Legal Maxims, Words & Terms

window.location = '/'

A communi observantia non est recedendum

window.location = '/'

ATM Service

window.location = '/'

Abadi

Back Back Your Search returned total 1 records from 0 - 1 Citation Name: 1959 PLD 54 WEST-PAKISTAN-BOARD-OF-REVENUE Bookmark this Case HASAN ALI VS RAJJU Abadi--TERM , Abadi Building site allotted and sale deed registered---Allotment cannot be reversed.

Abadkari Scheme

Back Back Your Search returned total 1 records from 0 - 1 Citation Name: 1980 CLC 427 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case GHULAM MUHAMMAD VS SHARFAN KHATOON Abadkari Scheme--TERM , --S. 19 read with Abadkari Scheme-Value of property deposited before agreement to sell executed-Held, no bar to transfer property either under S. 19 or under terms and conditions of allotment.

Abandonment

Back Back Your Search returned total 3 records from 0 - 4 Citation Name: 1996 CLC 254 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Bookmark this Case AZMATULLAH VS ALI BAHADUR Abandonment--TERM , Abandonment ----Plea of---Abandonment of rights to property---Competent forum rejecting such plea---Order of -Authority when based on convincing and cogent reasons could not be said to be violative of law or without any foundation---Custodian, however, could probe into the question of abandonment if appellant in her. statement before him, had in any manner surrendered her right of allotment in favour of respondent. Citation Name: 1975 PLD 1349 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case ALLAH BAKHSH VS GHULAM HUSSAIN Abandonment--TERM , Term "abandonment"-Definition-No abandonment in absence of intention to quit permanently-Abandonment and adverse possession-What constitute adverse possession-Possession must not only be actual, visible, exclusive but must also be hostile, continued and uninterrupted.-Adverse possession over shamilat land-Simply grazing cattle in shamilat would not constitute adverse possession. Citation Name: 1970 SCMR 118 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD AFSAR VS ALLAH DITTA Abandonment--TERM , Punjab Tenancy Act 1887--38 , (a) Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887), S. 38-Occupancy tenancy-Abandonment- Tenancy cannot be extinguished in part Fact that some of co-sharers occupancy tenants minors-"Sufficient cause" within meaning of section-Entry in revenue records showing persons as occupancy tenants never challenged by landlords-Mere fact that landlords themselves paying taxes and cesses, not sufficient to lead to inference of abandonment. Citation Name: 1960 PLD 674 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case SAFIUDDIN KAZI VS MOSLEM ALI HOWLADAR

Abandonment of appeal

Back Back Your Search returned total 1 records from 0 - 1 Citation Name: 1978 SCMR 319 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD LATIF VS MUHAMMAD FAROOQ Abandonment of appeal--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--423 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--561-A , --- Ss. 423 & 561-A-Abandonment of appeal--Appellant expressing his wish not to prosecute appeal and seeking permission to withdraw from case-Appellant allowed to withdraw but, nevertheless Court itself proceeded with hearing of appeal--Appellant, held, had no right to abandon appeal at his will.-[Abandonment of appeal].

Abatement

Back Back Your Search returned total 38 records from 0 - 39 Citation Name: 2026 MLD 110 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Bookmark this Case Pervaiz Baig VS District Judge Neelum S. 27 & O. I, Rr. 3, 9, 10---Suit filed when one of the defendants already dead---Legal heirs of such deceased defendant, impleading of---Scope---Abatement---Scope---Plaintiff instituted suit against number of defendants; later, he filed application for impleading legal heirs of one of defendants ('defendant-in-question') which was concurrently allowed---Objection of petitioner (yet another defendant ) was that defendant-in-question was already dead at the time of institution of suit so plaintiff filed suit against a dead person whose legal heirs could not be impleaded later---Validity---Present case was one of partial abatement; in case of abatement in toto, impleadment of legal representatives of deceased under O.I, R.10, C.P.C could be questioned in a sense that suit in its inception could not progress against the dead person---A suit against a dead person is a nullity in the eye of law upon the strength of provisions of S.27 read with O.I, Rr., 3, 9 and 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, because it can be filed against living person or can be filed against natural and legal person---Where there is only one defendant in the suit (who already died prior to institution of civil suit) it shall be regarded invalid, however, in case of more than one defendants in the suit, the suit cannot be taken as nullity in its totality merely on account of reason the one of the defendant was dead at the time of presentation of a suit---Thus the Courts below had rightly accepted the application of the plaintiffs/respondents and had not committed any illegality, irregularity and perversity while passing the impugned orders---High Court maintained the orders impugned as the petitioner failed to point out any illegality or irregularity on the part of the respondents---Writ petition, being merit-less, was dismissed. Citation Name: 2026 MLD 110 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Bookmark this Case Pervaiz Baig VS District Judge Neelum O. I, R. 10 & O. XXII, R. 1---Suit filed when one of the defendants already dead---Legal heirs of such deceased defendant, impleading of---Scope---Abatement---Scope---"Actio personalis moritur cum persona ", doctrine of ---Plaintiff instituted suit against number of defendants; later, he filed application for impleading legal heirs of one of defendants ('defendant-in-question') which was concurrently allowed---Objection of petitioner (yet another defendant ) was that defendant-in-question was already dead at the time of institution of suit so plaintiff filed suit against a dead person whose legal heirs could not be impleaded later---Validity---There is no question of abatement in view of the plain language of the O.XXII, R.1, C.P.C, as the proceedings may be revived by the substitution of parties up to which time the party remained in the state of suspense or unaware unless the right is pertaining to personal activities connected with the individuality of the deceased, as such activities are hit by the doctrine of "actio personalis moritur Cum Persona", which denotes that right of action dies with person deceased---Although suit against a dead person is nullity in the eye of law but it is only when the suit was brought only against one person (dead) and substitution of the parties by way of impleading legal heirs of the deceased cannot provide oxygen tent to the suit and the suit shall be abated in toto as the plaintiff can bring a fresh suit against the legal representatives of the deceased subject to law of limitation, but the suit will remain in field and will not be hit by abatement if there are more than one defendants in the array of suit; if there is an application, substitution is permissible---Thus the Courts below had rightly accepted the application of the plaintiffs/respondents and had not committed any illegality, irregularity and perversity while passing the impugned orders---High Court maintainedthe orders impugned as the petitioner failed to point out any illegality or irregularity on the part of the respondents---Writ petition, being merit-less, was dismissed. Citation Name: 2023 MLD 1983 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case KHUDA BAKHSH VS State Abatement--- Connotation. Citation Name: 2016 PLD 456 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN VS MUHAMMAD HALEEM KHAN CHOHAN 1990 CLC 404, PLD 2010 SC 612, Abatement--TERM , Tort--TERM , Death would extinguish the liability in tort---Abatement---Scope---Where appeal was filed by the tortfeasor and cross-objections were filed by the plaintiff and appellant had died, appeal did not abate but cross-objections would abate and if plaintiff had appealed, the same would also abate. Citation Name: 2016 PLD 456 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN VS MUHAMMAD HALEEM KHAN CHOHAN 1990 CLC 404, PLD 2010 SC 612, Abatement--TERM , Malicious Prosecution--TERM , Suit for damages--Term , Suit for damages---Death of parties during pendency of appeal---Effect---Abatement---Scope---Maxim "actio personalis moritur cum persona"---Personal action connected with the individuality of a person did not survive him---If suit of a plaintiff was dismissed by the Trial Court and during pendency of appeal in the case of death of either party, appeal abated---If decree had been passed in favour of plaintiff, in case of death of either party, appeal filed by the defendant would not abate and the legal representatives of the parties would step into the shoes of appellant/respondent---If suit had been partially decreed and both parties had preferred appeals, then in case of death of either party, the appeal for enhancement of damages would abate but appeal of defendant for setting aside the partial decree would not abate---Death would extinguish the liability in tort---Where appeal was filed by the tortfeasor and cross objections were filed by the plaintiff and appellant had died, appeal did not abate but cross objections would abate and if plaintiff had appealed, the same would have abated---Cross objection had been abated and same could not proceed and stand dismissed---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2012 CLC 1577 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case DATSUN MOTORS through Proprietor VS Syed AIN ULLAH AGHA Abatement--TERM , Principle---Decree in favour of the landlord, entitled him to get possession of the disputed property, therefore, upon his death, the decree did not abate---Once a right was accrued in favour of a decree-holder, after his death, it automatically devolved upon his legal heirs and they had the right to defend the decree and were entitled to contest the appeal. Citation Name: 2012 CLC 1577 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case DATSUN MOTORS through Proprietor VS Syed AIN ULLAH AGHA Abatement--TERM , Code of Civil Procedure 1908--2 , Definition--Term , West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959--15 , S. 15---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) S.2(2)---Ejectment petition of tenant on ground of bona fide personal need of landlord was accepted---"Decree"---Definition---Abatement---Scope---Contention of the tenant (appellant) was that since the landlord had died after the order of the Rent Controller; his legal heirs could not get the benefit of the impugned order of the Rent Controller---Validity---Deceased landlord had succeeded in the ejectment petition on ground of bona fide personal need and the Trial Court/Rent Controller had ordered the tenant to vacate the premises---Decree had been defined in S.2(2) of the C.P.C. as a formal expression of adjudication, determining the rights of the parties to the suit etc.---Word "party(s)" shall include his/their legal representative(s), who represent(s) the estate of the deceased and stepped into his/her/their shoes---Decree was a declaration of a right of a party, which entitled it to get such a right---Decree in favour of the landlord, entitled him to get possession of the disputed property, therefore, upon his death, the decree did not abate---Once a right was accrued in favour of a decree-holder, after his death, it automatically devolved upon his legal heirs and they had the right to defend the decree and were entitled to contest the appeal---Appeal was dismissed. Citation Name: 2011 PLD 842 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION through Chairman VS Rais HABIB AHMED Abatement--TERM , Connotation---Creation of vested right in favour of the party, who would benefit due to the abatement---Where the legislature in its wisdom had made the course of abatement conditional, or subject to any limitations or where it was provided to save, resurrect or exclude any category of proceedings from the realm thereof, the abatement shall not take effect otherwise than, as strictly prescribed by the law. Citation Name: 2007 PLD 681 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD IDREES VS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN Abatement--TERM , ---Definition---Concept of abatement is not capable of exact definition. Citation Name: 2007 PLC(CS) 1332 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD IDREES VS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN Abatement--TERM , Definition--Term , Definition---Concept of abatement is not capable of exact definition. Citation Name: 2001 PLC(CS) 212 FEDERAL-SERVICE-TRIBUNAL Bookmark this Case KHAWAJA KHAWAR MEHMOOD VS JOINT DIRECTOR (DPW), AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD Abatement--TERM , Abatement ---- Abatement by operation of law being always ipso facto, it was not necessary to obtain order of the Court wherein application or appeal was pending vis-a-vis abatement proceedings. Citation Name: 2000 PLC 139 LABOUR-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-NWFP Bookmark this Case TAHIR HUSSAIN VS PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD. Abatement--TERM , Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969--25-A , Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969--38 , ----Ss. 1(3), 25-A & 38(3-a)---Grievance petition---Competency---Revision petition--- Abatement---Petitioner, who was a retired Junior Officer (Accounts) had filed grievance' petition against respondent (Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation) which was a statutory Corporation created vide Provincial Industrial Development Corporation Ordinance, 1962 for promoting economic and industrial development in the Province and for matters ancillary thereto---Petitioner's grievance being against Government controlled Corporation, his case was hit by S.2-A, Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and forum under Labour Laws had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter---Grievance petition and thereafter, revision petition of petitioner, were rightly dismissed as abated. Citation Name: 1994 CLC 94 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case RAHIM GUL SYED KAKA KHEL VS DISTRICT JUDGE (SOUTH), KARACHI Abatement--TERM , Abatement Death of party---Concept of abatement. Citation Name: 1992 SCMR 866 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case MUBASHIR MUHAMMAD KHAN VS GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Abatement--TERM , Abatement ----Concept---Effect on pending proceedings. Citation Name: 1987 SCMR 1293 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case SHER AFZAL VS HAYAT GUL Abatement--TERM , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--185 , ---Art. 185(3)--Appeal (Civil)--Abatement--Leave to appeal granted to appellant to consider the effect of abatement of second appeal in so far as the deceased respondent was concerned.--[ Appeal(civil)-Abatement]. Citation Name: 1987 SCMR 817 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD YUSUF VS SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER Abatement--TERM , Civil Procedure Code --Order XXII of C.P.C. Death, Marriage and Insolvency of Parties--1 , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--185 , 1--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-Abatement--Failure to implead legal heirs within period of limitation--No application for condonation of delay--High Court finding that both writ petitions and Letters Patent Appeal had abated--Orders challenged-Parties living in same premises could not be unaware of death--Orders of abatement suffering from no legal infirmity upheld--Leave to appeal refused. Citation Name: 1986 MLD 2541 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case AZIZ AKHTAR VS STATE Abatement--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--109 , ---S.109--Abatement--Principal offence not made out--Question of abetting such offence, held, would not arise. Citation Name: 1985 SCMR 104 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case ABDUL LATIF VS DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER Abatement--TERM , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--185 , ---Art.185(3)--Appeal (civil)--Abatement--High Court holding that it was a case where there was only one joint transaction in favour of appellants by way of alleged gift and as such interests of appellants were indivisible and if appeal was to be accepted two inconsistent decrees could come into existence, and for that reason appeal had abated as a whole--Leave to appeal granted to consider contention that view of High Court was not correct and that High Court was not justified in dismissing appeal as having abated in toto but should have decided same on merits.--[Abatement]. Citation Name: 1983 SCMR 1017 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case FAZAL DIN ALIAS MUHAMMAD FAZIL VS MAZHAR IQBAL Abatement--TERM , Civil Procedure Code --Order XLI of C.P.C. Appeals from Original Decrees--33 , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--185 , -----Art. 185 (3)--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XII, r: 33-Abatement-Leave to appeal granted to consider (i) whether in presets- ' of co-appellant, appeal could have abated qua his two brothers and if so whether delay in applying for setting aside abatement could not be condoned on ground that legal representative were misled by possible saving of abatement; (ii) whether petitioner could not represent estate of his deceased brothers by representing their joint interest and what was effect of O. XLI, r. 33, C. P. C. and (X) whether case of so called total abatement.--[Abatement]. Citation Name: 1981 SCMR 777 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case ANANULLAH KHAN VS MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE (CONSOLIDATION), PUNJAB Abatement--TERM , Civil Procedure Code --Order XXII of C.P.C. Death, Marriage and Insolvency of Parties--3 , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--199 , Writ Proceedings--TERM , --- O. XXII, r. 3-Writ proceedings--Abatement-Civil Procedure Code, 1908, held, fully applicable to constitutional petitions and application for substitution of legal heirs must be made within prescribed time-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199.-[Abatement] Citation Name: 1980 PLC(CS) 575 SERVICE-TRIBUNAL-SINDH Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN KHAN VS PROVINCE OF SIND Abatement--TERM , Sindh Service Tribunals Act 1973--6 , --- S. 6-Abatement---Order of Court not required-Suit pending in High Court on promulgation of Act--High Court passing order on 21-5-1979 that suit stood abated by virtue of S. 6--Appeal filed before Tribunal on 31-5-1979, held, hopelessly time-barred-Erroneous advice of counsel regarding forum, held, not sufficient ground for condonation of delay. Citation Name: 1980 PLC(CS) 193 SERVICE-TRIBUNAL-PUNJAB Bookmark this Case IMAM BAKHSH VS DEPUTY REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MULTAN Abatement--TERM , Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974--8 , ------ S. 8--Abatement-Automatic-Limitation of 90 days starts from date of establishment of Tribunal (22-7-1974)-Abatement order passed by High Court on 7-7-1975-Copy of order applied for on 15-9-1975 (over 2 months' delay)-Copy ready on 17-9-1975 but collected on 25-9-1975 (8 days' delay)-Seven days more delay thereafter in filing appeal--Each day of delay not explained with justification-Circumstances indicating indolence on part of appellant-Appeal, held, time-barred. Citation Name: 1980 PLC(CS) 120 SERVICE-TRIBUNAL-PUNJAB Bookmark this Case Syed ZULFIQAR HUSSAIN VS INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS, LAHORE Abatement--TERM , Limitation--TERM , Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974--8 , -------- S. 8-Limitation-Abatement-Abatement takes place without any formal order by Court-Limitation to run from date of establishment of Tribunal and appeal before Tribunal to be filed, within 6 months from date of establishment of Tribunal i.e. at the latest by 21-7-1975Impugned order passed in October, 1972-Civil suit filed in 1974 and dismissed on 12-3-1976 for want of jurisdiction-Appeal before Tribunal filed on 27-3-1976-Plea that appellant was following remedy before civil Court, held, fails to make out case that appellant acted with due diligence-Condonation prayer rejected. Citation Name: 1980 PLC(CS) 30 SERVICE-TRIBUNAL-PUNJAB Bookmark this Case Ch. ABDUL WAHEED VS GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB Abatement--TERM , Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974--8 , -----S. 8-Abatement-Limitation for appeal to Tribunal-Writ petition pending prior to establishment of Service Tribunal-Stand automatically abated-Appeal before Tribunal maintainable within -prescribed period of 90 days of abatement-Condonation-Prayed on ground that delay occurred for collecting certain documents-No such document being not available during writ proceedings pointed out specifically Explanation for delay, in circumstances, held, not sound and. application for condonation rejected. Citation Name: 1980 PLC(CS) 23 SERVICE-TRIBUNAL-PUNJAB Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ALAMGIR KHAN VS PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB Abatement--TERM , Limitation--TERM , Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974--8 , ------S. 8, Proviso-Limitation-Abatement automatic by operation of law-No order of Court necessary-Abatement effective on date of establishment of Tribunal (22-7-1974)-Each day of limitation must be explained-Abatement order's copy available within prescribed limitation of 010 days-Appellant, held, after receipt of copy of abatement order, could avail of reasonable period and not a period of 90 days as a matter of right-Appeal filed on 10-12-1974, held, time-barred and merits dismissal. Citation Name: 1980 PLC(CS) 17 SERVICE-TRIBUNAL-PUNJAB Bookmark this Case DR. BASHIR AHMAD VS DR. SHAUKAT RAZA KHAN Abatement--TERM , Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974--8 , -- S. 8-Abatement-Takes place by operation of law-Formal order not necessary-Lack of notice or knowledge amounts to ignorance of law hence no excuse for condonation of delay in filing appeal before Tribunal-Contention that notice regarding writ petition before High Court was received by Advocate who could not appear because having been appointed as Deputy Attorney-General of Central Government-No proof that for such appointment Advocate was precluded to appear before High Court or at least make a request for adjournment and inform his client (appellant)--Request for condonation of delay, in circumstances, held, without justification. Citation Name: 1978 PLD 492 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case IDRIS AHMED KHAN VS SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER HYDERABAD Abatement--TERM , Civil Procedure Code --Order XXII of C.P.C. Death, Marriage and Insolvency of Parties--1 , Code of Civil Procedure 1908--6 , O. XXII. rr. 3 & 4 [as amended by Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972)] & S. OW-Abatement-Law Reforms, Ordinance, 1972Not retroerective in of eration-Effect of abatement happening prior to coming into force of Ordinance, hence, not undone.-[AbatementInterpretation of statutes]. Citation Name: 1977 SCMR 323 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case AHMAD ALI VS MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Abatement--TERM , Appeal--TERM , Condonation of delay--TERM , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--185 , -- Art. 185--Appeal-Abatement-Condonation of delay--Appellant dying but application for bringing his legal representatives on record not fled for almost 4 years nor any heed paid to notices issued by Registry of High Court--Except vague assertions about ailment of members of family of deceased unsupported by medical certificates and their trained circumstances no satisfactory explanation of delay forthcoming-Appeal dismissed.-[ Abatement-Appeal (civil) ---Delay]. Citation Name: 1977 SCMR 200 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case GHULAM HUSSAIN VS SHAUKAT ALI Abatement--TERM , Appeal--TERM , -----Art. 58(3)-Appeal-Abatement-Appellant dying but application to implead his legal heirs filed after a delay of almost two years- Explanation of delay Unawareness of law by legal heirs-Heirs even if unaware of law, their being represented by an Advocate-on-Record, held, negatived satisfactoriness of explanation.-[Abatement of appeal]. Citation Name: 1973 PLD 372 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case GHULAM HAIDER VS RAJ BHARI Abatement--TERM , Civil Procedure Code --Order XXII of C.P.C. Death, Marriage and Insolvency of Parties--1 , Law Reforms Ordinance 1972--PREAMBLE , -----O. XXII read with Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972)-Abatement-Effect of Ordinance (XII of 1972), on pending actions-Appeal abated much before coming into force of Ordinance XII of 1972Respondent having acquired valuable right, of defeating claim of legal representatives to be brought on record, could not be deprived of his right on ground that law of abatement has been abolished by the Ordinance. Citation Name: 1971 PLD 778 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case VS Abatement--TERM , Civil Procedure Code --Order XXII of C.P.C. Death, Marriage and Insolvency of Parties--1 , S. 13 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXII-Abatement-Application for ejectment under Ordinance VI of 1959-Provisions of O. XXII, C. P. C. regarding abatement much less the period of limitation prescribed thereunder for bringing legal representatives on record, though have no specific application to such proceeding yet concept of abatement being based on accepted norms and on fundamental rule of judicial procedure will have application to such proceedings-No effort made to bring on record legal representatives of a deceased necessary party to proceeding under Ordinance VI of 1959-Controller, in circumstance, has no option but to pass order dismissing application under Ordinance as having abated. Citation Name: 1970 SCMR 72 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case NAWAB KARIM VS CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER Abatement--TERM , Appeal to Supreme Court--TERM , (b) Appeal to Supreme Court-Abatement-Appeal against order of Settlement Authorities passed in favour of respondent Death of respondent pending appeal and appeal abating on account of legal representatives having not been brought on record within time-Contention that Settlement Authorities also being parties appeal did not abate as a whole-Plea, held, fantastic. Citation Name: 1970 PLD 54 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case TIRTAMAYE DEBI AND OTHERS-PLAINTIFF VS DURJAYADHAN DEB-DEFENDANT Abatement--TERM , O. XXII, r. 4-AbatementAppeal-Failure to bring legal representatives of deceased respondent on record within prescribed time-Appeal on acceptance giving rise to decree inconsistent to one passed against deceased respondent-Appeal, in circumstances, would abate as a whole against all respondents. Citation Name: 1968 PLD 552 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case VS Citation Name: 1967 PLD 613 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case ALLAH RAKHA VS NAWAB Abatement--TERM , Civil Procedure Code --Order XXII of C.P.C. Death, Marriage and Insolvency of Parties--3 , Civil Procedure Code --Order XXII of C.P.C. Death, Marriage and Insolvency of Parties--4 , (g) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXII, rr. 3 & 4Abatement-Partial abatement. Citation Name: 1962 PLD 119 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case SIND INDUSTRIAL TRADING ESTATES LTD. VS MST. KHADIJA BAT AND OTHERS Abatement--TERM , O. XXII, r. 9 (2)Abatement-Plaintiff not negligent in bringing legal representatives on record within time-Sufficient cause held out for not applying for setting aside of abatement in time-Court can set aside abatement-Counsel for plaintiff getting notice of death of one of defendants in previous suit but not informing his client-Omission not lack of duty, though amounting to lack of extra-vigilance--Rule of procedure of High Court where counsel practising previously different --- Presumption of counsel's being misled-Presumption that knowledge of counsel is knowledge of plaintiff --- Rebuttable --- Abatement set aside in circumstances of case. Citation Name: 1960 PLD 577 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case MIRZA KHAN VS GANESH DASS Abatement--TERM , -----O. XXII, r. 4-AbatementAll legal representatives of deceased not brought on record within prescribed period of limitation-Suit abates. Citation Name: 1960 PLD 155 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case ABDUL KARIM VS SIKANDAR KHAN Abatement--TERM , -------O. XXII, r. 4--Abatement-Party concerned not able to discover names of all legal representatives of deceased party-No abatement. Citation Name: 1958 PLD 533 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case THE STATE VS DOSSO Abatement--TERM , Abatement "Abatement"-Concept examined.

Abatement of appeal

Back Back Your Search returned total 15 records from 0 - 15 Citation Name: 2024 PLD 1119 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case ASMAT ULLAH KHAN VS State S. 431---Death of convict (appellant)---Abatement of appeal---Scope---Under the law, a criminal appeal abates on the death of an appellant, but section 431, Cr.P.C. provides an exception to this general rule---It provides that an appeal against a sentence of the fine shall not abate by reason of death of an appellant, because it is not a matter, which affects his person, it would certainly affect his estate---Thus, upon the death of an appellant, his appeal to the extent of a portion of the sentence of imprisonment, abates whereas, the appeal to the extent of sentence of fine, affecting the property of an appellant, shall not abate and is to be heard on merits and in accordance with the settled principle of criminal justice. Citation Name: 2024 PLD 497 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case General (Retd.) PERVEZ MUSHARRAF VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN S. 12(3)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 431---Appeal to the Supreme Court against final judgment of the Special Court---Legal heirs of convict neither responding to notices nor appearing before the Supreme Court---Effect---Abatement of appeal---Supreme Court, though not obliged to do so, but in the interest of justice, had also issued notices to the legal heirs of the appellant (convict) on all available addresses and which were provided, both within the country and abroad---Notices were also published in a leading English newspaper and a leading Urdu newspaper---However, none of the legal heirs had come forward and elected to contest present appeal--- Counsel for the deceased appellant stated that the legal heirs did not approach him, let alone engage him, and had also not responded to the notices/publications issued by the Supreme Court; that in his opinion the instant appeal abates in terms of section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898---In the given circumstances, and as none of the legal heirs had come forward, the present appeal was dismissed as having abated---Consequently, the conviction of the appellant by the Special Court subsisted. Citation Name: 2023 MLD 1983 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case KHUDA BAKHSH VS State S. 302(b)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 431---Qatl-i-amd---Abatement of appeal---Death of accused---Principle---Accused was sentenced to death but during pendency of appeal he had died---Effect---Appeal against sentence of death or imprisonment was to abate on the death of accused, however, it could stay and was decided on merit to the extent of sentence of fine---High Court returned record and case property to Trial Court as appeal stood abated as per S. 431, Cr.P.C.---Appeal abated, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2020 SCMR 359 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case Sheikh IQBAL AZAM FAROOQUI VS State S. 431---Abatement of appeal---Scope---Sentence and fine imposed by Trial Court---Appeal against conviction filed before the High Court---Convict expiring during pendency of his appeal---Question whether appeal required adjudication on merits after death of convict---Held, that corporal consequences of a conviction withered away with the death of the convict, therefore appeal filed by the convict would automatically abate, as the death severed all temporal links with his corpus---However, financial liability or fine, consequent upon conviction, which shifted upon the estate of deceased-convict, would certainly require the appellate court to decide the appeal on its own merit as in the event of its failure, the liability was to be exacted from the assets devolving upon the legal heirs. Citation Name: 2018 PCrLJ 1513 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ARSHAD VS State 1971 SCMR 35, S. 431---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Ordinance (II of 2010), S. 53---Rape and sexual assault---Death of accused during pendency of appeal---Abatement of appeal---Scope---Accused, after conviction was awarded imprisonment and also burdened with fine of Rs.2,00,000 (two lac)---Accused filed appeal against his conviction and sentences, but during pendency of appeal, he died---Appeal filed by accused who had been sentenced to imprisonment and fine would not abate on his death---Sentence of imprisonment would only be abated and not that of fine on his death pending hearing of appeal---Appellate Court could go into propriety and legality of sentence of fine even after death of accused---Usually a criminal appeal would abate on the death of accused, but S.431, Cr.P.C., seemed to have made an exception to the general rule---Under S. 431, Cr.P.C., appeal against sentence of fine would not abate by reason of the death of accused, because it was not a matter which affected his person, but one which would affect his estate. Citation Name: 2011 PLD 40 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SALEEM VS State 1970 PCr.LJ 279, Abatement of appeal--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--431 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--409 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--420 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--467 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--468 , Prevention of Corruption Act 1947--5 , S. 431---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.409/420/467/468---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---Criminal breach of trust by public servant, cheating, forgery, corruption---Death of accused, a government employee---Abatement of appeal---Scope---Ordinarily, a criminal appeal would abate on the death of appellant/accused, but S.431, Cr.P.C. had provided an exception to that general rule---Under S.431, Cr.P.C. an appeal against sentence of fine would not abate by reason of death of accused, because it was not a matter, which would affect his person, but would affect his estate---Upon death of accused, his appeal to the extent of a portion of sentence of an imprisonment, would abate, whereas the appeal to the extent of sentence of fine, affecting the property of accused, would not abate---Sentence awarded to a government officer or employee would certainly affect his service; in such an eventuality, his conviction would also affect his pensionary benefits---On that score as well, appeal would not abate---In the present case, the amount of fine had been ordered to be recovered from the properties of accused---Accused being a government employee, his conviction and sentence, would certainly have an impact not only upon his estate, but also upon his pensionary benefits---Appeal to the extent, in circumstances would not abate on death of accused. Citation Name: 2010 PLC(CS) 353 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case ALI GOHAR MAZAR VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Chief Executive Officer, Quetta Electric Supply PLD 2007 SC 681, Abatement of appeal--TERM , Appeal--TERM , Baluchistan Service Tribunals Act 1974--4 , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--199 , Constitutional petition--TERM , Dismissal from Service--TERM , West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act 1958--8 , S. 4---Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958), S.8(5)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Dismissal from service---Appeal---Abatement of appeal---Petitioner, who was dismissed from service, after exhausting remedy of departmental appeal, filed appeal before Service Tribunal, but said appeal was dismissed by the Service Tribunal by finding it having been abated---Undisputedly petitioner was employee of WAPDA, set up under Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958---WAPDA, however by exercising its powers wider S.8(5) of Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958, formed companies for different regions including, Quetta Electric Supply Company (QESCO) and services of the petitioner were placed at the disposal of said Company, (QESCO)---Board of Directors of QESCO adopted all existing rules of WAPDA in its meeting---Terms and conditions of petitioner's services had thus been determined, under the Act and Rules made thereunder---Petitioner, in circumstances could not invoke constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court in matters relating to the terms and conditions of his service in view of the clear bar contained in Art.212 of the Constitution---Petitioner was to have approached the Service Tribunal for restoration/revival of his appeal in the light of judgment of apex Court reported, in PLD 2007 SC 681---Petitioner had remedy before the Service Tribunal where he had already filed appeal---Constitutional petition being not maintainable, was dismissed. Citation Name: 2009 PLC 340 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case MASOOD AKHTAR VS WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (WAPDA) 1981 CLC 443, 1991 SCMR 135, 2008 SCMR 402, PLD 1996 SC 195, PLD 2006 SC 602, Abatement of appeal--TERM , Grievance Petition--TERM , Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002--46 , Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002--48 , Review--TERM , Ss. 46 & 48---Grievance petition---Abatement of appeal---Review---Earlier, petitioner filed appeal before Federal Service Tribunal, but Registrar of the Tribunal intimated him that in view of judgment (PLD 2006 SC 602) his appeal stood abated---Petitioner promptly served grievance notice and then filed grievance petition before the Labour Court---Respondents raised an objection in respect of competency of grievance petition on the ground that in view of Supreme Court judgment reported as 2008 SCMR 402, judicial order should have been passed by the Service Tribunal with regard to abatement of appeal, whereas no such judicial .order was passed; and only a notice by the Registrar of Service Tribunal was issued---Contention was that without having judicial order of the Service Tribunal, grievance petition before the Labour Court could not have been processed---Labour Court dismissed the grievance petition filed by the petitioner on that score-only, which was assailed in the High Court in appeal, and same was dismissed, which was sought to be reviewed---Validity---Labour Court instead of dismissing grievance petition, should have adjourned the case till passing of judicial order by the Service Tribunal, whereas Labour Court decided the matter in haste and did not wait judicial order of Service Tribunal in respect of abatement of the petitioner's appeal resulting into miseries faced by the petitioner---Order passed by the Labour Court was nullity in the eye of law---Judgment passed in appeal was reviewed and case was remanded to the Labour Court with the direction to decide same afresh on merits. Citation Name: 2009 PLC 290 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case MASOOD AKHTAR VS WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Labour Abatement of appeal--TERM , Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002--46 , Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002--48 , Ss. 46 & 48---Dismissal of grievance petition---Labour appeal---Abatement of appeal---Only point involved in the case was whether the Labour Court was justified in dismissing the appellant's grievance petition or not---Supreme Court had once for all resolved the issue holding that Registrar/Deputy Registrar of the Tribunal had no authority to pass an abatement order in any appeal, whereas it should have been presented before a Bench of the Tribunal---In the present case, appellant approached the Service Tribunal, his appeal was ordered to be abated by the Registrar of the Tribunal, which could not have been done as per terms of the judgment of Supreme Court---Labour Court did not commit any illegality while passing impugned order. Citation Name: 2009 PLC(CS) 654 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case MUBARAK ALI RAJPUT VS CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN STEEL, KARACHI PLD 2006 SC 602, Abatement of appeal--TERM , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--199 , Constitutional petition--TERM , Removal From Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance 2000--3 , Sindh Service Tribunals Act 1973--2-A , Sindh Service Tribunals Act 1973--4 , S. 3---Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973), Ss.2-A & 4---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Penalty of stoppage of three annual increments---Abatement of appeal---Penalty of stoppage of three annual increments having been imposed on the petitioner after charge-sheeting him for committing misconduct, he filed appeal against such order---Some identical petitions were heard by the Supreme Court in case reported in PLD 2006 SC 602 while interpreting provisions of S.2-A added in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and it was directed that appeals so pending before the Service Tribunal stood abated; later on, Supreme Court passed an order in some other connected matter; directing therein that the question as to whether or not a Service appeal, pending before the Service Tribunal stood abated, was to be heard and decided by the Tribunal itself on its judicial side; and that the Registrar or any other officer of said Tribunal was not competent to direct for such abatement---Petition was admitted and allowed with the direction that letter issued by Assistant Registrar of the Service Tribunal was set aside and appeal itself stood remanded to the Service Tribunal to hear the parties and then to decide the question on the judicial side as to whether or not appeal pending before it stood abated. Citation Name: 2008 PLC(CS) 734 FEDERAL-SERVICE-TRIBUNAL Bookmark this Case ZAFAR AHMED VS PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION 1994 SCMR 2232, 2002 SCMR 1034, PLD 1984 Lah. 69, PLD 1989 SC 26, PLD 1992 SC 531, PLD 1998 SC 1445, PLD 2006 SC 602, Abatement of appeal--TERM , Civil Servants Act 1973--2 , Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (Suspension of Trade Unions and Existing Agreements) Order,2001--4 , Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000--10 , Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000--3 , Service Tribunals Act 1973--2-A , Service Tribunals Act 1973--4 , Ss.2-A & 4--Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973), S.2(1)(b)---Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (Suspension of Trade Unions and Existing Agreements) Order (6 of 2001), Art.4---Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (XVII of 2000), Ss.3 & 10--Appeal to Service Tribunal--Abatement of appeal---Petition against abatement---Petitioners were employees of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation---Petitioners were six in number and four out of them were compulsorily retired from service and two were dismissed from service---Petitioners filed appeals before Service Tribunal under Ss.2-A & 4 of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 for setting aside impugned orders and reinstating them in service---Said appeals were admitted for hearing, but in view of judgment of Supreme Court dated 27-6-2006 reported in PLD 2006 SC 602, said appeals abated and petitioners had filed petitions against said abatement---Supreme Court in its said judgment had clearly held that an employee of a commercial organization like P.I.A.C., having no Statutory Rules, was not a civil servant as defined under S.2(1)(b) of Civil Servants" Act, 1973---Petitioners being employees of P.I.A.C. which was a commercial organization having no Statutory Rules of their service, had been barred from knocking at the doors of the Service Tribunal for remedy and their pending cases could not be disposed of by Service Tribunals for want of Statutory Rules of Service and appeals had thus, abated---Appeal under S.10 of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 had also been filed by petitioners in their capacity as civil servants under S.2-A of Service Tribunals Act, 1973, but their such position having been done away with, they could not approach the Service Tribunal for remedy---Counsel for Corporation had rightly stated that the door of the Service Tribunal closed by the Supreme Court under provisions of Arts.240 & 260 of Constitution, could not be re-opened by a subordinate legislation like Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000---Request of petitioners to continue with the proceedings of their appeals on merits could not be granted---Appeals having already stood abated in view of judgment of the Supreme Court, petitions filed by the petitioners, were dismissed. Citation Name: 2007 PLC(CS) 894 FEDERAL-SERVICE-TRIBUNAL Bookmark this Case ARBAB ALI ZARDARI VS DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AND MOTORWAY POLICE Abatement of appeal--TERM , National Highways Safety Ordinance 2000--90 , National Highways Safety Ordinance 2000--92 , National Highways Safety Ordinance 2000--93 , Service Tribunals Act 1973--4 , S. 4---National Highways Safety Ordinance (XL of 2000), Ss. 90, 92 & 93---Abatement of appeal---Notice for---Recalling notice of abatement---Notice of abetment of .appeal was issued by Assistant Registrar of the Tribunal to appellant in pursuance of judgment of Supreme Court---Appellant had filed petition for recalling of said notice of abatement---During hearing of said petition, counsel for appellant produced a copy of Notification dated 15-2-2007 wherein it was stated that the "Federal Law Enforcement Agency" had included along with others, Federal Investigating Agency Pakistan Motorway and Highway Police---Notice of abatement of appeal issued to appellant, was recalled---Case of appellant being within the exclusive ,jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal, would proceed, accordingly. Citation Name: 1981 SCMR 166 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case QADIR BAKHSH VS SAIF-UR-REHMAN Abatement of appeal--TERM , Supreme Court Rules Order 1956--RULE , Supreme Court Mules, 1956-- O. XVI, r.. 7-Abatement of appeal-Interest of other respondents in disputed land being exactly identical with that of deceased respondent and all defences open to him having been taken on behalf of other respondents, case, held, not one where appeal could be said to have become defective by reason of absence of a necessary party. Citation Name: 1978 SCMR 44 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case CHINAR GUL VS CANTONMENT BOARD OF PESHAWAR Abatement of appeal--TERM , Civil Procedure Code --Order XXII of C.P.C. Death, Marriage and Insolvency of Parties--11 , Civil Procedure Code --Order XXII of C.P.C. Death, Marriage and Insolvency of Parties--3 , Order I of Supreme Court Rules--5 , Supreme Court Rules Order 1956--RULE , -- O. XXII, rr. 3 & 11 read with Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. I, r. 5 &. O. XVI, rr. 7 & 9-Aoatemcant of appeal-Provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 -Not applicable to proceedings in Supreme Court--Supreme Court may, however, on application by any interested person within 90 days grant a certificate showing name of a person to be substituted in place of party on record-Supreme Court nevertheless empowered to extend time for sufficient cause-Legal representatives of deceased altogether failing to tender any explanation for not making application within 90 days of party's death by apprising their Advocate-on-Record about death, extension of time refused.-[Supreme Court-Abatement of appeal]. Citation Name: 1969 PLD 234 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case ALAM KHAN VS SYED MASTAN SHAH Abatement of appeal--TERM , Declaratory Suit--TERM , O. XXII, r. 4------ Abatement of appeal-Declaratory suit-Suit land shamilat----- Legal representatives of some of defendants impleaded in suit not brought on record after death of such defendants during pendency of appeal-Appeal, in circumstances, held, abated in toto.

