case law on succession matters

No limitation existed in matters of letter of administration and succession certificate.
Ss. 278 & 372 ---Letter of administration and succession certificate issuance of---limitation ---No limitation existed in matters of letter of administration and succession certificate.
2014 CLC 981 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : ABDUL WAHAB
Side Opponent : ABDUL RASHEED.

case law on 22 A B allow

(2013 P Cr. L J 117 [Sindh] Before Nadeem Akhtar, J)

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----Ss. 22-A & 154---Information disclosed to Justice of Peace constituting a cognizable offence---Duty of Justice of Peace in such circumstances to give directions for registration for F.I.R.---Scope---Cognizable offence committed during pendency of a civil dispute---Complainant alleged that he had purchased a property from the accused and had paid the entire sale consideration but despite such fact accused refused to hand over the property---Accused while armed with weapons visited Otaq of complainant and threatened to kill him if he continued with his demand of the said property---Station House Officer (SHO) refused to register F.I.R. for the incident because of which complainant approached the Justice of Peace, who on basis of police report refused to give directions for registration of F.I.R. and observed that dispute was a civil dispute which had arisen out of an agreement to sell, therefore, same should be taken to the civil court---Validity---Application of complainant before Justice of Peace was dismissed on basis of police report and not on the basis of the incident narrated and specific allegations made by the complainant---Contents of the application made by the complainant were not considered by the Justice of Peace in order to determine whether any cognizable offence had been made out or not---Justice of Peace was duty bound to determine the question of existence or non-existence of cognizable offence without going into the veracity of the information in question---Complainant did not conceal the existence of a civil dispute in his application before the Justice of Peace and only raised the specific allegation that accused forcibly entered into his Otaq with weapons and threatened to murder him---Despite such serious allegations, Justice of Peace did not deal with the basic questions whether information disclosed by the complainant did or did not constitute a cognizable offence, and whether the Station House Officer (SHO) refused to register the complaint---Impugned order of Justice of Peace was not a speaking order as no valid reason had been mentioned therein to show that prayer made by complainant had been declined after proper and full application of mind---Impugned order was a nullity and accordingly set aside by the High Court with the direction that Station House Officer should record statement of complainant if a cognizable offence was made out on basis of such statement---Application was allowed accordingly.
Mst. Bhaitan v. The State and 3 others PLD 2005 Kar. 621; Salah-ud-Din Khan, S.H.O. and 2 others v. Noor Jehan and another PLD 2008 Pesh. 53 and Muhammad Bashir v. Station House Officer, Okara Cantt. and others PLD 2007 SC 539 rel.
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----Ss. 154 & 155---Registration of F.I.R.---Scope---Station House Officer (SHO) of Police holding inquiry to assess correctness of information provided by complainant---Legality---No provision in any law, including Ss.154 and 155, Cr.P.C., authorized an Officer Incharge of the Police Station to hold any inquiry to assess the correctness or falsity of the information received by him before complying with the mandatory requirement of reducing the information into writing irrespective of the fact whether such information was true or not.
(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 22-A---Justice of Peace calling for police report/comments for deciding an application under S.22-A, Cr.P.C.---Validity---When it was alleged in an application under S.22-A, Cr.P.C. that a cognizable offence had been committed and same was not registered by the Station House Officer despite applicant's complaint, then it was not necessary for the Justice of Peace to call for comments or report from police in order to decide such an application.
(d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 22-A---Cognizable offence committed during pendency of a civil/private dispute---Justice of Peace dismissing application under S.22-A, Cr.P.C. due to existence of private or civil dispute---Validity---Dismissal of application under S.22-A, Cr.P.C. by Justice of Peace in such circumstances would be a misconception because, firstly, had the same been the intention of the law makers, then a barring clause would have been inserted in S.22-A, Cr.P.C. barring all applications before Justice of Peace wherein parties were involved in a private or civil dispute, and secondly, because parties might have a private or civil dispute and at the same time during pendency of such dispute, one or both parties might commit a (criminal) offence against the other---Parties, in such a situation, should have both remedies available to them, one before the competent civil court and the other before the proper forum prescribed under Cr.P.C.
(e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 22-A---Information disclosed to Justice of Peace constituting a cognizable offence---Duty of Justice of Peace in such circumstances to give directions for registration of F.I.R.---Scope---When an oral or written complaint was made before the Justice of Peace in respect of an offence, he was bound under S.22-A(6), Cr.P.C. to examine whether the information disclosed by the applicant did or did not constitute a cognizable offence, and if it did according to his own independent opinion as per facts narrated by the applicant, then he was bound to direct the Station House Officer (SHO) to register an F.I.R., without going into veracity of the information and irrespective of any private or civil dispute between the parties.
(f) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----Ss. 22-A & 154---Station House Officer receiving directions from Justice of Peace to register F.I.R.---Duty of Station House Officer to register an F.I.R. in such circumstances---Scope---Upon a direction issued by Justice of Peace, concerned Station House Officer was bound to register an F.I.R. under S.154, Cr.P.C., whether the information received by him was false or correct and whether any private or civil dispute between the parties was pending or not---Station House Officer had no power to refuse to register the F.I.R., if the offence appeared to be cognizable from the information received by him. 

