Syed Law Associates

Syed Law Associates Legal Citations

12/08/2025

2025 CLC 1158
PLJ 2025 Lahore 526
VVVVI. MUST READ JUDGEMENT.

a) Beneficiary of the impugned transaction of gift/transfer of immovable property(s) bears the heavy onus to prove the transaction.;
Ref:
Muhammad Sarwar v. Mumtaz Bibi and others (2020 SCMR 276); Mst. Parveen (deceased) through LRs v. Muhammad Pervaiz and others (2022 SCMR 64); Mst. Hayat Bibi and others v. Alamzeb and others (2022 SCMR 13) Islam ud Din (deceased) through L.Rs. and others v. Mst. Noor Jahan (deceased) through L.Rs. and others (PLJ 2016 SC 616) Phull Peer Shah v. Hafeez Fatima (2016 SCMR 1225); Peer Baksh through L.Rs. and others v. Mst. Khanzadi and others (2016 SCMR 1417) (naeem)Amjad Ikram v. Mst. Asiya Kausar and 2 others (2015 SCMR 1), Ibrahim Kamal v. Mst. Malooka Bibi and others (2012 SCMR 1), and Khaliqdad Khan and others v. Mst. Zeenat Khatoon and others (2010 SCMR 1370).
--------------------------
(b) The beneficiary of a gift has to plead and prove three mandatory ingredients of gift i.e. declaration/offer by the donor, acceptance of gift by the donee; and, delivery of possession under the gift.;
Ref:
Bilal Hussain Shah and another v. Dilawar Shah (PLD 2018 SC 698); Khalid Hussain and others v. Nazir Ahmad and others (2021 SCMR 1986); Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary Civil Secretariat, Peshawar and others v. Shah Faisal Wahab and others (2023 SCMR 1642); Mst. Tahira Samina and others v. Javed Saeed Tariq and others (2024 SCMR 24); (naeem)Mst. Saadia v. Mst. Gul Bibi (2016 SCMR 662); Mst. Nagina Begum v. Mst. Tahzim Akhtar and others (2009 SCMR 623); Khalida Idrees and others v. Anas Farooq Chaudhary and others (PLD 2018 LAH 819); Mst. Rasheeda Bibi v. Mukhtar Ahmad and others (2008 SCMR 1384); Islam-ud-Din through L.Rs and others v. Mst.l Noor Jahan through L.Rs and others (2016 SCMR 986); Mst. Shafqat Parveen v. Muhammad Iftikhar Amjad and others (2012 SCMR 1602); Rehmat Noor v. Zulqarnian (2023 SCMR 1645); Syed Ahmad v. Ali Akbar and others (2021 SCMR 743);
--------------------------
(c) The possession of immovable property by one of the siblings/LRs to the exclusion of others will be treated as constructive possession on behalf of all others, unless proved otherwise.;
Ref:
Mst. Tahira Samina and others v. Javed Saeed Tariq and others (2024 SCMR 24); Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary Civil Secretariat, Peshawar and others v. Shah Faisal Wahab and others (2023 SCMR 1642); (naeem)Agha Syed Mushtaque Ali Shah v. Mst. Bibi Gul Jan and others (2016 SCMR 910); Fareed and others v. Muhammad Tufail and another (2018 SCMR 139);
--------------------------
(d)In case of oral transactions, it is mandatory for a beneficiary of oral transaction to prove the same through positive evidence by supplying mandatory material particulars in the pleadings i.e. the time & date, the venue, the persons/witnesses in whose presence the alleged transaction was brought about.
Ref:
Muhammad Shafiq Ullah and others v. Allah Bakhsh (deceased) through L.Rs. and others (2021 SCMR 763), Saddaruddin (since deceased) through L.Rs. v. Sultan Khan (since deceased) through L.Rs. and others (2021 SCMR 642), Muhammad Riaz and others v. Mst. Badshah Begum and others (2021 SCMR 605), (naeem)Atta Muhammad and others v. Mst. Munir Sultan (deceased) through her L.Rs. and others (2021 SCMR 73), Muhammad Yaqoob v. Mst. Sardaran Bibi and others (PLD 2020 S.C. 338), Jubilee General Insurance Co. Ltd. Karachi v. Ravi Steel Company, Lahore (PLD 2020 S.C. 324), Muhammad Nawaz and others v. Sakina Bibi and others (2020 SCMR 1021), Muhammad Sarwar v. Mumtaz Bibi and others (2020 SCMR 276), Moiz Abbas v. Mrs. Latifa and others (2019 SCMR 74); Naveed Akram and others v. Muhammad Anwar (2018 SCMR 1095); Allah Ditta and others v. Manak alias Muhammad Siddique and others (2017 SCMR 402), Peer Baksh through L.Rs. and others v. Mst. Khanzadi and others (2016 SCMR 1417); (naeem)Muhammad Nawaz through L.Rs. v. Haji Muhammad Baran Khan through L.Rs. and others (2013 SCMR 1360) and Muhammad Nawaz through L.Rs. v. Haji Muhammad Baran Khan through L.Rs. and others (2013 SCMR 1300)
--------------------------
e) The oral transaction of transfer of immovable property, be it sale, gift/tamleek, surrender or will etc. has to be proved separate from its incorporation/attestation in revenue record by way of sanctioning of the mutation since a mutation cannot by itself be considered a document of title.;