Abatement of suit

Back Back Your Search returned total 2 records from 0 - 2 Citation Name: 2016 CLC 1233 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case Mrs. SURIYA IQBAL CHISHTI VS Mrs. RUBINA MAJIDULLA Abatement of suit--Term , Civil Procedure Code --Order XXII of C.P.C. Death, Marriage and Insolvency of Parties--1 , O. XXII, R. 1---Death of a party---Abatement of suit---Scope---Death of plaintiff or defendant would not abate the suit if right to sue survived. Citation Name: 2013 CLC 331 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case ANWAR KHAN VS FOUZIA KHAN Abatement of suit--Term , Civil Procedure Code --Order IX of C.P.C. Appearance of Parties and Consequence of Non-Appearance--9 , Civil Procedure Code --Order VII of C.P.C. Plaint--26 , Civil Procedure Code --Order XXII of C.P.C. Death, Marriage and Insolvency of Parties--2 , O. XXII, R. 2, O. IX R. 9 & O.VII, R.26---Suit was dismissed for non-prosecution and application for restoration of the suit was also dismissed---One of the plaintiffs had died during pendency of suit --- Abatement of suit---Scope---Question as to whether after death of the plaintiff, proceedings would abate, primarily depended on the nature of the cause of action---Any action might abate on death of a party but cause of action might survive---Suit in the present case, was filed by three plaintiffs, one of which had died during pendency of suit, and as such right to sue remained alive---Dismissal of suit for non-prosecution, therefore, seemed to be illegal and contrary to the express provisions of Order XXII, Rule 2, C.P.C.---Provisions of Order XXII, R.2, C.P.C. had to be strictly construed and entire suit would not be taken to have abated simply because some of the plaintiffs had died whereas the legal representatives had not been brought on record---Court itself was competent to bring on record legal representatives of deceased plaintiff as list of legal heirs was attached with plaint in terms of Order VII, Rule 26, C.P.C.---High Court set aside the impugned orders---Intra-court appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Abdication

Back Back No more result found on your search

Abduction

Back Back Your Search returned total 37 records from 0 - 38 Citation Name: 2025 SCMR 699 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case ASIF MASIH VS State Ss. 365-B, 376 & 496-B---Forcible abduction, forcible intercourse/rape and fornication---Reappraisal of evidence---Abduction---Proof---Punishment for fornication (Zina with consent) qua alleged abductee as a consenting party---Principle---Accused persons were convicted and sentenced by Trial Court for abducting daughter of complainant and committing Zina with her---Validity---Prosecution story of forcible abduction and rape of alleged abductee was the result of an afterthought of abductee and her family members after return of alleged abductee to her parents' house---No ornament or cash amount was recovered from any accused---As per medico legal report, no mark of violence was noted on the body of abductee---Neither it was a case of forcible abduction punishable under section 365-B, P.P.C. nor it was a case of forcible intercourse/rape punishable under section 376 P.P.C.---In view of the provisions of section 496-B, P.P.C., the abductee was not liable to be convicted and sentenced for offence of fornication (Zina with consent) as she was not made accused in the case by Police---No charge was framed against abductee by Trial Court and she was not provided a chance to cross-examine prosecution witnesses to defend herself---Abductee could not be convicted and sentenced in absence of fulfilment of such legal requirements---Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence of accused for the charge under Section 376(i) P.P.C. but he was convicted under section 496-B, P.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo five years imprisonment---Appeal was dismissed. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1914 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD AYOUB VS State Ss. 365-A & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7---Kidnapping or abduction for extorting property, valuable security, etc., common intention, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Abduction---Demand of ransom amount---Scope---Accused were charged for abducting the brother of the complainant for ransom---In order to prove a case of kidnapping for ransom no ransom amount needed to be paid or recovered but only proof that a demand for ransom was made---Abductee/witness stated in his evidence that after one or two days they obtained from them cell No's of their family members and made conversation with them and after 7 to 8 days the accused recorded their voices with dialogues whereby they were compelling them to convey their demand of ransom amount to our family members and that they understood that by recording their voices for ransom amount such voice recordings were sent to another place to another person belonging to the accused to convey their voices of the ransom demand to their family members---Ransom amount was initially for one crore and 40 tola gold for the release of each person but was later reduced to 15/20 lacs for each person---Other abductee corroborated the ransom demands by the accused and that they would face dire consequences if the ransom was not paid---Another abductee also corroborated such ransom demands and threats---Such fact showed that the demand appeared to have been made from another location was corroborated by the CDR which showed that many calls which were made during the period whilst the abductees were in captivity were made to the complainant and that those calls emanated from other Province where one of the absconding kidnappers was from---Such ransom demands were also corroborated by two other witnesses who were both related to the abductees and received the said ransom demands and reported the matter to the police---Ransom demands were made for the release of the abductees which were passed on through the persons holding the abductees in captivity---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused persons--- Appeal was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2020 PLD 716 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case SUMAYYAH MOSES VS STATION HOUSE OFFICER, FAISALABAD Arts.3 & 5---Abduction---"Civil" and "criminal" laws---Distinction---In private international law the term 'abduction' carries a meaning somewhat different from criminal law, there it connotes removal or retention of a child in breach of another's rights of custody---Phrase 'rights of custody' may have varying meanings---As 101 countries are party to Hague Convention one should prefer the definition given in Art. 5 of the Hague Convention, which says that such rights includes rights relating to care of the person of child and in particular the right to determine child's place of residence. Citation Name: 2018 YLR 1255 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case SHAKEEL HYDER VS The PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Sindh Ss. 364-A & 506---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Abduction---Quashing of proceedings of FIR---Petitioners (accused persons) had adopted the complainant's minor daughter, however the complainant alleged that the minor had been abducted by the petitioners---Present case involved a dispute of custody of minor which had been given the colour of criminal proceedings with the intention to pressurize the petitioner party---Allegation of abduction of minor with bad intentions by her adopted parents/close relatives was hard to believe---Minor was very much close and attached with her adoptive parents; 9 case of quashment of FIR had been made out in circumstances---High Court directed that the proceedings in respect of FIR under Ss. 364-A & 506, P.P.C. should be quashed, and that the petitioners and respondents were at liberty to approach the concerned forum regarding the custody of minor---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2013 YLR 1879 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case ISMAIL KHAN alias MAYAIL VS State Abduction--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365-B , S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.365-B---Abduction---Bail, grant of---Complainant had not charged accused for abduction of his daughter in his initial report, recorded in the shape of daily diary after a delay of 2 days---Complainant, later on, in his statement recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C., charged accused along with his brother and mother for abduction of his daughter---Complainant had not furnished the source of his satisfaction qua involvement of accused in abduction of his daughter, nor the abductee had been recovered from the custody of accused---No evidence had been collected by the Investigating Agency to show any link or connection of accused with the mobile number, from which the complainant allegedly, received a phone call and heard the cry of his daughter---Question as to whether the alleged abductee left the house of her father at her own accord or otherwise, was yet to be answered by the prosecution during trial, after recording evidence, which made the case of accused arguable for the purpose of bail---Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. Citation Name: 2012 MLD 677 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ARIF SABRI VS State Abduction--TERM , Benefit of Doubt--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Further Inquiry--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365-B , S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.365-B---Abduction---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Benefit of doubt---Complainant despite having been informed by the witnesses about the abduction of his two daughters by the accused, had kept on searching them without informing the police for twenty one days---Said inordinate delay of 21 days in lodging the F.I.R. had cast serious doubts about the veracity of the complainant---Both the alleged abductees had completely contradicted each other in their statements recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C.---One abductee had stated that the accused had not abducted her or her sister and that she had contracted Nikah with a person with her free-will---Other abductee had levelled allegation of abduction and zina against the accused---Both these statements when juxtaposed had, prima facie, made the case against the accused doubtful requiring further inquiry into the matter---Benefit of doubt, howsoever slight, had to be given to accused even at bail stage---Nothing was to be recovered from the accused and their further detention behind the bars would not be useful for the prosecution---Bail was allowed to accused in circumstances. Citation Name: 2012 YLR 1496 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case Syed HASNAIN RAZA ZAIDI VS State Abduction--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365 , S. 497 [as amended by Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act (VIII of 2011)]---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.365---Abduction---Bail, grant of---Incident was unseen and dead body of deceased abductee was not recovered on the pointation of accused---Medical report did not support the case of prosecution---Dead body was found on the street in a drum and post-mortem was conducted about 5-1/2 months prior to the arrest of accused---Prior to arrest of accused no one had asked any question to accused about deceased son of complainant---Cause of death was unknown---During the entire period of detention, accused had sought adjournment only four times and more than three years had passed, but the trial had not concluded---Delay in trial was not solely attributed to accused---Accused was neither previously convicted offender for the offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or was hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal or was accused of an act of terrorism, punishable with death---Case of accused was fully covered under the amended S.497, Cr.P.C. and he was entitled to bail on that ground alone---Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2011 YLR 2768 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case GHULAM RASOOL VS THE STATE through Police Station Sohbat Pur District Jaffarabad Abduction--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--561-A , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--147 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--149 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365 , S. 561-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.365/147/149---Abduction---Quashing of F.I.R., application for---Alleged abductee in her affidavit had stated that she being aged about 21 years was well and sufficiently in a position to think for her future betterment without any coercion, interruption of any kind; that she wanted to marry with accused, who had serious love and affection for her and that he was ready to accept her; that she had decided to marry with him on her choice by exercising her right of free-will---Registered Nikah Nama was executed between accused and alleged abductee---According to said Nikah Nama age of alleged abductee was 21 years and said Nikah Nama was witnessed---Dower' amount Rs.50,000 was also written therein---Alleged abductee also appeared in the court and had not supported the prosecution case and had sought quashing of F.I.R. lodged by her father against accused---Alleged abductee being sui juris, having lawfully married each other, offence as alleged in F.I.R. was not made out---Conviction of accused, in circumstances, was not possible and continuance of the investigation against accused would simpliciter amount to unnecessary harassment and abuse of the process of law---Application for quashing F.I.R. was allowed and F.I.R. registered against accused under S.365, P.P.C., was quashed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2011 MLD 1764 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case GHULAM RASOOL VS State 1991 SCMR 322, Abduction--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--498 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--147 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--149 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365 , S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.365, 147 & 149---Abduction---Pre-arrest bail, grant of---Affidavit of alleged abductee annexed with bail application, had clearly shown that alleged abductee had entered into Nikah with accused in consonance with the right guaranteed under the Islamic Law---Matter, requiring consideration, pertained to the allegations, which were levelled against accused, were ulterior motives, coupled with the loss, sustained to his honour, dignity and prestige---Question of mala fides was borne out from the record; and sufficient material was available to come to the conclusion that the report had been lodged to victimize and harass accused---In case of refusal to grant pre-arrest bail to accused, he would suffer humiliation, his dignity would be lowered in the general public---Superior courts could entertain pre-arrest bail and grant relief to accused in appropriate cases, where accused established that he was prevented from approaching the lower court concerned---Even otherwise, when it appeared that accused had not committed the offence of which he was being accused, bail should not be refused or withheld, merely on technical grounds---Accused was admitted on pre-arrest bail, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2011 YLR 3075 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case SAFDAR VS State 1992 PCr.LJ 1358, 2009 MLD 171, 2009 PCr.LJ 1155, Abduction--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365-B , S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.365-B---Abduction---Bail, refusal of---Occurrence pertained to the year 2007 and accused was granted bail by the Trial Court when abductee was not recovered and no cogent evidence about his involvement in the crime was available---Abductee upon her recovery had charged accused along with cot-accused for the commission of offence in a statement recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate---Fact that challan had not been submitted before the court, was on account of mala fide on the part of local Police on one hand; and collusion with accused on the other----Offence for which accused was charged, fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Tentative assessment of material available on record reflected that reasonable grounds existed to believe that case of accused was not that of further inquiry---Bail petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2011 YLR 2273 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case TILLA MUHAMMAD VS State 2004 PCr.LJ 620, PLD 2004 SC 219, PLD 2008 Lah. 66, Abduction--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Further Inquiry--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365-B , S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.365-B---Abduction---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Counsel for the complainant had stated that accused was committing zina with allegedly abducted woman because he had effected Nikah with said woman who was already given in nikah to somebody else---Complainant in his statement recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. had stated about engagement of his daughter, alleged abductee, with someone and he did not mention that any nikah was performed---First alleged nikah of alleged abductee with someone was not in fact nikah, but was engagement; and there was difference between `Nikah' and 'engagement'-Engagement was a contract, but not final---Alleged abductee at the time of occurrence being more than 18 years of age was sui juris and could enter into a valid nikah on her own free will---If presumed that second nikah of accused with alleged abductee was disputed, then proper forum would be Family Court to decide the issue because criminal court was not competent to take jurisdiction in the case---Father of alleged abductee and her first alleged husband had not filed any suit for jactitation of marriage, which had created doubts---Alleged abductee appeared in the Trial Court and recorded her statement that she entered into nikah with accused on her own free will and that she was never abducted by him---Accused, in circumstances, could not be connected with the offence for which he was charged, unless some facts were proved at the trial stage against him---Case against accused having become of further inquiry, he was entitled to bail on merits--Abscondence of accused had become irrelevant at bail stage. Citation Name: 2011 PCrLJ 431 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case ZAFAR ALI KHAN VS State Abduction--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365 , S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.365/34---Abduction---Bail, grant of---After recovery of alleged abductee he was examined by the Police under S.161, Cr.P.C., but record was silent as to whether his statement was recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate or not---Case being that of abduction, statement of alleged abductee before the Magistrate was necessary---Failure on the part of prosecution to record said statement, would favour accused's plea for bail---At the initial stage, accused was named on the basis of suspicion---Except statement of abductee, that too under S.161, Cr.P.C., no other ocular evidence was available to connect accused with the abduction of the alleged abductee---Unexplained delay in lodging F.I.R. was not explained in the case---Two co-accused in the case had been released on bail and bail cancellation application moved by the complainant was rejected---Case of accused was at par with said co-accused who were on bail---Principle of consistency demanded that bail be granted to accused---Bail was granted. Citation Name: 2011 MLD 1529 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case GHULAM BIBI VS HAMIDULLAH 2010 PCr.LJ 905, 2010 SCMR 580, Abduction--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365-B , S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.365-B---Abduction---Cancellation of bail, petition for---Alleged abductee had disclosed the names of accused persons in her statement recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C., who had participated in the alleged occurrence, but her mother, in her report, which she lodged after the delay of 10-1/2 hours did not mention said names---Record had shown that brother of alleged abductee was present in the house at the time of alleged occurrence, but he neither resisted the abduction of her sister nor immediately reported the matter to Police---Alleged abductee had not charged accused for commission of zina with her---Previous enmity existed between the parties---Case being of further inquiry, accused were legally entitled for their enlargement on bail---Requirements of cancellation of bail had not been satisfied by the complainant and was yet to be proved by the complainant that allegations levelled against accused were based on truth---Nothing was on record which could be considered as a valid and genuine ground for cancellation of the bail---No proof had been furnished so. as to give legal cover to the stance of the complainant about extending threats to her or tampering with the evidence---No record pertaining to previous involvement of accused in similar offence had been produced or alleged in the petition---Grounds for grant of bail and its cancellation, were quite different and distinct in nature---Complainant had failed to substantiate her request by means of any material on record---Impugned order was not perverse on the face of it and it had not been passed in violation of the principles for grant of bail; or was not found patently illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect or resulting in miscarriage of justice---In absence of any merit in petition for cancellation of bail, same was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2011 YLR 2446 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case GHULAM HYDER VS State 2008 YLR 1607, 2009 YLR 1500, 2010 YLR 1035, Abduction--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Further Inquiry--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365-B , S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.365-B---Abduction---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Inordinate delay in lodging F.I.R. ---As many as 13 persons had been implicated as accused in the F.I.R., whereas alleged abductee had implicated only five persons---Even otherwise, no allegations against any individual had been made out---Allegations against accused persons were general in nature---Abductee had not been recovered from the possession of accused persons and there was no allegation of zina against accused persons---Variance existed in the story of prosecution in the F.I.R. and so was in the statement made by the abductee under S.164, Cr.P.C,---Benefit of such variance and delay in lodging of F.I.R. was to be extended to accused persons--Case of prosecution, in circumstances, had become doubtful and required further inquiry in terms of S.497(2), Cr.P. C. ---Accused were admitted to bail, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2011 YLR 493 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case Mst. SHAZIA VS S.H.O. POLICE STATION KUMB, DISTRICT KHAIRPUR Abduction--TERM , Constitutional petition--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--362 , S. 362---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199--- Constitutional petition---Abduction---Petitioner had prayed that police officials be restrained from causing harassment to the petitioners in any manner and that they be directed to provide protection to the petitioners as guaranteed under the Constitution---Petitioners who claimed to be of the age of majority and sui juris, had deposed that they had married with her free will and that girl was never abducted---Girl stated that she did not wish to go back to her parents and relatives as they would beat her and maltreat her and her husband---Evidence on record had established that petitioner (girl) was of full age and capable of possessing civil and social rights being sui juris---Girl was of the age of majority at the time of her nikah---Allegation of counsel for the parents/ relatives that girl was under the influence of male petitioner or that she had been abducted, or that her marriage was not at her will, was of no significance in view of statement of the girl that she wished to live rest of her life with male petitioner as her wife. Citation Name: 2011 MLD 1108 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case AMEER AMAN VS State Abduction--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--526 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--364 , S.526---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 364---Abduction---Application for transfer of case---Pending criminal case filed by complainant/alleged abductee, accused filed cross-case against alleged abductee and her father---Said cross-case having been proved to be false one, was disposed of as "B" class---Proceedings in said cross-case in which attempt was made to win over complainant and frustrate justice, were quashed and F.I.R. in that case was also quashed---Application requesting transfer of case filed by alleged abductee, seemed to be backed not only by mere apprehension for getting no justice in the matter from the Presiding Officer, but was also backed by substantial reasonings---Proceedings pertaining to the case of the complainant, were withdrawn from the court in which same were pending and were transferred to another court, with direction that transferee court would proceed with the case on day to day basis and Investigating Officer was bound down to produce all witnesses before the court on each date. Citation Name: 2010 SCMR 179 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case Raja FAZAL-UR-REHMAN VS MUHAMMAD AFZAL Abduction--TERM , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--185 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--109 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--364 , S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.364/109---Constitution of . Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Abduction---Bail, cancellation of---Version of the wife of the abductee was a strong piece of evidence in whose presence the abductee was taken away by the accused and on having a telephonic contact with her husband his response indicated that he was in a difficult situation and was seeking the help of someone---Such was not an ordinary case of last-seen evidence, as a specific assertion had been made that the accused was solely responsible for taking away the abductee and after that time till today his whereabouts were not known---Conduct of the accused by remaining fugitive from law had further supported the prosecution story, which was relevant and could be taken into consideration at bail stage---Under S.497, Cr.P.C. an accused could not be granted bail when there existed reasonable grounds to believe that he was guilty of the offence charged with---Since reasonable grounds existed for believing that the accused in the present case was guilty of the offence, he was not entitled to grant of bail---Bail granted to accused by High Court was consequently cancelled by converting the petition for leave to appeal into appeal and allowing the same. Citation Name: 2010 YLR 3000 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case ATTA MUHAMMAD VS State Abduction--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--561-A , Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979--11 , S.561-A--- Offence of Zinc: (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.11---Abduction---Quashing of F.I.R., application for---Allegation in the F.I.R. was that accused female was abducted by male accused with the help of his brothers---Accused persons (male and female), however, had stated that they got married and their Nikah was duly performed---Copy of Nikah Nama was attached with the application filed by them for quashing of F.I.R.---Complainant/ mother of alleged abductee appeared in the Court along with her counsel and stated that alleged abductee had married without her permission and that if male accused was to provide a lady member of his family for marriage to the complainant's daughter she would compromise the matter and withdraw the complaint---Fact that alleged abductee appeared in the Court and denied her alleged abduction, there remained no case---Alleged abductee had married of her own free will which fact was not stated in the application, but also in the affidavit submitted in the Court---F.I. R. had clearly been lodged to harass accused persons and to settle the scores---High Court invoking its inherent powers, quashed the F.I.R., in circum­stances. Citation Name: 2010 PCrLJ 1342 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case MOIN-UD-DIN VS MUHAMMAD YOUNIS KHAN Abduction--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--496-A , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--506 , S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.496-A/506---Abduction---Bail, cancellation of---Application for---Delay of ten hours in lodging the report to the Police had not been plausibly explained by the complainant, which had brought the case of accused within the ambit of further inquiry entitling him to the concession of bail---For cancellation of bail, strong and exceptional grounds were required to be proved by the complainant---Complainant could not prove that alleged abductee was already married, however, even if alleged Nikah was proved (which was not proved), even then there could be a question of its validity, because on the day of occurrence, the age of the abductee was mentioned to be 12/13 years---Alleged abductee, in circumstances, was minor at that time and she had the right to repudiate the earlier Nikah performed during her minority-Complainant had failed to prove strong and exceptional circumstances required for cancellation of bail granted to accused---No material was available on record to show that either accused had misused the concession of bail or had tampered with the investigation of the case. Citation Name: 2010 PCrLJ 558 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case IZZAT KHAN VS MUHAMMAD IQBAL PLD 1967 SC 317, PLD 1976 SC 461, Abduction--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--561-A , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365-B , S. 561-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.365-B---Abduction---Quashing of F.I.R.---Alleged abductee had left the house of her parents of her own consent, but it was yet to be seen at trial, when complete evidence would come on record, that whether there was no other Nikahnama in the field at the time of occurrence including the other Islamic requirements---Person could approach High Court under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. when other remedy was not available---In the present case, F. I. R. had been registered and the investigation was also completed---Grounds agitated by the counsel for the petitioner were such which could be considered by the Trial Court during or before trial---If the plea of the petitioner was considered, it could open a Pandora box and every accused against whom F.I.R. was registered would take shelter of S.561-A, Cr.P.C., and role of the Trial Court would become redundant and consequently High Court would replace the Trial Court---Petitioner had opportunity during trial to file an application under S.265-K, Cr.P.C. for acquittal if evidence against him was not available---Allegations were there against the petitioner and he must face it and defend it before relevant forum---Petition for quashment was dismissed. Citation Name: 2010 YLR 2096 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case ABDUL SABOOR VS State Abduction--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--265-K , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--561-A , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365-B , S. 365-B---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.561-A & 265-K --Abduction---Petition for quashing of F.I.R. and proceedings---Contention of counsel for the petitioner was that he had contracted marriage with alleged abductee and that challan had been submitted in the competent court of law---Petitioners, in circumstances should have moved the Trial Court for their acquittal under S.265-K, Cr.P.C.---Trial Court was directed by High Court that if any petition in that respect was moved, same would be disposed of within specified period in accordance with law. Citation Name: 2010 YLR 1503 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case Haji MUHAMMAD ASLAM VS State Abduction--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Further Inquiry--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365-B , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--376 , S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.365-B & 376(ii)---Abduction---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Accused was not named in the F.I.R. and the case was registered against him and his co-accused after a delay of seven days, which made the story of prosecution highly doubtful---Alleged abductee was handed over to her father through Panchayat, who had sworn an affidavit regarding the compromise and the innocence of accused---Alleged abductee who was produced before the Magistrate, had not alleged any allegation of abduction or Zina against the accused---Abductee was not recovered from the possession of accused---Prima facie, the applicability of Ss.365-B/376(ii), P.P.C. had become doubtful to the extent of accused---Accused had been declared innocent by the Investigating Officer and his name was placed in column No.2 of the challan---Though the ipse dixit of Police was not binding upon the courts, but same being adverse to the prosecution version, itself made the case one of further inquiry---No legal and moral compulsion was there to keep an accused in jail, Merely because case of accused fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. and he had been alleged to have committed the offence, unless reasonable ground in that regard appeared to exist---Law should not be stretched in favour of prosecution; and if any benefit of doubt would arise, it must go to accused---Question of Zina or abduction was not proved during investigation---Investigation of the case had been completed, the person of accused was no more required by the Police---Accused was behind the bars since 2-6-2009---Further detention of accused in the jail would serve no useful purpose of law---Was yet to be determined during course of trial, if the alleged offence had been committed by accused or not---Prima facie, the facts and circumstance of the case clearly made out a case one of further inquiry---Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2010 YLR 1180 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case KHIZAR HAYAT VS State Abduction--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Further Inquiry--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--148 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--149 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--337-A , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--337-F , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--337-H , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--337-L , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365-B , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--379 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--452 , S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324/365-B/379/337-A(ii)/337-L(ii)/337-H(ii)/337-F(ii)/452/148/149---Abduction---Bail, grant of-Further inquiry---Accused was behind the bars since 31-7-2007 and no progress took place in the trial---Accused could not be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period---Alleged abductee, in fact was abducted by the complainant who got prepared bogus Nikahnama---Factually alleged abductee had married with brother of accused---Statement of alleged abductee that she was not abducted by accused or his brother, had made the case of accused that of further inquiry---Co-accused having been allowed bail, accused was also entitled to release on bail on the principle of consistency---Accused was allowed bail, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2010 PCrLJ 716 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case ASHIQ HUSSAIN VS State Abduction--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365-B , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--366 , S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.365-B & 366---Abduction---Cancellation of bail, petition for---Once the Trial Court had exercised the discretion of granting bail to accused, for withdrawal of the concession, special circumstances were required---Counsel for the petitioner/complainant had badly failed to point out any instance of misuse of the concession/the relief of bail by accused---Petition for cancellation of bail did not show that accused had misused the bail nor any affidavit of any independent witness about the misuse of the said concession by accused was attached therewith---Considerations for grant of bail and for cancellation of bail were entirely different---In absence of any ground to interfere in the bail granting order passed by the Trial Court, petition for cancellation of bail, was dismissed. Citation Name: 2010 PCrLJ 655 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case ZULFIQAR ALI VS State Abduction--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--498 , Further Inquiry--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365-B , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--376 , Ss. 497(2) & 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.365-B & 376(2)---Abduction---Pre-arrest bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Alleged abductee being sui juris had contracted marriage with accused with her own free-will and consent---Out of said wedlock a son was born who expired after three months and alleged abductee was stated to be pregnant and likely to give birth to another child---No useful purpose would be served while keeping accused behind the bars when his case was covered under subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C. calling further inquiry---Case had been registered against accused on account of ulterior motive and mala fide on the part of complainant with the connivance of the local Police---Alleged abductee was residing with accused and both were enjoying peaceful matrimonial life---Abductee had married the accused against the wishes of her family---False case had been registered against accused---Ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to accused was confirmed in circumstances. Citation Name: 2010 MLD 165 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case SIRAJ AHMAD VS State Abduction--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365 , S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.365---Abduction---Bail, refusal of---Offences which were not categorized as `bailable offences' would continue to remain "non-bailable" even if those stood outside the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C. with the only concession to the persons accused of such-like offences that the courts of law Were not prohibited from releasing them on bail unlike prohibitory clause, but accused of such-like offences could not claim bail as of right---In the present case, missing of a young son was reported by the father implicating accused and others; it did not appeal to reason as to why a father would implicate accused falsely by letting off the real culprits--Accused was named in the F.I.R. and sufficient incriminating evidence was available against him in the shape of statement of witnesses supporting the complainant---Co-accused were absconding---Charge against accused had been framed and the case was fixed for recording of prosecution evidence---Accused being not entitled to the concession of bail, his bail application was dismissed. Citation Name: 2010 YLR 2031 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SHAHID VS State Abduction--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Further Inquiry--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365 , S. 497(2)---Abduction---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.365---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Accused persons pointing out the place from where deceased was allegedly abducted and the place from where his dead body was secured, carried no evidentiary value as both said places had already been inspected by the police and no fact was discovered in consequence of the information given by them---Recovery of blood-stained stones, after two mouths from the same place from where the dead body was secured, also required further inquiry---Counsel for accused persons had also pointed out that co-accused on the basis of whose statement accused persons were arrested, had been maltreated by police, and the complainant had himself stated in his examination-in-chief, that co-accused had implicated theist because the Investigating Officer had maltreated him, it could not be said, in circumstances, that reasonable grounds were available to believe accused persons guilty of the offence and the matter required further inquiry as contemplated by subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Accused were released on bail, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2010 MLD 774 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ATHAR IQBAL VS State Abduction--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--498 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365 , S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.365/34---Abduction---Interim bail, confirmation of---Complainant present in the Court had stated that he had no objection, if bail granted to accused was confirmed as main culprits were behind the bars and facing trial---In such cases only circumstantial evidence could be collected---Main accused who was arrested had confessed the murder of deceased and dead body was also recovered on his pointation from his house---Nothing was on record to show that accused also resided in the said house---Case for extension of benefit of bail to accused having been made out, bail already granted to accused was confirmed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2009 PLD 814 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case Mian MUHAMMAD NAWAZ SHARIF VS State Abduction--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--362 , S. 362---Abduction---Abduction is committed when a person is taken from one place to another either by "force" or by "deceitful means"---Where the accused had neither used force nor ordered its use and undisputedly no deceitful means were used, element of "abduction" was not proved. Citation Name: 2009 PLD 92 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case ABDUL SHAKOOR VS State Abduction--TERM , Declaration of title--Term , Connotation---Restraint of victim becomes "abduction" when it is done with intent to prevent liberation of victim. Citation Name: 1986 MLD 2869 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case SALAMAT MASIH VS STATE Abduction--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--363 , -S.364-A--Abduction--Abductee, girl of tender age--Place of occurrence in front of factory of witnesses--Witnesses most natural-House of father of abductee at distance of one hundred yards-Nothing on record suggesting any motive or animosity of witnesses against accused--Statements of witnesses corroborated by statement of abductee--Only evidence about purpose of abduction being extra-judicial confession--Witnesses contradicting each other on extra-judicial confession--Guilt of abduction of minor girl, held, had been brought home to- accused but his intention of subjecting abductee to sexual lust could not be established beyond reasonable doubt--Accused, therefore, was punishable under S.363, P.P.C. and not under S.364-A, P.P.C. in circumstances. Citation Name: 1985 SCMR 139 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SALEEM VS ZAHOOR AHMAD Abduction--TERM , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--203-F , Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979--12 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--377 , ---Art. 203-F--Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.12--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 377--Sodomy--Abduction-Federal Shariat Court rendering a finding of not guilty on extension of benefit of doubt to accused mainly on consideration that ocular testimony was tainted due to enmity involving previous cases of murder and a woman's abduction as also its contradiction by medical evidence-Judgment proceeded on sound principles of administration of criminal justice and was unexceptionable--Leave to appeal refused. Citation Name: 1984 SCMR 386 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case MUHABAT HUSSAIN VS STATE Abduction--TERM , Evidence--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--366 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--367 , Rape--TERM , ---Ss. 366 & 376-Abduction-Rape-Evidence-No evidence that abductee had been taken away by deceitful means-Consent or enticement not relevant if abductee girl under sixteen years of age-No proper material produced by prosecution to sustain finding that abductee was lass than sixteen at relevant time-Age, crucial to determination of criminality of act, not proved by unshakable and conclusive evidence Prosecution failing to discharge onus-Held, case of prosecution against accused not free from doubt and as such their conviction not sustainable in law-Conviction and sentences of accused set aside. Citation Name: 1984 SCMR 1318 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case IRSHAD HUSSAIN VS STATE Abduction--TERM , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--203-F , Evidence, Appreciation of--TERM , Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979--11 , ---Art. 203-F--Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.11--Abduction--Evidence, appreciation of--No serious defect found in approach of Courts below in appreciation of evidence--No justification made out for interference--Leave to appeal refused. Citation Name: 1977 SCMR 129 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case MUSHTAQ AHMAD VS STATE Abduction--TERM , Murder--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , Rape--TERM , ---- Ss. 302, 366 & 376 read with S. 34-Abduction-Rape-Murder-Material prosecution witnesses won over during trial but accused convicted on dying declaration of deceased-Contention that dying declaration not having been recorded by a Magistrate or some responsible officer, although available and doctor not having said in so many words that dying statement was recorded in his presence or that he signed it, same was not reliable so as to be acted upon-Deceased woman, victim of rape, having been brought to Civil Hospital at 11 a.m., doctor due to her condition being very critical at once writing to local police station, police officer arriving, recording her statement by 11-20 a.m. and sending statement by 11-30 a.m. to police Station concerned for registration of case-Five documents including dying statement on record bearing signatures of Doctor witness and all signatures in same ink-Mere omission on part of Public Prosecutor or Inquiry Citation Name: 1968 PLD 158 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case VS Citation Name: 1964 PLD 697 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case NUR MUHAMMAD ALIAS NOOR MUHAMMAD SARDAR AND ANOTHER VS THE STATE Abduction--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--236 , Ss. 302/109 & 364-Abduction followed by murder-Alternative charges under Ss. 302/109 & 364 possible-Applicability of S. 302/109 doubtful-Safer course is to charge and convict under S. 364-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 236. Citation Name: 1962 PLD 108 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SHARIF VS LAL MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER Abduction--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--100 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--552 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--368 , Ss. 363 & 368 - Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 100 & 552-Abduction-Investigation Officer after recovering abducted girl cannot detain her against her will in supurdari of person of his own choice, especially in case of legally wedded woman.

