Refusal

2025 PCrLJ 1211 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 7 & 19(1)Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 63, 167 & 169Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 365-AAbduction for ransomPhysical remandRefusalScopePhysical remand of the accused was declined and Joint Investigation Team was constitutedValidityRecord showed that the son of the lady complainant was abducted

Police after obtaining search warrant from the Judicial Magistrate raided the house of the accused for search and arresting a suspected accused, who acted within the meaning of "terrorism" as defined under S.6 of the Act of 1997 by offering serious armed resistance causing bullet injuries to a DSP and a police constable

Police recovered heavy arms and ammunition, as per details mentioned in the remand reports, from the house of accused, who had previous criminal record

As such, sufficient grounds were available for believing that the accusation or information against the accused was well-founded for justifying his detention in police custody for further investigation by the police in the cases registered against him

It appeared from the perusal of the record that the material relating to the case(s) was transmitted by the Second Investigation Officer to the Administrative Judge but the latter declined police custody remand of the accused merely on the complaint of the accused regarding maltreatment

In such state of affairs, the proper course available to the Administrative Judge was remanding the accused for a short term to custody of police with direction to Investigating Officer to produce him before Medico-Legal Officer and in case there appeared from Medico-Legal Certificate that any bodily harm was caused to accused during remand, Administrative Judge was fully competent to take action in accordance with law against the Investigating Officer instead of remanding the accused to judicial custody to frustrate and defeat the investigation of heinous offences

Notable fact of the case was that none of the parties made any request for constitution of Joint Investigation Team to probe the case

Administrative Judge under the law was not vested with the power to pass such order

Under S.19(1) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (Act of 1997), it was prerogative of the Government, if deemed necessary, to constitute Joint Investigation Team

Thus, the Administrative Judge had failed to appreciate the request of the second Investigating Officer for grant of police custody/remand of the accused, therefore, impugned orders granting remand of accused in judicial custody instead of police custody were illegal, arbitrary and against the law, which were likely to affect the investigation of the said crimes

By passing impugned order of constituting Joint Investigation Team, the Administrative Judge had exceeded his jurisdiction

In such circumstances, impugned orders were set-aside with direction to Investigation Officer of the cases to produce the custody of the accused before the Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, for passing orders afresh in accordance with law

Criminal revision applications were allowed accordingly.

2024 PCrLJ 55 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 435, 439-A & 561-APenal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 468, 471, 161 & 162Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)Cheating, forgery, taking illegal gratification by corrupt or illegal means and criminal misconductFirst physical remandRefusalScope

Accused was denied first physical remand by Magistrate but Lower Appellate Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside the order

Validity

Order passed by Magistrate refusing remand was a judicial function and under S. 435, Cr.P.C., the Court superior to the one refusing remand could exercise jurisdiction of revision

Magistrate in some apparent haste refused physical remand on very first day when accused was produced before him

Lower Appellate Court rightly intervened after examination of record of proceedings of the inferior Court and after satisfying itself exercised its jurisdiction under S. 435 read with S. 439-A, Cr.P.C.

Matter had been dealt in detail by Lower Appellate Court by giving cogent reasons

High Court declined to interfere in the matter as there was no ground to exercise inherent powers of S. 561-A, Cr.P.C., to give effect to any order under Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 or to prevent abuse of any Court

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

2024 PLC(CS) 1070 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Arts.199 & 189Constitutional jurisdiction of High CourtScopeAppointment'Son quota'

Direction was sought for appointment of another son against "son quota" in judicial establishment on the analogy of earlier judgments in similar cases

Refusal

Absence of any policy/law enforcement of which was required

Effect

In earlier judgments disputed questions requiring inquiry and evidence entertained in writ jurisdiction

Legality

Violation of R. 6 of the Roster set by the Chief Justice of the High Court

High Court held that in absence of any deliberation on maintainability, disputed questions of fact requiring inquiry or evidence were entertained and adjudicated in writ jurisdiction contrary to settled principles of law

Constitution petition was entertained by High Court without any manifest directions from the Chief Justice, without even an objection by the concerned Additional/Deputy Registrar

Such practice would defeat the administration of justice and upset the integrity and sanctity of the Court, therefore, the matter was referred to the competent authority to consider the likelihood and severity of disciplinary proceedings against officers concerned

No direction was issued for appointment of petitioner's son and contempt proceedings were initiated against the delinquents.

