S.426---Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3
& 4---Manufacturing, owning or possessing intoxicant---Suspension of
sentences---Application for---Sentence awarded to accused was two years
and the revision petition was not going to be fixed for final hearing
in the near future-Accepting application, sentence of accused was
suspended and he was admitted to bail.
2010 YLR 1396 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUNIR AHMAD
Side Opponent : State
Monday, 17 April 2017
case law on appeal in 3/4 PEHO
-Arts. 3 & 4---Constitution of Pakistan (1973),
Art.203-F---Reappraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Inimical and
interested witnesses---Allegation against accused/appellant was that
pursuant to tip- police party, after getting search warrants from Area
Magistrate, conducted raid and arrested accused who led to recovery of
2500 grams of heroin---Federal Shariat Court maintained conviction and
sentence passed on accused by Trial Court---Accused contended that prior
to registration of case against him a
criminal case under Ss.452, 341, 342, 384, 148 & 149; P.P.C. was got
registered against police including S.H.O. of concerned police station
at the direction of High Court; that accused played an active role in
registration of case against police and he was cited as witness therein
and that habeas corpus petition had been filed in High Court on behalf
of accused and in order to justify his illegal detention, police falsely
involved him in the present case and also in some other cases of
identical nature---Validity---Discrepant prosecution evidence had been
furnished against accused by inimical and interested
witnesses---Documentary evidence transpired that accused was harassed to
such an extent that he was compelled to file suit for damages and writ
petition through his wife for his release from illegal detention of
police---Police was so much poised against accused that he was involved
in so many other cases---Accused had continuously insisted on
investigation of case against police by some other investigation agency
which fact further aggravated grievance of police against
him---Prosecution did not prove case against accused beyond reasonable
doubt---Accused was entitled to acquittal on ground of benefit of
doubt---Appeal was accepted.
2007 SCMR 1288 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : RASHID AHMED alias PAPPU
Side Opponent : State
2007 SCMR 1288 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : RASHID AHMED alias PAPPU
Side Opponent : State
case law on 514 crpc
Impugned
order passed by the Trial Court was not sustainable on two grounds;
firstly that order of forfeiture of. surety bond was passed when surety
was no more alive and same having been passed in violation of S.514(6),
Cr.P.C., was not sustainable; secondly, penalty could be imposed upon
the surety only when it was proved that absence of accused from the
court was intentional and was not for the reason beyond the control of
accused
S. 514---Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3/4---Forfeiture of surety bond---Applicant stood surety for accused and executed surety bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000---Accused having failed to appear in the court on date of hearing, the Trial Court issued notice to applicant/surely under S.514, Cr. P. C., but prior to service of notice, applicant/surety died---Widow of the surety appeared before the court submitted that her husband had died and she was a poor lady and requested for return of the bond amount deposited by her deceased husband in the court, but the Trial Court did not agree with the submission of the widow and imposed penalty of half the amount of surety bond viz. Rs.2,50,000---Trial Court. further ordered that the remaining half amount along with interest be returned to the 'widow of the applicant/surety---Validity---Impugned order passed by the Trial Court was not sustainable on two grounds; firstly that order of forfeiture of. surety bond was passed when surety was no more alive and same having been passed in violation of S.514(6), Cr.P.C., was not sustainable; secondly, penalty could be imposed upon the surety only when it was proved that absence of accused from the court was intentional and was not for the reason beyond the control of accused---In the present case it had come on record that accused was taken to U.S.A. and was detained there and he could not attend the court---Absence of accused being for the reason beyond his control, no penalty could have been imposed upon applicant/surety, even on that count---Impugned order was set aside with the direction that bail amount of Rs.5,00,000 lying in the court be paid to widow of the surety on production of succession certificate from the competent court of law.
S. 514---Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3/4---Forfeiture of surety bond---Applicant stood surety for accused and executed surety bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000---Accused having failed to appear in the court on date of hearing, the Trial Court issued notice to applicant/surely under S.514, Cr. P. C., but prior to service of notice, applicant/surety died---Widow of the surety appeared before the court submitted that her husband had died and she was a poor lady and requested for return of the bond amount deposited by her deceased husband in the court, but the Trial Court did not agree with the submission of the widow and imposed penalty of half the amount of surety bond viz. Rs.2,50,000---Trial Court. further ordered that the remaining half amount along with interest be returned to the 'widow of the applicant/surety---Validity---Impugned order passed by the Trial Court was not sustainable on two grounds; firstly that order of forfeiture of. surety bond was passed when surety was no more alive and same having been passed in violation of S.514(6), Cr.P.C., was not sustainable; secondly, penalty could be imposed upon the surety only when it was proved that absence of accused from the court was intentional and was not for the reason beyond the control of accused---In the present case it had come on record that accused was taken to U.S.A. and was detained there and he could not attend the court---Absence of accused being for the reason beyond his control, no penalty could have been imposed upon applicant/surety, even on that count---Impugned order was set aside with the direction that bail amount of Rs.5,00,000 lying in the court be paid to widow of the surety on production of succession certificate from the competent court of law.
2008 YLR 2699 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : ABDUL SATTAR
Side Opponent : State
Side Appellant : ABDUL SATTAR
Side Opponent : State
Benefit of doubt faing to to produce Entry
Art.