Ref:
Mst. Brikhna v. Faiz Ullah Khan and others (2020 SCMR 1681), Muhammad Yaqoob v. Mst. Sardaran Bibi and others (PLD 2020 S.C. 338), Fazal Ellahi (deceased) through its Legal Heirs v. Mst. Zainab Bibi (2019 SCMR 1930), Ghulam Sarwar (deceased) through L.Rs. and others (2019 SCMR 567), Islam ud Din (deceased) through L.Rs. and others v. Mst. Noor Jahan (deceased) through L.Rs. and others (PLJ 2016 S.C. 616), (naeem)Phul Peer Shah v. Hafeez Fatima (2016 SCMR 1225), Muhammad Ishaq v. Muhammad Shafiq and 9 others (2007 SCMR 1773), Haji Muhammad Anwar v. Muhammad Ahmed and others (2007 SCMR 1961), Rehmatullah and others v. Saleh Khan and others (2007 SCMR 729), Aurangzeb through L.Rs. and others v. Muhammad Jaffar and another (2007 SCMR 236), Mst. Janntan and others v. Mst. Taggi through L.Rs. and others (PLD 2006 S.C. 322), Muhammad Akram and another v. Altaf Ahmad (PLD 2003 S.C. 688), Muhammad Lehrasab Khan v. Mst. Aqeel un Nisa and 5 other (2001 SCMR 338), Muhammad Ihsaq and another v. Mst. Gazala Riaz and 8 others (1997 SCMR 974) and Mst. Noor Fatima and another v. Begum Bibi and another (1990 SCMR 629)
--------------------------
f) Where a gift, which excluded a legal heir, irrespective of whether such transaction is evidenced by registered deed, the Donee is required to prove original transaction and must justify the disinheritance of a legal heir from the estate.;
Ref:
Fareed and others v. Muhammad Tufail and another (2018 SCMR 139); (naeem)Mst. Tahira Samina and others v. Javed Saeed Tariq and others (2024 SCMR 24)
--------------------------
g) Parties are bound by their pleadings; no amount of evidence can be led beyond the scope of pleadings; and in case any such evidence is brought on record, the Court cannot consider and rely upon the same and has to discard it.;
Ref:
Moiz Abbas v. Mrs. Latifa and others (2019 SCMR 74); Saddaruddin through LRs v. Sultan Khan (Since deceased) through LRs and others (2021 SCMR 642) Muhammad Nawaz alias Nawaza and others v. Member Judicial Board of Revenue and others (2014 SCMR 914) (naeem)Combined Investment (Pvt.) Ltd. V. Wali Bhai and others (PLD 2016 Supreme Court 730); Muhammad Iqbal v. Mehboob Alam (2015 SCMR 21); Messrs Essa Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. and another v. Pakistan Telecommuncation Company Limited and another (2014 SCMR 922)
--------------------------
h) Mere efflux of time does not extinguish the right of inheritance, thus, the question of limitation in case of inheritance and fraud is not attracted and becomes insignificant;
Ref:
Mohammad Boota (deceased) through L.Rs., and others v. Mst. Fatima daughter of Gohar Ali and others (2023 SCMR 1901), Noor Din (deceased) through LRs v. Pervaiz Akhtar and others (2023 SCMR 1928), Salamat Ali and others v. Muhammad Din and others (PLD 2022 S.C. 353), Syed Kausar Ali Shah and others v. Syed Farhat Hussain Shah and others (2022 SCMR 1558), Faqir Ali and others v. Sakina Bibi and others (PLD 2022 S.C. 85), (naeem)Muhammad Sharif and others v. MCB Bank Limited and others (2021 SCMR 1158), Haji Wajdad v. Provincial Government through Secretary Board of Revenue, Government of Balochistan, Quetta and others (2020 SCMR 2046), Shabla and others v. Ms. Jahan Afroz Khilat and others (2020 SCMR 352), Ghulam Farid and another v. Sher Rehman through LRs. (2016 SCMR 862), Syed Mehmood Ali Shah v. Zulfiqar Ali and 5 others (PLD 2013 SC 364) and Messrs Paramount Spinning Mills Ltd. v. Customs, Sales Tax and Central Excise Appellate Tribunal and another (2012 SCMR 1860), Muhammad Iqbal and 5 others v. Allah Bachaya and 18 others (2005 SCMR 1447), Muhammad Zubair and others v. Muhammad Sharif (2005 SCMR 1217) and Dr. Muhammad Javaid Shafi v. Syed Rashid Arshad and others (PLD 2015 SC 212); (naeem)Peer Baksh through LRs and others v. Mst. Khanzadi and others (2016 SCMR 1417); Khan Muhammad through L.Rs and others v. Mst. Khatoon Bibi and others (2017 SCMR 1476), Muhammad Mahmood Shah v. Syed Khalid Hussain Shah and others (2015 SCMR 869); Rehmatullah and others v. Saleh Khan and others (2007 SCMR 729), Arshad Khan v. Mst. Resham Jan and others (2005 SCMR 1859); Khair Din v. Mst. Salaman and others (PLD 2002 SC 677); Mst. Gohar Khanum and others v. Mst. Jamila Jan and others (2014 SCMR 801); Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi (PLD 1990 Supreme Court 1)