ملڪ مان نڪرندڙ قدرتي وسيلن جھڙوڪ تيل ۽گيس بابت سپريم ڪورٽ جو فيصلو

P L D 2014 Supreme Court 350
Present: Jawwad S. Khawaja, Khilji Arif Hussain and Gulzar Ahmed, JJ
APPLICATION BY ABDUL HAKEEM KHOSO, ADVOCATE---In the matter of Constitutional Petitions Nos. 46, 278-Q and Human Rights Case No.36052-S of 2013, decided on 27th December, 2013.
(a) Constitution of Pakistan---
----Art. 172(2) & (3)---Natural resources, ownership of---Mineral oil and natural gas---People of Pakistan were the ultimate owners of natural resources including mineral oil and natural gas through their Governments and State controlled entities.
(b) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 184(3)---Constitutional petition under Art. 184(3) of the Constitution regarding contractual and legal obligations of oil Exploration and Production (E&P) companies operating in Pakistan towards the environment and welfare and uplift of areas of their operation---Enforcement of fundamental rights of citizens---Suo motu notice by the Supreme Court under Art. 184(3) of the Constitution, significance of---Chief Justice of Pakistan took note of a speech delivered by an office bearer of a District Bar Association wherein certain violations of law and the terms and conditions of [petroleum concession] agreements by oil Exploration and Production (E&P) companies operating in the concerned district were highlighted---Copy of the speech was marked by the Chief Justice to the Human Rights Cell (HRC) of the Supreme Court---Report/comments received from concerned personnel and functionaries were found unsatisfactory and it was, therefore, directed that the matter be put up in the Supreme Court as a petition under Art.184(3) of the Constitution---Supreme Court observed that significance of Art.184(3) of the Constitution in enforcing the fundamental rights of the people all over the country without the necessity of having a petitioner from each district was evident from the present case; that in the ordinary course it would have been extremely difficult logistically and financially for a resident of concerned district to file and pursue legal recourse in the civil courts or in the constitutional courts, and even if such recourse had been taken it would have remained confined to issues relating to the concerned district; that it was only on account of Art. 184(3) of the Constitution and the willingness and ability of the (Supreme) Court to take notice suo motu that the entire country spread over more than 105 Districts had been brought within the compass of one initiative taken by the concerned District Bar Association and then proactively dealt with by the Human Rights Cell of the (Supreme) Court and then in court hearings; that it should be obvious from the facts of the present case that conventional methods of seeking legal redress could be grossly inadequate for people without sufficient means, particularly when they might be pitted against more resourceful individuals and corporate entities; that present case summedup the rationale behind Art.184(3) of the Constitution, and the wisdom and foresight of the framers who sought an egalitarian polity by equalising the ordinary citizen with those of greater resources and means, in matters of "public importance with reference to the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights" guaranteed by the Constitution.
(c) Constitution of Pakistan---
----Arts. 9, 14 & 184(3)---Constitutional petition under Art. 184(3) of the Constitution regarding contractual and legal obligations of oil Exploration and Production (E&P) companies operating in Pakistan towards the environment and welfare and uplift of areas of their operation---Maintainability---Plea of applicants that oil exploring companies were acting in violation of law and the terms and conditions of the [petroleum concession] agreements which they executed with the Government whereby they were bound to control environmental pollution, provide jobs and gas facility to the local people and spend specified amount[s] on the local infrastructure such as roads, schools, hospitals and the betterment of local people---Such plea of applicants was not without substance and Federal, Provincial and Local Governments had failed to ensure performance of the obligations of Exploration and Production (E&P) companies, which were actively exploring nearly one-third of the land area of the country---Vast numbers of people were affected by the issues arising in the present case, therefore it raised matters of public importance relating directly to their fundamental rights; especially those guaranteed in Arts.9 & 14 of the Constitution---Constitutional petition was held to be maintainable accordingly.

PLD.2016.SC.951... case law on 161 crpc

PLD.2016.SC.951...
Section..161..crpc..Supplementary statement recorded by prosecution witness after more than a month of the occurrence...
such statement has no legal valve and was inadmissible in evidence and could not be used to contradict the contents of the FIR...
Supplementary statement recorded subsequently to the FIR could be viewed as improvement made to the witness,s statement...

Some Important case laws on various propositions.

Some Important case laws on various propositions.

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
(Copied)

case law on benefit of doubt

Ss. 6 & 9(c)---Prohibition of possessing and trafficking of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Prosecution had examined only two Police Officials---Car claimed to have been used for transportation of the narcotics was owned by one, who had not been examined---No explanation was offered for non producing and non-examination of said owner of car--Discrepancies were found with regard to the chassis number; of the car alleged to have been used in the crime---Impugned judgment, in circumstances, was not sustainable in law--Burden was upon the prosecution to prove charge against accused beyond reasonable doubt; and law presume d an accused innocent till proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt---material contradictions existed in the deposition of the two prosecution witness es---Evidence of both the prosecution witness es on the seizure of narcotics/samples secured from the spot had material contradictions, which were sufficient to hold that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against accused beyond reasonable doubt---Impugned order passed by Special Court, was set aside, in circumstances.

2011 YLR 1483 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : KHAN MUHAMMAD
Side Opponent : State

2002 CLC 96 KARAchi. Facts speaks itself,Doctor left towal inside the abdomin during opration which brought out another doctor so suit for damages decreed against first doctor.

2002 CLC 96 Karachi.
Facts speaks itself,Doctor left towal inside the abdomin during opration which brought out another doctor so suit for damages decreed against first doctor.