4---Failure to produce Roznamcha Entry---Effect---Failure of
prosecution to produce Roznamcha entry in evidence makes the
authenticity of the whole prosecution case doubtful, about the
proceedings taken by raiding party.
2010 PCrLJ 157 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT
Side Appellant : WAHAB ALI
Side Opponent : State
2010 PCrLJ 157 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT
Side Appellant : WAHAB ALI
Side Opponent : State
Sunday, 16 April 2017
case law on family suit Jurisdiction
Family
Court where the wife resides, shall have the exclusive jurisdiction
over all such matters. further Provisions of Ss.16 to 20, C.P.C. stood
excluded from the proceedings before the Family Court, thus, the
question of its territorial jurisdiction would never arise,
R. 6---Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S. 17 --- Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. 16 to 20---Family Court---Territorial jurisdiction---"Court within the local limits of which the wife ordinarily resides"---Family Court alone had exclusive jurisdiction to deal with all the matrimonial disputes, whatever their nature, irrespective of territorial jurisdiction, provided that the Family Court where the wife resides shall have the jurisdiction to entertain such suits/claims---Provisions of Ss.16 to 20, C.P.C. stood excluded from the proceedings before the Family Court, thus, the question of its territorial jurisdiction would never arise, provided that the Family Court where the wife resides, shall have the exclusive jurisdiction over all such matters.
2016 PLD 613 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : Mst. YASMEEN BIBI
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD GHAZANFAR KHAN
R. 6---Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S. 17 --- Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. 16 to 20---Family Court---Territorial jurisdiction---"Court within the local limits of which the wife ordinarily resides"---Family Court alone had exclusive jurisdiction to deal with all the matrimonial disputes, whatever their nature, irrespective of territorial jurisdiction, provided that the Family Court where the wife resides shall have the jurisdiction to entertain such suits/claims---Provisions of Ss.16 to 20, C.P.C. stood excluded from the proceedings before the Family Court, thus, the question of its territorial jurisdiction would never arise, provided that the Family Court where the wife resides, shall have the exclusive jurisdiction over all such matters.
2016 PLD 613 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : Mst. YASMEEN BIBI
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD GHAZANFAR KHAN
case law on identification parade not needed
--Identification of an accused person before the Trial Court during the trial---Generally unsafe. (ZAHID HUSSAIN CHANNA )
2016 S C M R 1554
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
2016 S C M R 1554
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Tariq Parvez and Dr. Muhammad Khalid Masud, JJ
HAIDER ALI and others---Petitioners
Versus
The STATE---Respondent
Asghar Ali alias Sabah and others v. The State and others 1992 SCMR 2088; Muhammad Afzal alias Abdullah and another v. State and others 2009 SCMR 436; Nazir Ahmad v. Muhammad Iqbal 2011 SCMR 527; Shafqat Mehmood and others v. The State 2011 SCMR 537 and Ghulam Shabbir Ahmed and another v. The State 2011 SCMR 683 ref.
HAIDER ALI and others---Petitioners
Versus
The STATE---Respondent
Asghar Ali alias Sabah and others v. The State and others 1992 SCMR 2088; Muhammad Afzal alias Abdullah and another v. State and others 2009 SCMR 436; Nazir Ahmad v. Muhammad Iqbal 2011 SCMR 527; Shafqat Mehmood and others v. The State 2011 SCMR 537 and Ghulam Shabbir Ahmed and another v. The State 2011 SCMR 683 ref.
case law on appeal in 13 d allowed
Evidence
of the police official, needed independent corroboration---Requirement
of S. 103 , Cr.P.C. had not been complied with, which had made the
recovery of articles doubtful
S. 13(d)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103 ---Keeping arms without licence---Appreciation of evidence---Public/independent witness es not associated with arrest and recovery---Effect---Prosecution/police witness es were contradictory regarding the place from where the accused was arrested and the arm recovered---No public/independent witness es had been associated in the recovery proceedings---Evidence of the police official, needed independent corroboration---Requirement of S. 103 , Cr.P.C. had not been complied with, which had made the recovery of articles doubtful---Impugned conviction and sentence, therefore, was not legal and proper---Joint memo of recovery and arrest of two separate cases had been prepared in the case against present accused and the other accused respectively, and the prosecution, on the basis of same memo, had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the latter, who had been acquitted, and said order of acquittal had not been impugned---Benefit of the acquittal in the connected case on the same joint memo of recovery was extended to present accused, particularly, when the complainant/Investigation Officer had admitted that he had not produced the certificate of District Armour---Complainant had deposed that the case property had been sent to the Ballistic Expert in murder case for report, which was positive, but the prosecution had failed to produce said report, which also created doubt as to the alleged recovery---Case property and the live bullets had neither been produced in the court nor shown to the accused at the time of his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C.---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.