Civil Revision No. 27145 of 2017
Mst. Sadiqan Begum Versus Muhammad Siddique

12/08/2025

2025 SCMR 88

The inheritance shares in the estate left by a Muslim is stipulated in the Holy Qur’an and a deceased’s legal heirs become owners on his/her death. Unfortunately, and all too often, females continue to be deprived of their inheritance by employing various nefarious tactics, bogus documentation, fraudulent statements with the facilitation of Revenue department officials and some advocates. The courts too at times are not vigilant enough to protect inheritance rights, particularly of females and other vulnerable members of society. And, simple cases such as this one are not expeditiously decided, and when they do get decided the decision is assailed. The practice of depriving females of their inheritance must be put a stop to, and those who do so must be made to pay substantial costs and not be permitted to benefit from procedural technicalities.

A simple matter has been dragged out for twenty-five years on account of fake documents prepared and fraudulent tactics employed by the petitioners and their advocates. They fear not shariah nor the law. The impugned judgment overlooked the merits of the case and on a technicality again remanded the case, which in the circumstances of the case was wholly unjustified.

C.P.L.A.4576/2023
Mst. Aksar Jan and others v. Mst. Shamim Akhtar and others

12/08/2025

2024 CLC 922
PLJ 2023 Lahore 896
Civil Revision 62703/23
Muhammad Yasin Vs Muhammad Ismail etc

The basic objective and aim of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. is that an incompetent suit should be laid to rest at its inception so that no further time is allowed to be wasted over what is bound to collapse. ........

