Criminal liability

2025 YLR 2456 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302(b), 324, 147, 148 & 149Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, act of terrorism

Appreciation of evidence

Criminal liability

Accused were charged for making firing upon the complainant party, due to which two persons died and many others including Police Officials sustained firearm injuries

There was no definite opinion as to whose short proved fatal but this doubt was not sufficient for acquittal of appellants because the bare reading of S.149, P.P.C., which introduced a concept of common object or joint criminal liability under the penal system revealed that when a criminal act was done by several persons in furtherance of their common intention or object, each of such person was liable for that act in the same manner as if it was done by him alone

Inference of common object had to be drawn from various factors such as the weapons with which the members were armed, their movements, the acts of violence committed by them and the result

Proof of specific overt act was not necessary while determining the guilt of accused being member of unlawful assembly and it would be sufficient for the prosecution to establish that the accused being member of unlawful assembly shared common object

In the present case, it was established from the record that the appellants had arrived at the scene of occurrence with deadly weapons along with absconding accused and made firing at the deceased and prosecution witnesses, thus actus reus "guilty act" and mensrea "a guilty mind" which were the pre-requisites for the constitution of criminal behavior were proved against them

Circumstances established that the prosecution had been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, however the judgment passed by the Trial Court to the extent of S.7(1) (a), (b) & (g) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was set aside being not proved

Consequently, with the said modification, the appeal against conviction filed by the appellants was dismissed, accordingly.

2022 PLD 516 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 3Elimination of exploitationCriminal liabilityLiability of legal heirsScopeArticle 3 of the Constitution, clearly provides safeguards against exploitation and persecution of citizens

Article 3 protects individual citizens from exploitation inasmuch as all citizens are only liable for what they have done themselves and they are not liable for acts of others

Almost all legal systems in the world recognize that criminal liability can only be imposed on an individual for the acts and omissions for which such individual is personally responsible

Concept of substitution of accused/convict is alien to criminal jurisprudence

Offences involving common object or common intention apart, a person is only liable for an offence that he commits himself

Such person can never be substituted or booked for the fault of some other person even if that person be his father or mother.

2022 YLRN 50 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 11"Person"DefinitionCriminal liabilityScope

No criminal case could be registered against designation because trial could not take place against a designata but against a "person"

Official designate did not fall within the meaning of person as defined by S.11, P.P.C.

Offence could be committed by the "person" and not by designate.

2018 PLD 114 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Criminal liabilityProof

Criminal liability of a person was not determined on the rule of probability, but on the proof of the facts which constituted an offence and that too by a court of competent jurisdiction.

2012 PLD 464 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 489-FDishonestly issuing a chequeCriminal liabilityScopeDishonest intentionProofCases where S.489-F, P.P.C, would not be attracted expounded

For deciding whether or not, there appeared a dishonest intention in issuance of cheque(s), the court should take notice of the facts culminating in issuance of cheque(s)

Where issuance of cheque was backed with no meaningful transaction creating an instant liability of payment of the amount thereof, against certain consideration involved therein, no criminal accountability would prima facie accrue in case of any cheque so issued and dishonoured

Apart from any civil right or liability legally permissible thereagainst, post-dated cheques were of no value in point of criminal accountability since they were normally issued either without having funds in their respective account(s) or the parties had no paying liability of instant nature at the time of issuing

Cheques, which were issued as security so as to develop trust between the parties as a matter of normal business dealings, and were not out-come of any transaction of consideration of the time thereof, would not be a subject of criminal accountability of S.489-F, P.P.C. for want of element of relevant mens rea

Where the parties had settled their accounts or the outstanding dues became payable as instant liability and a cheque was instantly issued against such dues, which subsequently got dishonored, element of mens rea covered by the words "dishonestly issued" as used in the S.489-F, P.P.C, would be present

Where, however, a cheque had been issued towards security and understanding, with prior notice served upon the issuer to arrange payment for encashment in the bank concerned, but same cheque got dishonoured on presentation, it would carry the punitive effect of S.489-F, P.P.C.