S. 13(d)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103 ---Keeping arms without licence---Appreciation of evidence---Public/independent witness es not associated with arrest and recovery---Effect---Prosecution/police witness es were contradictory regarding the place from where the accused was arrested and the arm recovered---No public/independent witness es had been associated in the recovery proceedings---Evidence of the police official, needed independent corroboration---Requirement of S. 103 , Cr.P.C. had not been complied with, which had made the recovery of articles doubtful---Impugned conviction and sentence, therefore, was not legal and proper---Joint memo of recovery and arrest of two separate cases had been prepared in the case against present accused and the other accused respectively, and the prosecution, on the basis of same memo, had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the latter, who had been acquitted, and said order of acquittal had not been impugned---Benefit of the acquittal in the connected case on the same joint memo of recovery was extended to present accused, particularly, when the complainant/Investigation Officer had admitted that he had not produced the certificate of District Armour---Complainant had deposed that the case property had been sent to the Ballistic Expert in murder case for report, which was positive, but the prosecution had failed to produce said report, which also created doubt as to the alleged recovery---Case property and the live bullets had neither been produced in the court nor shown to the accused at the time of his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C.---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.
2016 PCrLJ 1911 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : DEEDAR AHMED
Side Opponent : State
Side Appellant : DEEDAR AHMED
Side Opponent : State
case law on NADRA
P L D 2016 Lahore 393
Before Ayesha A. Malik, J
KAINAT AKHTAR---Petitioner
Versus
REGIONAL HEADQUARTER NADRA and 2 others---Respondents
Writ Petition No.855 of 2014, heard on 26th February, 2014.
(a) National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance (VIII 2000)--
----S. 9---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Issuance of Computerized National
Identity Card---Scope---Adopted child---Contention of respondent-NADRA was that petitioner was adopted
child and she did not have a mother or father---Validity---Guardianship certificate had been issued in favour of
petitioner by the court of competent jurisdiction---Petitioner had provided the name of her guardian and no
contradiction existed in her documents---Every citizen in or out of Pakistan who had attained the age of
eighteen years should get himself registered and a parent or guardian of every citizen who had not attained such
age should not later than one month after birth of such citizen get such citizen registered in accordance with the
provisions of the Ordinance---National Identity Card was a document for identification of a citizen---Issuance
of National Identity Card would mean that the information contained therein was valid and correct---
Application form issued by the NADRA had contemplated the category of guardian and same also inquired the
relationship with the family head to be explained---Petitioner was entitled to registration with the NADRA and
for issuance of her Computerized National Identity Card---Constitutional petition was accepted and respondents
were directed to issue Computerized National Identity Card to the petitioner forthwith.
Muhammad Salah-ud-Din v. NADRA PLD 2012 Lah. 378 ref.
(b) National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance (VIII 2000)--
----Preamble---Object---National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000, was promulgated to
facilitate the registration of all the persons and for establishment and maintenance of database, data warehouses,
networking, interfacing of databases and related facilities---Purpose of Ordinance and Authority was to register
persons and classes thereof including citizens.
Nadeem Ahmad Sheikh for Petitioner.
Jamil Khan, Law Officer for NADRA.
Date of hearing: 26th February, 2014.
JUDGMENT
AYESHA A. MALIK, J.--Through this petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction to the Respondent
NADRA for issuance of her computerized National Identity Card (CNIC).
2. The case of the Petitioner is that she is a citizen of Pakistan by birth. She was adopted by Shamim
Akhtar who has obtained a guardianship certificate on 23.5.2005 from the court of Mrs. Lubna Ali, Guardian
Judge-I, Lahore vide Guardian Case No.39/GC of 2005. After obtaining the guardianship certificate, the
guardian applied for B-Form which was issued by the Respondents on 6.6.2006. Thereafter the Petitioner
applied for a passport which was also issued to the Petitioner on 12.2.2011 in which the father's name is shown
as Guardian Shamim Akhtar. The Petitioner applied for her CNIC where she clearly stipulated that her
guardian's name is Shamim Akhtar. However the Respondents have denied the Petitioner the issuance of her
CNIC essentially on the ground that she did not have the required information under the parentage column as
she was an adopted child.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that the B-Form has been issued which clearly provides in the
column of father's name that the Petitioner is 'Lay Palik'. In the column of the mother's name it provides the
name of the guardian Shamim Akhtar. Similarly he argued that on the passport it provides that she has a
guardian by the name of Shamim Akhtar. He further argued that no information has been withheld from the
Respondents yet despite the same the Petitioner has not been issued her CNIC. He argued that the basis for
issuance of the CNIC is the B-Form and that the Respondents have denied the Petitioner her fundamental right
as the citizen of Pakistan. Learned counsel further argued that on 22.3.2006 A/Director General of the
Respondents issued a letter to the Headquarters NADRA (SRC Dte), Islamabad requiring a policy to be
formulated with respect to adopted children under guardianship. However he argued that despite the same no
such policy has been made rendering the Petitioner without any remedy against the Respondents.
4. Report and parawise comments have been filed on behalf of the Respondents. Learned Law Officer on
behalf of the Respondents argued that the Petitioner has been granted guardianship certificate on 18.5.2005
from the court of Mrs. Lubna Ali, Guardian Judge-I, Lahore. The Petitioner is still a minor and under the
Majority Act, 1875 until she attains the age of 21 years she cannot file the instant petition. He further argued
that the B-Form shows that the father's name is 'Lay Palik' whereas the mother's name is shown as Shamim
Akhtar. He argued that Shamim Akhtar is the name of the guardian and not the name of the mother of the
Petitioner. Further argued that even on the Secondary School Certificate her parentage is mentioned as Shamim
Akhtar whereas Shamim Akhtar is the guardian of the Petitioner. He argued that the record of the Petitioner is
contradictory, hence she has been denied the issuance of the CNIC. He argued that the record does not clearly
stipulate that the Petitioner is an adopted child because in the B-Form in column of mother it says Shamim
Akhtar and in the passport under the father's name it says Guardian Shamim Akhtar. He argued that the
petitioner should rectify her status as 'adopted child' on her Secondary School Certificate, on the B-Form as well
as on the passport after which the Respondents will consider her cases for the purposes of issuance of the CNIC.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and reviewed the record available on the file.