It is the duty of the Court to thoroughly examine the plaint at the very inception so that the parties could be saved from the agony of frivolous litigation in order to save the precious time of the court because a Court should not behave like a silent observer that a party can capture the whole system of justice for an indefinite time in order to rescue the prevailing judicial system which is already at the prime of criticism.

Date of knowledge of alleged fraud should be pleaded explicitly and proved, which is lacking in this case.

12/08/2025

Once pre-arrest bail is declined by a competent court of law and the accused
stands exposed to arrest.
At the very outset, we regard such inaction on the part of the investigating authorities a matter of serious concern. Prompt and faithful enforcement of judicial orders is fundamental to the criminal justice system. Once pre-arrest bail is declined by a competent court of law and the accused stands exposed to arrest in accordance with law.

It is, therefore, necessary to clarify that any practice whereby police authorities treat the mere filing of a petition before the Supreme Court as an implied stay or bar to arrest, despite the dismissal of pre-arrest bail, indicates a misunderstanding of the purpose of pre-arrest bail. This relief exists as an exceptional measure to protect individuals against arbitrary or mala fide arrest, where circumstances clearly warrant such protection. Once a competent court has declined pre-arrest bail, it has necessarily determined that no such exceptional circumstances exist and arrest is lawful and necessary to ensure an effective investigation. Allowing the mere act of filing another petition to operate as a de facto stay would render that judicial determination meaningless, defeat the objective of ensuring prompt and fair investigation, and risk abuse of process by enabling accused persons to indefinitely evade arrest without any legal basis. Therefore, judicial orders must remain binding and enforceable unless and until a competent court expressly orders otherwise. It must be remembered that interim protection is not automatic; it must be specifically sought and expressly granted. Absent such an order, a refusal of bail remains fully operative and must be implemented promptly and in good faith by investigating authorities.

In this context, and pursuant to directions issued by this Court, the worthy Inspector General of Police, Punjab, appeared in person to explain the conduct of the investigating authorities. He unequivocally affirmed the legal position set out above, confirming that unless there exists an express injunctive or restraining order from this Court, the mere pendency of a petition before the Supreme Court ought not to be treated as a shield by any accused to avoid arrest. When questioned about the reasons for this extended delay and apparent failure to give effect to the order of the High Court, he submitted that a circular had been issued only a day before the present hearing, directing all police officers to ensure strict compliance with such orders in the future and to execute arrests without delay once pre-arrest bail is refused. He further assured the Court that these instructions would be renewed and recirculated every six months to maintain institutional awareness and discipline within the force.

It bears emphasis that the practice of delaying or avoiding arrest on the pretext of a pending petition raises serious concerns, as it essentially frustrates and weakens ongoing investigations and undermines the authority and finality of judicial orders. In addition, such a practice risks promoting a culture of impunity, enabling accused persons to evade the process of law by exploiting systemic inaction. We find that such conduct cannot be sustained, as it runs counter to the ongoing efforts of the judicial and legal system to not only uphold the rule of law but also to inspire and maintain public confidence in it.

This Court, therefore, finds it imperative to state clearly that investigating officers and police authorities are legally bound to act upon court orders dismissing pre-arrest bail immediately, without waiting for further instructions or presuming the existence of any stay where none has been granted. Administrative convenience, internal practice, or mere pendency of higher-forum proceedings cannot justify or excuse failure to act in accordance with law.
Criminal Petition No. 645-L of 2025
Zahid Khan, etc. Versus The State through Prosecutor General, Punjab and another
25-06-2025

12/08/2025

2025 CLC 1148
PLJ 2025 Lahore 284
In habeas corpus petition the Court may recover custody of the minor children from one parent and hand the same over to other parent but said jurisdiction is summary in character and neither controversies are tried nor entire evidence is recorded under ordinary substantive and procedural laws under civil and criminal jurisdiction and such a jurisdiction being extraordinary in its very nature should be sparingly used because the plenary jurisdiction in the matter rests under other laws in other forums of special jurisdiction who should normally be allowed to exercise it in accordance with law.
WP 89/25
Hamna Fahad Vs C.C.P.O Lahore etc