Abduction and rape

Back Back Your Search returned total 6 records from 0 - 6 Citation Name: 2020 PLD 491 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case AIJAZ ALI VS State Ss. 364-A & 376---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Chaps.XIV, XV, [Ss.154-199-B], Ss.190 & 193---Abduction and rape---Appreciation of evidence---Summoning of accused---Benefit of doubt---Accused was not nominated in FIR and the one who was duly nominated was acquitted---Accused was summoned under S.193 Cr.P.C. by Trial Court and after framing of charge he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life---Validity---No incriminating evidence was collected against accused during course of investigation nor witnesses had deposed against him---No material was available against accused but charge was framed against him---During whole process of investigation and cognizance was taken into the matter by Court of law on the basis of material against co-accused who was acquitted---Allegedly only one person was involved in commission of offence, therefore, substitution of said single person with accused was against the Chaps. XIV & XV [Ss.154-199-B] of Cr.P.C.---Trial Court was not competent to issue notice for joining accused in the case---Joining of accused in the trial and passing of judgment by Trial Court was erroneous conclusion---High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court and he was acquitted of the charge---Appeal was allowed in circumstances. Citation Name: 2017 PCrLJN 92 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case NAIMAT ULLAH KHAN VS State Abduction and rape--Term , Appreciation of Evidence--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365-B , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--376 , Ss. 365-B & 376(1)--- Abduction and rape--- Appreciation of evidence---Delay of nineteen days in lodging FIR---Effect---Delay in lodging FIR in cases, where dignity and honour of a family due to abduction and rape of lady was involved, alone, did not matter---Appeal against conviction was dismissed. Citation Name: 2017 PCrLJN 92 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case NAIMAT ULLAH KHAN VS State Abduction and rape--Term , Appreciation of Evidence--TERM , Medical evidence--Term , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365-B , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--376 , Ss. 365-B & 376(1)---Abduction and rape---Appreciation of evidence---Medical evidence---Report of chemical examiner was placed on the file, according to which commission of zina with the victim was proved---Accused was also medically examined and was found fully fit to perform sexual act but he declined to provide semen for the purpose of grouping, therefore, it was established that accused committed zina with the victim---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2017 PCrLJN 92 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case NAIMAT ULLAH KHAN VS State Abduction and rape--Term , Appreciation of Evidence--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365-B , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--376 , Ss. 365-B & 376(1)---Abduction and rape---Appreciation of evidence---Solitary statement of victim---Evidentiary value---Solitary statement of abductee/victim was sufficient to base conviction and sentence of accused. Citation Name: 2017 YLRN 283 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case QADEER VS State S. 497 (2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 365-B, 376 & 452---Abduction and rape---Bail, grant of---No specific role attributed to accused---Case of further inquiry---Accused was arrested for accompanying principal accused for abducting daughter of complainant and guarding premises when principal accused was committing Zina upon the prosecutrix---Validity---Such allegations required further inquiry and it was for Trial Court to thresh out truth at the trial---Bail was allowed in circumstances. Citation Name: 2011 MLD 797 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case RASHID VS State Abduction and rape--Term , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365-B , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--376 , S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.376 & 365-B/34---Abduction and rape---Bail, refusal of --Accused party had allegedly taken the abductee from one place to. another on gun point and kept her for about six months in illegal confinement and subjected her to illegal sexual intercourse---Accused had been directly charged by the abductce for commission of such heinous immoral offence---Keeping in view the bare statement of abductee in mind, there was. no possibility of false implication of accused with commission of crime of such heinous nature---Accused and his co-accused had allegedly committed rape on the person of complainant, who was hardly 17/18 years of age--Medical evidence had fully supported the prosecution version---Prima facie, accused was reasonably connected with commission of offence of moral turpitude and heinous in nature, which fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Bail petition of accused, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Abduction and robbery

Back Back Your Search returned total 3 records from 0 - 3 Citation Name: 2011 YLR 2426 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case HAKIM ALI VS State Abduction and robbery--Term , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Further Inquiry--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--392 , S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.365 & 392---Abduction and robbery---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---In the F.I.R. two allegations, one with regard to abduction of wife of complainant and other with regard to the robbery were made, however, the F.I.R. only connected accused with robbery---F.I.R. did not specifically mention as to whether accused had broken the iron box or had taken some article therefrom---Reading of the F.I.R. did not show as to which articles were taken by accused---Since allegations against accused were general in nature and there was an inordinate delay in lodging of the F.I.R., which had not been explained, case against accused required further inquiry in terms of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Accused was granted bail, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2010 PCrLJ 986 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case IMAMDAD VS State Abduction and robbery--Term , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--498 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--392 , S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.365 & 392---Abduction and robbery---Interim pre-arrest bail, confirmation of---No allegation was on record against accused persons that they had in any manner harmed or assaulted the alleged abductee and on her own showing she was released subsequently by accused persons within one day---Narrative as given by the complainant did not inspire confidence---No eye-witness of the incident was on record and relatives of the complainant who met him and told the complainant about the incident, were not stated in the F.I.R. to be eye-witnesses to the incident nor had they claimed to be such in their statements under S.161, Cr.P.C.---F.I.R., showed that the alleged abductee herself re-appeared the next day---F.I.R. revealed that complainant received information about the occurrence at his work place---If there were no eye-witnesses to the incident, how did the complainant come to know of the identity of accused persons---Clear and obvious inconsistencies were found in the material facts between the averments made in the F.I. R. and the statement under S.164, Cr.P.C. recorded by the alleged abductee---All said factors required further inquiry and were sufficient to establish a reasonable case for the grant of bail---Complainant's residence was at a place of about 33 K.M. from place where he allegedly met the alleged abductee---Actions of the Police seemed to be tainted with mala fide---Accused having made out a case for the grant of pre-arrest bail, their interim pre-arrest bail already granted to them, was confirmed. Citation Name: 2009 CLC 39 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case Dr. KHUSRO KAMAL ZIA VS Dr. ZEHRA 1995 MLD 397, Abduction and robbery--Term , Illegal dispossession--Term , Limitation--TERM , Possessing narcotics--Term , Specific Relief Act 1877--42 , S. 42---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts.91 & 120---Suit for declaration---Limitation---Suit was objected to on the ground of limitation---Objection was that suit was barred under Art.91 of Limitation Act, 1908 as same was filed after lapse of three years---Said objection was resisted by the plaintiff on the ground that documents pertaining to the suit property having been sought to be declared as Benamidar, Art.120 of Limitation Act, 1908 would be applicable in the case---Validity---Limitation being a mixed question of law and fact, required evidence---Objection was ruled out by High Court subject to all just exceptions and case was directed to be admitted for hearing the objection.

Abduction for ransom

Back Back Your Search returned total 11 records from 0 - 11 Citation Name: 2025 SCMR 880 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD QASIM VS State S. 365-A---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7(e)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129, illustration (g)---Abduction for ransom---Re-appraisal of evidence---Payment of ransom---Proof---Description and denominations of currency notes---Withholding of evidence---Presumption---Accused persons were convicted and sentenced for abduction for ransom and sentenced to imprisonment for life---Validity---Complainant did not furnish detailed description of currency notes and their denominations which had raised questions regarding authenticity of payment of ransom as claimed by the complainant---Failure to provide specific details about ransom money, such as denomination and serial numbers, diminishes reliability of entire ransom allegation---Prosecution's failure to identify the place where ransom money was paid had created doubt in prosecution's case---Prosecution witnesses in whose presence ransom amount were paid to abductors were abandoned---Persons from whom complainant allegedly managed/collected ransom amount were neither cited as prosecution's witnesses nor produced in witness box---Testimony of witnesses who were present at critical moments of crime, such as payment of ransom, was inevitable for corroborating complainant's narrative---Failure to produce such witnesses had cast doubt on veracity of complainant's version and raised reasonable suspicion about nature of the incident---Non-production of such material witnesses also amounted to withholding of best available evidence, therefore, adverse inference within the meaning of Article 129 (g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 was drawn against prosecution that had those witnesses been produced they would not have supported prosecution's case---Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused persons and they were acquitted of the charge---Appeal was allowed. Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 1211 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case The STate VS Administrative Judge, Anti-Terrorism Courts, Clifton, Karachi Ss. 7 & 19(1)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 63, 167 & 169---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 365-A---Abduction for ransom---Physical remand---Refusal---Scope---Physical remand of the accused was declined and Joint Investigation Team was constituted---Validity---Record 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. Citation Name: 2023 SCMR 184 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD NADIM VS State S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 365 & 337-L(2)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Abduction for ransom---Bail, grant of---Rule of consistency---Further inquiry---No specific role was assigned to the present accused, rather all the accused persons had been incriminated with composite and alike role in the commission of offense out of whom, two accused had already been granted post arrest bail by the Trial Court---According to an affidavit submitted in the Trial Court, the complainant conceded to the bail of one of the accused and did not want to indict him for the charge and so far as the bail granted to the other accused was concerned, nothing was said that any petition for cancellation of bail was moved against him if the complainant was aggrieved of his bail---Role of the two accused that were granted bail was not dissimilar to the present accused---FIR was silent as to whether any ransom was paid or not---Case of accused was covered under the rule of parity and was also one of further inquiry---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, and accused was granted bail. Citation Name: 2021 SCMR 873 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case State VS AHMED OMAR SHEIKH Ss. 363 & 365-A---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 117 & 122---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 342---Abduction for ransom---Burden of proof---Scope---Once the prosecution had proved that the deceased was "last seen" with the accused, then the "legal burden" under Art. 117 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 on the prosecution would stand discharged, and then for the accused to avoid conviction for the charge of abduction, he would have to discharge the "evidential burden" under Art. 122 to provide a plausible explanation or produce evidence of facts to nullify the stance established by the prosecution---Mere bold evasive denial of accused in his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C. would not legally suffice to escape criminal culpability. Citation Name: 2020 YLR 1843 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case ALI NAWAZ VS State S. 365-A---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 22---Abduction for ransom---Appreciation of evidence---Delay in registration of FIR---Identification parade---Benefit of doubt---First Information Report was registered 5 days after incident of abduction for ransom wherein brother of complainant was allegedly abducted by accused persons---Accused persons were identified during identification parade---Names of dummies were not mentioned and only one identification parade was held in respect of two abductees---Dummies were same and identification parade of three accused persons was not conducted separately---No specific role was assigned to accused persons in the identification parade---Only putting hands on accused persons by witnesses was not sufficient to believe that those were the same accused persons who had committed offence---Such identification parade could not be relied upon for awarding punishment for imprisonment for life---Burden to prove guilt was upon shoulders of prosecution who was bound to prove its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt---If single circumstance had created doubt in case of prosecution, its benefit was to go to accused not as a matter of grace but as a matter of right---High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused persons by Trial Court and acquitted them of charge---Appeal was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2020 YLR 1843 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case ALI NAWAZ VS State S. 365-A---Abduction for ransom---Delay in registration of FIR---Scope---Normally delay in registration of FIR in cases of abduction for ransom occurs as relatives of abductee at the first instance remain busy in searching the abductee or in some cases they wait for contact to be established by abductors and always feel apprehensive of lives of their beloved ones---Delay in registration of FIR in cases of such like nature is not fatal to prosecution but has to be explained and is required to be considered with other evidence produced by prosecution for safe administration of justice---If evidence is free from all doubts then delay alone is not sufficient to disbelieve case of prosecution but if there is sufficient material available in evidence that shows that accused has not committed offence with which he is charged and such delay too would be fatal to case of prosecution. Citation Name: 2016 MLD 1363 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case State VS BEHRAM KHAN Abduction for ransom--Term , Appeal Against Acquittal--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--417 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365-A , Reappraisal of evidence--TERM , S. 365-A---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417(2-A)---Abduction for ransom---Appeal against acquittal---Reappraisal of evidence---Private Call Detail Record (CDR) produced by the complainant regarding tracing of call data of accused, on the basis of which the FIR, was registered, had not been placed on file---Said CDR, had no signature of issuing authority, nor verified by the concerned authorities---Recovery of alleged abductee, was also doubtful---Abduction from busy place of transport adda at noon time by four persons, was not appealable to a prudent mind---Statements of abductee under S.164, Cr.P.C., and before Trial Court were also contradictory to each other---Data in respect of cell numbers of complainant and alleged abductee, had also not been collected by Investigating Officer, which could show that they were called by the abductors on that numbers---Recovery memo in respect of mobile phones recovered from possession of accused persons, at the time of their arrest, had not been prepared---Court witness, also admitted that he conducted raid on the premises, without search warrants and that he could not conduct raid at a house without a warrant or FIR which meant that raid was conducted illegally---Supplementary statement of alleged abductee under S.164, Cr.P.C. was recorded after delay of six days, due to which consultation and deliberation of complainant party for involving accused, could not be ruled out---Identification parade had been conducted after delay of 15 days---Said identification, was also not in accordance with law, as joint identification was conducted, which was not the requirement of law, because the identification of each accused was to be conducted separately which had created dent in the prosecution case---Accused persons, had not made any confession before the competent court, nor alleged abductee had been recovered from immediate possession of accused persons---Prosecution had failed to prove its case against accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt---Single circumstance was sufficient for creating doubt, and not so many circumstances, were required for creating doubt, the benefit of which must go to accused---After earning acquittal from the Trial Court, double presumption of innocence was acquired by accused---Court while sitting in appeal against acquittal, must be slow in reversing the judgment of acquittal, unless it was found to be arbitrary, fanciful and capricious on the face of it, or was the result of bare misreading or non-reading of any material evidence---In the present case, no such infirmity had been found in the impugned judgment---Trial Court had rightly acquitted accused persons, by extending them benefit of doubt after proper appraisal of evidence for which no exception could be taken. Citation Name: 2016 PCrLJN 33 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case SHAUKAT ALI alias BABA VS State Abduction for ransom--Term , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Appreciation of Evidence--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365-A , Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984--22 , S. 365-A---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7(e)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 22---Abduction for ransom---Appreciation of evidence---Identification parade, delay in---Sentence, reduction in---Principle---Accused was convicted for abducting brother of complainant for ransom and he was sentenced to death---Plea raised by accused was that there was delay in conducting test identification parade and there were discrepancies in evidence of prosecution witnesses---Validity---Holding of identification parade was not mandatory and it was merely a corroborative piece of evidence---Two prosecution witnesses identified accused in Court and their evidence inspired confidence which was consistent on all material points---Nothing was found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses to suggest that they had deposed falsely---Delay in holding identification parade was not fatal to prosecution---Minor discrepancies or shortfalls were not sufficient to cut the roots of prosecution case---Court should be dynamic in appreciating true facts of kidnapping for ransom case and drawing correct and rational inference and conclusions arising out of the facts and circumstances of each case---Difference in quantum of punishment provided under S. 365-A, P.P.C. & S. 7(e) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was noticed---High Court, in absence of very strong reasons, declined to maintain death sentence as nature of offence under both the provisions was substantially the same---High Court converted sentence of death into imprisonment for life. Citation Name: 2016 PCrLJN 13 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case WASEEM AHMED VS State Abduction for ransom--Term , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365-A , S. 365-A---Abduction for ransom---Scope--- To constitute an offence under S.365-A, P.P.C., it was not necessary that money must have been passed on to the culprits---Simple demand of ransom for the release of the abductee was sufficient to bring the case within the ambit of S.365-A, P.P.C. Citation Name: 2014 YLR 794 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SALEEM VS State Abduction for ransom--Term , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365-A , S. 365-A---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7(e)---Abduction for ransom---Delay in F.I.R.---Effect---In matters of abduction for ransom, parents as well as police invariably try their best to locate victim rather than promptly lodging F.I.R. for fear of death of victim---Delay in such matters is not always fatal, however, prosecution has to give some explanation or least circumstance for such delay in not intimating/reporting the matter to police. Citation Name: 2014 YLR 794 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SALEEM VS State 1995 SCMR 1345, 2001 SCMR 424, 2004 PCr.LJ 1146, 2005 SCMR 810, 2005 YLR 43, 2008 SCMR 1040, 2010 SCMR 1791, 2013 PCr.LJ 1786, 2013 SCMR 768, Abduction for ransom--Term , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Appreciation of Evidence--TERM , Benefit of Doubt--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365-A , S. 365-A---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7(e)---Abduction for ransom---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Accused was convicted by Trial Court and sentenced to imprisonment for life---Validity---Victim claimed that he was continuously kept confined for 20 days under arms and threats and during such period he was kept on liquid food and sometimes he was not provided any food---Surprisingly on the night when he was recovered in a result of police effort, he needed no medical treatment nor rest and on very next morning he went to his shop---Safe criminal administration of justice rested on principle of benefit of doubt, which demanded that benefit be extended in favour of accused---Prosecution failed in establishing charge against accused beyond reasonable doubt---High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court and acquitted the accused of the charge---Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Abetment

Back Back Your Search returned total 33 records from 0 - 33 Citation Name: 2025 PLD 510 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case ABID HUSSAIN VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd and abetment---Re-appraisal of evidence---Abetment---Proof---Principal accused murdered his wife by setting her on fire and he was sentenced to death---Accused was alleged to have abetted the principal accused in committing murder of his wife---Courts below convicted the accused for qatl-i-amd and sentenced him to imprisonment for life--- Validity---Record neither established presence of accused at the time of occurrence nor had any specific role been assigned to him in the crime report lodged by investigating officer---Prosecution failed to prove involvement of accused or his nexus with alleged offence---Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused by the Courts below and he was acquitted of the charge---Appeal was allowed. Citation Name: 2024 MLD 786 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case Mst. SIDRA-TUL-MUNTAHA VS ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, LAHORE S.6---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 109---Polygamy---Contracting second Nikah during subsistence of marriage---Private complaint filed by first/existing wife---Abetment---Scope---Inchoate offence---First/existing wife filed private complaint not only against her husband but also against second wife, witnesses of Nikah, Nikah Reciter, Registrar and secretary Union Council---Family Court after recording cursory evidence of the complainant, summoned the accused /husband and dismissed the complaint to the extent of remaining accused persons (second wife, witnesses of Nikah, Nikah Reciter, and Secretary/Registrar Union Council)---Appellate Court dismissed the criminal revision preferred by the complainant against the order of the Family Court---Plea of the petitioner (first wife/complainant) was that that sufficient evidence in the shape of second Nikahnama was available to proceed against the remaining respondents being accused of facilitating the offence---Validity---Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 ('the Ordinance, 1961') is a special statute; in the absence of any specific provision in the Ordinance, 1961 permitting applicability of the Pakistan Penal Code, provisions such as S. 109 of the P.P.C. for the offence of abetment cannot be read into and made applicable to broaden scope of the offence prescribed under S.6(5) of the Ordinance, 1961---Complaint in the present case did not disclose commission of any offence, much less the offence prescribed under S. 6(5) of the Ordinance 1961 allegedly committed by any of the respondents except the husband who, being accused of contracting another marriage without permission of Arbitration Council, had been lawfully summoned by the Court of competent jurisdiction---Petitioner had not been able to point out what offence, if any, disclosed in the complaint filed by the petitioner, was prima facie made out against other respondents---No illegality or jurisdictional error had been noticed in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below warranting interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution---Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 SCMR 870 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case Mst. HAJIRA BIBI alias SEEMA VS ABDUL QASEEM S. 109---Abetment---Scope---Essence of crime of abetment is that the abettor should substantially assist the principal culprit towards commission of offence---Concurrence in the criminal acts of another without such participation therein does not per se become culpable---Mere negligence in an act also does not bring a person within the purview of the offence of abetment. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 166 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case NAEEM SHAH VS State S.497---Foreign Exchange Regulation (VII of 1947), Ss. 5 & 23---Anti-Money Laundering Act (VII of 2010), Ss. 3 & 4---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 109---Restriction on payments--- Money laundering---Abetment---Bail, grant of---Scope---Allegation against accused was that he was the owner of a hundi/hawala business---Manager of the office, who was arrested, had disclosed the name of accused and co-accused as owners---During investigation, a laptop was secured containing the record of hundi business but no reference to it was made either in the FIR or in the statements of witnesses recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C. on the first day of registration of FIR---From the forensic analysis of the laptop some screenshots deciphered, which contained the names of some individuals along with certain amounts of money about which primarily an inference was drawn as proceeds of hundi/hawala---Concession of post arrest bail could not be withheld from an accused merely on the basis of inferences and presumptions, instead the prosecution must collect some confidence inspiring incriminating material reasonably connecting the accused with the commission of crime---Petition for grant of bail was accepted. Citation Name: 2022 YLR 2046 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case ZEESHAN VS State S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 365, 365-A & 109---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully confine person---Kidnapping or abducting for extorting property, valuable security, etc---Abetment---Act of terrorism---Bail, grant of---Delayed FIR---Contradictory statements---Further inquiry---Scope---Accused persons sought post-arrest bail in an FIR lodged under Ss. 365, 365-A & 109, P.P.C., read with S. 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Allegation against accused persons was that of abduction for ransom---Incident was reported with unexplained delay of more than two hours---Accused persons were nominated in the crime report---Features of accused were not mentioned in the FIR---Statements of abductee recorded under Ss. 161 & 164, Cr.P.C. were at variance regarding mode and manner of the occurrence---Recoveries were effected from the accused persons and their physical custody was not required by the investigating agency---Accused persons were behind the bars since their arrest and their continuous detention for indefinite period would be unfair---Case against accused persons was one of further probe within the meaning of S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.---Petition was allowed and the accused persons were admitted to bail, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2022 YLRN 6 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case TANVIR HUSSAIN VS State S. 497--- Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), Ss. 18 & 22---Passports Act (XX of 1974), S. 6---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.109---Fraudulently inducing to emigrate---Receiving, money, etc. for providing foreign employment---Abetment---Bail, grant of---Scope---Allegation against accused persons was that they received certain amount of sum along with copies of passport, Computerized National Identity Card (CNIC) and driving licence from the complainant to arrange for his job abroad but neither they sent the complainant abroad nor returned the amount---One of the accused, as per prosecution's case, never induced the complainant for payment of any amount in connection with a work visa---Accused persons did not have any previous criminal record---Nothing out of the documents allegedly given by the complainant were recovered from the possession of the accused---Case of accused persons was one of further inquiry into their guilty entitling them to the grant of post-arrest bail---Petition for grant of bail was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2022 PCrLJ 838 ISLAMABAD Bookmark this Case TAHA RAZA VS State Art. 199--- National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999), S. 9---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 419, 420, 468, 471 & 109---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5---Anti-Money Laundering Act (VII of 2010), Ss. 3 & 4---Corruption and corrupt practices---Cheating by personation---Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property---Forgery for purpose of cheating---Using as genuine a forged document---Abetment---Criminal misconduct---Offence of money laundering---Bail, grant of---Rule of consistency---Delay in conclusion of trial---Scope---Allegation against accused was that he was beneficiary of receiving huge amounts from a fake bank account---Accused was behind the bars for the last more than two years---Prima facie no incriminating evidence was collected by the investigating agency against him---Accused was allegedly an office boy and someone had misused his credentials and had opened an account in his name---All the allegations were to be examined by the Trial Court during the course of trial---All the accused persons arrested in the case had been released on bail after arrest hence the accused was also entitled for the grant of bail after arrest on the principle of consistency---Entire case depended on documentary evidence which had already been collected by the investigating agency---Prosecution had failed to satisfy the Court that the inordinate delay in conclusion of trial was not partly attributable to it---Writ petition was allowed and the accused was admitted to post-arrest bail, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2021 YLR 409 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD RAMZAN VS State Ss. 320, 107 & 114---Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance (XIX of 1965), Ss. 3 & 5---Qatl-i-khata by rash or negligent driving--- Abetment--- Scope--- Abettor present when offence is committed---Prohibition on driving without licence---Scope---Accused, while driving a water tanker, hit an unknown lady who received injuries and expired on the spot---Driving licence of accused was found to be fake and bogus---Investigating Officer of the case was required to have included the owner of the vehicle in investigation as co-accused for allowing the vehicle to be driven by a person who was not holding a valid driving licence or whose licence was not genuine---Owner of the vehicle was an abettor in terms of S.107, P.P.C. and his case fell under S.114, P.P.C.---Investigating Officer was directed to take action against owner of the vehicle and the prosecution was directed to expeditiously complete the trial against the owner as co-accused---Appeal was adjourned pending action against the owner of the vehicle. Citation Name: 2020 PCrLJN 60 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Bookmark this Case State VS SULTAN ALI Ss. 302 & 109---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Abetment---Absence of direct evidence---Scope---Accused was alleged to have been the main mischief monger, who played a decisive role in the murder---Accused was tried under S. 109, P.P.C. for which the material available on record was insufficient for conviction---No evidence was available against the accused to the extent of abetment or conspiracy for murder and the prosecution failed to collect any evidence against him---Held; accused was charged under S. 109, P.P.C., which was not proved against him as reflected in the impugned judgment---No apparent infirmity was pointed out in the impugned judgment---Appeal against acquittal, being meritless, was dismissed. Citation Name: 2019 MLD 1689 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case Mst. ZAHIDA TARIQ VS State S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 34 & 109---Qatl-i-amd---Common intention---Abetment---Pre-arrest bail, grant of---Allegation of raising lalkara---Further inquiry---Single fire shot---Accused was empty-handed---Single fireshot was attributed to main accused---No other injury of any nature was found on the body of deceased during postmortem examination---Co-accused while empty handed had allegedly raised lalkara to main accused, who with pistol had already come at the place of occurrence, prior to the arrival of co-accused---Question of raising lalkara necessarily required further inquiry within the meaning of S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.---Age of accused was about 12 years at the time of occurrence---Co-accused, as per FIR, was empty handed, although allegedly present at the place of occurrence, yet no specific overt act was alleged against him---General allegation of grappling and beating the deceased was falsified by postmortem examination report which showed no such injury---Exaggeration on the part of complainant by joining hands with police, widening net and roping first accused (being mother) and second accused (being brother) of main accused in the case, with mala fide intention, could not be ruled out---Accused persons had already joined the investigation---Investigating officer had categorically stated that nothing was to be recovered from the accused persons---Application for pre-arrest bail was allowed, ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to petitioners was confirmed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2019 YLR 413 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Bookmark this Case SHER KHAN VS State S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 337-F, 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, hurt, abetment, common intention----Bail, grant of---Abetment---Old age of accused---Scope---Petitioner/accused was implicated only for the offence of abetment as Investigation Officer had purportedly collected evidence against him during the investigation---Petitioner contended that neither he was directly charged in the FIR nor he was alleged to be present at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence---Validity---Prosecution had failed to produce, before the High Court, any direct and circumstantial evidence collected by the Investigation Officer during the investigation---Some evidence of overt action or a common design to commit a particular offence was necessary to sustain the charge of abetment of an offence, which was lacking in the present case---Petitioner was in his advanced age being 78 years old as per his CNIC---Petitioner having made out a case for grant of bail was admitted to bail. Citation Name: 2019 YLRN 52 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Bookmark this Case AFRAZ GUL VS State S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302---Qatl-i-amd---Abetment---Bail, refusal of---Accused was charged for the murder of deceased---Record showed that accused-petitioner was not nominated in the FIR by the complainant---Brother of deceased along with eye-witnesses of the occurrence appeared later on before the SHO and nominated the present accused along with principal accused by submitting an application---Brother of deceased and eye-witnesses recorded their statements under S.161, Cr.P.C.---Statements of said witnesses showed that the accused-petitioner was present at the place of occurrence and had abetted the principal accused in committing murder of the deceased---Accused-petitioner having admittedly been seen at the place of occurrence by the eye-witnesses, a prima facie case was made out against him by the prosecution---Prosecution had collected sufficient incriminating material during investigation against the present accused-petitioner---Accused-petitioner was not entitled to concession of bail, which was declined accordingly. Citation Name: 2018 PCrLJN 172 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case INAM UL HAQ VS State 1996 SCMR 1553, 2011 SCMR 1350, PLD 1989 SC 347, PLD 1996 SC 241, PLD 1998 SC 97, S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324 & 109---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment---Pre-arrest bail, confirmation of---Abetment ---Scope---Mala fide---Scope--Delay in registering FIR and recording statements of prosecution witnesses under S. 161, Cr.P.C.---Effect---Complainant had failed to mention any specific time, date and place of hatching conspiracy by the accused and could not cite any witness in FIR who had allegedly overheard the conspiracy---Pre-requisites of constituting the offence of "abetment" were not made out---Matter was reported to the police after long period of two months and statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded with further delay of four days which had reduced value of the same---Accused had made out a case of further inquiry into his guilt as envisaged under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.---Court could evaluate the mala fides of the complainant from the facts and circumstances of the case which was present in the present case---Ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the accused was confirmed. Citation Name: 2018 MLD 1389 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case FARHAN HASSAN VS State S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 109---Abetment---Bail---Scope---Concession of bail could be extended in favour of accused where evidence with regard to allegation of abetment or instigation lacked. Citation Name: 2018 YLRN 82 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD AHSAN VS State S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.109---Abetment---Instigation---Bail, grant of---Scope---Concession of bail could be extended to accused if evidence with regard to allegation of abetment or instigation was lacking. Citation Name: 2017 MLD 349 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN VS State S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment and rioting armed with deadly weapons---Bail, grant of---Abetment---Ingredients---Accused had been named in FIR with an allegation of abetment---Questions to be considered in case of abetment were whether the accused instigated any person to do a thing; whether accused was engaged with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission taken place in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to the doing of that thing and whether accused intentionally aided, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing---Circumstances, prima facie showed that ingredients of abetment were not made out---Allegedly factum of abetment was conveyed to the complainant in the morning, much earlier to the occurrence but the complainant had not taken any precautionary measures---Fact remained that previous enmity between the parties existed, in such like cases, conspiracies were not hatched in public at a place, which was easily accessible for every one---Circumstances of the matter bringing the case within the ambit of further inquiry---Ad-interim bail already granted to the accused was confirmed accordingly. Citation Name: 2017 PCrLJN 205 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Bookmark this Case MOHSAN HANIF VS SUPERINTENDENT POLICE KOTLI Ss. 511 & 109---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.155 & 561-A---Abetment---Attempt to commit offence---Application for quashing of FIR---Complainant could not point out as to which offence was abetted or attempted---Both offences (abetment and attempt), would become cognizable only when the main offence (attempted or abetted) was cognizable---When there was no mention of any abetted or attempted offence, registration of case under Ss.511/109, P.P.C., was without lawful authority---Offences as alleged in the FIR, were not made out against accused and continuance of the proceedings in the case, would amount to abuse of the process of the court and would be futile exercise and wastage of time---No cognizable offence having been made out, same would constitute non-cognizable offence and in view of S.155(1), Cr.P.C., Police could forward the complaint to the concerned Magistrate, or applicant could file a private complaint against accused persons---If any investigation was required, that could be done by Police under subsection (2) of S.155, Cr.P.C., after obtaining permission of the competent Magistrate---Police had no power to arrest accused---FIR was quashed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2017 PCrLJN 139 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Bookmark this Case GUSHER alias GUNAIR VS State S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Bail, refusal of---Abetment---Prosecution case was that three co-accused opened fire on deceased, who died at the spot---Complainant had alleged that occurrence took place on the abetment of present accused petitioner---FIR had promptly been lodged by the widow of deceased---Widow of deceased and two witnesses were accompanying the deceased at the time of occurrence---Widow and said two witnesses recorded their statements under S. 161, Cr.P.C. on the same day---Statements of said witnesses were in line with the story narrated in the FIR, wherein they had stated that 3/4 days prior to the occurrence, accused petitioner categorically asked his nephews and son to eliminate the deceased---Record showed that one son and two nephews of the accused petitioner committed murder of the deceased and they were at large---Validity---Accused petitioner could not be granted bail at that stage for his contributory assistance in absconcion of his kith and kin and specific allegation of abetment in promptly lodged FIR and in the presence of statements of eye-witnesses---Offence entailed capital punishment, which had fallen within prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.---Bail application was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2016 PLD 570 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case Mst. REHANA ANJUM VS ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE Abetment--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--200 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--202 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--204 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--510 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--109 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , Private complaint--Term , Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984--73 , Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984--74 , Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984--78 , Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984--79 , Ss. 302, 34 & 109---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.200, 202, 204 & 510---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.73, 74, 78 & 79---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Abetment---Private complaint---Proof of segregation and handwriting---Execution of document required by law to be attested---Respondents/accused persons, produced in their defence, defence witness who was Statistical Assistant, whose examination was intercepted twice by the petitioner/complainant by raising couple of objections---Trial Court overruled said objections with direction that the statements of the defence witness be completed---Validity---Document produced by the defence witness, depicted electronically generated evidence, which in terms of Art.73 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, could be considered primary evidence---Print out or other form of output of an automated information system, could not be denied the status of primary evidence, solely for the reason that it was an output of automated information system---Document in question, was not prepared manually, nor had been marginally signed by the executors or the witnesses thereof---Such was the product of automated system, which was hardly required to be signed by any one---Tendering a document in evidence, was something different from proving same in contents thereof---Admissibility of a document in evidence by itself, would not absolve the party from proving its contents in terms of Art.79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Defence witness, did not fall within any of the categories mentioned in S.510, Cr.P.C.; he had to depose about contents of document in question; and petitioner/complainant, would be within her right to cross-examine him, so as to shake his credibility---Merely by tendering the said document in evidence, without saying a word to the contents thereof by defence witness, it would not be possible for the Trial Court to assess the evidentiary value thereof---Petitioner, appeared to have shown unnecessary haste in raising objections, without anticipating the intricacies and fall out thereof---All said and done by the petitioner, as to her objections, was a circumstance which had been rightly dealt with by the Trial Court, through impugned order/observation at noted stage of the trial---Petition, filed by the petitioner was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2015 PCrLJ 1 SPECIAL-COURT-ISLAMABAD Bookmark this Case FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN VS GENERAL (R) PERVEZ MUSHARRAF PLD 1964 Lah. 7, PLD 2008 Lah. 441, Abetment--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--204 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--107 , Private complaint--Term , S. 204---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 107---Private complaint---Abetment---Summoning of aiders and abettors of offence to face trial---Scope---No person could be summoned to face trial in a complaint unless requisite conditions under S. 204 Cr.P.C. were fulfilled---Only in the presence of sufficient grounds and satisfaction of the Court ascertained from the facts placed before it and the evidence which had come on the record could other persons be summoned and arrayed as aiders and abettors. [Minority view] Citation Name: 2014 PCrLJ 852 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case AAMIR alias NAVEED VS State Abetment--TERM , Liability of abettor--Term , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--109 , S. 109---Abetment---Liability of abettor---If a person had instigated another to perpetrate a particular crime and the other person in pursuance of such instigation, not only perpetrated that crime, but in the course of doing so, committed another crime in furtherance of such instigation, the former was criminally responsible as an abettor in respect of such last mentioned crime, if the person, at the time of the instigation, knew that in the ordinary course of things probably another crime had to be committed in order to carry out original crime. Citation Name: 2013 PCrLJ 816 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case SARDAR KHAN VS State Abetment--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--109 , S. 109---Abetment---Abettor, liability of---Scope---Abettor was liable to same punishment just as the main accused including that of death but not as Qisas but as Ta'zir. Citation Name: 2013 PCrLJ 258 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case AFAQ AHMED KHAN VS State Abetment--TERM , Appreciation of Evidence--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--109 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , Ss. 302/324/109/34---Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, abetment---Appreciation of evidence---Abetment---Principles---Case of a conspirator or abettor not present on the spot stands at a lower footing than the case of an accused instigating his companion to commit the crime being himself present on the spot. Citation Name: 2011 YLR 647 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case Ch. MUHAMMAD ASLAM VS Sirdar AHMAD NAWAZ SUKHERA Abetment--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--109 , S. 109---Abetment---Provisions of S.109, P.P.C. would be attracted in view of facts and circumstances of each case---Said provisions would not attract in the special law---Unless the special law itself indicated about the application of certain penal provisions, same could not be applied or set into motion. Citation Name: 2009 SCMR 517 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case ABDUL RASHID NASIR VS State Abetment--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--109 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--409 , Ss. 409 & 109---Abetment---Conviction of abetter not sustainable when principal accused acquitted---Where an abettor or any other person is charged, tried or convicted along with the principal offender, then on the acquittal of the principal offender the same benefit would be extended to the ordinary person, because both sailed in the same boat. Citation Name: 2008 PCrLJ 1105 SHARIAT-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Bookmark this Case TASAWAR HUSSAIN VS State Abetment--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--107 , S. 107---Abetment---Accusation of abetment must be proved by producing evidence showing prior meeting of minds or act done by an accused during the occurrence---Mere allegation of raising Lalkara, was not sufficient to convict an accused for abetment, particularly when all accused persons belonged to same family---Such type of allegation always needed serious consideration and some material to establish participation of an accused in the occurrence was required. Citation Name: 2008 PCrLJ 833 SHARIAT-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD LATIF BUTT VS SHEHTAB Abetment--TERM , Appeal Against Acquittal--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--417 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--109 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Proof--TERM , Ss. 302/109---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417---Appeal against acquittal--- Abetment--- Proof--- Principle--- Principal accused had absconded, while another had died---Appeal to the extent of deceased accused had abated, while non-bailable warrant of arrest of absconding accused had already been issued---Occurrence was unseen as no eye-witness of the occurrence was available and whole case rested upon recovery witnesses, medical evidence, last seen and other incriminating evidence---Accused were alleged to have facilitated, aided and assisted the real offender---No evidence had suggested the instigation, conspiracy or planning of acquitted accused for committing the offence---Complainant had deposed that accused had murdered deceased due to rivalry and he further stated that he was quite sure about the involvement of accused, but he failed to give the reasons for his belief with regard to said involvement, except a previous animosity between the parties---Prosecution witnesses did not even mention the names with their role or any act of instigation or conspiracy on the part of accused---Unless and until some solid proof about the abetment was produced, the court was not obliged to form any opinion on such type of hypothetical versions---Mere presence at thoroughfare or in forest where the villagers usually go for collecting firewood, would .not make out a case of abetment---Abetment had to be proved through independent witnesses having no grudge or enmity with the accused---Trial Court, in circumstances had rightly acquitted accused---Acquitted accused would enjoy double presumption of innocence, one before the Trial Court and the second after his acquittal from competent court on the basis of the principle that every person would be presumed to be innocent till proved guilty. Citation Name: 2008 PLD 697 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU through Chairman VS AAMIR LODHI 1991 SCMR 2018, 1999 SCMR 2760, Abetment--TERM , National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999--10 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--109 , Sentence--TERM , S. 10(b)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.109---Abetment--Liability of abettor--Sentence---Liability of an abettor is limited to the extent of the offence abetted and, therefore, the sentence inflicted on him cannot, as a propriety, be greater than that of the principal accused. Citation Name: 2008 PLD 697 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU through Chairman VS AAMIR LODHI Abetment--TERM , National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999--10 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--109 , S. 10(b)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.109---Abetment---Abettor not to be convicted when principal accused acquitted---When the principal accused is acquitted then it is not proper to make the abettor a scapegoat and convict him on the basis of same evidence. Citation Name: 2008 PCrLJ 586 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case GULRAIZ AKHTAR VS State Abetment--TERM , Appreciation of Evidence--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--109 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , Ss. 302, 109 & 34---Appreciation of evidence---Abetment---Reduction in sentence---Judgment of the Trial Court to the extent of conviction of all accused persons and sentences awarded to three out of four accused persons was unexceptionable and called . for no interference---Fourth accused who was alleged to have abetted the offence with his co-conspirator, however, had been awarded sentence of death by the Trial Court which was on the harsher side, particularly as he had not directly participated in the murder of deceased, but had only abetted the offence---Sentence awarded to said accused was reduced to imprisonment for life. Citation Name: 1991 SCMR 2018 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case RAEES JUMMA VS THE STATE Abetment--TERM , Abetment ----Sentence of abettor, held, could not in propriety be greater than that of principal accused.---[Sentence]. Citation Name: 1989 PCRLJ 380 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case ZESHAN AKHTAR ZAIDI VS STATE Abetment--TERM , Abetment ---What constitutes--Factors to be considered--Duty of prosecution--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.107 & 109. Citation Name: 1961 PLD 212 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case FATEH MUHAMMAD VS THE STATE Abetment--TERM , Abetment Abetment-Principal offender acquitted-Abettor whether and when can be acquitted.