6. The preliminary objection raised by the learned Law Officer for Respondent NADRA is with respect to
the maintainability of the instant writ petition on the ground that the Petitioner had not attained majority, hence
she is not entitled to file the instant writ petition. The record shows that the Petitioner's date of birth is
22.7.1995 making her 18 years 6 months and 7 days. The Petitioner is pursuing the instant writ petition for her
fundamental right to be issued a CNIC as a citizen of Pakistan. This petition is maintainable and there is no
substance in the objection raised by the learned Law Officer.
7. The basic reason for denying the Petitioner her CNIC is that she is an adopted child. A guardianship
certificate has been issued by the court of competent jurisdiction on 23.5.2005. This is not denied by the
Respondents. The objection of the Respondents is that she does not have a mother or father and that she is
adopted by Shamim Akhtar, hence she cannot show the name of Shamim Akhtar as her mother or her father.
Specifically the Respondents have objected to the fact that on her Secondary School Certificate it says
"son/daughter of Shamim Akhtar". On her Intermediate Part-1 and Part-II Annual Examination it says "Father's
name-Shamim Akhtar" and on the passport it says "Father's name-guardianship Shamim Akhtar". The
Respondents case is that the record of the Petitioner is contradictory and it is unclear from the record as to
whether Shamim Akhtar is the mother or the father or the guardian. The Respondents have also raised the
objection that the Petitioner should change her documentation to show her status as an 'adopted child' under the
guardianship of Shamim Akhtar. I have heard the learned Law Officer at length and find that the arguments
raised by the Respondents are without any merit or legal justification. The Petitioner applied for her CNIC. A
review of the form filed by the Petitioner shows that it clearly mentions the name of her guardian as Shamim
Akhtar. Column No.11 of the CNIC Form specifically asks for 'Guardian Name' which the Petitioner has
provided. Serial No.9 asks for relationship with family head and the Petitioner has written adopted child against
that question. Therefore there is no contradiction in the record of the Petitioner with respect to the fact that she
is under the guardianship of Shamim Akhtar by virtue of Guardianship Certificate dated 23.5.2005.
8. National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 (NADRA Ordinance 2000) preamble
stipulates that it is an Ordinance to provide for the establishment of the National Database and Registration
Authority so as to facilitate the registration of all persons and the establishment and maintenance of
multipurpose database, data warehouses, networking, interfacing of databases and related facilities. Section 9 of
the NADRA Ordinance 2000 provides that every citizen in or out of Pakistan who has attained the age of
eighteen years shall get himself and a parent or guardian of every citizen who has not attained that age shall, not
later than one month after the birth of such citizen, get such citizen registered in accordance with the provisions
of this Ordinance. The primary purpose of this Ordinance and the authority thereunder is to register persons or
classes thereof including citizens. It has already been held by this Court in the case titled 'Muhammad Salah-udDin
v. NADRA' (PLD 2012 Lahore 378) that a national database is to be maintained by the respondent. This
database record maintains all the required data regarding a citizen, thus establishing a database or information
base known as the citizen database. Every citizen is required to be registered with the respondent and to
effectuate the registration every citizen is issued a national identity card. The national identity card is a legal
document for identification of a citizen. Its issuance means that the information contained therein is valid and
correct. Every citizen who has attained the age of eighteen years is entitled to get himself registered with the
Respondent No.3. Section 9 of the NADRA Ordinance 2000 specifically addresses every citizen who has
attained eighteen years to get himself registered and every parent or guardian of every citizen to register the
birth of such citizen. The application form of the Respondents which seeks the details of the applicant for the
CNIC contemplates the category of 'Guardian' and also inquires the relationship with the family head to be
explained. The Petitioner is under the guardianship of Shamim Akhtar as issued by the Guardian Court on
23.5.2005. She is entitled to registration with the Respondents and for issuance of her CNIC. Under the
circumstances there is no justification to deny the Petitioner issuance of her CNIC.
9. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is allowed. The Respondents are directed to issue the CNIC to the
Petitioner forthwith.Petition allowed.
Before Ayesha A. Malik, J
KAINAT AKHTAR---Petitioner
Versus
REGIONAL HEADQUARTER NADRA and 2 others---Respondents
Writ Petition No.855 of 2014, heard on 26th February, 2014.