12/08/2025

Section 164 of the Code of 1898 authorizes the Magistrates of the First Class and of the Second Class, who are specifically empowered by the Provincial Government,to record any statement or confession made to them during an investigation by the police or at any time afterwards but before the commencement of the inquiry or trial. The Magistrate should take down the statement in the manner prescribed by the Code of 1898 for recording evidence as, in his opinion, is most suited to the circumstances of the case. He may record it in the accused’s presence and give him an opportunity to cross-examine the maker. However, the Magistrate must record the confessions as stipulated in sections 164(3) and 364 of the Code of 1898. The Explanation states that the aforesaid Magistrates may exercise these powers even if they do not have jurisdiction in the case. The object of section 164 is to protect a person against extortion or oppression or to fix him to it when it is feared that he may resile afterwards or tamper with it.

The phrase “before the commencement of the inquiry or trial” in section 164 of the Code of 1898 is crucial. The term “inquiry” has a wide connotation. Section 4(k) states that “inquiry” encompasses any inquiry other than a trial conducted under the Code by a Magistrate or a Court. The terms “inquiry” 03006762054and “investigation” must be distinguished. The former refers to proceedings before Magistrate prior to trial, while “investigation” is confined to proceedings taken by the police or by any person other than a Magistrate who is authorized in this behalf. Inquiries may be in respect of (i) offences or (ii) of matters which are not offences.

The High Court Rules and Orders distinguish explicitly between “confessions” and “statements” of accused persons. The language in Rule 1 that “Section 164 deals with the recording of statements and confessions at any stage before the commencement of an enquiry or trial” indicates that an accused may have his non-confessional statement recorded during the investigation. Rule 25.28(1)(a) of the Police Rules is clearer. It specifically discusses the accused’s statement “not amounting to confession”.
It should, however, be noted that the accused’s nonconfessional statement would not be on oath because clause (b) of Article 13 of the Constitution of 1973, section 5 of the Oaths Act, 1873, and section 342 of the Code of 1898 prohibit it. Section 340(2) is an exception to the general rule, which provides that an accused person shall, if he does not plead guilty, give evidence on oath to disprove the charges or allegations made against him or any person charged or tried with him at the same trial. According to Sarkar, an approver’s statement following a pardon can be recorded like that of any other witness and may be done on affirmation.

The accused’s statement under section 164 of the Code of 1898 is not substantive evidence. He must prove the facts he narrates in that statement according to Qanun-e-Shahdat.

Writ Petition No. 3962/2023
Muhammad Asghar Ali Shah Vs. The State etc.

01/07/2024

Power to make up deficiency of Court-fees---Discretion of Court ---Scope---Section 149, C.P.C. is an exception to the command delineated under Sections 4 and 6 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 ("Court Fees Act")---Exercise of discretion by the Court at any stage is, as a general rule, expected to be exercised in favour of the litigant on presenting plausible reasons which may include bona fide mistake in the calculation of the Court fee; unavailability of the Court fee stamps; or any other good cause or circumstances beyond control, for allowing time to make up the deficiency of Court fee stamps on a case to case basis, and the said discretion can only be exercised where the Court is satisfied that sufficient grounds are made out for non-payment of the Court fee in the first instance.

Kh. MUHAMMAD FAZIL VS MUMTAZ MUNNAWAR KHAN NIAZI
2024 SCMR 1059

01/07/2024

2024 PCrLJ 1014

VVVVI.MUST READ JUDGEMENT

Soft Copy of Station Diary shall be prepared in addition to manual Record. Direction regarding maintenance of Station Diary issued"

Rule 22.45 of the Rules requires the maintenance of different registers at a Police Station. This Rule enlists 25 types of books to be maintained at the Police Station. The Station Diary or Daily Diary (hereinafter ‘Station Diary’) is mentioned at serial No.2 which is commonly known as “Roznamcha” and maintenance of the same is a matter under discussion. The Station Diary is the most significant document retained at a Police Station, which has been designed to keep a check on the enormous powers bestowed upon the police authorities. The Station Diary is maintained under Article 167 of the Order and Rules 48 & 49 of Chapter 22, Volume III of the Rules, Article 167 and Rules 22.48.