2024 YLR 1963 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss. 63, 167, 169 & 561-APenal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 392, 380 & 457Robbery, theft in dwelling house, lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night in order to commit offencePhysical remandRefusalScopePhysical remand of the accused was declined and he was discharged by the MagistrateValidity

Presentation of the accused before the Judicial Magistrate would serve no purpose if the Magistrate is to blindly remand the accused in the custody of police for up to a period of fifteen days (i.e. the maximum period for which physical remand is permissible)

Thus, there is no reason why the fundamental right to liberty of an accused would be denied to him on the basis of bald allegations in a complaint that has taken the form of an FIR unless there is some incriminating material on the basis of which police authorities can satisfy the Judicial Magistrate that the accused is liable for an offence that requires his arrest for purposes of investigation

Section 63 of Cr.P.C gives the Judicial Magistrate the power to pass a special order or discharge the accused where the material collected by police authorities up until such time is not such that implicates the accused or justifies his arrest and/or continued detention

Such order of discharge does not prohibit the police from continuing the investigation and collecting further evidence against the person who has been discharged

In view of the record produced before the Court,including the report of the SP Police stating that the complainant had lodged false FIRs, including present FIR, which formed the subject-matter of the instant case and the finding of the Judicial Magistrate that at the time of alleged occurrence the accused was in another city and not in his city and could therefore not have been involved with the occurrence, High Court was not convinced that the impugned order was unjust, unfair and unreasonable or otherwise qualified as colorable exercise of the administrative authority vested in the Judicial Magistrate under S.63 of Cr.P.C.

Petition being without merit was dismissed.

2022 MLD 169 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Judicial Precedent

S.497(5)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.337-A, 504, 34 & 354-A

Shajjah, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace, common intention, assault or criminal force to woman and stripping her of her clothes

Bail, cancellation of

Refusal

Scope

Allegation against accused persons was that they slapped the sister of complainant and by using abusive language also removed her chaddar

Sections 337-A & 504, P.P.C., were bailable

Section 354-A, P.P.C., was not prima facie attracted to the case

Section 354-A, P.P.C., provided that to attract the provisions of the section, two conditions must be fulfilled: Firstly, there should be stripping of clothes and secondly the victim in that condition be exposed to the public view

To attract the provisions of the section both the conditions must co-exist

Sessions Judge had rightly granted bail to the accused persons

Petition for cancellation of bail was dismissed.

2010 SCMR 1507 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S.22Specific performance of agreement to sellRefusalDiscretion of CourtDevaluation of currencyEffectDefendant cancelled agreement to sell her house and forfeited earnest money paid to her by plaintiffSuit was decreed in favour of plaintiff by Trial Court but High Court dismissed the suitValidity

Supreme Court, keeping in view the principles of justice, equity, good conscious and fairness, did not find plaintiff to be entitled to discretionary relief of specific performance of agreement to sell as envisaged by S.22 of Specific Relief Act, 1877

Plaintiff was not entitled to specific enforcement of contract as a matter of right

Plaintiff had been found entitled to, since date of execution of agreement i.e., 23-8-1987 but defendant utilized the earnest money of Rs.200,000 for her benefit and converted to her own use by forfeiting the same on baseless plea till date, therefore, she was also liable, in view of devaluation of currency and constant trend of rising dearness, to make payment of Rs.20,00,000 inclusive of the earnest money to plaintiff, failing which the judgment and decree passed by Trial Court would be restored

Supreme Court modified the judgment and decree passed by High Court

Appeal was dismissed.

2008 CLD 573 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S.4Licence, issuance ofRefusalSimilarity of name

Nowhere in the terms mentioned in S.4 of Travel Agencies Act, 1976, it has been mentioned that a person can be refused licence on the ground of similarity of name.

1982 SCMR 669 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

O. XIII, r. 2Production of documents.Refusal

Facts of case calling for examination of question whether case in circumstances not a "case decided" and whether High Court- powerless to see magnitude of wrong done to plaintiff -petitioner and violated relevant principle-Leave to appeal granted.