(a) National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance (VIII 2000)--
----S. 9---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Issuance of Computerized National
Identity Card---Scope---Adopted child---Contention of respondent-NADRA was that petitioner was adopted
child and she did not have a mother or father---Validity---Guardianship certificate had been issued in favour of
petitioner by the court of competent jurisdiction---Petitioner had provided the name of her guardian and no
contradiction existed in her documents---Every citizen in or out of Pakistan who had attained the age of
eighteen years should get himself registered and a parent or guardian of every citizen who had not attained such
age should not later than one month after birth of such citizen get such citizen registered in accordance with the
provisions of the Ordinance---National Identity Card was a document for identification of a citizen---Issuance
of National Identity Card would mean that the information contained therein was valid and correct---
Application form issued by the NADRA had contemplated the category of guardian and same also inquired the
relationship with the family head to be explained---Petitioner was entitled to registration with the NADRA and
for issuance of her Computerized National Identity Card---Constitutional petition was accepted and respondents
were directed to issue Computerized National Identity Card to the petitioner forthwith.
Muhammad Salah-ud-Din v. NADRA PLD 2012 Lah. 378 ref.
(b) National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance (VIII 2000)--
----Preamble---Object---National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000, was promulgated to
facilitate the registration of all the persons and for establishment and maintenance of database, data warehouses,
networking, interfacing of databases and related facilities---Purpose of Ordinance and Authority was to register
persons and classes thereof including citizens.
Nadeem Ahmad Sheikh for Petitioner.
Jamil Khan, Law Officer for NADRA.
Date of hearing: 26th February, 2014.
JUDGMENT
AYESHA A. MALIK, J.--Through this petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction to the Respondent
NADRA for issuance of her computerized National Identity Card (CNIC).
2. The case of the Petitioner is that she is a citizen of Pakistan by birth. She was adopted by Shamim
Akhtar who has obtained a guardianship certificate on 23.5.2005 from the court of Mrs. Lubna Ali, Guardian
Judge-I, Lahore vide Guardian Case No.39/GC of 2005. After obtaining the guardianship certificate, the
guardian applied for B-Form which was issued by the Respondents on 6.6.2006. Thereafter the Petitioner
applied for a passport which was also issued to the Petitioner on 12.2.2011 in which the father's name is shown
as Guardian Shamim Akhtar. The Petitioner applied for her CNIC where she clearly stipulated that her
guardian's name is Shamim Akhtar. However the Respondents have denied the Petitioner the issuance of her
CNIC essentially on the ground that she did not have the required information under the parentage column as
she was an adopted child.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that the B-Form has been issued which clearly provides in the
column of father's name that the Petitioner is 'Lay Palik'. In the column of the mother's name it provides the
name of the guardian Shamim Akhtar. Similarly he argued that on the passport it provides that she has a
guardian by the name of Shamim Akhtar. He further argued that no information has been withheld from the
Respondents yet despite the same the Petitioner has not been issued her CNIC. He argued that the basis for
issuance of the CNIC is the B-Form and that the Respondents have denied the Petitioner her fundamental right
as the citizen of Pakistan. Learned counsel further argued that on 22.3.2006 A/Director General of the
Respondents issued a letter to the Headquarters NADRA (SRC Dte), Islamabad requiring a policy to be
formulated with respect to adopted children under guardianship. However he argued that despite the same no
such policy has been made rendering the Petitioner without any remedy against the Respondents.
4. Report and parawise comments have been filed on behalf of the Respondents. Learned Law Officer on
behalf of the Respondents argued that the Petitioner has been granted guardianship certificate on 18.5.2005
from the court of Mrs. Lubna Ali, Guardian Judge-I, Lahore. The Petitioner is still a minor and under the
Majority Act, 1875 until she attains the age of 21 years she cannot file the instant petition. He further argued
that the B-Form shows that the father's name is 'Lay Palik' whereas the mother's name is shown as Shamim
Akhtar. He argued that Shamim Akhtar is the name of the guardian and not the name of the mother of the
Petitioner. Further argued that even on the Secondary School Certificate her parentage is mentioned as Shamim
Akhtar whereas Shamim Akhtar is the guardian of the Petitioner. He argued that the record of the Petitioner is
contradictory, hence she has been denied the issuance of the CNIC. He argued that the record does not clearly
stipulate that the Petitioner is an adopted child because in the B-Form in column of mother it says Shamim
Akhtar and in the passport under the father's name it says Guardian Shamim Akhtar. He argued that the
petitioner should rectify her status as 'adopted child' on her Secondary School Certificate, on the B-Form as well
as on the passport after which the Respondents will consider her cases for the purposes of issuance of the CNIC.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and reviewed the record available on the file.
6. The preliminary objection raised by the learned Law Officer for Respondent NADRA is with respect to
the maintainability of the instant writ petition on the ground that the Petitioner had not attained majority, hence
she is not entitled to file the instant writ petition. The record shows that the Petitioner's date of birth is
22.7.1995 making her 18 years 6 months and 7 days. The Petitioner is pursuing the instant writ petition for her
fundamental right to be issued a CNIC as a citizen of Pakistan. This petition is maintainable and there is no
substance in the objection raised by the learned Law Officer.
7. The basic reason for denying the Petitioner her CNIC is that she is an adopted child. A guardianship
certificate has been issued by the court of competent jurisdiction on 23.5.2005. This is not denied by the
Respondents. The objection of the Respondents is that she does not have a mother or father and that she is
adopted by Shamim Akhtar, hence she cannot show the name of Shamim Akhtar as her mother or her father.
