2021 P Cr (PLP)
BILAL — Appellant Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2021 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | BILAL — Appellant Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Foreigners Act (XXXI of 1946), (b) Foreigners Act (XXXI of 1946), (d) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2021 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Foreigners Act (XXXI of 1946), (b) Foreigners Act (XXXI of 1946), (d) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2021 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2021 P Cr (PLP) (BILAL — Appellant Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 14
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 468, 471 & 109
Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 129(e) & 72
Illegally entering into Pakistan
Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged document, abetment
Regular performance of official acts
Documentary evidence prevails upon oral evidence
Scope
Accused was convicted under S. 14(2) of Foreigners Act, 1946 for illegally entering into Pakistan
Case of accused was that he was Pakistani by birth whereas that of prosecution was that he was foreign national and had managed and prepared fake documents just to show himself as Pakistani
Birth certificate, certificate of domicile, permanent residence certificate, CNIC and passport produced by the accused were apparently issued by competent authority/organization certainly after due verification and inquiry, which could not be termed as valueless
Documents produced by accused still held the field and were not cancelled by the relevant authorities
Article 129(e) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 provided that judicial and official acts would be presumed to have been regularly performed
Case of accused was based upon documentary evidence whereas the case of prosecution rested upon oral evidence
Documentary evidence always prevailed upon oral evidence
Presumption of truth was attached to documentary evidence and not to oral evidence
Prosecution could not explain, on which date the accused had illegally entered into Pakistan
Accused was acquitted of the charge and the order for his deportation was set aside
Appeal was accepted, in circumstances.
S. 9
Scope
Section 9 of Foreign Act, 1946 casts duty upon the defence to establish that the accused is not a foreigner
Art. 129(e)
Court may presume existence of certain facts
Scope
Article 129(e) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 provides that judicial and official acts shall be presumed to have been regularly performed.
Art. 72
Scope
Documentary evidence prevails upon oral evidence
Presumption of truth is attached to documentary evidence and not to oral evidence.