A Station Diary is a register required to be maintained to record day-to-day events that take place in a Police Station. Rule 22.49 of the Rules elaborates the matters to be entered in Station Diary. For effective monitoring of daily work schedules in a Police Station, to monitor such works in a regulated manner and to ensure that duties are discharged by the police officer as it would involve balancing the rights of people, be that of the accused or that of the victim of crimes or the society in general, said "Diary" is to be maintained at all Police Stations. The Station Diary is used to record every major and minor incident occurring within the jurisdiction of the Police Station in chronological order. Station Diary is the main record of the affairs of the Police Station and should contain everything of importance relating to the working of the Police Station. Some of the entries in the Station Diary are amplified and recorded in other books as well but all the important things must be entered in this book. The Station Diary is a chronological record of the happenings at the Police Station and for fixing the time of any particular action of the police, the entry in the Station Diary provides an important source of evidence. It ensures transparency and fairness in the proceedings carried out by the police officers relating to their duties in a Police Station. It rules out the arbitrariness and whimsical exercise of powers by a police officer.

Details of information of cognizable offences or investigations already given in the First Information Book and the case diaries need not be reported in the Station Diary, but a gist of the information and a record of occurrences in the Police Station in connection with those cases, such as the receipt of information, the arrest of the accused persons, the production of a prisoner, the affecting of searches, seizures or the departure for or return from, of investigating officers, particulars such as identification parades and inspections held or attended, attendance at courts including submission of reports and charge sheets in the court, town patrols, assistance to officers of other Police Stations, etc., should be entered.

In cases where the question of illegal detention of a person in police custody is involved, Station Diary is of utmost importance to determine the transparency and fairness in the process of arrest and detention. Any violation of statutory law that results in illegal arrest and detention shall also be violative of Articles 4, 9, 10, 10-A, 13 and 14 of the Constitution. Under Article 4 of the Constitution public functionaries including police are bound to act in good faith, honestly and within the precincts of their power so that persons concerned should be treated in accordance with law. Article 9 of the Constitution guarantees that no person would be deprived of life or liberty save in accordance with law; while Article 10 of the Constitution provides safeguards as to arrest and detention.Article 10-A, which guarantees the right to have a fair trial to all citizens, also comes to rescue an arrested and detained person as it also applies to all the pre-trial proceedings including arrest and detention during an investigation. Articles 13 and 14 of the Constitution protect an accused against self-incrimination and torture. Any violation of law during the arrest and detention of a person would breach the constitutional guarantees and would lead to grave legal consequences.

Maintenance of Station Diary in accordance with the relevant law goes a long way to provide a mechanism against illegal arrest and detention as ensured under the Constitution. Introducing any device to bypass the mandatory requirements of the Rules shall amount to disregarding the constitutional guarantees. Through Notification No. 43604/DIG/I.T dated 15-12-2017, issued by the Provincial Police Officer, Punjab with the approval of the Provincial Government, it was directed to make an Amendment in Rules 22.3 and 22.4 of the Rules. Through this Amendment in the Rules, in addition to the hard copy of the Police Registers, a soft copy (electronic copy) shall also be maintained. It has been observed by this Court that in a number of cases pertaining to arrest and detention, maintenance of computerized record of Station Diary is used as a tool to shield the illegalities committed by police officials.

A self-explanatory procedure has been provided in Rules 22.48 and 22.49 of the Rules regarding the maintenance of Station Diary, which further needs no elaboration. However, I am persuaded to issue clear directions to the concerned police authorities regarding the maintenance of Station Diary, as infra: -

I. In every Police Station, a Station Diary shall be maintained in accordance with Article 167 of the Order and Rules 22.48 & 22.49 of the Rules. A strict adherence to the aforesaid provisions of law shall be ensured without further fail.