Specifically the Respondents have objected to the fact that on her Secondary School Certificate it says
"son/daughter of Shamim Akhtar". On her Intermediate Part-1 and Part-II Annual Examination it says "Father's
name-Shamim Akhtar" and on the passport it says "Father's name-guardianship Shamim Akhtar". The
Respondents case is that the record of the Petitioner is contradictory and it is unclear from the record as to
whether Shamim Akhtar is the mother or the father or the guardian. The Respondents have also raised the
objection that the Petitioner should change her documentation to show her status as an 'adopted child' under the
guardianship of Shamim Akhtar. I have heard the learned Law Officer at length and find that the arguments
raised by the Respondents are without any merit or legal justification. The Petitioner applied for her CNIC. A
review of the form filed by the Petitioner shows that it clearly mentions the name of her guardian as Shamim
Akhtar. Column No.11 of the CNIC Form specifically asks for 'Guardian Name' which the Petitioner has
provided. Serial No.9 asks for relationship with family head and the Petitioner has written adopted child against
that question. Therefore there is no contradiction in the record of the Petitioner with respect to the fact that she
is under the guardianship of Shamim Akhtar by virtue of Guardianship Certificate dated 23.5.2005.
8. National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 (NADRA Ordinance 2000) preamble
stipulates that it is an Ordinance to provide for the establishment of the National Database and Registration
Authority so as to facilitate the registration of all persons and the establishment and maintenance of
multipurpose database, data warehouses, networking, interfacing of databases and related facilities. Section 9 of
the NADRA Ordinance 2000 provides that every citizen in or out of Pakistan who has attained the age of
eighteen years shall get himself and a parent or guardian of every citizen who has not attained that age shall, not
later than one month after the birth of such citizen, get such citizen registered in accordance with the provisions
of this Ordinance. The primary purpose of this Ordinance and the authority thereunder is to register persons or
classes thereof including citizens. It has already been held by this Court in the case titled 'Muhammad Salah-udDin
v. NADRA' (PLD 2012 Lahore 378) that a national database is to be maintained by the respondent. This
database record maintains all the required data regarding a citizen, thus establishing a database or information
base known as the citizen database. Every citizen is required to be registered with the respondent and to
effectuate the registration every citizen is issued a national identity card. The national identity card is a legal
document for identification of a citizen. Its issuance means that the information contained therein is valid and
correct. Every citizen who has attained the age of eighteen years is entitled to get himself registered with the
Respondent No.3. Section 9 of the NADRA Ordinance 2000 specifically addresses every citizen who has
attained eighteen years to get himself registered and every parent or guardian of every citizen to register the
birth of such citizen. The application form of the Respondents which seeks the details of the applicant for the
CNIC contemplates the category of 'Guardian' and also inquires the relationship with the family head to be
explained. The Petitioner is under the guardianship of Shamim Akhtar as issued by the Guardian Court on
23.5.2005. She is entitled to registration with the Respondents and for issuance of her CNIC. Under the
circumstances there is no justification to deny the Petitioner issuance of her CNIC.
9. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is allowed. The Respondents are directed to issue the CNIC to the
Petitioner forthwith.Petition allowed.
case law on Gas
Arts.
158 & 199---Constitutional petition---Supply of natural
gas---Priority---Petitioner company raised the plea that in view of
Art.158 of the Constitution, failure to supply natural gas to its plant
was illegal---Validity---Province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa had surplus gas
over and above its own consumption---Cement manufacturing unit of
petitioner situated in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province should have had
precedence over cement manufacturing units outside the Province but
record spoke otherwise---Instead of
giving precedence to petitioner's cement manufacturing unit, the units
in other Provinces were given preference and petitioner was deprived of
its legal and constitutional right---High Court declared the conduct of
authorities in delaying the provision and supply of gas connection to
petitioner company as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory,
without lawful authority and jurisdiction and also violative of
constitutional guarantees enshrined in the Constitution---High Court
directed the authorities to act in accordance with law and Constitution
and forthwith supply gas to cement manufacturing unit of
petitioner---Petition was allowed accordingly.
2016 PLD 32 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Side Appellant : CHERAT CEMENT COMPANY LTD. NOWSHERA
Side Opponent : PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resoures, Islamabad
Side Appellant : CHERAT CEMENT COMPANY LTD. NOWSHERA
Side Opponent : PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resoures, Islamabad
case law on bail in Theft
S.
497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.380 / 457 / 436/ 34---Theft in
dwelling house, lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night in
order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment, mischief by fire
or explosive substance with intent to destroy house, common
intention---bail , grant of---Further inquiry---Two eye-witnesses of the
incident were not shown in the challan and they had also not deposed or
corroborated the allegations, as mentioned in the F.I.R.---F.I.R.
was silent with regard to the allegations of taking away entire house
hold items and it was also not clear as to how the said items were
shifted from the house to another place---No recovery of any item had
been made from the accused---Record revealed that an F.I.R. had been
lodged in the past in which complainant of present F.I.R. was shown as
an accused and present accused was one of the witnesses of that
F.I.R.---Was yet to come on record as to what happened with the large
number of stolen articles/ goods---Case of further inquiry was made out
in terms of S.497(2), Cr.P.C.---Accused was admitted to bail ,
accordingly.