Abetment or instigation

Back Back Your Search returned total 1 records from 0 - 1 Citation Name: 2009 SCMR 1210 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case Maulana ABDUL AZIZ VS State Abetment or instigation--Term , Bail--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , S. 497---Bail---Abetment or instigation---Where evidence with regard to the allegation of abetment or instigation is lacking, the concession of bail can be extended in favour of accused.

Abolition of post

Back Back Your Search returned total 2 records from 0 - 2 Citation Name: 2023 PLC(CS)N 40 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Bookmark this Case RAFEEQ-UL-ISLAM VS PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT GIRLS INTER COLLEGE KEL, DISTRICT NEELUM, AZAD KASHMIR Abolition of post---Scope---Appellant assailed withdrawal of his appointment before the High Court through a constitutional petition, which was dismissed---Validity---Record revealed that the appellant was duly appointed; that during pendency of writ petition the post was shifted and that the deaprtment had taken the stance that the said post had been abolished---Appellant was appointed before shifting of the post and nobody had stated that the appointment of the appellant was defective or was not made in accordance with law---Appeal was accepted, judgment passed by High Court was set aside and the appellant was directed to be adjusted on the post carrying the same grade. Citation Name: 2012 PLC 249 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case QAISAR VS MUHAMMAD SHAFAQAT SHARIF Abolition of post--Term , Grievance Petition--TERM , Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002--2 , Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002--46 , Production Supervisor--Term , Removal from Service--TERM , Ss. 2(xxx) & 46---Removal from service---Production Supervisor---Abolition of post---Grievance petition---Petitioner's plea was that he was removed from service without any show-cause notice or inquiry---Employer's plea was that petitioner was not a "workman", thus, Labour Court had no jurisdiction to hear the petition---Validity---Record showed that petitioner was not provided right to defend himself---Employer did not cross-examine petitioner's statement to the effect that he performed his functions manually---Not the designation, but nature of duty would determine whether a person was a "workman" or not---Petitioner was a "workman", thus Labour Court had jurisdiction to decide the petition---Impugned order for lacking reasons did not fulfil legal requirements---Record showed that persons junior to petitioner were still holding their posts, thus, employer's stance that post of petitioner had been abolished stood negated---Grievance petition was accepted in circumstances.

Abridgment of powers

Back Back Your Search returned total 1 records from 0 - 1 Citation Name: 2012 PLD 681 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case WORKERS' PARTY PAKISTAN through Akhtar Hussain, Advocate, General Secretary VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN 1989 MLD 360, Abridgment of powers--Term , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--213 , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--218 , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--222 , Arts. 218, 213 & 222---Election Commission/Chief Election Commissioner---Abridgment of powers---Effect---Majlis-e-Shoora could promulgate law to regulate the electoral laws, but any law which had the effect of abridging any of the powers of the Commissioner or the Commission would not find support in the law.

Absconcion of accused

Back Back No more result found on your search

Abscondance

Back Back Your Search returned total 31 records from 0 - 31 Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 1839 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case Nasrullah alias Nasru VS State S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 337 F(iii) & 34---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Post-arrest bail, refusal of---Sufficient incriminating material, availability of---Abscondance---Scope---Allegation against the petitioner/ accused was that he fired two successive shots with his rifle .44-bore at brother of the complainant(injured/victim), with intention to kill him; one fire shot which hit the right thigh of injured/victim, went through and through and second fire shot, which hit on his left thigh also went through and through---Validity---Record revealed that allegation levelled against the petitioner had been supported by the Medico Legal Examination Certificate (MLC) of the injured/victimwhile he (victim ) had also supported said allegation against the petitioner through his statement recorded under S.161 Cr.P.C. and after thorough investigation, said allegation leveled against the petitioner had been established---Petitioner, after the occurrence as well as registration of the case, became fugitive from law and he was declared as proclaimed offender---Weapon of recovery (rifle .44-bore) was recovered from the petitioner during investigation of the case and two empty shells of rifle .44-bore were also found from the place of occurrence at the time of spot inspection and said empty shells were found as having been fired from said rifle as per report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency---Thus, reasonable grounds were available to connect the petitioner with the commission of alleged offence and in such circumstances, abscondence of the petitioner also went against him---Petitioner had failed to make out case for grant of post-arrest bail---Bail was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 22 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case Babar alias Jani VS State Abscondance---Scope---Abscondance could not be taken as proof of guilt if sufficient connecting evidence against the accused is unavailable---Abscondance creates merely a suspicion in the mind, but the same is not conclusive proof of guilt---Mere absconsion of the accused is no ground to convict him if the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 661 ISLAMABAD Bookmark this Case Malik Muhammad Umar Khan VS Mst. Saadia Bibi S.497---Bail---Abscondance---Unexplained noticeable abscondance disentitles a person to the concession of bail notwithstanding the merits of the case---Accused, by his conduct, thwarts the investigation qua him in which valuable evidence like recoveries is simply lost or is made impossible to be collected by his conduct. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 861 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case MUHAMMD AZEEM VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Abscondance---Murder of own wife---Crime weapon, non-recovery of---Effect---Accused was alleged to have murdered his own wife and remained absconder for about two years---Non-recovery of crime weapon was immaterial as incident took place on 8-7-2018 and accused was arrested on 16-3-2020, thus accused had sufficient time to dispose of or eliminate crime weapon in any manner---Recovery of crime weapon was only a piece of supporting evidence---Prosecution proved its case independently and mere non-recovery of crime weapon was no ground to discredit or disbelieve entire prosecution case---Accused committed murder of his wife and due to such reason, he remained fugitive from law---Dead body of deceased was recovered from the house of accused, which fact was confirmed by direct eye-witnesses and police officials who did not have any rivalry with accused---Burden of proof shifted upon the shoulders of accused to explain reasons of unnatural death of his wife committed in his own house but he failed to shift such burden from his shoulders---High Court declined to interfere in conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court as accused failed to point out any mala fide on the part of complainant party for his false implication---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1127 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case Waqas Azam VS State Abscondance---Mere abscondance in absence of any other incriminating piece of evidence could not entail penal consequences against the accused or to expose him to criminal liability for which he had been charged. Citation Name: 2022 PCrLJ 1570 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case ABDUL KARIM VS State Abscondance---Scope---Mere abscondence is no conclusive proof of guilt of accused. Citation Name: 2022 YLR 68 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case ABDUR REHMAN VS State Abscondance--- Evidentiary value---Abscondance is a corroborative piece of evidence---Where direct evidence failed, corroborative piece of evidence is of no avail. Citation Name: 2022 YLR 68 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case ABDUR REHMAN VS State Abscondance---Scope---Abscondance alone could not be a substitute for real evidence because people do abscond though falsely charged in order to save themselves from agony of protracted trial and also to avoid duress and torture at the hands of police. Citation Name: 2021 YLR 611 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case WAZIR MUHAMMAD VS State Abscondance--- Scope--- Mere absconsion of accused is not sufficient to sustain conviction---People avoid facing the process of law or their adversaries for a variety of reasons, not essentially inclusive of guilt. Citation Name: 2021 YLRN 135 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case SHAH JEHAN VS ILYAS GUL Abscondance--- Scope--- Abscondance of accused was of no use to prosecution because it could neither remove the defects of the oral evidence nor was itself sufficient to justify the conviction. Citation Name: 2021 YLR 1346 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ANWAR VS State Abscondance--- Effect--- Fact of abscondance of accused can be used as a corroborative piece of evidence, which cannot be read in isolation but it has to be read along with substantive piece of evidence. Citation Name: 2019 YLR 2553 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case KHALIL-UR-RAHMAN VS State Abscondance--- Effect---Abscondance alone was not sufficient to record conviction on a capital charge--- Abscondance could be used only as a corroboratory and confirmatory evidence in support of ocular account. Citation Name: 2019 PCrLJ 1710 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case SAID KARAM alias AJARR VS State Abscondance---Effect---Conviction---Principle---Abscondance could not be made sole basis of conviction of accused when other prosecution evidence is doubtful and riddled with contradiction. Citation Name: 2019 PCrLJ 1047 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case MEHMOOD ALAM VS HIDAYATULLAH Abscondance---Scope---Abscondance could not be made basis for conviction, because people do abscond out of fear to be killed in retaliation and to avoid torture at the hands of police. Citation Name: 2019 YLR 1046 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case AWAIS VS State Abscondance---Scope---Abscondance was only a suspicious circumstance and it could not cure the defect of substantial nature of the case of prosecution---If ocular account had been disbelieved then abscondance being corroboratory piece of evidence was of no help to the case of prosecution. Citation Name: 2019 MLD 551 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD AZAM VS SHAHZAD AKHTAR Abscondance---Scope---Mere abscondance is no proof of guilt---When direct evidence is not trustworthy and reliable then abscondance is of no avail and can not cure or repair defects of the case of prosecution---Abscondance is merely a suspicion and cannot prove charge as a substantive piece of evidence. Citation Name: 2018 PCrLJ 481 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case HABIBULLAH VS QADIR KHAN 1985 SCMR 382, 1989 PCr.LJ 2044, 2014 PCr.LJ 636, 2016 MLD 818, 2016 PCr.LJ 1523, 2016 SCMR 676, S. 497---Bail---Abscondance---Scope---Accused who absconded after the occurrence for noticeable period would not be invariably entitled to bail only because co-accused had been acquitted. Citation Name: 2018 PCrLJ 284 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case MOSAM KHAN VS State S. 497--- Bail--- Abscondance---Scope---Mere abscondance was no ground to decline bail if otherwise case of accused was fit for bail on merits. Citation Name: 2018 PCrLJ 84 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case EID BADSHAH VS State 2010 SCMR 566, PLD 2008 SC 298, S. 497---Bail---Abscondance---Scope---No doubt abscondance was a relevant fact but it could be used as a corroborative piece of evidence which could not be read in isolation but had to be read along with substantive piece of evidence. Citation Name: 2018 MLD 125 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case NAWAS KHAN VS State 1989 PCr.LJ 1910, 1991 SCMR 322, 2009 SCMR 299, PLD 2004 Kar. 377, S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to qatl-i-amd and abetment---Bail, grant of---Abscondance---Acquittal of co-accused---Effect---Accused remained absconder and was arrested after co-accused was acquitted by Trial Court---Validity---Case of accused was identical to the case of co-accused, who had been acquitted on similar charge and his abscondence could not be treated as a bar to his release on bail---High Court declined to reject the plea of accused of bail at the threshold on the sole ground of abscondence---Fugitive from law was no ground to decline bail, if case of accused was otherwise found fit for bail on merits---Bail could not be refused even if accused had remained absconder because abscondance by itself was not a pointer towards guilt of an accused---Bail was allowed in circumstances. Citation Name: 2018 MLD 43 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case ADNAN VS State Conviction---Abscondance---Effect---Person could not be convicted on the basis of abscondance alone---Abscondance of the accused could provide corroboration, though frail in nature. Citation Name: 2017 PCrLJN 2 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case ABDUR REHMAN alias MALANG VS RAHIM DAD 1985 SCMR 410, 1995 SCMR 1730, 1997 SCMR 1279, 2007 SCMR 1427, 2010 SCMR 846, 2011 SCMR 474, 2015 SCMR 1142, PLD 1971 SC 541, Ss. 302(b) & 324---Qatl-i-amd and attempt to commit qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Single witness, testimony of---Abscondance---Effect---Accused was convicted by Trial Court and multiple sentences were imposed extending to imprisonment for life---Conviction of accused could be based on testimony of single witness without corroboration but the condition was that such witness should be absolutely dependable---Single witness was not dependable in the light of major contradictions, discrepancies and dishonest improvements in his testimony coupled with other peculiar facts and circumstances creating serious doubts regarding his presence on the spot at the relevant time of incident---Disbelieving ocular account, mere recovery of blood and crime empties from spot coupled with abscondence of accused was not sufficient to bring home guilt of accused because such pieces of evidence were always taken into consideration along with substantive evidence as confirmatory and corroborative evidence which in isolation was not sufficient for recording conviction in a capital charge---Abscondance by itself was of no avail to prosecution in absence of any other evidence against absconding accused---Trial Court failed to appreciate evidence available on record in its true perspective and reached to erroneous conclusion to hold accused guilty of offence---High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court and he was acquitted of the charge---Appeal was allowed in circumstances. Citation Name: 2017 PCrLJ 1331 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD AHSAN VS State 2010 SCMR 566, PLD 2008 SC 298, Abscondance--Term , Corroborative evidence--Term , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , Qatl-e-amd--Term , Ss. 302 & 34--- Qatl-i-amd--- Abscondance--- Corroborative evidence---Conduct of accused and his unexplained absence for considerable period was vital and was relevant fact which could be used as corroborative piece of evidence against the accused. Citation Name: 2017 PCrLJN 104 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case IFTIKHAR VS State Abscondance--Term , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , S. 497---Bail, grant of---Abscondance---Effect---Abscondance was no ground to refuse bail if otherwise accused became entitled to grant of bail. Citation Name: 2017 YLRN 151 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ALAM VS State S. 497--- Bail--- Abscondance--- Effect---Abscondance though played a decisive role in some of the cases being a corroboratory piece of evidence but it was not a blind rod to kill the right of each and every accused, who remained at large after commission of an offence---Chief Court observed that some people abscond being guilty but some people due to torture of police and their false implication in the case. Citation Name: 2016 MLD 561 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ VS State 2012 SCMR 70, Abscondance--Term , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--498 , Further Inquiry--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--337 , Ss. 498 & 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 337---Qatl-i-amd and hurt---Bail before arrest, grant of---Further inquiry---Cross version---Two FIRs---Abscondance---Accused persons in one FIR had been released on pre-arrest bail by Trial Court but accused persons in other FIR were declined pre-arrest bail---Validity---Cross version of occurrence and on the basis of tentative assessment of material available on record, case against accused persons with regard to unnatural death of deceased fell within the ambit of further inquiry---Further inquiry into the guilt of accused persons inter alia mala fide and ulterior motives could be assessed in bail before arrest matters---Mere alleged abscondence of accused could not be made a basis to refuse bail if accused was otherwise entitled for the same on merits and case was open to further inquiry into his guilt within the scope of S.497(2), Cr.P.C.---Complainant or prosecution witness did not sworn / file affidavit to prove allegation of abusing or misusing concession of ad interim pre-arrest bail by accused persons---Possibility of false implication of accused persons for mala fide reasons could not be ruled out of consideration---Intended arrest of accused persons by authorities at the behest of complainant party out of malice and ulterior motives to create humiliation and unjustified harassment could also not be ruled out of consideration---Bail was allowed in circumstances. Citation Name: 2016 MLD 1619 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case Mst. NAGINA GUL ALI VS TARIQ 1996 SCMR 172, 2004 YLR 400, 2006 SCMR 1265, 2007 SCMR 482, Abscondance--Term , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , False implication--Term , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--109 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , S. 497(5)----Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 109---Bail, cancellation of---Qatl-i-amd, abetment---Appreciation of evidence at bail stage---Principles---False implication---Enmity or family feud, relevance of---Medical report corroborating site plan---Circumstances connecting accused with offence---Record of evidence in absence of accused---Abscondance---Accused was alleged to have killed deceased while he was on his way with his security guard and driver---Trial court allowed bail on grounds including false implication on basis of previous enmity and security guard having not acted in response to attack on deceased---Validity---Trial court had not only overlooked prima facie aspect of present case, but had also accorded undue importance to, and embarked upon deep appreciation of conduct of security guard at time of occurrence---Security guard had explained his conduct at time of occurrence in his statement under S. 161 of Cr.P.C. followed by his statement under S. 164 of Cr.P.C.---Statement of security guard had also found support from statement of driver, other witness, recorded under S. 161 of Cr.P.C.---Security guard had explained as to how he had recognized accused at time of commission of offence---Overwhelming evidence was available on record to prima facie connect accused with offence---Such as direct charge of qatl-i-amd against accused in promptly lodged FIR by father of deceased---Was unlikely on part of father of deceased to substitute innocent person for real culprit---Strong motive of previous enmity existed but considering same as ground for false implication at bail stage would be farther from reality---Medical report supporting site-plan should have been good ground for holding accused prima facie connected with commission of offence---Disclosure of name of accused to driver by security guard was not so significant and fatal dent to prosecution case so as to create serious doubts about veracity of statements of two eye witnesses at bail stage---After remaining absconder, accused had been proceeded against under sections 204, 87 and 512 of Cr.P.C.---Crime weapon had been recovered and sent to Forensic Science Laboratory along with crime empties recovered from place of occurrence---Report of Fire Arms Expert was received in affirmative---Impugned order was flawed and against law---Application for cancellation of bail was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2016 MLD 1232 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case KAMRAN alias BOBI VS State 2014 SCMR 794, Abscondance--Term , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Appreciation of Evidence--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365-A , S. 365-A---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7(e)---Kidnapping or abduction for ransom, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Abscondance---Effect---Scope---No time of occurrence was mentioned in the FIR, which was registered with unexplained delay of about 10 days, and had created doubt in the prosecution story---No specific role had been attributed to accused in the FIR---Nothing was recovered from the possession of accused---Allegation of committing sodomy with the complainant, was against the co-accused---Camera, cassette player and cassette were recovered from acquitted co-accused---Main accused in the case had been acquitted by the Supreme Court by disbelieving the evidence of prosecution---Accused with lesser role, could not be convicted on the same evidence---Trial Court had convicted accused, mainly on the basis of his absconsion---Absconsion, itself was not conclusive proof of guilt of accused; it could be a suspicious circumstance against accused that he was found guilty of the offence, but said suspicion could not take place of proof---Value of the absconsion, would depend on the facts of each case, but an accused could not be convicted on the basis of absconsion only in absence of confidence inspiring evidence, which was missing in the present case--- Prosecution had failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt---Conviction and sentence awarded to accused by the Trial Court were set aside, he was acquitted, and was directed to be released, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2015 PLD 61 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case Syed IMRAN HASSAN GILLANI VS CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU, RAWALPINDI /ISLAMABAD PLD 2011 SC 811, Abscondance--Term , Freezing of property--Term , National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999--12 , National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999--5 , Ss. 5(a) & 12---Freezing of property---Private person--- Abscondance---Appellant was aggrieved of order passed by Accountability Court freezing his property--- Validity---Order of Chairman NAB was subject to confirmation of court before which reference lay, while order passed by Trial Court did not require any confirmation-Accused allegedly received more than a sum of Rs.90 million, which was transferred from the account of company in question to his account---Accused as per definition given in S.5(a) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, included a person in respect of whom there were reasonable ground to believe that he was or had been involved in commission of any offence triable under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, or was subject of investigation or inquiry by NAB---Appellant was facing inquiry at the relevant time and thereafter wilfully absconded---Freezing order did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances. Citation Name: 2015 YLR 235 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case ABDUL MATEEN VS State 1999 PCr.LJ 579, 1999 PCr.LJ 616, Abscondance--Term , Case of further inquiry--Term , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Qatl-e-amd--Term , Rule of consistency--Term , S.497 (2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302---Qatl-i-amd---Bail, grant of---Abscondance---Rule of consistency---Case of further inquiry---Plea raised by accused was that his co-accused with similar role had already been released on bail---Validity---Direct evidence against accused was missing---Mere absconsion, without merits of case implicating accused could not be treated as bar for grant of bail---Case of co-accused who had been granted bail by Trial Court was identical to the case of accused and prosecution could not controvert the same---Case against accused was one of further inquiry---Bail was allowed in circumstances. Citation Name: 2014 PCrLJ 1787 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case ASIL ZADA VS BAEZZAT KHAN PLD 2014 SC 241, Abscondance--Term , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Qatl-e-amd--Term , S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302---Qatl-e-amd---Bail, cancellation of---Abscondance---Accused remained absconder for 27 years and was released on bail after he was arrested---Validity---Accused was prima facie involved in commission of offence which fell within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.---High Court keeping in view the nature of crime and conduct of accused who remained absconder for about 27 years, did not find accused entitled to concession of bail---Court below did not assess material available on record in its true perspective while granting bail to accused---Bail was cancelled in circumstances.

Abscondance of accused

Back Back Your Search returned total 27 records from 0 - 27 Citation Name: 2024 MLD 7 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case NASEEM KHAN VS State S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 427, 148, 149 & 109---Qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, abetment---Bail, refusal of---Rule of consistency---Abscondance of accused---Inhuman nature of the accused---Petitioner was nominated through supplementary statement; and specific role of firing upon the deceased was attributed to him---Contention of the petitioner/accused was that other accused persons had already been granted bail---Validity---Record showed that the mother of the deceased had also charged the petitioner in her statement recorded under S. 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898---Record also revealed that previously the petitioner had been charged in cases of similar nature and in one such (murder) case the very deceased was the complainant in which attempt on his (deceased's) life was also alleged---Record (recovery of two empties from the spot, FSL report with regard to blood stained earth, post-mortem report etc.) in the present case, for being linked in a chain, prima facie, connected the petitioner with the commission of the offence---Role of firing having been attributed to the petitioner was quite different from those accused who had been enlarged on bail, thus rule of consistency was not attracted to the petitioner---Besides, the petitioner had absconded in the present case and proceedings under Ss. 87 & 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, had been completed against him---Punishment provided for the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of S. 497 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898---Prosecution, while furnishing number of FIRs against the petitioner, had submitted/stated about him to be a hardened, desperate and dangerous criminal---On account of inhuman and blood thirsty nature of the petitioner, the victims of his atrocities were scared and rarely charged him for cases like the present one---All probabilities with particular involvement of the petitioner in the present case disentitled him for grant of bail---Bail was declined to the petitioner, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2019 PCrLJ 126 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case SIKANDER ALI BROHI VS STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION MADEJI PLD 2016 Sindh 238, Ss. 87 & 88---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Abscondance of accused---Petitioner sought direction to police officials for arrest of nominated accused persons who were declared absconders---Validity---Action against any accused could not be taken unless a proper proclamation under S. 87, Cr.P.C. was issued against him---Whenever absconding accused appeared before Trial Court and had offered some explanation and gave assurance to face trial, Trial Court was not to be languid in restoring his financial resources especially his salary and Bank accounts---Every possible effort was to be made by Trial Court as well as by police to procure appearance of an absconding accused before Trial Court---Anxiety of petitioner was that accused persons nominated in his FIR were at large and neither they were arrested by police nor did they surrender themselves before Trial Court---Police was trying diligently for arrest of accused nominated in FIR lodged by petitioner---High Court directed Station House Officer concerned to pace up his efforts while Trial Court was required to do needful in such respect---Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly. Citation Name: 2018 PCrLJ 206 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case RAHAT ALI VS State Abscondance of accused---Effect---Accused remained absconder right from the day of occurrence till his arrest---Absconsion was not a substantive piece of evidence, but a corroborative one. Citation Name: 2018 YLRN 127 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case SAIFULLAH VS State S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 324---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Abscondance of accused---Effect---Complainant had alleged that accused, armed with deadly weapon, came at the place of occurrence and started firing resultantly complainant received injury on left hand---Motive was domestic dispute with brother of complainant---Discharge summary of Medical Expert revealed that there was fracture of left thumb which alleged to be a firearm injury---Occurrence was without intervention of third person, meaning thereby that complainant was at the mercy of accused---When alleged occurrence viewed in such a context and background the question whether accused intended to kill complainant required further inquiry---No expert opinion regarding nature of injury i.e. simple or grievous was available on record---Basic punishment in view of medical report for alleged offence was either arsh or daman and sentence of imprisonment was only discretionary---Case of accused being that of further inquiry into his guilt, bail would be allowed to accused as of right and such right could not be refused merely on account of alleged abscondance which was a factor only relevant to propriety---Bail was granted accordingly. Citation Name: 2018 YLRN 59 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case ALAM ZAR KHAN VS State Ss. 302, 324, 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-D & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-khafifah, shajjah-i-mudihah, jaifah, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Abscondance of accused---Effect---Corroborative evidence---Scope---Record showed that accused remained absconded for a considerable period---Abscondence alone could be used as a circumstance against the accused and could not be a substitute of direct evidence---When, ocular account was disbelieved, then any circumstantial evidence in the shape of recoveries or abscondence of accused would loose their efficacy for recording conviction of the accused. Citation Name: 2018 YLR 477 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case SHER KHAN VS State Ss. 376, 354, 457 & 511---Rape, assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty, lurking house trespass or house breaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment, attempted to commit offence punishable with imprisonment---Appreciation of evidence---Abscondance of accused---Proof---Record showed that accused remained absconder for more than two years but no report of process server about proclamation was available nor the same was tendered in evidence by the prosecution---Allegation of abscondence of the accused remained unsubstantiated in circumstances. Citation Name: 2018 YLRN 78 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case BAQIR HUSSAIN VS State Ss. 302, 34 & 109---Qatl-i-amd, common intention, abetment---Abscondance of accused---Evidentiary value---Accused persons remained absconder after the occurrence and were declared proclaimed offenders---Common perception was that when a person was named as a murderer, whether rightly or wrongly, he usually made himself scarce, thus absconsion was not a conclusive proof of the guilt of accused. Citation Name: 2018 PCrLJN 62 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case SAIF ULLAH VS State Ss. 302 & 34--- Qatl-i-amd, common intention--- Abscondance of accused---Effect---Corroborative evidence---Occurrence took place in the year 2005----Accused was arrested in the case in the year 2012---Such a long absconsion would certainly go a long way to corroborate and strengthen the truth of prosecution version and also indicated the guilt of accused. Citation Name: 2018 YLR 2034 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Bookmark this Case SANAULLAH VS State Ss. 87---Abscondance of accused---Effect---Abscondance of accused could never remedy the defects of prosecution case neither it was necessarily indicative of guilt, however, long and unjustified abscondance without any explanation could be taken as a corroboratory evidence. Citation Name: 2017 YLR 428 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case SHAH WALI VS State PLD 2002 SC 77, S. 302---Qatl-i-amd---Abscondance of accused---Effect---Corroborative evidence---Accused remained absconder for about seven months---Such a long unexplained abscondance of the accused was a corroboratory factor, which could not be ignored as the same had indicated the guilt of accused---Appeal against the conviction was dismissed. Citation Name: 2017 PCrLJ 211 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case SOBA KHAN VS State 2008 SCMR 1106, 2016 YLR 735, Ss. 302, 324, 337-A(v), 147 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, Shajjah-i-ammah, rioting and unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence--- Abscondance of accused--- Evidentiary value---Prosecution story was that accused party attacked the complainant party, murdered the deceased and injured the prosecution witness---Occurrence took place in the year 2010----Accused was arrested in the case during the year 2014---Defence had failed to furnish any plausible explanation for such long absconsion of accused---Abscondance of accused, soon after the occurrence, for considerable long time was another significant incriminating piece of evidence against him---Appeal against the conviction was dismissed. Citation Name: 2017 YLR 1967 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case ABDUL SAMMAD alias SAMMAD VS State Abscondance of accused--Term , Appreciation of Evidence--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--337-F , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(iii), & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, mutalahimah, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Abscondance of accused---Evidentiary value---Accused had remained absconder for sufficient long time---Proceedings under Ss. 204 & 87, Cr.P.C. were initiated against him---Abscondance of accused could be taken as corroborative piece of evidence in presence of ocular account and other evidence---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2017 YLR 335 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case SAEED AHMAD VS AMJAD ALI 1985 SCMR 382, 2012 SCMR 1137, PLD 1985 SC 182, PLD 2012 SC 222, S.497---Bail---Case of further inquiry---Abscondance of accused---Effect---Abscondance of accused by itself was no ground for refusal of bail, if otherwise, case of accused was of further inquiry. Citation Name: 2017 MLD 883 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case NIAMAT KHAN VS QUDRAT SHAH 2006 SCMR 1707, 2007 SCMR 162, 2010 SCMR 566, 2016 PCr.LJ 114, PLD 1980 SC 201, Abscondance of accused--Term , Appeal Against Acquittal--TERM , Appreciation of Evidence--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , Ss. 302 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appeal against acquittal---Appreciation of evidence---Abscondance of accused---Evidentiary value---Prosecution had alleged that accused was absconder for 15-years and he was liable for conviction for such score alone---Validity---Abscondance was the weakest type of corroboratory evidence---Ocular account having been disbelieved, mere abscondance could not form the basis for conviction---Appeal against acquittal was dismissed. Citation Name: 2017 YLRN 127 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case GHAFAR ALI VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(v), & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, hashimah, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Abscondance of accused---Evidentiary value---Accused persons had remained fugitive from law for quite some time---Mere absconscion of accused would not be a substitute for real, concrete and worth reliable evidence, which the prosecution must produce in order to bring home guilt to accused---Accused persons, in circumstances were acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentences recorded by Trial Court. Citation Name: 2017 PCrLJN 164 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case ZUBAIR VS State S. 497--- Bail--- Abscondance of accused--- Effect--- Mere abscondance of accused would not be sufficient for refusal of bail, if otherwise on merits case of bail had been made out. Citation Name: 2017 PCrLJN 83 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case AMJID ALI VS State Abscondance of accused--Term , Appreciation of Evidence--TERM , Corroborative evidence--Term , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--337-A , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--337-D , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , Ss. 302, 324, 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-D & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-khafifah, shajjah-i-mudihah, jaifah, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Abscondance of accused---Effect---Corroborative evidence---Scope---Accused persons had remained fugitive from law, which showed that they were involved in the occurrence---Neither abscondence alone was sufficient to record conviction of accused nor could be considered as substitute for ocular evidence---Accused persons were acquitted in circumstances by setting aside conviction and sentences recorded by Trial Court. Citation Name: 2017 YLR 1383 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case SOHAIL ASLAM VS State 1995 SCMR 1373, 2010 SCMR 566, Abscondance of accused--Term , Criminal Trial--TERM , Abscondance of accused---Evidentiary value---Factum of abscondance, even if established, could only be used as corroborative evidence and was not substantive piece of evidence. Citation Name: 2017 YLR 1283 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case AHMED ALI VS State Abscondance of accused--Term , Appreciation of Evidence--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Qatl-e-amd--Term , S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Abscondance of accused---Evidentiary value---Accused had remained absconder for a period of one year without assigning any explanation in that regard---Abscondance of accused could be taken as strong circumstantial evidence---Said abscondance of accused had provided corroboration to the prosecution in the case, which had led the court to an irresistible conclusion---Appeal against conviction was dismissed. Citation Name: 2017 YLR 375 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case AQEEL alias MUNDRI VS State 1995 SCMR 1373, 2007 SCMR 1812, S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Abscondance of accused---Abscondance, could not be taken as a proof of guilt, if otherwise sufficient connecting evidence against accused, was not available---Abscondance would create a suspicion in mind, but same was not a conclusive proof of guilt. Citation Name: 2017 YLRN 176 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case SAID MUHAMMAD VS State Ss. 302, 395 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, dacoity, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Abscondance of accused---Evidentiary value---Accused had remained absconder for about three years---Co-accused was still at large---Abscondance of accused by itself was not sufficient to prove the guilt of the absconder. Citation Name: 2017 PCrLJN 106 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case SIKANDAR KHAN VS State Abscondance of accused--Term , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--148 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--149 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Ss. 302(b), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapon, common intention---Abscondance of accused---Effect---Corroborative evidence---Scope---Record showed that three sons of accused were involved in the case but they absconded themselves---Circumstances indicated that complainant had involved entire family by widening the net---Two accused remained absconded for almost twenty months and four days---Accused, it such like case, abscond for fear of arrest and torture by police---Factum of abscondence, even if established, could only be used as corroborative evidence and was not substantive piece of evidence---Mere absconsion was not a proof of guilt of an accused---Accused persons were acquitted in circumstances by setting aside conviction and sentences recorded by Trial Court. Citation Name: 2017 YLR 2423 ISLAMABAD Bookmark this Case SHARJEEL INAM VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Anticipatory bail--- Abscondance of accused---Accused had shown his bona fides by surrendering before High Court and only sought protection so that his right to approach competent Court or access to justice be ensured---Effect---Abscondance of accused was not unexplained and such factor would be considered by competent Court to which access was being sought by accused---Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances. Citation Name: 2017 MLD 1771 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD TARIQ VS State Abscondance of accused---Scope---Abscondence, by itself, was not sufficient to sustain conviction and was always considered a factor between guilt and innocence. Citation Name: 2016 YLR 2000 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case MUMTAZ AHMAD VS State Abscondance of accused--Term , Criminal Trial--TERM , Abscondance of accused---Effect---Abscondance of accused, was merely a corroborative/supportive piece of evidence; and relevant only when the primary evidence would inspire confidence. Citation Name: 2016 YLR 2648 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case MEHBOOB VS State 2012 PCr.LJ 1936, PLD 2011 SC 116, Abscondance of accused--Term , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--514 , S. 514---Surety amount, recovery of---Abscondance of accused---Accused was released on bail against surety submitted by petitioner---Accused jumped bail and Court issued notice to petitioner who also absconded---Trial Court imposed fine of Rs.200,000 upon petitioner---Validity---Petitioner surety after service of notice under S. 514, Cr.P.C., put in appearance before Trial Court, engaged counsel and sought time for filing of reply---Time was granted to petitioner but instead of filing reply to notice under S. 514, Cr.P.C., petitioner also deserted away---Petitioner appeared before Trial Court later on and again kept on seeking time to submit reply with the explanation that accused had already been murdered---High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Trial Court---Revision was dismissed under circumstances. Citation Name: 2009 YLR 925 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ASLAM VS State S.497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 392/397/413/216-A/109---Bail, grant of---Abscondance of accused---Effect---Co-­accused had already been acquitted by Trial Court and allegations levelled against accused were yet to be determined at trial--Tentative assessment was to be made and no deeper appreciation was required at bail stage---No incriminating articles had been recovered from the possession or on pointation of accused--Bail could not be refused only on ground of abscondence---Bail was granted in circumstances.

