General allegation

2021 YLR 2171 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302(b), 337-H(2), 114, 148 & 149

Qatl-i-amd, rash or negligent act to endanger human life or personal safety of others, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly

Appreciation of evidence

General allegations

Scope

Accused was charged that he and co-accused persons committed murder of the father of the complainant due to property dispute

Allegedly, there were general allegations against the accused of firing upon the deceased and it had not been established beyond doubt as to by whose fire shot the deceased had been killed

Record showed that all the witnesses deposed that the accused and co-accused actively participated in the commission of offence and fired from weapon upon the deceased which hit the deceased

Evidence of witnesses was corroborated by medical evidence including the recovery of crime empties from the place of vardat

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

2019 PCrLJN 89 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 498Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-F(v) & 34Ghayr­-jaifah and common intentionPre-arrest bail, grant/refusal ofGeneral allegation

Allegation against accused persons was that they while armed with sticks (sota) forcibly trespassed into the house of complainant and thereafter caused injuries on the person of complainant's wife

Both accused persons were specifically nominated in the crime report but the role attributed to first accused was that he inflicted a stick (sota) blow on the person of complainant's wife whereas role attributed to second accused was of general nature and no specific injury was attributed to him

Doctor had observed the injury on right lower leg, which was attributed to first accused

No other obvious injury was found by doctor on the person of victim

Victim had, during investigation, attributed the injury to the first accused

Investigating officer had opined that first accused was fully involved in the alleged crime

Involvement of second accused being real brother of first accused could not be ruled out

Ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to first accused was recalled

Pre-arrest bail granted to second accused was confirmed, in circumstances.

2019 CLC 1384 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 25-AApplication for transfer of caseBias in a judgeScopeGeneral allegationAppropriate forum for instituting transfer application

Petitioner/defendant contended that Presiding Officer was bias as he turned down his request for adjournment and expressed to decide the case in a week

Validity

No corroboration was available to support said version of petitioner

Allegation of petitioner pertaining to the attitude of Presiding Officer was merely a general statement

Transfer of matter from one Court to another Court could be granted in exceptional circumstances only in the interest of justice

Mere allegation of bias in Presiding Officer in a generalized statement was not sufficient

Issue of bias being a very serious matter and must be pleaded by applicant with specific particulars supported by plausible corroboration

Appropriate forum for instituting transfer application was District Court and there was no reason , in the present case, to move the High Court for the purpose

Transfer application was dismissed accordingly.

2017 SCMR 664 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 55 & 70(b)Allegation of harassment of polling agents and casting of bogus votesProofGeneral allegationsFailure to produce substantiated evidence of riggingEffect

Out of 104 polling stations where rigging was alleged the appellant (election petitioner) examined polling agents of 26 polling stations

No evidence was led with regard to the corrupt practices allegedly committed at the remaining 78 polling stations

Polling agents who were examined had admitted in their cross-examination that they did not file any written complaint either with the police or the Election Commission with regard to their expulsion, harassment or casting of bogus votes

Polling agents who stated that they witnessed casting of bogus votes also admitted in their cross-examination that they did not challenge a single vote at the time of polling

Even after the polling was over, the appellant did not approach the Provincial Election Commission to report the alleged corrupt practices

Polling agents of other contesting candidates (other than the appellant and returned candidate) who obtained substantial number of votes were not cited as witness to the alleged corrupt practices

No attempt was made to even call anyone as court witness in order to establish that polling took place in absence of appellant's polling agents or bogus votes were cast

Moreover appellant did not place before the Election Tribunal a comparative table of 104 disputed polling stations and the remaining 276 undisputed polling stations in order to point out any phenomenal difference between the two sets of polling stations with regard to the voting pattern or voter turnout

Election data of the constituency showed that the turnout was only 39.34%

Returned candidate procured 25.88% of the total votes polled

Said figures showed that there was no unusual turnout of voters nor excessive polling in favour of the retuned candidate took place

Merely on unsubstantiated allegations of rigging, the court could not reach the conclusion that returned candidate indulged in illegal and corrupt practices

Evidence that was led by the appellant was so deficient that it was not enough to establish prevalence of corrupt or illegal practices

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

2014 PCrLJ 1305 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 154Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 406Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionQuashing of F.I.R.Civil disputeGeneral allegationDishonest misappropriation of property

F.I.R. did not disclose commission of offence under S. 406, P.P.C. as there was no specific entrustment of property to any of the accused and there was a general allegation that all the accused had received the money from the complainant

Even otherwise, if at all disputed amount mentioned in the F.I.R. was given in the backdrop of a property deal and the accused were not ready for execution of sale deed, it was only a matter to be resolved by the civil court

Complainant had not filed any suit for specific performance against the accused for such purpose

Pendency of criminal proceedings on the basis of impugned F.I.R. was sheer abuse of the process of law

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances and proceedings under the impugned F.I.R. were quashed.