2012 YLR 1340 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : ABDUL HAFEEZ
Side Opponent : State
Side Appellant : ABDUL HAFEEZ
Side Opponent : State
case law on challan
هاء ڪورٽ ، جڊيشل ميجسٽريٽ يا ڪنهن ٻي ڪورٽ کي چالان جمع ڪرائڻ لاء پوليس کي حڪم ڏيڻ جو ڪو اختيار ناهي سپريم ڪورٽ آف پاڪستان۔
No power vested with any court including a High Court to override the said legal provision and direct the police either not to submit the said report or to submit the said report in a particular manner.
Ss. 173 & 190---Constitution, of Pakistan, Art. 185---Submission of challan---Concerned police recommended the disposal of the case as false---Magistrate concerned, approved the summary submitted by the police---High Court, however, set aside order passed by the Magistrate and directed the S.P. (Investigation) to submit challan of the case---After passing of said order, the police re-investigated the case and submitted the challan before the competent court---Grievance raised by the counsel for appellants was that the order passed by the High Court to the extent of submission of challan of the case was invalid, unwarranted in law and without jurisdiction---Validity--Section 173 , Cr.P.C. provided that on conclusion of investigation, the concerned S.H.O. was required to submit a report of the result thereof in the prescribed manner to the Judicial Magistrate competent to take cognizance under S.190, Cr. P. C. ---No power vested with any court including a High Court to override the said legal provision and direct the police either not to submit the said report or to submit the said report in a particular manner---Order of the High Court, to the extent of setting aside the order of the Magistrate passed. on the summary submitted by the police, appeared to be correct, but further direction to the police for submission of challan, was un-warranted and not sustainable in law---Power of investigation into accusation made in the First Information Report, vested with the police---On the basis of material collected by the police, the police had either to send up accused persons to stand trial or to submit a report to the Magistrate concerned for disposal of case in accordance with law.
2011 SCMR 1430 SUPREME-COURT ( NASEER versus KHUDA BAKH
No power vested with any court including a High Court to override the said legal provision and direct the police either not to submit the said report or to submit the said report in a particular manner.
Ss. 173 & 190---Constitution, of Pakistan, Art. 185---Submission of challan---Concerned police recommended the disposal of the case as false---Magistrate concerned, approved the summary submitted by the police---High Court, however, set aside order passed by the Magistrate and directed the S.P. (Investigation) to submit challan of the case---After passing of said order, the police re-investigated the case and submitted the challan before the competent court---Grievance raised by the counsel for appellants was that the order passed by the High Court to the extent of submission of challan of the case was invalid, unwarranted in law and without jurisdiction---Validity--Section 173 , Cr.P.C. provided that on conclusion of investigation, the concerned S.H.O. was required to submit a report of the result thereof in the prescribed manner to the Judicial Magistrate competent to take cognizance under S.190, Cr. P. C. ---No power vested with any court including a High Court to override the said legal provision and direct the police either not to submit the said report or to submit the said report in a particular manner---Order of the High Court, to the extent of setting aside the order of the Magistrate passed. on the summary submitted by the police, appeared to be correct, but further direction to the police for submission of challan, was un-warranted and not sustainable in law---Power of investigation into accusation made in the First Information Report, vested with the police---On the basis of material collected by the police, the police had either to send up accused persons to stand trial or to submit a report to the Magistrate concerned for disposal of case in accordance with law.
2011 SCMR 1430 SUPREME-COURT ( NASEER versus KHUDA BAKH
case law on murder in police Encounter
پوليس
کي ماڻهو مارڻ جو ڪو اختيار ناهي، چاهي هو ڪيڏو وڏو ڏوهاري هجي، سنڌ هاء
ڪورٽ پوليس جي ڪسٽڊي م مري ويل جوابدار جي خون جو ڪيس پوليس خلاف داخل ڪرڻ
جو حڪم ڏئي ڇڏيو۔
Land Mark Judgement by Justice Salahuddin panhwar against police, accused died in police custody High Court Ordered to register the FIR against the Police (Zahid Hussain Channa & Co)
Ss. 154, 174 & 176---murder in police custody ---Registration of criminal case---Scope---Son of the petitioner aged 15/16 years was nominated in the murder case; he was arrested by the police ; was detained at police Station, where he was tortured---Son of the petitioner was denuded, whipped and mixture of water and "choona" was forcibly put in his mouth as a result he became unconscious, and subsequently he expired in Hospital---Deceased received injuries in custody of police and he was referred to Hospital, where he died and postmortem was conducted---Proceedings under S.176, Cr.P.C., were not initiated---Station House Officer of police Station was bound to record the statement of every informant, and once information, narrated or received by SHO and would spell commission of a cognizable offence, he was left with no discretion, but to incorporate the same into the book as prescribed under S. 154, Cr.P.C., which provision was mandatory in nature---Not the caste, colour, creed or position of accused, but the investigation/trial alone, which would dress an accused with clothes of innocence---Such was not done in the present case---Conduct of the Doctor and police , was not up to the mark in the case---Even concerned Magistrate, was not approached, who otherwise was legally empowered to inquire into in such matters, as provided by S.176, Cr.P.C.---Such legal inquiry was deliberately avoided---Under peculiar circumstances of the present case, it was obligatory on the police Officer-in-charge of police Station; and even the Medical Officer to have informed to the concerned Magistrate for necessary inquiry, but that obligation was not fulfilled in the case---High Court observed that both the functionaries were required to be prosecuted for their negligence---High Court directed that Magistrate would proceed to conduct an inquiry within the scope of S.176, Cr.P.C., which would be in addition to the investigation into FIR ordered to be lodged---Constitutional petition was disposed with the observations that SHO would record statement of petitioner; if same would narrate ingredients of a cognizable offence, he would incorporate the same in the book provided under S.154, Cr.P.C.---If negligence of the Doctor was found with regard to Postmortem of the deceased, Director General Health Services, would be directed to constitute team for probe with regard to postmortem report---Order accordingly.