Abscondance of the accused

Back Back Your Search returned total 1 records from 0 - 1 Citation Name: 2013 PCrLJ 487 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case ALI ATHAR VS State Abscondance of the accused--Term , Bail--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--498 , Ss. 497/498---Bail---Abscondance of the accused---Scope---Bail could not be withheld on the ground that the accused remained fugitive from the law, if otherwise he became entitled for the concession of bail.

Abscondence

Back Back Your Search returned total 124 records from 0 - 50 Citation Name: 2026 PCrLJ 802 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case Ajmal Hussain VS State Abscondence---Scope---Abscondence alone is not a proof of guilt of an accused person. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2270 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case Mst. Nadia alias Nadu Mai VS State Abscondence---Scope---Abscondence of an accused can be used as a corroborative piece of evidence, which cannot be read in isolation but it has to be read along with the substantive pieces of evidence. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 309 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case AMIR MEHMOOD VS State Abscondence---Conviction---Scope---Conviction on abscondence alone cannot be sustained. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 94 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case JAN MUHAMMAD alias JANI VS State Abscondence---Scope---Abscondence of an accused can be used as a corroborative piece of evidence, which can not be read in isolation but it has to be read along with the substantive piece of evidence. Citation Name: 2023 MLD 390 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case IRSHAD AHMED VS State Abscondence---Scope---Unexplained noticeable abscondence of an accused deprived him some of the normal rights granted to him by procedural as well as substantive law. Citation Name: 2022 YLR 1547 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case GHULAM JAN VS State Abscondence---Scope---Abscondence alone could not be a substitute for the direct evidence. Citation Name: 2022 MLD 617 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case The STATE through Advocate General Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar VS ARIF MOMEN Abscondence---Scope---Abscondence of accused was a relevant factor, but alone it could not be considered a conclusive proof of a crime as the prosecution had to independently prove the charge on the basis of strong and cogent evidence to hold that the accused had committed the crime. Citation Name: 2022 YLRN 9 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case LAIS KHAN VS State Abscondence---Scope---Abscondence by itself was not sufficient to prove guilty an accused rather it was a circumstance which could aid to favour the prosecution if the prosecution succeeded in proving through cogent and confidence inspiring evidence. Citation Name: 2022 PCrLJN 26 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case ZAIN-UD-DIN VS NOOR MUHAMMAD Abscondence---Scope---Abscondence by itself is not sufficient to prove an accused guilty rather it is a circumstance which can favour the prosecution, provided the prosecution succeeds in proving its case through confidence inspiring evidence. Citation Name: 2022 YLRN 52 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case MURAD alias MANN VS State Ss. 497, 87 & 88---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 392, 201, 411 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention, robbery, causing disappearance of evidence, dishonestly receiving stolen property, knowingly same to be stolen, common intention, act of terrorism---Bail, refusal of---Abscondence---Effect---"Heinous crime"---Scope---Petitioner appeared before the Court when the trial of some co-accused of triple murder (including a child) had concluded---Petitioner contended that as soon as he came to know about the pendency of the case, he voluntarily surrendered himself before the Court--- Validity--- Petitioner remained absconder for a considerable period of time---After the incident, on the pointation of the co-accused, a raid was conducted at the house of petitioner from where valuable articles stolen from the house of the deceased persons were recovered---Crime weapon was also recovered from his house; it could not be believed that inspite of conducting a raid and search of the house, the petitioner remained oblivion of the pendency of the present case ---Even proceedings under Ss.87 & 88, Cr.P.C., were initiated during which the statements of his neighbours were recorded, who had disclosed that after the incident the petitioner escaped/ shifted from his place of permanent abode---Petitioner was as if watching the proceedings and after conviction and sentencing of the co-accused, he decided to appear before the Trial Court---Story of voluntarily surrendering before the Court was not believable in circumstances---Petitioner was involved in a serious offence, which surely fell under the definition of "terrorism", as such , he was not entitled to any relief---Bail was refused to the petitioner, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2021 YLR 560 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case ABDUL WADOOD VS State Abscondence--- Relevance--- Scope---Abscondence of accused is a relevant fact and can be used as corroborative piece of evidence but such fact cannot be read in isolation, as the same had to be read along with substantive piece of evidence. Citation Name: 2021 YLRN 95 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case Sardar MASOOM KHAN VS State Ss.497 & 498---Bail---Abscondence---Scope---Mere abscondence is no ground to curtail the liberty of a person. Citation Name: 2021 PCrLJ 1758 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case NOOR MUHAMMAD KHAN VS State Abscondence---Scope---Abscondence alone is not sufficient for awarding conviction, rather it can a circumstance that can be taken into consideration, provided the prosecution succeeds in building its case against the accused. Citation Name: 2021 YLRN 132 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case JAVED ULLAH VS State Abscondence---Scope---Abscondence alone could not be a substitute for the direct evidence. Citation Name: 2021 YLRN 63 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case ZAFAR SAEED alias ZAFAR KHAN VS State Abscondence---Scope---Abscondence alone could not be a substitute of the direct evidence. Citation Name: 2021 YLR 1870 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case QAMAR SULTAN VS State Abscondence---Scope---Abscondence of an accused can be used as a corroborative piece of evidence, which can not be read in isolation but it has to be read along with substantive piece of evidence. Citation Name: 2021 YLR 1002 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case BILAL KHAN alias MISAL KHAN VS State Abscondence---Scope---Abscondence of an accused could be used as a corroborative piece of evidence, which could not be read in isolation, but it had to be read along with substantive piece of evidence. Citation Name: 2021 YLRN 107 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case KHALID MEHMOOD VS State Abscondence---Scope---Abscondence of an accused could be used as a corroborative piece of evidence, which could not be read in isolation but it had to be read along with substantive piece of evidence. Citation Name: 2021 YLRN 88 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case Qari AHMED KHAN VS State Abscondence--- Effect--- Abscondence of an accused could be used as a corroborative piece of evidence, which could not be read in isolation but it had to be read along with a substantive piece of evidence. Citation Name: 2021 YLRN 6 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case FAZAL WAHAB alias KAKI VS State Abscondence--- Scope--- Mere abscondence of accused was not a conclusive proof of his guilt---Value of abscondence depended upon the facts of each case and abscondence alone could not take the place of guilt unless and until the case was otherwise proved on the basis of cogent and reliable evidence. Citation Name: 2020 YLR 1278 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case ABDUL KHALIQ VS State Abscondence--- Scope--- Abscondence alone could not be a substitute for the direct evidence. Citation Name: 2020 PCrLJ 387 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case ZAHIR SHAH VS AYAZ ALI (DECEASED) Abscondence---Scope---Abscondence of accused, although by itself was insufficient for conviction, was a strong source of corroboration for other direct and circumstantial evidence in the case. Citation Name: 2020 YLRN 50 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case NASEER MUHAMMAD VS ASIF Abscondence---Scope---If there was no direct evidence against an accused or the evidence produced was not reliable or trustworthy to convict a person for a capital charge, then abscondence, even if for a prolonged period, would be of no legal avail to the prosecution's case as the people did abscond whether they were charged falsely or otherwise. Citation Name: 2020 PCrLJN 116 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case ANWAR KAMAL VS State Abscondence---Scope---Abscondence alone can not be a substitute, for the direct evidence. Citation Name: 2020 PCrLJN 112 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case NIAZ ALI alias NAZ ALI VS ABIZAR Abscondence---Scope---Abscondence alone could not be a substitute for real evidence because people do abscond avoid duress and torture at the hands of police. Citation Name: 2020 PCrLJN 112 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case NIAZ ALI alias NAZ ALI VS ABIZAR Abscondence---Scope---Absconsion is a corroborative piece of evidence---Where direct evidence fails, corroborative piece of evidence is of no avail. Citation Name: 2020 PCrLJN 100 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case FAHIM ULLAH alias MUHAMMAD FAHIM VS State Abscondence---Scope---Abscondence alone could not be a substitute of the direct evidence. Citation Name: 2020 PCrLJN 78 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case IHSANULLAH alias AHSAN ALI SUNNY VS State Abscondence---Scope---Absconsion alone was not sufficient to bring conviction on capital charge. Citation Name: 2020 YLR 212 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case GHULAM RASOOL alias GUDDA VS State Abscondence---Evidentiary value---Abscondence could never be considered in isolation and was only a corroborative piece of evidence. Citation Name: 2020 YLRN 47 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case ROSHAN CHOLYANI VS State S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 109, 337-H(2), 148, 149---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Abscondence---Bail, grant of---Further enquiry---Accused had not been nominated in the FIR---Name of prosecution witness had been mentioned in his statement under S. 164, Cr.P.C, after more than one month after due deliberation and consultation---No specific role of firing had been assigned to accused in causing death of the deceased---Co-accused had already been admitted to bail by Trial Court---Rule of consistency was applicable to the case---Parties were known to each other, due to previous hostility, despite that complainant had not mentioned the name of accused neither in the FIR nor in statements of prosecution witnesses recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C.---Mere abscondence of the accused could not be made ground to reject his bail application---Guilt of accused could only be proved after further enquiry---Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2019 SCMR 1994 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case WAJEEH-UL-HASSAN VS State Ss. 295-A, 295-C & 298-A---Blasphemy---Reappraisal of evidence---Extra-judicial confession--- Abscondence--- Effect--- Declaration of faith---Accused was alleged to have written letters to complainant carrying blasphemous contents---Accused remained absconder and had made an extrajudicial confession---Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to death, which sentence was confirmed by the High Court---Validity---Contents of letters were the most grievously blasphemous, however, whether accused authored and dispatched letters and complainant received them in the manner as alleged in crime report and whether extrajudicial confession supported by expert's report constituted sufficient evidence to hand down penalty of death, were issues altogether different---Penalty of death was irreversible and warranted caution in the highest degree, before a convict was dispatched to gallows---One weak piece of evidence could not corroborate another weak piece of evidence---Absconsion could not be viewed as a proof for the crime---People stay away from law for a verity of reasons not necessarily compatible with hypothesis of guilt, to avoid impending wrath of opponents in hostile environments, more often than not compel even the innocent into recusal of safety---Declaration of faith by accused was to be preferred over divergent imputations---Citizen regardless of religion were equal before law and were entitled to equal protection thereof and it was so guaranteed under the Constitution---Criminal charge was to be essentially settled on positive proof alone and not on perceptional or optical paradigms and the same was out of the sight---Supreme Court by extending benefit of doubt, set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused, as it was grievously unsafe to maintain the same without potential risk of error and accused was acquitted of the charge---Appeal was allowed. Citation Name: 2019 PCrLJ 1392 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case INAYATULLAH VS State Abscondence---Scope---Abscondence could not be a substitute for real evidence, because people do abscond though falsely charged in order to save themselves from agony of protracted trial or to be killed in retaliation. Citation Name: 2019 MLD 1526 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case MIRA JAN VS Mir ABBAS Abscondence---Scope---Abscondence alone could not be a substitute for real evidence because people abscond though falsely charged in order to save themselves from agony of protracted trial and also to avoid duress and torture at the hands of police. Citation Name: 2019 YLRN 76 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case IRFAN ULLAH VS State S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly ---Bail, refusal of---Abscondence---Effect---Plea of alibi---Scope---Petitioner contended that he was not present at the place of occurrence and co-accused had already been granted bail---Validity---Record revealed that petitioner was one of the nominated accused persons who had specifically been charged for committing murder of brother of the complainant---Complainant herself sustained bullet injury on her thigh---Medico-Legal Report showed that the deceased had sustained multiple injuries on his body---Parties were known to each other, therefore, there was no chance of mis-identification---Motive as alleged in the FIR was previous blood-feud enmity between the parties---Role attributed to the co-accused, who had been granted bail, was distinguishable as he had been attributed role of abetment while role of firing at the complainant party had been attributed to the petitioner---Plea of alibi was not taken by the petitioner at the earliest---No doubt plea of alibi, like other defence plea taken at bail stage, was essentially required to be examined by the Court within a degree of care and caution but belated plea of alibi, prima facie, created an impression that the same was an afterthought, and its evidentiary value would be decided by the Trial Court after recording pro and contra evidence---In view of specific charge supported by the eye-witnesses, medical evidence and un-explained noticeable abscondence sufficiently provided reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner was guilty of an offence charged with, which fell within prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.--- After completion of investigation challan had been submitted and trial was likely to commence soon---When trial was likely to commence or had begun, bail application was not to be decided on merits and the matter be left to the Trial Court so as not to prejudice case of either side---Bail was refused to the petitioner, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2019 PCrLJN 136 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case NASEER VS State S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Abscondence---Effect---Allegation against the petitioner was that he along with his co-accused had fired at the complainant with which he was injured and later succumbed to the injuries---Petitioner contended that co-accused had been acquitted---Complainant (deceased) in his dying declaration had assigned same role of firing to both the accused i.e the petitioner and acquitted co-accused---Seven empties of .30 bore pistol were recovered from the spot which as per report of the Forensic Science Laboratory were fired from one and the same weapon---Acquitted co-accused was convicted and sentenced to death by the Additional Sessions Judge but he was acquitted of the charge in appeal by High Court---Acquittal of co-accused charged with similar and identical role in the FIR as that of the petitioner, on the same set of evidence---Case of accused/petitioner, in circumstances, was one of further inquiry, notwithstanding the fact that petitioner remained absconder for a sufficient long time---Abscondence alone would not come in the way of grant of bail---Petitioner was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2019 PCrLJN 117 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case SAFAIDULLAH SHAH VS State S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Bail, refusal of---Abscondence---Effect---Allegation against the petitioners (two in number) was that they made firing at complainant and the deceased (brother of the complainant)---Petitioners contended that charring marks on the body of the deceased were present despite the fact that distance between accused and deceased was shown as four paces---Petitioners were arrested after more than seven years of the occurrence, as they remained absconders and were declared as proclaimed offenders---Fugitive from law lost some of the normal rights granted by the procedural and substantive law and noticeable abscondence disentitled the absconder to the concession of bail, notwithstanding the merits of the case---Contention of the petitioners regarding presence of charring marks on the body of the deceased despite the distance between accused and deceased was shown as four paces essentially touched the merits of the case---Deeper appreciation or evaluation of material at bail stage was not permissible for the grant or refusal of bail and only tentative assessment was to be made---Challan had been submitted and the trial had commenced---In such situation, when the trial was likely to commence or had begun, bail application should not be decided on merits and the matter be left to the Trial Court, so the same could not prejudice case of either side---In view of specific charge supported by the eye-witnesses, medical evidence and unexplained noticeable abscondence sufficiently provided reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners were guilty of an offence charged with, which fell within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.---Bail was refused to the petitioners, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2019 PCrLJN 100 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD AZEEM VS State Abscondence---Effect---Abscondence could not remedy the defects in the prosecution case as it was not indicative of guilt---People abscond out of fear to be killed in retaliation or to avoid police torture and duress. Citation Name: 2019 PCrLJ 1297 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case Mst. SUGHRAN BIBI VS State S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 337-A(ii), 449, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-mudihah, house trespass in order to commit offence punishable with death, rioting, armed with deadly weapon and common intention---Ad-interim pre-arrest bail, confirmation of---Abscondence---Rule of consistency--- Applicability---Delay in lodging FIR---Scope---Prosecution case against petitioner was that complainant was present in his house when he heard knocks on his door, he opened the door and the petitioner along with co-accused persons forcibly entered his house---Co-accused persons, on the lalkara raised by petitioner, made fire shots on son of complainant, who succumbed to the injuries---Plea of prosecution was that petitioner had remained absconder for a period of three years---Petitioner explained that her husband was taken into custody, therefore, she in order to save the life of her four young children including two elder daughters shifted to a safe place---Validity---Petitioner was duly named in the complaint with specific role, however, admittedly the prosecution version consisted of two versions, one contained in the crime report and the other mentioned in the complaint, as to which of the versions was true was to be decided by Trial Court after recording the prosecution evidence---Crime report was lodged with a delay of two days while complaint was lodged with a further delay of eight months---Role of raising lalkara was ascribed to petitioner and no overt act qua inflicting any injury was alleged against her---Explanation of petitioner regarding abscondence carried credence, especially after a heinous occurrence, complainant party attack the accused side in order to take revenge---Factum of absconsion, in the present case, could not be given pivotal importance---Co-accused, who was assigned direct role of inflicting injury on the person of deceased had been admitted to post arrest bail, therefore, petitioner was entitled for the concession of bail on the plea of consistency---Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to petitioner was confirmed. Citation Name: 2019 PCrLJ 1297 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case Mst. SUGHRAN BIBI VS State S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 337-A(ii), 449, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-mudihah, house trespass in order to commit offence punishable with death, rioting, armed with deadly weapon and common intention---Ad-interim pre-arrest bail, confirmation of---Abscondence---Applicability---Rule of consistency---Scope---Petitioner had absconded while co-accused had secured bail after arrest---Co-accused was assigned direct role of inflicting injury on the person of deceased---Held, even if pre-arrest bail of accused was dismissed on a technical ground that it did not fulfil the obligatory requirements being extraordinary relief, then soon after the pronouncement of order by High Court, the accused would be entitled to the relief of post-arrest bail---Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to petitioner was confirmed. Citation Name: 2019 PCrLJ 1297 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case Mst. SUGHRAN BIBI VS State S. 497---Bail---Abscondence---Where case for grant of bail was made out, mere absconsion would not come in the way of granting bail to accused. Citation Name: 2019 YLR 324 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case BUX ALI alias DODO VS State Abscondence--- Evidentiary value---Abscondence was treated as a piece of evidence against the accused, who deliberately and intentionally avoided and failed to surrender. Citation Name: 2019 PCrLJ 238 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case BILAWAL VS State Abscondence--- Scope--- Abscondence could at the most be a suspicious circumstance against the accused and nothing more. Citation Name: 2019 MLD 1034 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Bookmark this Case SADDAM VS State Abscondence---Scope---Abscondence of the accused could not rescue the prosecution when there was no other corroboratory evidence to connect the accused with the crime. Citation Name: 2019 YLRN 115 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Bookmark this Case RASHEED ALAM alias SHAMSHAD VS State S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention,---Bail, refusal of---Abscondence---Repetition by accused of similar offence---Scope and effect---Petitioner contended that he was entitled for the concession of bail as his co-accused had already been admitted to bail---Validity---Admittedly, petitioner was directly charged in the FIR with a specific role of causing injuries to the deceased---After commission of offence, the petitioner went underground and was arrested after a period of six years---Record revealed that the petitioner had committed another offence and yet another FIR under Ss. 324 & 34, P.P.C. was registered against him---Grant of bail to the co-accused did not entitle the petitioner for concession of bail as "two wrongs do not make one right"---Prima facie case existed against the petitioner and he was not entitled to the concession of bail---Bail was refused to the petitioner, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2018 YLR 1798 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case MASAUD VS State S.497---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(4)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.458, 459, 460 & 109---Haraaba, house trespass and common intention---Abscondence---Bail, grant of---No one was mentioned in FIR as accused---Contradiction in statements of witnesses regarding participation of the petitioner in the commission of offence---Effect---Abscondence---Effect---Record revealed that the petitioner had not been charged in the FIR rather he had been nominated by co-accused in his statement under S.161, Cr.P.C. and by the complainant in his statement under S.164, Cr.P.C.---Complainant had , admittedly , shown four persons present in the courtyard of his house but while recording his statement under S.164, Cr.P.C., he charged six persons for the commission of offense, similarly, another co-accused had not disclosed the name of petitioner in his confessional statement regarding participation in the commission of offense---Mere abscondence was no ground to decline the bail if the accused was otherwise entitled for concession of bail---Accused had made out case for the grant of bail, in the circumstances. Citation Name: 2018 YLR 1293 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case AFSAR KHAN VS State Abscondence--- Scope--- Mere abs-condence in absence of unimpeachable evidence was of no value. Citation Name: 2018 MLD 768 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD JAMIL VS ZAHIDULLAH alias ZOHAIB S. 497---Bail---Abscondence---Effect---Mere abscondence or commencement of trial was no ground to refuse bail to the accused. Citation Name: 2018 YLRN 192 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case SHEHRIYAR VS ZAIR ULLAH Abscondence--Corroborative evidence--Scope---Abscondence, would not be a substitute for substantive evidence and could be used only as a corroborative piece of evidence. Citation Name: 2018 PCrLJN 3 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case BAHADAR ZEB VS State S. 497---Bail---Abscondence---Scope---Mere abscondence of accused would not be sufficient to refuse bail to him. Citation Name: 2018 MLD 1 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case GHULAM QADIR KHAN VS NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU 2003 MLD 777, 2008 PCr.LJ 171, 2015 SCMR 1575, 2017 PCr.LJ 147, PLD 2003 Kar. 266, PLD 2003 Karachi 266, PLD 2013 SC 594, Ss. 9(a)(iii)(iv)(ix)(x), (b) & 25(b)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Allegations against accused were that of illegal gratification and pecuniary advantages, cheating and misappropriation with members of public at large---Suspension of sentence---Abscondence---Plea bargain, application for---Accused was convicted and sentenced by Trial Court for imprisonment for five years---Validity---Accused firstly entered into plea bargain agreement with NAB authorities but absconded later on---After filing of Reference, accused did not appear before Trial Court and was declared proclaimed offender---Accused was arrested and sent to judicial lock-up and then Supplementary Reference was filed---Such a long unexplained abscondence of accused was a corroboratory factor which could not be ignored as the same, prima facie, had indicated guilt of accused---Accused was not entitled to be enlarged on bail merely because his co-accused was acquitted by Trial Court---Conduct of accused did not deserve him to be treated with leniency---Entering petitioner into plea bargain agreement himself with NAB authorities tantamount to admission of commission of allegations levelled against him---Accused failed to establish any malice or ill-will on the part of complainant for false implication of accused---Prima facie, there was sufficient incriminating material available on record to connect accused with commission of alleged offences---Accused had failed to make out any ground for suspension of sentence---Constitutional Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Abscondence of accused

