose not fall under the prohibitory clause, Presumption of innocence is a basic pillar of criminal law and every person to be presumed innocent until proved guilty, Presumption of innocence is basis of right to defense of an accused and key to fair trail. Fair trail and due process essentially envisaged being free from bias of every kind and person facing trail in multiple FIRs has independent right to defend himself in each cases even conviction in another case and other cases would not influence/bias court as such bias would deprive accused of his right to fair trail and conviction in other cases would only be relevant for specific purpose of enhancement of punishment under section 75 PPC”

Court had the inherent power to consolidate suits and the purpose behind it was to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to prevent abuse of the process of law and court and to avoid conflicting judgments.
(PLD 2016 SC 409)