II. Maintaining a computerized record of Station Diary is the need of the hour but the same cannot be permitted to be used to open a new venue to cover or legitimize the illegalities committed by the delinquent police officials, therefore, the computerized record of Station Diary shall be prepared in addition to the manual record. In case of any conflict between the two, the preference shall be given to the manual Station Diary.

III. Any wrong entry in the Station Diary by a police officer shall ordinarily entail his dismissal from the service as per Rule 22.50 of the Rules. Zero tolerance in this regard should be shown by the supervisory officers and in case of failure on the part of the supervisory officer to do the needful, he shall be accountable for the same.

IV. Properly printed books, to maintain the Station Diary, containing the proper number of pages, should be issued to every Police Station by the concerned Superintendent of Police. Only duly issued books shall be used for maintaining the Station Diary to rule out the possibility of any fabrication and alteration in the same. A Station Diary without page numbers creates room for modification and alteration.

V. Wrong entries in the Station Diary should be scored out by means of a single line and initialed by a Senior Police Officer and in no case any such wrong entry be mutilated or rendered illegal nor should paper be pasted over it.

VI. A District and Sessions Judge of every District may call for and inspect the Station Diaries of Police Stations in his district occasionally to ensure that those are maintained following the law in its letter and spirit. This power under Article 167(2) of the Order should be exercised regularly to keep a check on the proper maintenance of Station Diary.

Criminal Proceedings
79470/23
Jamila Bibi Vs S.H.O P.S Baghban Pura Lahore etc.

01/07/2024

2024 PCrLJ 1037
PLJ 2024 CrC 109
Mian Arif Said vs Province of Punjab

---Constitutional petition---Maxim "ubi jus ibi remedium" (when there is a right there is a remedy)--- Alternate and efficacious remedy, availability of---Scope---Maxim ubi jus ibi remedium (when there is a right there is a remedy), is recognized in the command of jurisdictive procedure---Courts show restraint directing the parties to first take recourse to alternative and equally efficacious mechanism and framework of remedy provided rather than to take departure in order to surpass or circumvent such remedy.

Mala fide against government---Proof---Onus to prove---Presumption---Alternate and efficacious remedy---Petitioners assailed their arrests on the plea of mala fide on the part of authorities---Validity---Onus is always upon the person alleging as there is a presumption of regularity in all official acts and until that was rebutted, the actions cannot be challenged---Specific pleadings must be made with reference to particular mala fide and the same is not interchangeable with any other kind of mala fide---Person alleging mala fide against government should not be allowed a roving enquiry into the files of government for fishing out some kind of a case---Under the concept of separation of powers, investigation of a criminal case falls in the domain of police---If independence of judiciary is hallmark of democratic dispensation then on the other hand independence of investigation agency is equally important to the concept of rule of law---Undue interference in each other's role destroys the concept of separation of powers and may go towards defeating of jurisdiction---Bypassing whole procedure and methodology would not help the petitioners---There were certain alternate remedies available to petitioners which they could resort to---High Court declined to declare arrest and detention of detenus as illegal---

Object, purpose and scope---Object and scope of Art. 199 of the Constitution is enforcement of a right and not establishment of a right---Such right must not only be clear and complete simplicitor but there must be an actual infringement of such right---Constitutional jurisdiction cannot be expanded on a solitary resolution or treatment for un-doing a wrong doing, anguishes, or suffering of a party, regardless of having an equally efficacious, alternate and adequate remedy provided under the law which cannot be bypassed to attract Constitutional jurisdiction---Powers of High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution are different than Supreme Court under Art. 187 of the Constitution---While exercising the powers, parameters of jurisdiction must be kept in mind according to which only the powers conferred by the Constitution have to be exercised subject to the Constitution only where there is no adequate remedy available

Address

District Courts
Mardan
23200

Opening Hours

Monday 08:00 - 16:00
Tuesday 08:00 - 16:00
Wednesday 08:00 - 16:00
Thursday 08:00 - 16:00
Friday 08:00 - 16:00
Saturday 08:00 - 16:00

Telephone

03149611554

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Syed Law Associates posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to Syed Law Associates:

Shortcuts

Share

Category