Back Back Your Search returned total 45 records from 0 - 45 Citation Name: 2025 SCMR 318 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case MAZHAR ALI VS State S. 497 ---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Bail---Abscondence of accused---Mere abscondence of an accused by itself is no ground to refuse bail to him if otherwise he is entitled to the said relief on merits. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 451 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case Ejaz Ahmed VS State Abscondence of accused---Scope---Abscondence of an accused can be used as a corroborative piece of evidence, which cannot be read in isolation but it has to be read along with the substantive pieces of evidence. Citation Name: 2024 SCMR 464 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case SAID NABI VS AJMAL KHAN S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Murderous assault---Bail---Abscondence of accused---No doubt abscondence does constitute a relevant factor when examining question of bail---However abscondence is not to be considered in isolation to keep a person behind bars for an indefinite period---Person who is named in a murder case, rightly or wrongly, if he becomes fugitive from law, his conduct is natural. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 546 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case ZARSHAD VS State Ss. 302(b) & 149---Qatl-i-amd, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Abscondence of accused---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused persons committed murder of the two sons of complainant and also injured him by firing---Record showed that the incident occurred way back in the year 2008, whereas, the accused had been arrested, on 20.07.2018 and that he failed to explain his long absence from the law enforcement agency---However, abscondence alone was not sufficient to convict, rather the prosecution must come with strong evidence in support of its claim and in such eventuality abscondence was a factor which could be taken into consideration---Witnesses failed to convince their presence on the spot and convince the manner in which the incident occurred, so in the attending circumstances of the case the long abscondence on part of the accused was hardly a ground to be pressed into service---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed in bringing home guilt against the accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2000 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case Ihsan Ullah alias Munshi VS State Art. 21---Abscondence of accused---Scope---Abscondence of accused after the occurrence is a relevant fact as per Art. 21 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Abscondence is always considered as corroborative evidence, though not a sole reason to convict the accused. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2000 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case Ihsan Ullah alias Munshi VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Abscondence of accused---Consequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the cousin of complainant and causing firearm injuries to his nephew---Abscondence of accused for about 13/14 years was another factor which ran against the accused persons---Though warrants of arrest and proclamations were tendered in the evidence and also put to the accused persons for their response in statement under S.342, Cr.P.C., yet process server did not appear in the dock in support of such evidence---Contrary to above fact, Police Constable appeared and deposed that on 06.02.2001, warrants of arrest against accused persons were handed over to him for execution and similarly the proclamations on 27.02.2001; he submitted his reports in that respect---Thus, prosecution had succeeded to prove the observance of legal process and resultant willful abscondence of the accused persons---Appeal against conviction was accordingly dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2021 YLRN 62 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case WAKIL KHAN VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Abscondence of accused---Scope---Accused was charged that he and co-accused made firing upon the complainant, who was hit and injured, on the following day injured succumbed to the injuries---Allegedly, soon after commission of the offence accused remained absconder for long unexplained period---High Court observed that, true that long unexplained abscondence weighed against the accused, but it never absolved the prosecution of the liability to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt---If prosecution had proved its case through disinterested and convincing evidence then the abscondence was taken and considered as a corroborative piece of evidence---In the present case, the prosecution could not succeed in proving its case against the accused---Abscondence alone played no role in circumstances---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2018 YLR 2398 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case SAID WAHAB VS State 1981 SCMR 182, 1981 SCMR 795, 1985 SCMR 2070, 1990 MLD 461, 1992 SCMR 814, 1995 SCMR 1373, 1995 SCMR 1632, 1995 SCMR 1730, 1999 SCMR 1220, 1999 SCMR 304, 2002 SCMR 189, 2010 SCMR 566, 2011 SCMR 1524, 2013 YLR 684, 2017 SCMR 986, PLD 1965 SC 111, PLD 1971 SC 541, PLD 2003 SC 70, Abscondence of accused---Effect---Abscondence of accused could corroborate other convincing prosecution evidence---If ocular account and other circumstantial evidence on record was disbelieved, accused could not be convicted on the sole ground that he remained absconder. Citation Name: 2018 YLR 1442 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case SHAUKAT VS JAMSHED Abscondence of accused---Scope---Mere abscondence of the accused could not be taken into consideration to record conviction. Citation Name: 2018 MLD 1065 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case ARAB SHAH VS State Ss. 302, 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Abscondence of accused---Effect---Abscondence of accused alone could not lead to his conviction unless corroborated by other incriminating evidence against him. Citation Name: 2018 YLRN 174 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case The STATE VS ANWAR-UL-HAQ alias ANWAR Abscondence of accused---Scope---Abscondence could neither cure the inherent defect of the ocular account nor by itself was sufficient to sustain conviction. Citation Name: 2018 PCrLJN 194 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case AMAN ULLAH VS State S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 337-A(i), 148 & 149---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, hurt, rioting, unlawful assembly---Bail, refusal of---Cross version---Scope---Abscondence of accused---Effect---Complainant had attributed direct role to petitioner for causing injuries to him by firing---Petitioner contended that cross-version of the occurrence had been registered to the effect that beating and fists and kicks were given to him in the occurrence---Complainant had lodged FIR on the same day within two hours meaning thereby that there was no chance of consultation and deliberation---Forensic Science Laboratory report showed that all crime empties, four in number, were fired from one and the same weapon---Occurrence had taken place in the daylight and both parties were known to each other, therefore, misidentification was not possible---Plea of alleged cross-version invariably carried phenomenon of self-defence but record showed as to who had aggressed and who had acted in self-defence---Prosecution evidence, in the present case, prima facie connected the petitioner with commission of crime---Petitioner himself had admitted the occurrence by taking plea of cross-version then mere cross FIR by petitioner would not be considered as licence for grant of bail, particularly in view of prevailing law and order situation in the society---Accused of every cross-case could not claim bail as a matter of right, rather facts of every cross case were to be tentatively assessed---Petitioner remained absconder for one year and six months for which no explanation had been furnished---Record showed that trial had commenced so at bail stage any expression on merits would cause prejudice to either party---Bail was refused to petitioner, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2018 YLRN 254 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case MOHAMMAD NASIR VS State S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 353, 186 & 427---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 7 & 21-D--- Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or use of criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, obstructing public servant, mischief, terrorism---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Abscondence of accused---Effect---Petitioner and one co-accused allegedly made firing upon the police party which was chasing them, one police official sustained fire-arm injuries and police mobile was also damaged in the incident---Co-accused was sentenced while petitioner absconded---Validity---No specific role had been attributed to the petitioner and there were collective allegations in the FIR---Name of the petitioner had been disclosed by the co-accused, who was allegedly apprehended by the police at the place of occurrence---No identification parade of the petitioner was got conducted by the Investigation Officer after his arrest---Petitioner was in custody for the last 17 months---Prosecution had examined only one witness yet and there was no probability for the conclusion of the trial in a near future---No other case was pending against the petitioner---Case of the accused called for further inquiry into his guilt and bail could be allowed to him as a right as his abscondence would not affect his such right---Bail was granted to the accused. Citation Name: 2018 YLR 1412 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Bookmark this Case ADNAN HUSSAIN VS State Abscondence of accused---Effect---Mere abscondence of the accused would not improve the prosecution case, if from other independent evidence, the prosecution case was not proved. Citation Name: 2018 PCrLJN 63 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Bookmark this Case KHUSH BAR VS State 1980 SCMR 474, 1992 SCMR 1036, PLD 1985 SC 402, Ss. 302, 457 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, lurking house-trespass by night in order to commit offence, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Abscondence of accused---Effect---Corroborative evidence---Scope---Abscondence of accused by itself, was not sufficient to convict him, but it was a strong piece of corroborative evidence, if there existed some other direct or circumstantial evidence in the case. Citation Name: 2017 PCrLJN 86 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case ZIARAT GUL VS State Abscondence of accused--Term , Appreciation of Evidence--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , Ss. 302 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Abscondence of accused---Evidentiary value---Absconcion if any, was not substantive piece of evidence rather it was corroborative piece of evidence---Said corroborative piece of evidence was of no avail in case of absence of direct evidence---Abscondence could neither cure the inherent defect of the ocular account nor by itself was sufficient for sustaining of conviction---Accused was acquitted by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court. Citation Name: 2016 SCMR 676 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case CHAIRMAN NAB through PGA NAB Islamabad VS MUHAMMAD KHALID Abscondence of accused--Term , Cancellation of Bail--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Grounds--Term , S. 497(5)---Cancellation of bail---Grounds---Abscondence of accused---Bail could not be cancelled merely on ground of abscondence---Abscondence by itself could not be a substitute of evidence; it was a circumstance which was always taken in a criminal case as corroboration towards the guilt and not as proof of the guilt. Citation Name: 2016 PCrLJ 1378 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case NAEEM KHAN VS STATE 1986 SCMR 823, PLD 1980 SC 201, Abscondence of accused--Term , Appreciation of Evidence--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Qatl-e-amd--Term , S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Abscondence of accused---Scope---Abscondence of accused alone, could not be a substitute for real evidence---Abscondence by itself, would be of no avail to prosecution in absence of any other evidence against absconding accused---Mere abscondence of accused, would not be enough to sustain his conviction. Citation Name: 2016 PCrLJN 9 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case GUL MUHAMMAD VS State Abscondence of accused--Term , Appreciation of Evidence--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd attempt to commit qatl-i-amd and common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Abscondence of accused---Mere absconsion, without cogent proof of the commission of an offence, was not ground at all for conviction of an accused---Abscondence, at the most could be taken as a corroborative of the charge, and not evidence of the charge in case of absence of any other corroborative evidence---Said evidence, even if found convincing, would not be sufficient by itself to warrant conviction of accused on a charge of murder. Citation Name: 2015 YLR 2413 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case SHAL MUHAMMAD VS State 1986 SCMR 823, PLD 1980 SC 201, Abscondence of accused--Term , Criminal Trial--TERM , Abscondence of accused---Scope--- Abscondence alone, could not be a substi­tute for real evidence---Mere abscondence of accused, would not be enough to sustain his conviction. Citation Name: 2015 YLR 1661 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case MADA MEER JAN VS State 2010 SCMR 566, Abscondence of accused--Term , Criminal Trial--TERM , Abscondence of accused---Scope---Mere absconsion, was not a conclusive proof of guilt of accused, it was only a suspicious circumstance against accused---Suspicions after all were suspicions, same could not take the place of proof---Value of abscondence depended on the facts of each case---Absconsion of accused could be consistent with the guilt or innocence of accused, which was to be decided keeping in view over all facts of the case---Mere abscondence of accused, could not be made the basis for his conviction as accused could run away due to fear for suspicious circumstances---Abscondence, though was a relevant fact, but it could be used as corroborative piece of evidence, which could not be read in isolation, but had to be read along with substantive piece of evidence. Citation Name: 2015 YLR 1576 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case AMIR AKBAR KHAN VS ZARWAIZ KHAN Abscondence of accused--Term , Criminal Trial--TERM , Abscondence of accused---Effect---Mere abscondence, would not prove guilty mind---Abscondence, could be used only as a corroborative piece of evidence, which could not be read in isolation, but it had to be read along with substantive piece of evidence. Citation Name: 2015 YLR 794 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case RASHID ALAM VS State Abscondence of accused--Term , Criminal Trial--TERM , Abscondence of accused---Abscondence, no doubt was mere piece of circumstantial evidence but it could be taken into consideration as an additional circumstance, when otherwise the prosecution had proved its case through cogent and confidence inspiring evidence. Citation Name: 2015 YLR 624 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case FAZAL KHALIQ VS State Abscondence of accused--Term , Criminal Trial--TERM , Abscondence of accused---Scope---Abscondence of accused alone was not sufficient to record conviction, and it could be used only as a corroboratory and confirmatory in support of ocular account, but when the ocular account and dying declaration were disbelieved, then it was of a very little value for court for consideration. Citation Name: 2015 PCrLJ 585 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case SAJJAD AHMAD VS State 2010 SCMR 566, Abscondence of accused--Term , Appreciation of Evidence--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--337-A , Ss. 302(b), 324 & 337-A(iv)---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing Shajjah-i-Munaqqilah--- Appreciation of evidence---Abscondence of accused---Nature and scope---Prosecution could not seek support from factum of abscondence of accused, when eye-witnesses had not established their presence at the spot, and their testimony had been disbelieved being pregnant with doubts, and suffering from material contradictions---Mere absconsion, was not a conclusive proof of guilt of accused, but was only a suspicious circumstance against accused, that he was found guilty of the offence---Suspicions could not take the place of proof---Value of abscondence, would depend on the facts of each case---Absconsion of accused, could be consistent with the guilt or innocence of accused, which was to be decided keeping in view over all facts of the case---Mere abscondence of accused could not be made the basis for his conviction as accused could run away due to fear or suspicious circumstances---Abscondence, no doubt was a relevant fact, but it could be used as a corroborative piece of evidence, which could not be read in isolation, and it had to be read along with substantive piece of evidence. Citation Name: 2015 PCrLJ 416 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case SAMI ULLAH VS State Abscondence of accused--Term , Criminal Trial--TERM , Abscondence of accused---Scope---Abscondence, alone, could not be a substitute for real evidence and would be of no avail to prosecution, in absence of any other evidence against absconding accused---Mere abscondence of accused, would not be enough to sustain his conviction. Citation Name: 2015 PCrLJ 248 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case UMAR GUL VS SAMAR KHAN 1986 SCMR 823, PLD 1980 SC 201, Abscondence of accused--Term , Criminal Trial--TERM , Abscondence of accused---Scope---Abscondence alone, could not be substitute for real evidence---Abscondence by itself would be of no avail to prosecution in absence of any other evidence against the absconded accused---Mere abscondence of accused, would not be enough to sustain his conviction. Citation Name: 2015 PCrLJ 81 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case SHAHABUDDIN VS MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN 2010 SCMR 566, Abscondence of accused--Term , Criminal Trial--TERM , Abscondence of accused---Scope---Mere absconsion was not a conclusive proof of guilt of accused person; it was only a suspicious circumstance against an accused that he was found guilty of the offence---Abscondence could not take the place of proof---Absconsion of accused, could be consistent with the guilt or innocence of accused, which was to be decided keeping in view over-all facts of the case---Mere absconsion of accused, could not be made the basis for conviction. Citation Name: 2015 PLD 125 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case MIR ALAM VS AMROZ KHAN 1986 SCMR 823, 2010 SCMR 566, PLD 1980 SC 201, Abscondence of accused--Term , Criminal Trial--TERM , Abscondence of accused---Effect---Abscondence alone, could not be a substitute of real evidence---Abscondence by itself, would be of no avail to prosecution in absence of any other evidence against absconding accused---Mere abscondence of accused, would not be enough to sustain his conviction. Citation Name: 2014 YLR 2606 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case FAYYAZ ALI VS ASGHAR ALI KHAN 2010 SCMR 566, Abscondence of accused--Term , Abscondence--TERM , Criminal Trial--TERM , Abscondence--- Abscondence of accused---Effect---Mere absconsion, was not a conclusive proof of guilt of accused---Such was only a suspicious circumstance against accused and suspicion could not take the place of proof---Value of abscondence, would depend on the facts of each case---Absconsion of accused could be consistent with the guilt or innocence of accused, which was to be decided keeping in view over all facts of the case---Abscondence, though was a relevant fact, but it could be used as a corroborative piece of evidence, which could not be read in isolation, but had to be read along with substantive piece of evidence. Citation Name: 2014 PCrLJ 396 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SAEED VS State Abscondence of accused--Term , Bail--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , S. 497---Bail---Abscondence of accused---Effect---Abscondence of accused would not adversely affect the outcome of his bail petition if sufficient reasons existed to believe that his case called for further inquiry into his guilt within the scope of S.497(2), Cr.P.C. Citation Name: 2013 PCrLJ 36 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD AZAM VS KHALID MEHMOOD Abscondence of accused--Term , Criminal Trial--TERM , Abscondence of accused---Effect---Abscondence of an accused was not conclusive by itself to establish his guilt; and its probative value would depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case, yet same was universally admitted as evidence of guilt of accused. Citation Name: 2013 YLR 2046 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case MUSHTAQ VS LAKHKAR KHAN Abscondence of accused--Term , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Daylight occurrence--Term , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--148 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--149 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 , S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Bail, refusal of---Case of cross-version F.I.Rs.---Direct implication in F.I.R. for the offence---Daylight occurrence---Abscondence of accused---Effect---Accused and co-accused persons allegedly made indiscriminate firing upon the complainant party which resulted in death of one person---Plea of accused that a cross case had also been registered against the complainant party, and all the accused in the cross case had been released on bail, therefore same relief should also be given to him---Validity---Accused was directly charged in the F.I.R. for firing upon the complainant party---As per investigation report, accused absconded after the incident and remained absconder for a sufficient period of time---Occurrence took place in broad-daylight---Ocular evidence, post-mortem report of deceased and other material available on record supported version of complainant---Mere filing of cross-case against each other could not be considered a good ground for release of accused on bail, unless an element of genuineness was present---Time and place of occurrence in both (F.I.Rs.) were different---Case against accused fell within the prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C.---Bail petition was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2013 YLR 2046 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case MUSHTAQ VS LAKHKAR KHAN Abscondence of accused--Term , Bail--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--498 , Ss. 497 & 498---Bail---Abscondence of accused---Effect---Any person who thwarts investigation and remains fugitive from the law and courts loses, some of the normal rights granted by procedural as well as substantive law. Citation Name: 2013 PCrLJ 1490 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case MEEM BAHADAR VS State Abscondence of accused--Term , Criminal Trial--TERM , Abscondence of accused---No doubt, abscondence of accused, itself was not sufficient to prove the guilt of absconder, but it could provide corroboration to the other evidence, and circumstances of the case proving his guilty conscious---Abscondence of an accused, would be taken as a corroborative piece of evidence in presence of convincing and unchallenged prosecution evidence. Citation Name: 2013 YLR 2230 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ALTAF VS State Abscondence of accused--Term , Bail--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , S. 497(2)---Bail---Case of further inquiry into guilt of accused---Abscondence of accused---Effect---Factum of abscondence posed no threat to the plea of accused for bail, if there existed sufficient reasons to believe that his case called for further probe into his guilt. Citation Name: 2013 YLR 1257 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD LATIF VS State Abscondence of accused--Term , Appreciation of Evidence--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--149 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 , Ss. 302(b)/149 & 324/149---Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Abscondence of accused---Effect---Abscondence, per se, is not a proof of the guilt of an accused, which however can create a suspicion against him, but suspicion however strong cannot take the place of proof required for punishment of accused---Evidence of abscondence, even if found convincing, would not be sufficient by itself to warrant conviction on a charge of murder. Citation Name: 2013 YLR 1091 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case FAROOQ AHMAD VS State 1971 SCMR 756, 2006 SCMR 231, 2007 SCMR 1812, 2009 SCMR 166, 2009 SCMR 436, 2011 SCMR 646, PLD 2006 SC 538, Abscondence of accused--Term , Criminal Trial--TERM , Abscondence of accused---Abscon-dence, per se was not sufficient to prove the guilt of accused, in absence of any other direct or strong circumstantial evidence against accused. Citation Name: 2013 YLR 316 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case SHAUKAT ALI VS State Abscondence of accused--Term , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Further Inquiry--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--109 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--148 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--149 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 , S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/324/148/149/109--- Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons and abetment---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Abscondence of accused---Effect---Allegation of abscondence of accused does not impede the acceptance of his bail application, if his case calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the meaning of S.497(2), Cr.P.C. Citation Name: 2013 PCrLJ 1782 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case SHAH NAWAZ alias CHULLU VS State Abscondence of accused--Term , Bail--TERM , Case of further inquiry--Term , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , S. 497(2)--- Bail---Case of further inquiry---Abscondence of accused---Effect---Accused could not be refused bail on the ground that he remained fugitive from law, when he otherwise succeeded in establishing that his case fell under S.497(2), Cr.P.C. Citation Name: 2013 PCrLJ 1560 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD RAMZAN VS State 2007 SCMR 162, Abscondence of accused--Term , Criminal Trial--TERM , Abscondence of accused---Abscondence of accused by itself would not be sufficient to suggest his culpability, but same could be taken into consideration as a corroborative factor, when the prosecution had been able to establish his case by convincing evidence. Citation Name: 2013 PCrLJ 856 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case MIAN KHAN VS State 2009 SCMR 299, Abscondence of accused--Term , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , S. 497---Bail, right of---Scope---Abscondence of accused---Effect---Abscondence of accused would not come in the way of grant of bail if he had a good case for grant of bail on merits. Citation Name: 2013 MLD 1145 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case AIJAZ alias ABDUL SAMI 2 VS State 2010 SCMR 64, Abscondence of accused--Term , Bail--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--498 , Ss. 497 & 498---Bail---Abscondence of accused---Effect---Mere abscondence of accused for a short period was not sufficient to disentitle them from concession of bail, when otherwise they were entitled for bail. Citation Name: 2013 MLD 170 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case HUSSAIN BUX VS State PLD 2012 SC 222, Abscondence of accused--Term , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , S. 497---Bail, right of---Abscondence of accused---Effect---Right of bail could not be refused merely on account of his abscondence which was a factor relevant only to propriety---Where accused was entitled to bail on merits, his mere abscondence would not come in his way. Citation Name: 2011 MLD 773 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case HAFIZUR REHMAN VS State Abscondence of accused--Term , Appreciation of Evidence--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--427 , Ss. 302/324/427/34---Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd and mischief-Appreciation of evidence---Abscondence of accused---Though abscondence of an accused could not be considered as sufficient to base conviction, but if other sufficient evidence was available against accused, then abscondence would also work as a corroborative piece of evidence.

Absconder

Back Back Your Search returned total 12 records from 0 - 12 Citation Name: 2024 PLD 688 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case UMAR FAROOQ VS SAJJAD AHMAD QAMAR S. 62(9)---Elections for seat of National Assembly/Provincial Assembly---Nomination papers---Absconder---Fugitive from law---Proclaimed offender---Eligibility to contest elections---Disadvantage, if any, for being a proclaimed offender ordinarily relates only to the case in which a person has been so proclaimed, and not to the other cases or matters which have no nexus to that case---In the absence of any contrary provision in the Constitution or the Elections Act 2017 ("Act"), status of a person as a proclaimed offender in a criminal case does not affect his civil right to contest an election---Clearly, if a proclaimed offender can contest elections someone who is only alleged to be an absconder can equally do so. Citation Name: 2021 PLD 831 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SADIQ RAJA VS State Ss. 9(a)(v), 14(c) & 31-A---Acquiring assets beyond known sources of income and avoiding process of Court---Appreciation of evidence---Benami holdings---Absconder---Proof---Ex-Pakistan leave---Effect---Defence evidence---Accused was holder of public office who was alleged to have acquired assets beyond his known sources of income and was also alleged to have absconded to avoid process of Court---Trial Court convicted accused and sentenced him to imprisonment along with fine and forfeiture of properties---Validity---Prosecution did not produce the officer to whom any proclamation was entrusted---Absconding of accused was not proved by prosecution and at the most accused could be said to have long disappearance on his part---Such disappearance was not unlawful as the accused was abroad pursuant to approval of Ex-Pakistan leave for three years by competent authority---If brothers-in-law and mother-in-law of accused were Benamidar of accused then why their other properties were not forfeited---Version of accused throughout was that his two brothers-in-law were abroad from where they used to send money to him---Accused remained abroad for three years and his saving could not be thrown out from consideration---Accused was under obligation to offer a reasonable explanation although not beyond doubt---Word 'reasonable' did not mean that accused had to prove his innocence by producing evidence of high quality or at the same yardstick which was for prosecution, it simply meant 'something that was logical and exhibited good sense'---High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused and he was acquitted of the charge---Appeal was allowed in circumstances. Citation Name: 2020 YLR 1 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case Syed MUHAMMAD AHSAN VS MUNAWAR ALI NAQVI Absconder---Trial---Procedure--- When court had declared an accused absconder, his case was supposed to be separated from case of other accused. Citation Name: 2019 PLD 23 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Bookmark this Case NIZAM-UD-DIN VS The STATE through Advocate General, AJ&K, Muzaffarabad Absconder---Entitlement to relief---Scope---Person who was fugitive from law and did not surrender, would deprive himself of the relief claimed. Citation Name: 2018 CLC 1301 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD NAWAZISH ALI PIRZADA VS ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN through Provincial Election Commissioner Part-II, Chapt. 1 [Arts. 8 - 28]---Fundamental Rights---Absconder---Scope---Person who is fugitive of law, does not have right of criminal appeal in the matter, in which he has been declared absconder unless he surrenders---Person who has been declared absconder cannot be held to have no right to file any appeal before any forum, in respect of matters which have no nexus and relation to proceedings in which, he was declared absconder---Fundamental Rights of a fugitive of law for their enforcement through Court of law are not suspended as it is not the intention of legislature nor the same is permissible under the Constitution. Citation Name: 2014 MLD 280 SHARIAT-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Bookmark this Case SHAMSAR HUSSAIN VS State Absconder--TERM , Bail--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--498 , Ss. 497 & 498---Bail---Absconder---While deciding the bail matter, neither any deeper appreciation, nor detailed scrutiny of the evidence was permissible---Only tentative assessment of the record was required for that purpose---Bail matters always had to be decided on merits and technicalities should not defeat the justice to be administered---Absconder, no doubt would loose some rights, like bail, but overall circumstances had to be kept in sight while deciding bail matter. Citation Name: 2014 PCrLJ 1787 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case ASIL ZADA VS BAEZZAT KHAN Absconder--TERM , Fugitive from law and Courts loses some of his normal rights granted by procedural as well as substantive law. Citation Name: 2014 PLD 82 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case GHULAM MUSTAFA VS DISTRICT POLICE OFFICER, KASUR 1982 SCMR 623, 1996 SCMR 1185, 2003 SCMR 1030, PLD 1981 SC 265, Absconder--TERM , Applicability--Term , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--189 , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--190 , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--199 , Constitutional petition--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 , Arts. 189, 190 & 199---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 324---Constitutional petition---Absconder---Qatl-e-amd and attempt to Qatl-e-amd---Judgment passed by Supreme Court---Applicability---Petitioner was acquitted by Trial Court but High Court convicted him and sentenced him to imprisonment for life---Petitioner filed appeal before Supreme Court but did not surrender and absconded---Supreme Court acquitted co-accused of the petitioner but dismissed appeal of petitioner being not maintainable---Petitioner sought acquittal from High Court on the plea that his co-accused had been acquitted by Supreme Court---Validity---Fugitive from law had lost normal rights as by himself frustrating procedure of law in complete derogation of direction recorded in judgment passed by court of competent jurisdiction---Absconder could not seek justice from a court of law---Constitutional petition filed by petitioner was not entertainable, which should have not been entertained by the office---Until and unless petitioner surrendered himself, thereby joining process of law, he could not claim relief sought for through constitutional petition---Petition was dismissed in circumstances. Citation Name: 2013 PCrLJ 562 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case Sheikh MUHAMMAD AFZAL VS NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU (NAB) Absconder--TERM , Criminal Trial--TERM , Absconder---Absconder looses some of his normal rights. Citation Name: 2009 YLR 181 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case GULAB DAHRI VS State 1991 SCMR 322, 1995 SCMR 1373, 1999 SCMR 1220, 1999 SCMR 304, 2007 YLR 2374, Absconder--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Further Inquiry--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34---Bail, grant of---Absconder---Further inquiry---Fatal blow was attributed to co-accused, while no overt act was attributed to accused in the commission of the crime---Even Lalkara was not attributed to accused---Proceedings as envisaged under S.512, Cr.P.C., had been drawn against him---Even otherwise no absolute rule existed to the effect that a fugitive from law should, under no circumstances, be enlarged on bail, though abscondence did constitute a relevant factor when examining question of bail---In bail matters no universal rule existed which could be pressed into service in all cases as every case had distinguishable features---In the present case no overt act had been attributed to accused except that he was present at the place of occurrence having past enmity with the complainant and deceased---Case against accused required further inquiry into his guilt---Bail, in such cases could not be withheld as a matter of punishment---Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Citation Name: 1960 PLD 18 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case ALLAH DITTA VS THE STATE Absconder--TERM , Absconder Absconder-Judgment in absconder's case-High Court Bench in disposing of absconder's appeal adopting reasoning of earlier Bench which had heard and dismissed appeal of absconder's accomplices-Omission to apply mind independently to evidence recorded in separate trial of absconder-Procedure disapproved-Case sent back to be heard by different Bench. Citation Name: 1955 PLD 679 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case THE CROWN VS NUR ALAM Absconder--TERM , Absconder ----Finding as to nature of offence arrived at in case against companions-Not' binding in-case against absconder Sentence.

Absconding

Back Back Your Search returned total 3 records from 0 - 3 Citation Name: 1965 PLD 656 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case MANZUR ELAHI VS THE STATE Absconding--TERM , ------S. 8, illus. (i)--Absconding-Accused remaining a fugitive after commission of murder--Significant factor in proof of crime. Citation Name: 1964 PLD 67 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case ABDUR RAZIQ VS THE STATE Absconding--TERM , Absconding Mere absconding of accused- Conviction cannot be based on. Citation Name: 1964 PLD 1 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case HAKIM GUL VS THE STATE Absconding--TERM , Absconding Abscondence of accused after occurrence--Not sufficient by itself to prove accused guilty---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302.

Absconding accused

Back Back Your Search returned total 2 records from 0 - 2 Citation Name: 2020 PCrLJ 612 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case QADEEM SHAH VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Prompt FIR---Absconding accused---Complainant lodged FIR against accused for committing qatl-i-amd of his father---Five empties of .30 bore were retrieved from the place of occurrence---Case being that of a single accused, there was no necessity for prosecution to send crime empties to Forensic Science Laboratory for report---Accused, after commission of offense, opted to abscond and remained fugitive from law for over three years---Without any plausible explanation---Prosecution was able to prove its case against accused through promptly lodged FIR, confidence inspiring ocular testimony, single accused motive, recovery of crime empties from spot, supportive medical evidence coupled with his over three years long abscondance---High Court maintained conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances. Citation Name: 2014 PCrLJ 1638 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case Mst. SHAMIM alias MARIYUM VS D.I.-G. EAST ZONE Absconding accused--Term , Constitutional petition--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--75 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--87 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--88 , Ss. 75, 87 & 88---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Absconding accused---Proclamation for person absconding---Attachment of property of person absconding---Keeping case on dormant file---Scope---Accused persons had absconded in the present case---After challan had been submitted against them, Trial Court refused to issue their warrants of arrest and did not adopt the procedure as provided under Ss. 87 & 88, Cr.P.C.---Trial Court also put the case on dormant file---Legality---Trial Court should exercise powers available to it under Ss. 75, 87 & 88, Cr.P.C., and if proceedings under the said provisions failed, only then should the case be kept on dormant file---Trial Court, in the present case, ignored the powers available to it under Ss. 87 & 88, Cr.P.C., including attachment of properties of accused persons---High Court directed that proper efforts should be made to arrest accused persons, and in case of non-compliance by the police, the (Trial) Court may write to the superior police officials for getting issued necessary directions---Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Absconding of accused

Back Back Your Search returned total 7 records from 0 - 8 Citation Name: 2023 MLD 1568 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case IFRAHEEM VS State S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Absconding of accused---Prosecution sent 15 persons to face trial on the charge of murder---Trial Court acquitted 7 persons of the charge while 8 were convicted out of which 6 were sentenced to death and two ladies were sentenced to imprisonment for life---Validity---Alleged absconding of accused persons after occurrence was not conclusive proof of their guilt---Trial Court convicted accused persons on the same evidence on which it had acquitted 7 co-accused persons---Neither the State nor the complainant challenged acquittal order before High Court---High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused persons as there existed no independent corroborating evidence--- Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2005 YLR 465 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case BAHADAR SHER VS State Absconding of accused--TERM , --S.324/34---Abseondence of accused--­Abscondence at the most could be taken as corroboration of the charge and not the evidence of the charge and in absence of any other corroborative evidence, that evidence, even if found convincing, would not be sufficient by itself to warrant conviction of accused. Citation Name: 2004 MLD 1448 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case ABDUL KARIM VS PAK STATE and another Absconding of accused--TERM , ----S.302(b)---Abscondence of accused---Abscondence of accused person was not a proof of their guilt, it could, however, create suspicion against accused, but suspicions; after all, were suspicions---Disappearance of a person named as a murderer after occurrence, was but natural, whether named rightly or wrongly. Citation Name: 1979 SCMR 579 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case GHAUS MUHAMMAD VS STATE Absconding of accused--TERM , ----S. 8(1)(2)(3)-Subsections (2) & (3) of S. 8-Come into operation only when Government cancels lease on its own-Government not exercising its option to determine lease before its expiry-Initial liability of petitioner to pay entire contracted amount in accordance with arrangement by way of instalments, held, cannot be denied by petitioners on any basis whatsoever-Petitioners starting making default in payment of instalment, an ascertained amount due from them, petitioners liable to pay same according to agreement and could not refuse payment merely on pretext of having to claim compensation for certain days when respondents took over control of toll posts and disabled petitioner from collecting toll tax-Amount payable by petitioners, held further, an ascertained amount and recoverable from petitioners. Citation Name: 1973 PLD 135 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case VALI MOHAMMAD VS THE STATE Citation Name: 1971 SCMR 239 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case MESAL VS CROWN Absconding of accused--TERM , Absconding of accused-Gives some kind of support to another evidence strong enough to sustain conviction-Not however, effective by itself to remedy defects in evidence led to show absconding accused's participation in crime. Citation Name: 1970 SCMR 351 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD BASHIR VS STATE Absconding of accused--TERM , (b) Absconding of accused-Fact that accused absconded after murder and was arrested from a distant place-Important circumstance against accused. Citation Name: 1970 PCRLJ 739 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD BASHIR VS STATE Absconding of accused--TERM , Absconding of accused Absconding of accused--Fact that accused absconded after murder and was arrested from a distant place-Important circumstance against accused.

Abscondment of accused

Back Back Your Search returned total 8 records from 0 - 8 Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 547 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case GUL NAWAB VS State S. 497---Bail---Abscondment of accused---Effect---Mere absconsion cannot be a ground to discard the relief sought for as it is established principle of law that disappearance of a person after the occurrence is natural if he is involved in a murder case, rightly or wrongly---Mere absconsion is not a proof of guilt, hence, cannot be made sole ground to discard the relief sought for. Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 419 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case NAEEM KHAN VS State S. 497---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Bail---Abscondment of accused---Effect---Mere abscondment of accused was not a conclusive proof of his guilt---Value of abscondment, therefore, depended on the facts of each case and bail could be granted if an accused had good case for bail on merits---Mere abscondment would not deprive an accused of bail. Citation Name: 2020 SCMR 956 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case MUKARAM VS State S. 497---Bail--- Abscondment of accused--- Absconsion per se could not be made basis for refusal of bail in the absence of any overt act which had contributed towards commission of the offence. Citation Name: 2016 SCMR 1520 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ASLAM VS State 1985 SCMR 382, 2012 SCMR 1137, PLD 2012 SC 222, Abscondment of accused--Term , Bail--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , S. 497(2)---Bail---Case of further inquiry into guilt of accused---Abscondment of accused--- Effect--- Person absconding after an occurrence and declared as a proclaimed offender may lose his claim to exercise of discretion in his favour by a court of law on the basis of propriety but at the same time it was equally true that an accused person involved in a case calling for further inquiry into his guilt was to be admitted to bail as a matter of right---Whenever a question of propriety was confronted with a question of right the latter must prevail. Citation Name: 2015 PCrLJ 90 ISLAMABAD Bookmark this Case SULTAN MAHMOOD VS MANSOOR SHAMSI Abscondment of accused--Term , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , S. 497---Bail, refusal/cancellation of---Abscondment of accused---Abscondment itself could not be used to kill each and every right of accused---Abscondment should not come in the way for refusal of bail and same could not be made a ground for cancellation of bail. Citation Name: 2014 YLR 896 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case AMIR alias AMIR SULTAN VS State Abscondment of accused--Term , Bail--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , S. 497---Bail---Abscondment of accused---Effect---Mere abscondment of accused would not create any hurdle in the way of bail, if otherwise, he was entitled to concession of bail. Citation Name: 2014 PCrLJ 599 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case PARVAIZ VS State 2009 SCMR 299, Abscondment of accused--Term , Bail--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , S. 497---Bail---Abscondment of accused---Effect---Bail could be granted if the accused had a good case for grant of bail on merits and his abscondment would not come in the way while granting him bail. Citation Name: 2012 YLR 2772 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE alias FIKKAHA VS State Abscondment of accused--Term , Bail--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , S. 497---Bail---Scope---Abscondment of accused---Effect---Accused could not be refused bail only on the ground of his abscondment, if he otherwise had made out a case for grant of bail.