2016 PCrLJ 613 SINDH
( Mst. YASMEEN SHAIKH versus AYAZ PATHAN
Land Mark Judgement by Justice Salahuddin panhwar against police, accused died in police custody High Court Ordered to register the FIR against the Police (Zahid Hussain Channa & Co)
Ss. 154, 174 & 176---murder in police custody ---Registration of criminal case---Scope---Son of the petitioner aged 15/16 years was nominated in the murder case; he was arrested by the police ; was detained at police Station, where he was tortured---Son of the petitioner was denuded, whipped and mixture of water and "choona" was forcibly put in his mouth as a result he became unconscious, and subsequently he expired in Hospital---Deceased received injuries in custody of police and he was referred to Hospital, where he died and postmortem was conducted---Proceedings under S.176, Cr.P.C., were not initiated---Station House Officer of police Station was bound to record the statement of every informant, and once information, narrated or received by SHO and would spell commission of a cognizable offence, he was left with no discretion, but to incorporate the same into the book as prescribed under S. 154, Cr.P.C., which provision was mandatory in nature---Not the caste, colour, creed or position of accused, but the investigation/trial alone, which would dress an accused with clothes of innocence---Such was not done in the present case---Conduct of the Doctor and police , was not up to the mark in the case---Even concerned Magistrate, was not approached, who otherwise was legally empowered to inquire into in such matters, as provided by S.176, Cr.P.C.---Such legal inquiry was deliberately avoided---Under peculiar circumstances of the present case, it was obligatory on the police Officer-in-charge of police Station; and even the Medical Officer to have informed to the concerned Magistrate for necessary inquiry, but that obligation was not fulfilled in the case---High Court observed that both the functionaries were required to be prosecuted for their negligence---High Court directed that Magistrate would proceed to conduct an inquiry within the scope of S.176, Cr.P.C., which would be in addition to the investigation into FIR ordered to be lodged---Constitutional petition was disposed with the observations that SHO would record statement of petitioner; if same would narrate ingredients of a cognizable offence, he would incorporate the same in the book provided under S.154, Cr.P.C.---If negligence of the Doctor was found with regard to Postmortem of the deceased, Director General Health Services, would be directed to constitute team for probe with regard to postmortem report---Order accordingly.
2016 PCrLJ 613 SINDH
( Mst. YASMEEN SHAIKH versus AYAZ PATHAN
case law on Mantainence
جيڪڏهن خرچ جي ڪيس ٻارن جو مقرر ڪيل خرچ پورو نه ٿيي ۽ ڪيس ختم ٿي ويو
هجي ته خرچ جا پئسا وڌائڻ لاء نئي ڪيس ڪرڻ جي ضرورت ناهي صرف سمپل درخواست
ڪبي.
Once a decree by the family Court in a suit for maintenance (for minors) was granted, thereafter, if the granted rate for monthly allowance was insufficient and inadequate, in that case, institution of fresh suit was not necessary rather the family Court may entertain any such application (under S. 151 , C.P.C.) and if necessary make alteration in the rate of maintenance allowance
Once a decree by the family Court in a suit for maintenance (for minors) was granted, thereafter, if the granted rate for monthly allowance was insufficient and inadequate, in that case, institution of fresh suit was not necessary rather the family Court may entertain any such application (under S. 151 , C.P.C.) and if necessary make alteration in the rate of maintenance allowance
S. 5 & Sched.---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 151
---Maintenance allowance for minors, enhancement of---family Court,
powers of---Scope---Order for maintenance allowance for minors was
passed by family Court---Mother of minors sought enhancement in
maintenance allowance through filing an application under S. 151 ,
C.P.C. before the family Court---Objection of father that enhancement in
maintenance allowance could only be sought by filing a separate
suit---Validity---Provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 were not
stricto sensu applicable to the proceedings under the family Courts Act,
1964, as such the family Court was competent to adopt its own
procedure---family Court had exclusive jurisdiction relating to
maintenance allowance and the matters connected therewith---Once a
decree by the family Court in a suit for maintenance (for minors) was
granted, thereafter, if the granted rate for monthly allowance was
insufficient and inadequate, in that case, institution of fresh suit was
not necessary rather the family Court may entertain any such
application (under S. 151 , C.P.C.) and if necessary make alteration in
the rate of maintenance allowance--- Objection was rejected accordingly.
2016 SCMR 1821 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : Lt. Col. NASIR MALIK
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE
2016 SCMR 1821 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : Lt. Col. NASIR MALIK
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)