Condition precedent

Uterine brother/sister would get share from the legacy of deceased as sharer only when the deceased had no child, child of a son, father or true grandfather.

Tenant is first of all bound to deliver the possession of the premises in question, then to contest his proprietary right in the suit property.

One of the conditions precedent for an offence to fall within the purview of "qatl-bis-sabab" was that accused should not have the intention to cause any death or harm to any other person.

Existence of sufficient grounds is condition precedent for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit.

Plea raised by petitioner was that United Kingdom was a non-treaty State and petitioner had a right to be tried in Pakistan

Validity

To apply provision of S.4, P.P.C., it was a pre-requisite condition that accused was not found at any place in Pakistan under any circumstances and certificate of political agent or sanction of Federal Government, as the case might have been, was obtained

If either of the conditions was not fulfilled, a criminal court in Pakistan could not have extra territorial jurisdiction to try a person alleged to have committed an offence outside Pakistan

Enquiry was going to be conducted against petitioner, which had been intervened by High Court vide interim order, therefore, such condition was not available to petitioner

In absence of any material, petitioner could not be tried outside the jurisdiction of that court, where trial was going on or investigation was being conducted within jurisdiction of a particular police station at United Kingdom

Neither any provision of law existed to extend such grace to petitioner nor any ground was available to grant him such extraordinary relief

High Court declined to interfere in extradition proceedings against petitioner

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Station House Officer (SHO) had absolutely no power to refuse to register the case if from the information/statement of complainant a cognizable offence was made out

Whether information provided was false or correct was immaterial but the condition precedent for recording an F.I.R. under S.154, Cr.P.C. was that information must disclose an offence and that too a cognizable one

After registration of F.I.R. investigation process started and it was for the investigation officer to ascertain whether information provided was true or false

Where information provided disclosed an offence which was not cognizable by the police even then the Station House Officer (SHO) was required and bound under S.155, Cr.P.C. to record it in a station diary of the police station and refer the informant (complainant) to the Magistrate having territorial jurisdiction

In no circumstance Station House Officer (SHO) could refuse to enter the information in S.154, Cr.P.C. book or in station diary of police station as the case might be except on one condition that from information provided no offence at all was made out.