Absconsion

Back Back Your Search returned total 116 records from 0 - 50 Citation Name: 2026 SCMR 47 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case IMRAN VS State Absconsion---Scope---When a person is named as a murderer in a case, whether rightly or wrongly, he usually becomes scared and tries to conceal himself in order to avoid possible police torture and detention, therefore, mere abscondence of an accused by itself is not sufficient to maintain his conviction and sentence in absence of other reliable evidence. Citation Name: 2026 PCrLJ 105 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case Saeed akhtar VS State Absconsion---Scope---Mere abscondence of an accused by itself is not sufficient to maintain his conviction and sentence in absence of other reliable evidence. Citation Name: 2025 SCMR 1408 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case FATEH KHAN VS State Absconsion---Scope---Abscondence per se is not a proof of the guilt of an accused person but it can be taken as corroborative piece of evidence---In absence of trustworthy and confidence inspiring substantive incriminating evidence, conviction cannot be solely based upon abscondence of an accused. Citation Name: 2025 SCMR 888 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD MASOOD VS State S. 302 (b)---Qatl-i-amd---Re-appraisal of evidence---Absconsion---Post mortem report---Scope---Benefit of doubt---Accused was convicted by Trial Court for qatl-i-amd and was sentenced to death but High Court converted death sentence into imprisonment for life---Validity---Mere absconsion cannot by itself form sole basis of conviction---Absconsion may be treated as a corroborative piece of evidence, but it cannot be read in isolation, nor can it compensate for inherent defects and shortcomings in prosecution's case---Post-mortem report merely confirms cause of death, nature of injuries, and kind of weapon used but does not, in any matter, establish identity of assailant---Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused, as the prosecution had failed to establish charge against him beyond reasonable doubt---Accused was acquitted of the charge---Appeal was allowed. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2187 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case Ali Raza VS State Absconsion---Scope---Abscondence alone is not sufficient to record conviction on a capital charge and it can only be used as a corroboratory and confirmatory in support of ocular account---Abscondence of the accused may be relevant qua the guilt or innocence of accused, which is to be decided keeping in view overall facts of the case. Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 1051 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case Muhammad Ali Yasir VS State Absconsion---Scope---Absconsion could not be taken as proof of guilt if sufficient connecting evidence against the accused is unavailable---Absconsion creates a mere suspicion in the mind, but the same is not conclusive proof of guilt. Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 1051 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case Muhammad Ali Yasir VS State Absconsion---Scope---Mere absconsion of the accused is no ground to convict him if the prosecution fails to prove its case against the accused. Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 942 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case Bilal Muzaffar alias Heera VS State Absconsion---Scope---Factum of abscondence can only be used as corroborative evidence and is not substantive. Citation Name: 2025 MLD 982 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case Muhammad Shahbaz VS State Absconsion---Corroborative evidence---Factum of remaining a fugitive from law for a considerable period, even if established, can only be used as corroborative evidence and is not substantive---Mere absconsion is not proof of guilt of an accused. Citation Name: 2024 SCMR 1716 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case ZEESHAN VS State S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324 & 427---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to qatl-i-amd and causing damage to property---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Rule of consistency---Trial, commencement of---Absconsion---Weapon not recovered---Petitioner accused was arrested for committing qatl-i-amd after remaining absconder for seven months---Neither injury statement of alleged injured was prepared nor there was any medical report about his alleged firearm injury---No recovery of firearm was effected from petitioner/accused during investigation---Investigation was complete, challan had been submitted and trial had commenced---Charge was read over to accused persons by Trial Court but so far statements of prosecution witnesses had not been recorded at trial---Co-accused had already been granted post-arrest bail by the Supreme Court---On tentative assessment of material available on record case against petitioner/accused fell within the ambit of further inquiry---On the basis of rule of consistency petitioner accused was also entitled for grant of post-arrest bail---Mere absconsion of petitioner accused for almost seven months could not be made a basis to refuse him post-arrest bail---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and bail was allowed. Citation Name: 2024 SCMR 1579 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case RAFAQAT ALI alias FOJI VS State Absconsion---Principles---Conviction---Mere absconsion is not conclusive proof of guilt of an accused---It is only a suspicious circumstance which cannot take place of proof---Value of absconsion, therefore, depends on the fact of each case---Mere absconsion of an accused cannot be made basis of conviction---Absconsion of an accused, being a relevant fact, can be used as a corroborative piece of evidence but cannot be read in isolation and has to be read along with the substantive pieces of evidence---Abscondence can never remedy the defects in the prosecution case as it is not necessarily indicative of guilt---Moreover, abscondence is never sufficient by itself to prove the guilt. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 427 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case HUMAYUN VS HABIB-UR-REHMAN Absconsion---Scope---Abscondance is not a substantive piece of evidence, rather it is a circumstance which can only be taken into consideration, provided the prosecution nearly succeeds in bringing home guilt against the accused charged. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1118 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case Pervaiz Khan VS State Absconsion---Scope---Absconsion by itself cannot be held sufficient for recording conviction on a capital charge, but when other reliable evidence is available with the prosecution, then a prolonged unexplained absconsion may safely be taken into account as a corroboratory piece of evidence against the accused. Citation Name: 2024 MLD 940 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case Syed Amjad Hussain VS State Absconsion---Scope---Mere absconsion is not sufficient by itself to remedy the defects in evidence led to show absconding accused's participation in the crime. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1745 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case Muhammad Anwar VS State Absconsion---Effect---No doubt absconson is not a conclusive proof of guilt of an accused but at the same time it can not be overlooked when the evidence available on record suggests that the accused has deliberately and intentionally avoided to face the trial due to his guilty conscience. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 841 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SHARIF VS State Absconsion---Scope---Abscondence of an accused can be used as a corroborative piece of evidence, which can not be read in isolation but it has to be read along with the substantive pieces of evidence. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1565 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case NADIR KHOSO VS State Absconsion--- Scope--- Mere absconsion is no proof of guilt. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 328 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT Bookmark this Case SHOLO alias RASOOL BUX VS State Absconsion---Scope---Abscondence is not conclusive by itself to establish guilt--- Probative value of the abscondence depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, having regard to the fact that it could be consistent with either guilt or innocence of the accused, as some times persons despite being absolutely innocent remain in hiding which could not be the proof of their guilt---Abscondence is of course a corroborative circumstance and gave some kind of support to the other evidence strong enough to sustain the charge---Thus, the abscondence by itself is not sufficient to bring home guilt of the accused---Moreover, if ocular evidence is disbelieved then abscondence alone does not play any role in conviction of an accused person because it is held to be weakest type of corroboratory evidence. Citation Name: 2023 SCMR 1948 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case ABDUL RASHEED VS State Ss. 497 & 498---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Bail---Absconsion---Absconsion cannot be viewed as a proof for the offence and the same alone cannot be made a ground to discard the relief sought for. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2110 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case SAID AFZAL VS State Absconsion--- Scope--- Absconder cannot be given the benefit of his absence---Whatever the merits are, his case can only be considered after his surrender to lawful authority. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1413 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case NOOR HABIB SHAH VS State Absconsion---Scope---Absconsion by itself is not sufficient to declare a person offender but such evidence may be used for the purpose of corroborating other evidence of the prosecution. Citation Name: 2023 MLD 520 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case SHAD NABI VS NAIMAT KHAN S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 34---Qatl-i-amd and common intention--- Bail, refusal of--- Absconsion--- Rule of consistency---Scope---Accused along with two others was alleged to have murdered the brother the complainant---30 empties of 7.62 bore were retrieved from the spot which as per the report of Forensic Laboratory had been fired from different weapons---Given the fact that the accused along with his co-accused had been directly nominated by the complainant for firing at his deceased brother with their respective firearms with which he sustained multiple firearm injuries and died on the spot, coupled with the report of Forensic Laboratory pointing towards the involvement of more than one accused in the commission of offence, the accused was prima facie connected with the commission of offence attracting prohibitory limb of S. 497, Cr.P.C.---Argument that co-accused with a similar role of firing at the deceased had been acquitted by the Trial Court carried little weight---While co-accused had faced trial, the accused had preferred to abscond and had surrendered barely a month after the acquittal of his co-accused---Moreover, the other co-accused was still fugitive from law---Bail application was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1262 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case NASIR ALI RAJA alias ASIF VS State Absconsion---Scope---Absconsion alone is not sufficient to record conviction on a capital charge and it can be used only as a corroboratory and confirmatory in support of ocular account---Absconsion of the accused may be relevant qua the guilt or innocence of accused, which is to be decided keeping in view overall facts of the case. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1103 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case ABDUL HAMID VS State Absconsion--- Corroboratory evidence--- Scope--- Warrant, proclamation and absconsion of an accused are meant only to provide corroboration to the case of prosecution---Deficiencies arising from the contents of arrest warrant and proclamation as well as failure of prosecution to prove their execution left---Such documents nothing but simple stray piece of papers having no legal consequences. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 532 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD RAEES VS State Absconsion---Scope---Mere absconsion of accused was not a conclusive proof of his guilt and it is only a suspicious circumstance against the accused that he was found guilty of the offence---Suspicions after all were suspicions and the same could not be given the place of proof---Value of absconsion always depended on the facts of each case---Absconsion of the accused might be consistent with his guilt or innocence, which was to be decided keeping in view overall facts of the case. Citation Name: 2023 YLRN 43 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case LIAQAT ALI alias GULL MUHAMMAD VS State S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 440, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, mischief committed after preparation made for causing death or hurt, abetment, rioting, armed with deadly weapon, common object---Bail, grant of---Old age of accused---Absconsion---Plea of alibi---Scope---Allegation against accused was that he along with co-accused while armed with firearms committed the murder of the brother of complainant---Accused was an old man of 79 years of age---Investigation revealed that the accused was not in Pakistan on the day of occurrence---Nothing was recovered at the instance of accused during his physical custody with the investigation agency---Absconsion of accused was not sufficient to disentitle him to the grant of post-arrest bail---Accused was admitted to post-arrest bail, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2292 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case NIAZ HUSSAIN SOOMRO VS State Absconsion--- Scope--- Fugitive from law loses some of the normal rights granted by the procedural and substantive law and noticeable abscondence disentitles the absconder from the concession of bail notwithstanding merits of the case---If a person absconds from law and remains a fugitive then a negative inference can be made against him, unless his abscondence is explained. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1036 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case NAVEED ALI alias NADEEM VS Syed GULAM MURTAZA SHAH S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 148, 149, 109, 404 & 427---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting, armed with deadly weapon, abetment, dishonest misappropriation of property possessed by deceased person at the time of his death, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, act of terrorism---Bail, refusal of---Absconsion---Desperate and hardened criminal---Scope---Prosecution case was that the accused along with others attacked upon the complainant party when they were on a routine election expedition to visit other party workers at different polling stations---Accused was named with a specific role---Eleven persons had lost their lives on the spot while one succumbed to injuries during treatment---Some policemen were available with the complainant party to provide protection but the attackers had come to the scene of the incident with such planning that even they could not retaliate and also lost their lives---Accused had remained fugitive from law and had not voluntarily surrendered---When the allegation levelled against the accused was viewed in the backdrop of his fugitiveness, it became evident that he was a desperate criminal, who had taken part in the alleged incident without any personal motive---Firing upon the opponent on the day of election with an intention to kill the rivals and to prevent the general public to use their right of franchise was an act of terrorism---Accused was not entitled for bail, as such, his bail plea was declined, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 MLD 299 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case KHAIR MUHAMMAD VS State S. 498---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 409---Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent, criminal misconduct---Pre-arrest bail, refusal of---Absconsion---Scope---Accused sought pre-arrest bail in three different FIRs wherein he was alleged to have misappropriated wheat bags---Accused had remained an absconder for four years for which no sufficient explanation was furnished by him---Sufficient material was available on record to connect the accused with the commission of offences--- Accused had not joined the investigation---Recovery could not be made from accused as he was absconder for long time---Offences falling under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, were non-bailable, law did not allow bail to accused as of right---Reasonable grounds were available on record for believing that the accused had committed the alleged offence---No mala fide on the part of the complainant and Investigating Officer was brought on record---Bail applications were dismissed. Citation Name: 2023 YLRN 80 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case BILAL GUL MUHAMMAD VS State S.498---Pre-arrest bail---Absconsion---Scope---Bail can be granted if an accused has a good case for bail on merits and mere absconsion would not come in the way while granting bail. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 3 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case ABDUL KAREEM VS State Absconsion---Scope---Fugitive to law and trial dis-entitles himself from some of the concessions, which otherwise are available to him. Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 1567 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case TAJAMAL HUSSAIN SHAH VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Absconsion---Scope---Absconsion cannot be viewed as a proof for the offence, and cannot be made basis for conviction, rather it is the prosecution which has to prove its case independently without any reasonable shadow of doubt. Citation Name: 2022 YLR 1938 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case ABDUL MAJEED alias JAWA VS State Absconsion---Scope---Absconsion of accused could not establish his guilt---If the prosecution failed to bring home guilt of an accused through confidence inspiring, trustworthy and reliable evidence, it could not take benefit of absconsion. Citation Name: 2022 YLR 1450 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case IKRAMULLAH VS State Absconsion---Scope---Mere absconscion of accused was not conclusive guilt of an accused---Absconsion was only a suspicious circumstance against an accused that he was found guilty of the offence---However, suspicions after all were suspicions, the same could not take the place of proof, the value of absoncion, therefore, depended on the facts of each case. Citation Name: 2022 PCrLJ 1177 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case JOHAR ALI VS State Absconsion---Scope---Abscondence alone could not sustain conviction. Citation Name: 2022 PCrLJ 517 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case MUNTAZIR KHAN VS State Absconsion---Scope---Mere absconsion of accused would not be enough to sustain his conviction. Citation Name: 2022 YLRN 112 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case SAEED AYAZ VS State Absconsion--- Scope--- Absconsion alone is not sufficient to record conviction on a capital charge---Absconsion could be used only as a corroboratory and confirmatory in support of ocular account---If the ocular account is disbelieved then absconsion is of a very little value for Court for consideration. Citation Name: 2022 PCrLJ 540 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case WAJID HUSSAIN VS State Absconsion---Scope---Mere absconsion of accused was not conclusive proof of his guilt---Absconsion was only a suspicious circumstance against the accused that he was under the guilty conscious. Citation Name: 2022 YLRN 90 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case MUNIR VS State Absconsion--- Scope--- Abscondance alone could not be a substitute for real evidence---Mere abscondance of accused, in absence of any other evidence against him, could not be considered enough to sustain his conviction. Citation Name: 2022 YLR 1662 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case LIAQAT ALI VS State S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F---Dishonestly issuing a cheque---Bail, refusal of---Absconsion---Scope---Accused sought release on bail in an FIR registered under S. 489-F, P.P.C. claiming that he had no concern with the complainant party---Record reflected that after lodging of FIR, the complainant had remained absconder for about 8 years---Had the accused been innocent he should have joined the trial but he had chosen to become fugitive from law, hence, he was not entitled for any relief---Claim of the complainant was found supported by the statements of prosecution witnesses recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C. as well as the subject bounced cheque, which was in possession of the Investigating Officer---Accused had failed to establish his case within the purview of subsection (2) of S. 497, Cr.P.C. and appeared to be prima facie involved in the commission of offence--Application was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2022 PLD 13 ISLAMABAD Bookmark this Case Mian MUHAMMAD NAWAZ SHARIF VS STATE through Chairman,National Accountability Bureau Absconsion---Right of appeal---Scope---Nothing exists in the Constitution or the Rules to compel the Court to decide on merits an appeal filed by an accused person who has chosen to be fugitive from justice and while remaining so decides to disobey or frustrate the orders, directions and process of the Court from which he seeks justice. Citation Name: 2022 PLD 13 ISLAMABAD Bookmark this Case Mian MUHAMMAD NAWAZ SHARIF VS STATE through Chairman,National Accountability Bureau Absconsion---Right of appeal---Scope---Where the petitioner, as a fugitive from justice, presented himself before an attorney and signs a power of attorney in his favour for the presentation to the Court a petition for special leave to appeal and the same is duly filed, in such an eventuality, the court would not act in aid of a person who is a fugitive from justice and the petition was to be dismissed. Citation Name: 2022 PLD 13 ISLAMABAD Bookmark this Case Mian MUHAMMAD NAWAZ SHARIF VS STATE through Chairman,National Accountability Bureau S. 497---Bail---Absconsion---Scope---Fugitive from law loses some of normal rights granted by procedural and also substantive law---Unexplained notice-able absconsion disentitles a person to concession of bail notwithstanding merits of case. Citation Name: 2022 YLR 2082 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Bookmark this Case REHMAT KHALIQ VS State S. 497---Bail---Further inquiry---Absconsion---Scope---When the case calls for further inquiry into the guilt of the accused person, bail is to be allowed to him as of right and not by way of grace, and in such a case mere absconsion of the relevant accused person may not be sufficient to refuse bail to him. Citation Name: 2022 YLR 2082 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Bookmark this Case REHMAT KHALIQ VS State Ss. 497 & 169---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324 & 337-F(v)---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd--- Ghayr-jaifah---Hashimah--- Bail, grant of--- Discharge of co-accused persons--- Rule of consistency--- Absconsion--- Recovery of weapon---Scope---Accused along with others was alleged to have indiscriminately fired at the victim within the presence of witnesses---Statements of prosecution witnesses were in contradiction with the statement of accused---After arrest of all the three accused the complainant of the FIR himself came to the Investigating Officer with a submission that he had mistakenly mentioned the names of co-accused persons in the FIR and the Investigating Officer on the basis of the said statement had released the co-accused persons under S. 169, Cr.P.C.---Rule of consistency applied to the case as the co-accused with the role at par with the accused had been released by the police---Alleged recovery of weapon of offence from accused had become doubtful because the marginal witnesses of recovery memo. had submitted their affidavits which were part of the bail petition wherein both the witnesses had deposed that they had no knowledge about the alleged recovery from the accused---Petition for grant of bail was accepted, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2021 YLR 2230 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case FAQIR DAD VS State S. 497---Bail---Absconsion---Scope---Absconsion of an accused cannot be treated as a bar to his release on bail---Rule that fugitive from law shall under no circumstances be enlarged on bail is not absolute if the case of an accused is otherwise found fit for bail on merits. Citation Name: 2021 YLR 2230 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case FAQIR DAD VS State S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 34---Qatl-i-amd and common intention---Bail, grant of---Implication of accused on supplementary statement---Absconsion---Acquittal of co-accused---Further inquiry--- Scope--- Accused sought bail after arrest in a case lodged under Ss. 302 & 34, P.P.C.---Accused was not nominated in the FIR rather he was arrested on the basis of supplementary statement of complainant recorded after nine days of lodging of FIR, thus, the possibility of deliberations and consultations could not be ruled out---Only piece of evidence against the accused was his disclosure, which prima facie was not corroborated by any other piece of evidence---Court, while considering the bail plea of accused, could not ignore the acquittal of co-accused vis-à-vis the merits of his case---Accused person's absconsion of ten years could not be treated as a bar to his release on bail---Case of accused was one of further inquiry---Petition for grant of bail was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2021 YLR 1579 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case KHUSHHAL VS State Absconsion---Scope---Absconsion was not a substantive piece of evidence, it was a corroborative piece of evidence---Where direct evidence failed, corroborative piece of evidence was of no avail. Citation Name: 2021 MLD 1763 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case SADAM HUSSAIN alias KOBRA VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Absconsion---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant---Record manifested that the occurrence had taken place on 05.02.2018 while the accused was arrested on 2nd March, 2019---Said wilful absconsion was to be considered as corroborative piece of evidence as the accused had failed to produce any cogent evidence to show that the same was not wilful or deliberate---Analysis of prosecution evidence showed that the prosecution had proved the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Citation Name: 2021 MLD 1763 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case SADAM HUSSAIN alias KOBRA VS State S.302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Absconsion---Ocular and medical evidence---Corroboration---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant---Testimony of ocular witnesses did not suffer from any disability and was duly supported by medical evidence---Harmony between medical and ocular account was found---Mere assertion that medical evidence was in conflict with oral evidence was not enough rather it was bounded duty of defence to explain as to how and on what ground the medical evidence conflicted with the oral evidence---Unnatural death of the deceased was not disputed by the defence---Analysis of prosecution evidence showed that the prosecution had proved the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances accordingly.

Absconsion of accused

Back Back Your Search returned total 59 records from 0 - 50 Citation Name: 2026 SCMR 257 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case LAIQ SHAH VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 147, 148 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, common intention---Reappraisal of evidence---Absconsion of accused---Scope---Allegation against the accused-petitioner was that he along with his co-accused made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person died whereas two sustained firearm injuries---Allegedly, the petitioner remained an absconder in this case---When a person is named as a murderer in a case, whether rightly or wrongly, he usually becomes scared and tries to conceal himself in order to avoid possible police torture and detention, therefore, mere abscondence of an accused by itself is not sufficient to maintain his conviction and sentence in absence of other reliable evidence---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into an appeal and was allowed accordingly, and petitioner was acquitted of the charge. Citation Name: 2026 MLD 221 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case Ihsan Illahi alias Shani VS State Absconsion of accused---Scope---Abscondment of an accused is a corroborative piece of evidence and in cases where direct evidence fails, corroborative piece of evidence is of no avail. Citation Name: 2026 MLD 46 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case Asad Abbas alias Achoo VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Absconsion of accused---Legal provisions not followed for declaring accused a proclaimed offender---Accused were charged for committing murder of two persons and caused injuries to a female of complainant party by firing---Appellant was declared as a proclaimed offender in the present case, but it was observed that the warrant of arrest was not addressed to any specific Police Officer for execution, which reflected a violation of a mandatory requirement of law---Execution report of the warrant of arrest also failed to disclose the details of the steps undertaken by the Police Officer to effect the arrest of the appellant---No written statement of the Court was available on the record to confirm that the proclamation was duly published on a specified date, as mandated under S.87(3) of the Code---In view of the foregoing, it could be safely concluded that the due process of law, as prescribed under the relevant legal provisions, was not duly followed in declaring the appellant as proclaimed offender---Even otherwise, abscondence, by itself, did not amount to proof of the guilt of the accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case against the appellate beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 SCMR 1591 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD IJAZ VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Re-appraisal of evidence---Absconsion of accused---Not participating in funeral of wife---Accused was alleged to have committed murder of his wife---Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to death---High Court converted the death sentence into imprisonment for life---Validity---Appellant absconded and was arrested on 15.08.2010, i.e. after a period about 37 days of his wife's death---It was strange and astonishing that neither the appellant reported the matter to the police authorities nor participated in the last rites of the deceased---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2101 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case Shabbir Hussain VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Absconsion of accused---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---As per record, the appellant remained absconder for considerable long time till his arrest on 26.10.2015, and he failed to explain the same---Abscondance alone is not sufficient for holding an accused guilty, but once the prosecution succeed in bringing home guilt against the accused, then abscondance canbe taken into consideration---As in this particular case on one hand, the witnesses established their presence on the spot, whereas, on the other, appellant's long unexplained abscondence was a circumstance which could be taken into consideration---Circumstances established that the prosecution succeeded in bringing home guilt against the appellant---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 312 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case Lateef-ur-Rehman VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Absconsion of accused---Consequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/niece of complainant by firing---Abscondance would not be sufficient for holding an accused guilty, but once the prosecution succeeded in connecting the accused with the offence charged for, and once the prosecution succeeded in collecting reliable evidence on file, then the unexplained abscondance could be taken into consideration---In the present case, the appellant was the husband of the deceased and soon after the tragic death of the deceased, he left the spot till his arrest, so the conduct he displayed was another circumstance, which could be taken into consideration in favour of the prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution succeeded in bringing home guilt against the appellant---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 233 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case Fazal Khaliq VS State Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Absconsion of accused---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and also causing firearm injuries to his father---Accused/appellant remained absconder for a sufficient long time, but abscondence alone was not sufficient for holding an accused guilty, rather it was a circumstance which could be weighed against the accused charged, but only when the prosecution otherwise succeeded in proving its case---As the prosecution failed to bring home guilt against the accused charged by producing trustworthy and confidence inspiring witnesses, so such piece of evidence could not be pressed into service to favour the prosecution---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 49 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT Bookmark this Case Sultan Ali Khan VS State Ss. 10 & 11---Zina or zina-bil-jabr, kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel for marriage, etc.---Appreciation of evidence---Absconsion of accused---Accused was charged for kidnapping the daughter of the complainant for committing zina with her---Abscondence of the accused was a question of fact and the prosecution was bound to prove the same in the trial---Inspector claimed that on 19.11.2004 he submitted an application before the Area Magistrate for obtaining non-bailable warrants of arrest of appellant, and non-bailable warrants of arrest were issued against him he then on 26.11.2004 vide an application obtained proclamations under S.87, Cr.P.C, of the appellant---During his statement, witness sated that documents, applications, warrants of arrest and proclamations regarding which he gave evidence were not with him at present time and were also not in the file---Therefore when the prosecution failed to produce any required evidencing comprising of warrants and the proclamations, the fact of the appellant/ accused absconding stood not proved---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1973 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case Ghulam Hussain VS State Absconsion of accused----Scope---Mere absconsion of accused is not conclusive proof of guilt; it is only a suspicious circumstance against an accused---Suspicions after all are suspicions, and the same cannot take the place of proof---Value of absconsion depends on the facts of each case. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 210 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case AFSAR KHAN VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Absconsion of accused---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Case of the prosecution that after the occurrence, the accused and co-accused had disappeared and were declared as proclaimed offenders---Accused was subsequently arrested, whereas, co-accused was still wanted---Even if it was presumed that the abscondance of accused had not been proved in accordance with law, even then his long disappearance and avoiding process of justice was a hurdle in his way and could be used as corroboration to the ocular account---Accused could not explain his long disappearance of about 11 years---Accused also could not dispute his date of arrest as stated by the Investigating Officer---Circumstances established that the prosecution had established its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly dismissed. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1370 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case Ijaz Ullah VS Shireen Zada Ss. 302(b) & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417 (2-A)---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of Evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Absconsion of accused---Inconsequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the father of the complainant by inflicting hatchet blows---Record showed that accused remained absconders in the case---In our part of the country people do abscond not because they are guilty, but because of fear and torture of the police---Even otherwise, absconsion is not a substantive piece of evidence, it is a corroborative piece of evidence---In cases where direct evidence fails, corroborative piece of evidence is of no avail and utility, as in the present case, where the evidence of a sole eye-witness had been disbelieved---Needless to say that abscondence can neither cure the inherent defect of the ocular account nor by itself is sufficient to sustain conviction---Appeal against acquittal was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2546 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case Rao Humayun Waqas VS State Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Absconsion of accused---Inconsequential---Accused was charged that he along with co-accused in furtherance of common intention committed murder of the son of complainant by firing---Record showed that accused remained absconder---However, mere abscondence of accused was not a conclusive proof of the guilt of the accused---Value of abscondence depended upon the fact of each case and abscondence alone cannot take the place of guilt unless and until the case is otherwise proved on the basis of cogent and reliable evidence---Circumstances established that prosecution had not been able to establish the charge against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1924 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case Allah Ditta VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Absconsion of accused---Inconsequential---Accused were charged that they in furtherance of common intention committed murder of the brother of the complainant by inflicting hatchet blows---Record showed that accused remained absconders, however, when question was put to them about their abscondence, they categorically denied the same and both unanimously stated that fake reports were prepared by the police and in fact they were never informed by the police regarding the said proceedings---However, mere abscondence of accused is not a conclusive proof of the guilt of the accused---Value of abscondence depends upon the fact of each case and abscondence alone cannot take the place of guilt unless and until the case is otherwise proved on the basis of cogent and reliable evidence---Accused persons generally disappear due to fear of police or because of feelings of guilt, and in this case during cross examination accused put the apprehension of their fake police encounter because son of the deceased was a police man, therefore, mere abscondence would not be taken as a conclusive proof of guilt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1691 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case Muhammad Asif VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Absconsion of accused---Inconsequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of the mother-in-law of the complainant by firing---Prosecution emphasized that after the occurrence, the accused absconded himself---However, in the light of the statement of the Investigating Officer, and a Constable, it could not be said that the requirements of declaring a person as a proclaimed offender were met---Investigating Officer did not depose a single word that non-bailable warrant of arrest and proclamation were issued against the accused---Admittedly, Police Constable had not stated that when non-bailable warrant of arrest and proclamation was issued and handed over to him--- However, the factum of absconding, even if established, could only be used as corroborative evidence and was not a substantive piece of evidence---Mere absconsion was not proof of the guilt of an accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 940 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case Attaullah VS State S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 337-F(v), 337-H, 447, 109, 147 & 148---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd---Pre-arrest bail, refusal of---Injury on non-vital part of body---"Intention or knowledge" to commit qatl-i-amd---Ocular evidence corroborated by medical evidence---Absconsion of accused---Accused sought pre-arrest bail with the contention that the injured had received firearm injury on non-vital part of his body and fire shot was not repeated---Prima facie, case of accused fell within the mischief of S. 324, P.P.C. hit by statutory prohibition, in view whereof, accused could not be released on bail in the absence of any consideration within the purview of sub-section (2) of S. 497, Cr.P.C---Murderous assault as defined in S. 324, P.P.C, did not draw any anatomical distinction between vital and non-vital parts of human body---Once the trigger was pressed and the victim was effectively targeted, "intention or knowledge" as contemplated by S. 324, P.P.C, was manifested; the course of a bullet was not controlled or steered by assailant's choice nor could he claim any premium for a poor marksmanship---Ocular evidence was corroborated by the medical evidence---After commission of the offence, the accused had absconded away during investigation---Deeper appreciation of evidence/material was not permissible at bail stage, as at such stage only tentative assessment of material was to be made---Accused was not entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail---Bail application was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 SCMR 1898 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case SAAD ZIA VS State Ss. 497 & 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Qatl-i-amd---Bail---Absconsion of accused---Absconsion cannot be viewed as a proof for the offence---Mere absconsion cannot be made a ground to discard the relief sought for as disappearance of a person after the occurrence is but natural if he is involved in a murder case rightly or wrongly. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1625 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case AHMAD KAMAL alias KAMAL KHAN VS STATE Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention--- Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Absconsion of accused---Inconsequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant by firing---Attempt was made to convince the Court that the long abscondance of the accused persons was a sufficient factor to help in their conviction, but abscondance was a circumstance which could be of benefit to the prosecution, provided the prosecution succeeded in establishing its case against the accused, but when the prosecution was lacking evidence, then abscondance had little role to play---In case in hand, as the witnesses could not succeed in establishing their presence on the spot and the mode and manner was still shrouded in mystery, so the abscondance could not be taken into consideration, that too, to convict the accused persons---Appeal against conviction of accused was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 YLRN 57 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case HASHMAT VS State S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 148, 149 & 427---Qatl-i-amd, rioting, armed with deadly weapon, common object, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees---Bail, refusal of---Absconsion of accused---Acquittal of co-accused persons---Scope---Allegation against accused was that he along with others fired at the brother of complainant as a result of which he died at the spot---Accused along with co-accused was directly charged with specific role of firing at the deceased in a promptly lodged report by the complainant eliminating the possibility of consultation and deliberation in making report---Being a broad day light occurrence, question of mistaken identity also did not arise---Version of complainant was substantiated by an eye-witness in his statement recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C.---Absconsion of accused for more than two years corroborated the ocular version of the prosecution---Acquittal of co-accused, as pointed out by the accused, alone could not be made a ground for his release on bail as evidence which was to be led against the accused was to be appreciated and looked into independently---On tentative assessment of the material available on record, reasonable grounds existed which prima facie connected the petitioner with the commission of offence which entailed capital punishment and fell within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.---Petition for grant of bail was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 95 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case NAZAR KHAN alias NAN VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Absconsion of accused---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the deceased by firing---Record showed that the accused soon after the incident went into hide till his arrest---Accused could not explain his long abscondance---Abscondance alone was not sufficient to burden an accused with the liability, but the same could be taken into consideration in favour of the prosecution provided the prosecution succeeded in bringing home guilt against the accused charged---As the prosecution succeeded in proving its case against the accused through confidence inspiring witnesses, so the long unexplained abscondance could be taken as an additional ground to favour the prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution succeeded in proving its case, however discrepancies in the prosecution case and the uncertain cause of death led the court to hold that the awarded sentence was a bit harsh and the same needed interference, therefore death sentence was converted into imprisonment for life---Appeal was partially allowed with modification in sentence. [Para. 15 of the judgment] Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 13 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case SHER ALAM VS STATE Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Absconsion of accused---Scope---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the husband of the complainant by firing---Long abscondence of the accused for almost two decades could not be denied---However, abscondence per se had never been considered a proof of guilt, therefore, that factor alone could not base conviction of the accused when prosecution had otherwise failed to establish his guilt through trustworthy ocular account and circumstantial evidence of convincing nature---Circumstances established that prosecution had not proved the guilt of accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 14 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD NAWAZ alias NAZI VS State Ss. 302(b), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Absconsion of accused---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the deceased by firing---Prosecution case was that after the occurrence, accused persons and their co-accused had disappeared and was declared as proclaimed offenders---Occurrence took place on 15.03.2016---One of the accused persons was arrested on 27.12.2016 whereas, other accused was apprehended on 18.12.2018---Third accused, who was their real brother was still wanted---Even if it was presumed that the absconding of accused persons had not been proved in accordance with law, even then their long disappearance and avoidance from process of justice was a hurdle in their way and could be used as corroboration to the ocular account---Both accused persons could not explain their long disappearance after the occurrence and they also could not dispute their dates of arrest as stated by the Investigating Officers---Circumstances established that the Trial Court while taking into consideration the evidence from all possible angles rightly proceeded to convict the accused persons---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1160 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case ASHIQUE HUSSAIN KORAI VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention--- Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Absconsion of accused---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the cousin of complainant and his wife by firing---Record showed that accused remained absconder and was arrested after four months---Conduct of accused and unexplained absconsion was also corroborative piece of evidence against him to connect him in the case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Motive was not alleged---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, however, sentence of death was reduced to life imprisonment in respect of each murder. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1404 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD YASEEN alias MAMA GADDI VS State Ss. 302(b) & 324---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Absconsion of accused---Scope---Accused was charged for making firing upon the complainant and his friend, when friend of complainant made joke with him, both received injuries on their abdomen, due to which complainant became injured but his friend died---Record showed that accused disappeared from the scene for about two years---Such circumstance could not be viewed with favour---Long standing absconsion had not been explained by accused in his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C., which showed his culpability---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused---Appeal against conviction was dismissed but sentence of accused was reduced to imprisonment for life due to mitigating circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 186 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case JAHANZEB KHAN VS State Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Absconsion of accused---Scope---Accused was charged that he along with co-accused made firing upon the complainant party, due to one person died while complainant sustained injuries---Accused remained an absconder for over two years---Accused did not surrender himself for trial and was arrested in another criminal case before being linked to that case which was not the conduct of an innocent man---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt, however, the prosecution had not been able to prove through evidence the motive for the accused murdering the deceased or attempting to murder complainant---Whether it was the pistol shot of accused which caused the fatal wound on the deceased which caused his death was not clear---Death sentence of the accused was reduced to one of life imprisonment---Appeal was dismissed with said modification in sentence. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 3 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case ABDUL KAREEM VS State S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 148 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qatl-i-amd, rioting, armed with deadly weapon---Act of terrorism---Bail, refusal of---Delayed FIR---Absconsion of accused---Res gestae witness---Dying declaration---Scope---Allegation against accused was that he along with other nominated or unknown but identifiable co-accused persons came to the business place of complainant's brother and caused him firearm injuries as a result of which he succumbed to the injuries---Delay in lodging FIR was natural and the same was plausibly explained within the body of FIR---Accused had remained absconder for more than four years---Accused was associated with a proscribed organization, which was involved in sectarian terrorism---Motive for the murder was alleged to be a sectarian dispute---Murder was motivated due to clerical strife and conflict in which the accused and his associates were so desperate that they allegedly did not hesitate to take the life of a person with whom they had no personal grudge or animosity---Absence of complainant from the place of incident made no difference because he had first-hand knowledge of res gestae and had also reported the dying declaration of deceased---Accused was not entitled to the concession of bail---Bail application was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1246 ISLAMABAD Bookmark this Case RAHEEM ULLAH KHAN VS State Fugitive disentitlement---Absconsion of accused---Refusal of courts to hear appeals filed by obsconders---Superior courts have recognized the doctrine of fugitive disentitlement to the extent of criminal appeals or related criminal matters---Superior courts have refused to hear appeals filed by absconders in criminal matters on the basis of equitable principles, such as; (i) Courts will not act in aid of injustice; (ii) Courts will not allow abuse of process of Court; (iii) Essential condition of administration of justice that persons concerned should submit to the due process of justice (absconders violate this basic principle of administration of justice); (iv) No one can be allowed to take advantage of their own wrong; (v) Allowing an absconder relief would amount to placing premium on absconsion and will amount to stultification of the authority of the Court by an unlawful act, which obviously cannot be the intention of the law; (vi) Absconsion involves contempt of the process and authority of the Court; (vii) Power of Attorney or petition executed by a fugitive of law is not well constituted and therefore not entertainable; (viii) Absconder loses right to audience before a Court. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1246 ISLAMABAD Bookmark this Case RAHEEM ULLAH KHAN VS State S. 497--- Bail--- Absconsion of accused---Scope---In relation to bail, the question of absconsion is a relevant consideration in grant of bail, but refusal of bail to an absconder is not an absolute rule, once he surrenders to the law---Where an absconder is seeking protective bail to be able to surrender before the competent court and provides a reasonable explanation for his abscondence, the court may in its discretion grant transitory bail to uphold the person's right to access to justice. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 11 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT Bookmark this Case RAZ MUHAMMAD VS State S. 302(b)---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17(4)--- Qatl-i-amd, haraabah---Appreciation of evidence---Absconsion of accused---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by making fires at him during the process of robbery---Record showed that after due proceedings under the provisions of Ss. 87 & 88, Cr.P.C., the accused was declared proclaimed offender---Even otherwise the accused throughout the proceedings had not taken a plea that he was not aware about the implication as an accused in the subject case crime---Accused had also neither examined himself on oath to explain and justify his whereabouts for such a long period of more than six years after the incident nor had he examined any person as his witness on that aspect---Such conduct displayed by the accused, who remained fugitive from the law and court for more than six years, without any plausible and reasonable explanation, was also indicative of his guilt when considered in conjunction with the ocular and the other circumstantial evidence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2022 YLR 1874 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case JOHAR ALI VS AMJAD ALI Ss. 302(b) & 324---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Absconsion of accused---Scope---Accused was charged for making firing upon complainant party, due to which, brother of the complainant was hit and died---Record showed that the accused had also remained absconder for more than two years---Absconsion by itself could not be held sufficient for recording conviction on a capital charge, but when other reliable evidence was available with the prosecution, then such a prolonged and unexplained absconsion might safely be taken into account as a corroboratory piece of evidence against an accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt--- Appeal was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2022 YLR 1228 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case SHAH RAWAN VS State Ss. 302, 324, 337-F(iii) & 109---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, abetment---Appreciation of evidence---Absconsion of accused---Effect---Accused was charged for committing murder of the nephew of complainant by stabbing and also attempted at the life of witness---Accused remained fugitive from law for almost three years---Accused had offered no plausible explanation in that regard, thus, the said conduct of the accused further corroborated the ocular account and could be considered as corroborative factor of other convincing evidence available on record against him---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused through trustworthy and reliable evidence, therefore, his conviction and sentence by the trial court did not call for any interference---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2022 PCrLJ 1822 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case AKHTAR ZAMAN VS State Ss. 497 & 466---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 34---Qatl-i-amd and common intention---Release of lunatic pending investigation or trial---Bail, refusal of---Absconsion of accused---Involvement of accused in several FIRs---Scope---Accused sought bail on medical grounds---Accused was arrested after about five years---After that, his bail applications were dismissed on merits upto to High Court---Neither any plea of the alleged mental sickness was agitated by him in the first round nor even any medical history in that regard was brought before any forum---During trial, it was on the request of the accused pleading some mental ailment, the Medical Board was constituted which declared him to be a normal person---Somehow, within a span of barely seven months, the accused again pleaded to have some mental problem and in turn the second Medical Board was constituted---Subsequent Medical Board included same members except one---However, this time around, the accused was declared to be a patient of bipolar affective disorder and thus not fit to face trial---Keeping in view the conflicting opinions of two Medical Boards and his previous criminal history to be involved in several different FIRs, the accused could not press into service subsection (1) of S. 466, Cr.P.C. for his release on bail---Trial Court had rightly ordered to refer him to the Mental Ward of the Police and Services Hospital and in the meanwhile had adjourned the trial proceedings sine die---Such proceedings could be revived as and when the accused was declared to be fit by the Medical Board after his recovery from such ailment---No case was made out for the grant of bail to the accused on medical grounds---Petition for grant of bail was dismissed. Citation Name: 2022 PCrLJ 1070 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case RIAZ VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Absconsion of accused---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Although the accused had remained absconders for about 1-1/2 months---Prosecution had failed to prove the charge against accused persons through ocular account and other circumstantial evidence of convincing nature---Conviction of the accused could not be recorded solely on the ground of their abscondence which had always been considered as corroborative evidence. Citation Name: 2022 YLR 1782 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case IRFAN SALEEM VS State Ss. 302(b) & 449---Qatl-i-amd, house-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with death---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Absconsion of accused---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Record showed that accused was arrested after about four years and three months---During investigation, accused was declared as Proclaimed Offender and in that context prosecution had produced a Police Official---Absconsion of accused for more than four years was a conduct which was relevant under the law---Accused was duty bound to explain that why he avoided the process of justice for such a long period and where he remained by leaving his ordinary residence---No reasonable explanation could be furnished by the accused in his examination under S.342, Cr.P.C.---Circumstances established that accused had been rightly convicted by the Trial Court---Death penalty was converted into imprisonment for life as the same was extreme penalty, in circumstances---Appeal was dismissed with said modification in sentence. Citation Name: 2022 YLR 602 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case HAMID ALI TANOLI VS State S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention--- Pre-arrest bail, refusal of--- Absconsion of accused---Issuance of threats to deceased during lifetime---Scope---Accused sought pre-arrest bail in an FIR lodged under Ss. 302, 109 & 34, P.P.C.---Accused was booked in heinous crime of committing murder of his wife---Sufficient material was available on record connecting the accused with the alleged crime---Record further showed that after the incident the accused had left the city---As regards issuing threats to his wife, perusal of the police papers showed that during her lifetime, deceased had moved an application in the police station stating that in case of any loss to her life, the accused and her relatives would be responsible---Deceased had also filed an application under S. 491, Cr.P.C. for recovery of her minor children before the Additional Sessions Judge, which showed that there were disputes between the accused and his wife---Name of accused appeared in the FIR and the accused had not uttered a single word as to why he was falsely involved in the case---Investigating Officer had stated that the accused had not joined the investigation after obtaining pre-arrest bail---Accused had remained absconder till the date his application for pre-arrest bail was granted---Application for grant of pre-arrest bail was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2022 YLR 1024 ISLAMABAD Bookmark this Case HAMZA SADAQAT VS State S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting, armed with deadly weapon, common object---Bail, refusal of---Absconsion of accused---Scope---Allegation against accused was that he along with another made direct firing upon the complainant as a result of which three persons died and another got injured---Accused was nominated in the FIR with specific role of causing fire arm injury with 44 bore rifle upon the deceased which hit the deceased on his head---Father of accused was also nominated in the FIR who was arrested but the accused had neither surrendered before the police nor had he applied for bail before arrest---Police, on the basis of Call Data Record (CDR), had opined that the accused was not present at the spot and had placed him as accused in Column No. 3 of the challan---Injured witness as well as two other eye-witnesses had nominated the accused with a specific role of causing fatal injury on head of the deceased---Sufficient material was available on record to connect the accused with the crime---Offences with which the accused was charged fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Petition for grant of bail was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2021 SCMR 1295 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case SAEED YOUSAF VS State S. 497(2)---Bail---Absconsion of accused---Effect---Accused could be granted bail if his case was otherwise made out on merits and his mere absconsion would not come in the way of his bail---Effect of absconsion depended on the facts of each case and bail could be granted if an accused had a good case for bail on merits---Mere absconsion would not deprive him of bail, if otherwise his case was one of "further inquiry" as envisaged under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C. Citation Name: 2021 PCrLJ 705 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case AFSAR ALI VS MAJID KHAN Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence----Absconsion of accused---Scope---Accused were charged for the killing of brother of the complainant and ineffective firing at him as well as witness---Record showed that the accused just after the occurrence went into hiding with no plausible explanation---Abscondence per se was not sufficient to prove the guilt, but when it would go for a long time for which no reasonable explanation was given by an accused person coupled with other evidence on record, would be the criteria to determine his guilt or innocence and, thus, was a corroborative piece of evidence, therefore, his conduct after the occurrence was indicative of his guilt when considered in juxtaposition with the other evidence produced by the prosecution---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2021 MLD 379 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case MALAY KHAN VS State S.497---Bail---Absconsion of accused---Scope---Fugitive from law loses some of the normal rights granted by procedural and substantive law and noticeable absconsion disentitles the absconder to the concession of bail notwithstanding merits of the case. Citation Name: 2021 MLD 379 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case MALAY KHAN VS State S.497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 324, 427 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees and common intention---Bail, refusal of---Absconsion of accused---Scope---Accused along with another was alleged to have murdered the complainant's brother---Accused was directly charged for commission of the offence---Incident had occurred in the daylight, so no question arose with regard to misidentification of the culprits, that too when the parties were known to each other---Deceased had multiple injuries on his body and the Investigating Officer had recovered seven empties of 7.62 bore from the spot which lent support to the case of the prosecution---Tractor of the complainant was also taken into possession which had bullet marks on its body and was damaged in which respect S.427, P.P.C., was added, which further supported what the complainant stated---Counsel of accused invited the attention of Court to the fact as to how the complainant escaped unhurt when two of the accused were firing at the tractor simultaneously---Court, while seized of the bail matter had to make tentative assessment and deeper appreciation of evidence was unwarranted, which could prejudice the case of either side---Accused had remained fugitive from law for almost three years and had failed to justify such a long absconsion---Petition for grant of bail was dismissed, in circumstance. Citation Name: 2021 YLRN 9 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case MANGAL VS TAJ MUHAMMAD S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd and common intention---Bail, grant of---Failure to send crime empties to the Forensic Laboratory---Absconsion of accused---Further inquiry---Scope---Accused along with others was alleged to have murdered the brother of complainant---Complainant although had directly charged three persons for the commission of offence, but no specific role was attributed to the accused---No incriminating articles were shown to have been recovered from the possession of accused---Six crime empties were recovered from the spot but the same were not sent to the Forensic Laboratory, so, it could not be ascertained that the same were fired from one weapon or multiple weapons---Long absconsion of accused held no field when the case of accused fell within the ambit of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Petition for grant of bail was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2021 YLRN 21 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Bookmark this Case FAZAL HAQ VS State S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Bail, refusal of---Absconsion of accused---Scope---Accused persons were alleged to have intercepted the complainant party and fired at the deceased with intention to kill him---Accused persons were directly charged in the promptly lodged FIR with specific/overt act---Section 302, P.P.C. fell within the ambit of prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. and eye-witnesses had witnessed the occurrence---Both the parties, being resident of the same locality, were known to each other and there was no question of mistaken identity---One of the accused persons had absconded immediately after the occurrence and had remained fugitive from law for about 4 months, which could also be treated as important piece of evidence against him---Motive behind the occurrence had also been disclosed in the FIR--- Petition for grant of bail was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2020 YLR 1077 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case ABDUL JABBAR VS SARDAR KHAN RIND S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Act of terrorism---Application for cancellation of bail---Implication of accused through supplementary statement---Absconsion of accused--- Further inquiry--- Scope---Complainant sought cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to accused on the ground that the accused had been an absconder and that bail had been granted in wrong exercise of discretion by the Trial Court---Held; nothing was available on record to show that the accused was aware about his implication--Accused was not nominated in the FIR with any role but he was subsequently implicated by the complainant in supplementary statement, with improved version of the occurrence---Confirmation of ad-interim pre-arrest bail of the accused by the Trial Court in view of the scope of further inquiry could not be termed as illegal or in wrong exercise of discretion as apart from mala fide and arrest for ulterior motives such as humiliation and unjustified harassment, scope of further inquiry could also be made a basis for grant/confirmation of pre-arrest bail, primarily depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case---Allegation of abusing or misusing the concession of bail by the accused was not supported by affidavit of any witness---Application for cancellation of pre-arrest bail was dismissed. Citation Name: 2020 YLR 2503 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case FAIZ MUHAMMAD VS State Absconsion of accused---Corroborative evidence--- Scope--- Absconsion alone cannot be a substitute for real evidence because people do abscond though falsely charged in order to save themselves from agony of protracted trial and also to avoid duress and torture at the hands of police---Absconsion is a corroborative piece of evidence and in case where direct evidence fails, corroborative piece of evidence is of no avail. Citation Name: 2020 MLD 1097 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case USMAN alias SHANAAN VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Prompt FIR---Natural witnesses---Corroboration of medical and ocular evidence---Absconsion of accused---Motive not proved---Scope---Accused and others were alleged to have indiscriminately fired at the deceased when he along with his relatives was present in the shop of a barber---Case was based on a promptly lodged FIR---Eye-witnesses had reasonably explained their presence at the crime scene by deposing that they had accompanied the deceased to the shop of barber and it was very common in a rural background that relatives and friends accompanied each other to the shops of the barbers---Medical evidence had fully supported the ocular account of the eye-witnesses so far as it related to the injuries attributed to the accused---Statements of witnesses had got due corroboration from the absconsion of accused---High Court observed certain extenuating circumstances such as failure of prosecution to prove motive to the extent of accused and the inability of witnesses to attribute or pinpoint specific injuries to the accused, warranting the award of lesser sentence---Conviction of the accused was maintained, however, his death sentence against conviction was converted into that of imprisonment of life---Appeal against conviction was dismissed. Citation Name: 2020 YLRN 147 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Bookmark this Case UBAID ULLAH VS State Ss. 497 & 169---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324 & 34---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd and common intention---Bail, grant of---Release of co-accused by police under S.169, Cr.P.C.---Absconsion of accused--- Effect--- Further inquiry---Scope---Accused sought bail in case FIR registered under Ss. 324 & 34, P.P.C.---Accused and co-accused were booked in the FIR with a specific role of causing injuries to the victim but co-accused was released by the local police under S. 169, Cr.P.C.---Accused had went underground after commission of offence and had remained absconder for a period of about 02 years and 08 months---Mere absconsion of the accused did not come in the way, when case of accused was one of further inquiry---Case of accused was one of further inquiry---Accused was admitted to post-arrest bail. Citation Name: 2019 PCrLJ 401 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case BILAL VS State Absconsion of accused---Effect---Absconsion could be used as corroborative piece of evidence, which could not be read in isolation---Absconsion had to be read along with substantive piece of evidence. Citation Name: 2019 PCrLJ 1743 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case SHAH BEHRAM VS State Absconsion of accused--- Corroborative evidence--- Scope---Abscondence is only a corroborative piece of evidence and never considered in isolation. Citation Name: 2019 YLRN 24 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case HABIBULLAH VS State 2002 SCMR 1381, 2009 SCMR 299, 2014 SCMR 27, 2016 SCMR 1593, S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 114, 337-H(2), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, abettor present when offence is committed, rash and negligent act, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Bail, grant of---Contradictory/ improved statement of the prosecution witness---Effect---Absconsion of accused---Effect---Petitioner contended that mere presence with fire arm was alleged against him---Complainant contended that petitioner being an absconder , was not entitled to the concession of bail while the trial had also commenced---Except the mere presence with a firearm alongside the co-accused, no specific role was attributed to the petitioner---Neither in the FIR nor in the deposition of the complainant and one eye-witness, petitioner had been attributed any shot fired upon the deceased---Deposition of other eye-witness (brother of the complainant) that the petitioner fired at the deceased, contradicted by prosecution witnesses---Question as to whether the said eye-witnesses had arrived at the scene of crime after the fire shots or before, was yet to be established ---Petitioner was brother of the other co-accused (who had fired at the deceased), thus spreading the net wide by the complainant to falsely entangle the petitioner in the case, was a possibility which could not be ruled out at bail stage---Trial had commenced and statements of the main prosecution witnesses had been recorded thus, physical custody of the petitioner was no longer required and continuous incarceration of the petitioner would serve no beneficial purpose---Mere absconsion of the petitioner and commencement of trial, would not be taken as bar if the accused had made out his case for the concession of bail---Case of the petitioner called for further inquiry as envisaged under S.497(2), Cr.P.C.---Bail application was allowed in circumstances. Citation Name: 2019 PCrLJN 19 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case ALI OGHAHI VS State S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860 ), Ss. 302, 114, 120-B, 506(2), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, abettor present when offence committed, criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, transportation or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upward, criminal intimidation if threat to cause death or grievous hurt etc., rioting, unlawful assembly---Bail, grant of---Accused (petitioner) was not nominated in the FIR---Absconsion of accused---Scope---Mere presence of the accused at place of occurrence---Effect---Record revealed that role of causing fire arm injuries to the deceased was attributed to the co-accused---Name of the accused had not been mentioned in the FIR rather his name had been disclosed by the prosecution witnesses in their statements recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C.---Accused was under custody and investigation of the case had been completed and Challan had been submitted---Physical custody of the accused was not required for the purpose of investigation---Concession of bail ought not be withheld by way of premature punishment---If the accused had good case for grant of bail on merits, his absconsion would not come in way while granting him bail---Case of the accused called for further inquiry as envisaged under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.---Petitioner was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2018 YLR 933 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case ABDULLAH NASIR alias JUNEJO VS State Absconsion of accused---Effect---Mere abscondence would not entail penal consequences against the accused.

Absence of accused

Back Back Your Search returned total 7 records from 0 - 7 Citation Name: 2022 MLD 403 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case IQBAL AHMED VS State Ss. 498 & 498-A---Pre-arrest bail---Absence of accused---Scope---Accused who is released on interim pre-arrest bail must attend the court on each and every date---Presence of accused is required throughout the proceedings of the pre-arrest bail application and the fact that he appeared on the first date when ad interim bail was granted does not in any manner lessen the rigours of S. 498-A, Cr.P.C., or absolve the responsibility of the accused from appearing in person before the court---Application was dismissed for non-production. Citation Name: 2020 PCrLJ 461 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Bookmark this Case MOHAMMAD ARIF VS State S. 410---Appeal---Absence of accused---Scope---Appeal against conviction, filed by counsel of convict, is not maintainable without surrendering the convict before the court---Appeal in absentia is not maintainable. Citation Name: 2018 YLR 323 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE VS State S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 468 & 471---Cheating and forgery---Pre-arrest bail, confirmation of---Absence of accused---Effect---Accused was arrested during pendency of pre-arrest bail, in some other case and he was not present before the court---Plea raised by complainant was that due to arrest of accused petition had become infructuous---Validity---Withholding of concession of pre-arrest bail particularly when absence of accused at time of confirmation of his ad-interim bail was not willful and he was represented through counsel, same would not serve ends of justice---Complainant, during investigation, could not produce evidence to prove his claim of advancing huge amount of Rs. 1,81,00,000/- to accused and despite lapse of three years he did not approach civil court for recovery of the amount---Proposed arrest of accused was motivated by illwill and mala fide of complainant and local police---Pre-arrest bail was confirmed in circumstances. Citation Name: 2015 PCrLJ 1473 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD IRSHAD VS State 1999 MLD 1222, 2012 YLR 964, Absence of accused--Term , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--498-A , Pre-arrest bail--TERM , S. 498-A---Pre-arrest bail---Absence of accused---Effect---No Court is authorized to release a person by grant of pre-arrest bail, who is not present when his petition is called and heard---Physical presence of accused is not only be insisted upon purely as a matter of propriety but is a statutory pre-condition for grant of pre-arrest bail. Citation Name: 2015 PCrLJ 1473 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD IRSHAD VS State 1999 MLD 1222, 2009 SCMR 174, PLD 2009 SC 427, Absence of accused--Term , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--498-A , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--498 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--489-F , Ss. 498 & 498-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F---Dishonoring of cheque---Pre-arrest bail, grant of---Absence of accused---Trial Court declined pre-arrest bail to accused due to his absence at the time of hearing of bail application---Validity---Act of accused not appearing before Court of first instance when his petition seeking pre-arrest bail was being heard had a direct effect on the outcome of the case---Accused by not appearing in person before Trial Court had disentitled himself for the grant of pre-arrest bail by High Court---Although accused was charged with offence which carried maximum punishment of three years imprisonment and did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. would not entitle the accused to grant of pre-arrest bail as of right---Pre-arrest bail was declined, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2013 PCrLJ 499 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case GHULAM NABI NAREJO VS State 1991 PCr.LJ 833, 2004 YLR 747, PLD 1958 SC 275, Absence of accused--Term , Appreciation of Evidence--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--353 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--512 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984--47 , Qatl-e-amd--Term , S.302(b)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.47---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.353 & 512---Qatl-e-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Absence of accused---Evidence, recording of--- Trial Court relying on evidence recorded under S.512, Cr.P.C., convicted accused and sentenced him to imprisonment for life---Validity---Accused was charged with offence which carried capital punishment and he could not be stripped of his valuable right of a fair and impartial trial, else the same would negate concept of due process of law, as fair trial was right of every accused---Co-accused were present at the time of taking evidence of prosecution witnesses and accused was also entitled for the same treatment after his arrest---Provisions of S.353 Cr.P.C. were mandatory in nature and taking of evidence of prosecution witnesses in absence of accused vitiated trial---Every Trial Court was empowered to believe evidence of all witnesses recorded in absence of accused, provided on arrest of accused, such witness was found dead or incapable of giving evidence or his attendance could not be procured without an amount of delay or expense---Complainant party was contesting the case in spite of that Trial Court adopted illegal procedure by allowing prosecution to rely upon same evidence, which was taken in absence of accused--- Conviction and sentence awarded to accused on the basis of such evidence was not sustainable in law and the same was set aside--- High Court directed Trial Court to take evidence of prosecution witnesses afresh, in presence of accused persons and case was remanded---Appeal was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2011 SCMR 1736 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD AMIN VS State Absence of accused--Term , Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997--9 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--426 , Suspension of sentence--TERM , S.426---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(c)---Recovery of narcotics---Suspension of sentence---Absence of accused---Alleged recovery of 56 kilograms of Chars was made in the absence of accused at the instance of another accused already in custody in some other case---Date, time and place of arrest of accused was not shown with certainty by police---Site plan also did not show that place of recovery had two exits---Effect---Considering it a fit case for reappraisal of entire evidence, Supreme Court converted petition into appeal and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to both the accused was suspended and they were released on bail---Petition was allowed.

Absence of direct evidence

Back Back Your Search returned total 2 records from 0 - 2 Citation Name: 2020 PCrLJN 60 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Bookmark this Case State VS SULTAN ALI Ss. 302 & 109---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Abetment---Absence of direct evidence---Scope---Accused was alleged to have been the main mischief monger, who played a decisive role in the murder---Accused was tried under S. 109, P.P.C. for which the material available on record was insufficient for conviction---No evidence was available against the accused to the extent of abetment or conspiracy for murder and the prosecution failed to collect any evidence against him---Held; accused was charged under S. 109, P.P.C., which was not proved against him as reflected in the impugned judgment---No apparent infirmity was pointed out in the impugned judgment---Appeal against acquittal, being meritless, was dismissed. Citation Name: 2017 PCrLJN 160 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case NIAZ AHMED VS HASRAT MAHMOOD Ss. 417(2), 200 & 154---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302---Qatl-i-amd---Special leave to appeal against acquittal, refusal of---Absence of direct evidence---Circumstantial evidence in form of last-seen evidence--- Consolidation of FIR and private complaint---Permissibility---Moral certainty as basis of conviction---Principles---Complainant registered criminal case against respondents for killing his son by strangulating him, but being dissatisfied with investigation, he had also filed private complaint---As accusation and set of accused were same in both FIRs and private complaint, Trial Court after submission of report under S. 173, Cr.P.C. consolidated the both---Accused were acquitted after trial---Contention raised by complainant was that dishonest investigation and said consolidation had caused serious prejudice to complainant and resulted in miscarriage of justice, as said consolidation had deprived him of opportunity to impeach credibility of investigating officer through cross-examination---Held, consolidated trial of State case with private complaint, where accusation and set of accused were identical, was not against law---Only distinguishing feature in private complaint and State case was complainant's annoyance with Investigating officer, which had hardly furnished any justification to hand him over to prosecution for cross-examination--¬-Exclusion of various pieces of circumstantial evidence from consideration relied by prosecution was also in accord with settled norms of safe administration of criminal justice---Prosecution case was entirely based on suspicion without positive proof---Mere suspicion could not take place of positive proof---Statements of prosecution witnesses were not plausible---Prosecution had failed to adduce proof beyond reasonable shadow of doubt---Accused could be convicted merely on basis of moral certainty---Application for special leave to appeal against acquittal was dismissed circumstances.

Absence of mitigating circumstances

Back Back Your Search returned total 2 records from 0 - 2 Citation Name: 2013 PCrLJ 274 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case ABDUL WAHID VS State 2009 SCMR 834, Absence of mitigating circumstances--Term , Accused was granted bail--Term , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--514 , Forfeiture of surety bond--Term , S. 514---Forfeiture of surety bond---Absence of mitigating circumstances---Effect---Accused was granted bail---Applicant stood surety for the accused---Accused absented himself from date of hearing---Bond executed by surety was forfeited in its entirety and notice under S.514, Cr.P.C. was issued---Contentions of the surety that notice under S.514, Cr.P.C. was never served upon him, and that no lenient view was taken by the court and entire surety amount had been forfeited---Validity---Report regarding serving of notice revealed that the Trial Court had issued a notice under S. 514, Cr.P.C. and same was served upon the surety---Trial Court had adopted the procedure as provided under S.514, Cr.P.C.---Surety had not brought forward any mitigating circumstances to adopt a lenient view---Revision petition was dismissed with the observation that approach of the Trial Court appeared to be dynamic and progressive-orientated with the desire to discourage the accused persons from jumping bail bonds. Citation Name: 2013 PCrLJ 274 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case ABDUL WAHID VS State 2009 SCMR 834, Absence of mitigating circumstances--Term , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--514 , Forfeiture of surety bond--Term , General rule--Rule , S. 514---Forfeiture of surety bond---General rule---Absence of mitigating circumstances---Effect---Where an accused person jumped bail bond, entire surety amount became liable to be forfeited in the absence of any mitigating circumstances.

Absence of motive

Back Back Your Search returned total 5 records from 0 - 5 Citation Name: 2025 SCMR 2028 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case SEETA RAM VS State S. 302(b)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 154---Qatl-i-amd---Re-appraisal of evidence---Un-explained delay in registration of FIR---Absence of motive---Delay in dispatching crime empties to Forensic Science Laboratory---Recovery from public place---Benefit of doubt---Accused was convicted by Trial Court for committing qatl-i-amd and was sentenced to death, which was maintained by High Court---Validity---There was no convincing explanation for delay in registration of information as mandated under section 154, Cr.P.C.---Incharge of Police Station had not only received information but several steps in the course of investigation were also taken---Postmortem was conducted and crime scene was also inspected from where incriminating articles were collected---All such steps were done prior to registration of crime report---Story of prosecution was without a motive---Accused was arrested on 24-08-2018 and on 29-08-2018, he had led to recovery of crime weapon from a packet stated to have been buried under bushes near an electric pole---Spent bullets were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory on 28-08-2018 i.e. after the arrest of accused---Supreme Court did not rely on recovery of firearm weapon because the spent bullets were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory after the arrest of accused---No person would conceal the firearm used to allegedly commit the crime at a place frequented by public i.e. next to the wall of Civil Hospital---Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused and he was acquitted of the charge as prosecution had failed in its obligation to prove guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal was allowed. Citation Name: 2024 SCMR 1421 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SAEED VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Mitigating circumstances---Recovery of weapon of offence disbelieved---Absence of motive---Single stab wound---Appellate Court/High Court had (rightly) disbelieved the recovery of Churri (knife) on the pointation of the petitioner/convict from an open place---Furthermore, absence of motive in the FIR, non-proving of the motive introduced by the prosecution witnesses at the trial about the desire of the petitioner/convict to marry the deceased prior to her marriage with a prosecution witness, and single stab wound on the abdomen of deceased had rightly been considered as mitigating circumstances by the High Court to award lessor sentence of imprisonment for life to the petitioner---Petition was dismissed, leave to appeal was refused, and conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to the accused by the High Court was maintained. Citation Name: 2020 YLRN 110 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Bookmark this Case MOEEN NASEEM VS State S. 302---Qatl-i-amd---Absence of motive---Effect---Motive is always locked up in the mind of the accused and sometimes it is difficult to unlock---People do not act wholly without motive---Failure to discover motive of an accused does not signify its non-existence hence, failure to prove motive is not fatal as a matter of law---Where facts are clear, it becomes immaterial whether the motive has been proved or not---Mere absence of motive behind the occurrence cannot debar the court from awarding major punishment to an accused, if his guilt is proved from the evidence/record. Citation Name: 2017 PCrLJN 123 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case SHAHBAZ AHMED VS State Sentence---Absence of motive---In absence of any motive, conviction on capital sentence could be recorded. Citation Name: 2014 YLR 1125 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case NIAZ AHMED VS State 2002 YLR 1857, Absence of motive--Term , Criminal Trial--TERM , Motive--TERM , Motive---Scope---Absence of motive---Motive was only a factor, which would help in connecting accused with the accusation---Absence of motive, could not be used as mitigating circumstance in determining sentence to be imposed.

Absondance

Back Back Your Search returned total 1 records from 0 - 1 Citation Name: 2013 PCrLJ 562 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case Sheikh MUHAMMAD AFZAL VS NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU (NAB) Absondance--Term , Bail--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--498 , Ss. 497 & 498---Bail---Absondance---Effect---Absondance alone cannot be made a ground for refusal of bail to accused, if he otherwise proves that his case falls within the mischief of further inquiry into his guilt.

Absorption of deputationist

Back Back Your Search returned total 5 records from 0 - 5 Citation Name: 2022 PLC(CS) 73 ISLAMABAD Bookmark this Case HAMID NASRULLAH RANJHA VS CHIEF COMMISSIONER, ISLAMABAD, ICT Deputation---Absorption of deputationist---Scope---Absorption is not vested right of an employee and the employer has right as well as authority to terminate the deputation period or repatriate the employee back to his/her parent department. Citation Name: 2021 PLC(CS) 163 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case FAYYAZ HUSSAIN VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Interior, Islamabad S. 4(2)---Absorption of deputationist---Constable in Provincial Traffic Police ('the petitioner') sent to Federal Investigation Agency ('FIA') on deputation and ultimately absorbed as employee of FIA---Legality---Internal inquiry into absorption of petitioner into FIA recorded findings against the petitioner to the effect that he had been absorbed in violation of Standing Order No.21/84 as well as in violation of FIA Personnel Policy framed in exercise of powers under S. 4(2) of Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974---Service history of petitioner showed that he was initially employed as a Constable/Computer Operator in the Provincial Traffic Police; he manipulated his successive promotions in a short span of time; he managed his promotions firstly as Head Constable, thereafter as ASI on officiating basis and subsequently as Sub-Inspector/Computer Operator---All such promotions happened within a span of few months which was not only unprecedented but quite surprising considering the mode and manner in which promotions were required to be given in terms of the rules and regulations of the department---Further, on transfer to FIA on deputation basis, the petitioner managed his permanent absorption within a period of one year and 28 days, which was a classical example of clever manipulation of the system through devious means and influence mongering---Considering the conduct and the manner in which the petitioner had quite cleverly manipulated the system for his personal benefits in violation of all applicable regulations, rules and laws, no discretionary and equitable relief could be granted to him---Petitioner's case was also squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Contempt Proceedings against Chief Secretary, Sindh and others (2013 SCMR 1752)---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused. Citation Name: 2020 SCMR 2166 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case FAYYAZ HUSSAIN VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Interior, Islamabad S. 4(2)---Absorption of deputationist---Constable in Provincial Traffic Police ('the petitioner')sent to Federal Investigation Agency ('FIA') on deputation and ultimately absorbed as employee of FIA---Legality---Internal inquiry into absorption of petitioner into FIA recorded findings against the petitioner to the effect that he had been absorbed in violation of Standing Order No.21/84 as well as in violation of FIA Personnel Policy framed in exercise of powers under S. 4(2) of Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974---Service history of petitioner showed that he was initially employed as a Constable/Computer Operator in the Provincial Traffic Police; he manipulated his successive promotions in a short span of time; he managed his promotions firstly as Head Constable, thereafter as ASI on officiating basis and subsequently as Sub-Inspector/Computer Operator---All such promotions happened within a span of few months which was not only unprecedented but quite surprising considering the mode and manner in which promotions were required to be given in terms of the rules and regulations of the department---Further, on transfer to FIA on deputation basis, the petitioner managed his permanent absorption within a period of one year and 28 days, which was a classical example of clever manipulation of the system through devious means and influence mongering---Considering the conduct and the manner in which the petitioner had quite cleverly manipulated the system for his personal benefits in violation of all applicable regulations, rules and laws, no discretionary and equitable relief could be granted to him---Petitioner's case was also squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Contempt Proceedings against Chief Secretary, Sindh and others (2013 SCMR 1752)---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused. Citation Name: 2020 PLC(CS) 1411 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case IRSHAD HUSSAIN VS PROVINCE OF SINDH Appointment of Junior School Teacher (BPS-9)---Appointment on the basis of deputation as Senior Translator (BPS-16) in Provincial Assembly of Sindh---Absorption of deputationist---Scope---Employee was repatriated to his parent department in compliance with the order of Supreme Court---Employee filed appeal against the said order which was accepted by the Authority and he was absorbed in the borrowing department---Contention of petitioner was that respondent had been absorbed in violation of law laid down by the Supreme Court---Validity---Junior School Teacher (BPS-9) of education department could not be absorbed against the post of Senior Translator (BPS-16) in the Provincial Assembly which was a different cadre---Employee was repatriated to his parent department in compliance with the order of Supreme Court---Respondent had no right to file appeal against his absorption and his absorption was illegal and void ab initio---Even respondent was not eligible for the post of Senior Translator---Impugned notification for absorption of respondent was without lawful authority and of no legal effects, which was set aside---Authorities were directed to implement the law laid down by the Supreme Court in letter and spirit---Employee was to be repatriated to his parent department immediately and he would be entitled for the salary if he was never absorbed in the Provincial Assembly---If batch mates of respondent had been promoted then he would be entitled to the same treatment with seniority and other benefits in accordance with law---Government was directed to recover differential in the pay scales of BPS-9 and BPS-16 and deposit the same in government exchequer---High Court issued show-cause notices to the private/official respondents as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against them---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2016 GBLR 82 SUPREME-APPELLATE-COURT Bookmark this Case TAHIRA YASUB DSP VS GOVERNMENT OF GILGIT-BALTISTAN S. 10---Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art. 60---Deputationist---Posting and transfer---Absorption of deputationist---Services of employee who was serving as Inspector (BPS-16) in Airport Security Force were placed at disposal of the Gilgit-Baltistan Police as Deputy Superintendent of Police on deputation for a period of three years on standard terms and conditions---Said deputationist, after thirty nine (39) days, was absorbed in Gilgit-Baltistan Police---Validity---According to Service Rules, a deputationist could not be absorbed during deputation period---Deputationist, could not be given another deputation before expiry of the first deputation period---Government would refrain from issuing posting orders of any non-Cadre Officer to a Cadre post by transfer under S.10 of the Gilgit-Baltistan Civil Servants Act, 2011, nor would it depute by transfer any officer from occupational group in the Government, except in exigency, unless the deputationist would meet the criteria of matching qualifications, eligibility and experience to the proposed post---Absorption of employee within thirty nine (39) days after assuming charge on deputation, would not only be unconstitutional, without undertaking competitive and transparent process, but would also deprive the seniority and progression of career of the meritorious Police Inspectors/petitioners---Illegal absorption, was not a perpetual right of the employee gained on the basis of an illegal order---Absorption of employee, was illegal, without lawful authority and ultra vires of the service laws and rules---Impugned orders were set aside by Supreme Appellate Court---Employee was directed to report to his parent department/Airport Security Force---Appeal was accepted.

Absurdity of provision

Back Back Your Search returned total 1 records from 0 - 1 Citation Name: 2014 PTD 1899 CUSTOMS-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-KARACHI Bookmark this Case DEWAN FAROOQUE MOTORS LTD. VS The COLLECTOR (APPEALS) 2001 SCMR 103, Absurdity of provision--Term , Interpretation of Statutes--TERM , Absurdity of provision---Court can supply construction with a view to avoiding absurdity.

Abuse of Power

Back Back Your Search returned total 1 records from 0 - 1 Citation Name: 1989 PLD 166 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN VS MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH KHAN Abuse of Power--TERM , An order which is based or, reason of fact which do not exist must be held to be infected with an abuse of power.

Abuse of dominant position

Back Back Your Search returned total 21 records from 0 - 21 Citation Name: 2023 CLD 429 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Bookmark this Case VS Ss. 3 & 2(k)---Abuse of dominant position---Relevant market---Scope---Complainants (Internet Service Providers) alleged that the respondent (Electricity Supply Company) was in a dominant position in the relevant market for "right of way for aerial cables across electricity poles" and had violated Ss. 3 & 4 of the Competition Act, 2010---Contention of respondent was that it did not operate in the relevant market and was active in a separate market altogether---Validity---Issue at hand did not concern supply/distribution of electricity but the public right of way to be/or being provided by respondent---Electricity distribution facilities covered an area of approximately 78,088 sq. km, which further strengthened the aspect of dominance of the respondent in the relevant market of right of way as it owned/managed a significant number of electric poles and no other adequate substitutes were available in the relevant market---Respondent's argument was rejected. Citation Name: 2023 CLD 429 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Bookmark this Case VS S. 3---Abuse of dominant position---Unfair trading conditions---Scope---Term "unfair trading conditions" is indeed wide in scope and deals with either or both exclusionary and exploitative forms of abuse of dominance---It includes unfairly coercing customers by forcing an entity to sell services against their will and unfairly taking advantage of one's superior bargaining position to impair free decision making of a transacting party. Citation Name: 2023 CLD 429 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Bookmark this Case VS S. 3---Abuse of dominant position---Price discrimination---Scope---Complainants (Internet Service Providers) alleged that the respondent (Electricity Supply Company) was in a dominant position in the relevant market for "right of way for aerial cables across electricity poles" and had committed price discrimination by charging different prices for the same service from the complainants as compared to the price charged from normal TV cable operators---Validity---Respondent charged complainants PKR 100 per pole/structure, while TV cable operators paid only PKR 10---Such discriminatory conduct was solely for the reason of the dominant position it held rather than for any objective reasons and could be deemed to be exploitative and harmful for undertakings deploying Aerial Optical Fiber Cable---Respondent was found to have acted in violation of S. 3(3)(b) of the Competition Act, 2010---Respondent was directed to provide access to the right of way to the complainants on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and not to repeat the prohibited act. Citation Name: 2023 CLD 429 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Bookmark this Case VS S. 3---Abuse of dominant position---Unfair trading conditions---Scope---Complainants (Internet Service Providers) alleged that the respondent (Electricity Supply Company) was in a dominant position in the relevant market for "right of way for aerial cables across electricity poles" and had imposed unfair conditions on the complainants by stipulating 10 minutes free advertising for it and free internet facility for its offices on top of charging a rent for use of the relevant service---Validity---Conditions appeared onerous and not freely negotiated upon by the parties concerned---It could also be treated as an added barrier for undertakings to compete effectively and efficiently in the market for provision of internet cable and telephony services---In terms of monetary value, it was also an added cost---Competition Commission declared that the contravention in terms of S. 3(3)(a) of the Competition Act, 2010 had been committed by the respondent---Respondent was directed to provide access to the right of way to the complainants on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and not to repeat the prohibited act. Citation Name: 2023 CLD 429 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Bookmark this Case VS S. 3--- Abuse of dominant position--- Scope--- Section 3(3) is not exhaustive and only enumerative---Section 3 prohibits any abuse by an undertaking that is in a dominant position. Citation Name: 2023 CLD 429 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Bookmark this Case VS Ss. 3 & 2(k)---Abuse of dominant position---Relevant market---Substitutability---Scope---Complainants (Internet Service Providers) alleged that the respondent (Electricity Supply Company) was in a dominant position in the relevant market for "right of way for aerial cables across electricity poles" and had violated Ss. 3 & 4 of the Competition Act, 2010---Contention of respondent was that the complainants had substitutes for right of way---Validity---Developing and digging underground passages required heavy investment cost and prior approvals from the relevant authorities and there also existed practical impediments for laying down underground cables such as lack of access to corridors/green belts on road, streets, etc---As for PTCL (telecommunication company) poles, the same were customized to PTCL's own requirements i.e. installed at the end of PTCL's underground network of cables---Streetlight poles were not a suitable substitute due to being scattered, positioned in different areas and not being available in all areas---Respondent's argument was rejected. Citation Name: 2023 CLD 429 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Bookmark this Case VS S. 3---Abuse of dominant position---Refusal to deal---Scope---Complainants (Internet Service Providers) alleged that the respondent (Electricity Supply Company) was in a dominant position in the relevant market for "right of way for aerial cables across electricity poles" and had violated Ss. 3 & 4 of the Competition Act, 2010---Contention of respondent was that it had annulled the Pole Renting Policy---Complainants claimed that refusal to provide right of way amounted to refusal to deal in violation of S. 3(3)(h) of the Competition Act, 2010---Validity---Section 27A of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996 and Policy Directive issued by the Federal Government had imposed a legal obligation on the respondent to provide right of way---Conduct of the respondent was discriminatory as admittedly, decommissioning notices related to the removal of cables were only sent to the complainants---No other action was taken against normal cable TV operators---Annulment of the Pole Renting Policy and denial of right of way might not be a 'classic refusal to deal' under S. 3(3)(h) on the part of respondent i.e. solely based on a monopolistic intent to of keeping the facility/poles for its own commercial benefit or to strengthen its own dominant position, nevertheless, a clear contravention of S. 3 of the Competition Act, 2010, was established through the respondent's discriminatory and unfair conduct concerning the complainants---Respondent was directed to restore access to the right of way to the complainants on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and not to repeat the prohibited act. Citation Name: 2022 CLD 31 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Bookmark this Case VS S. 3---Abuse of dominant position---Scope---Commission issued show cause notice to the respondent housing authority for violation of S. 3 of the Competition Act, 2010 for not issuing NOC (No Objection Certificate) to a CIT (Cable Internet and Telephony) service provider---Respondent's management had exclusive rights to administer the housing society including a grant of ROW for provision of CIT services and therefore, had 100% market share in the relevant market---Management of respondent was preventing or restricting, reducing or distorting competition in the relevant market in a systematic manner, inter alia, by favouring its own subsidiary and/or applying dissimilar conditions in relation to two seemingly equivalent transactions by requiring revenue sharing percentage, exclusionary practices in terms of excluding the service provider from the relevant market by not allowing it to lay down its infrastructure in the relevant market, and ultimately refusing to deal on the pretext of potential physical damage to infrastructure and unavailability of space the corridors, which according to respondent had already been occupied by other CIT service providers---Conduct of the management of respondent was adversely affecting competition in the provision of CIT services within the relevant market---Respondent had also failed to provide any rational commercial or objective justification in terms of efficiency gains for its exclusionary and anti-competitive conduct under review---Such was discouraging investors to the consumer's detriment and proliferation of CIT services which in turn was affecting the national economy as well as the competition inter se other service providers which was prohibited under the Competition Act, 2010---Commission observed that the respondent had abused its dominant position in terms of S. 3(1) read with Ss. 3(3)(e), (g) & (h) of the Competition Act, 2010---Respondent was directed to offer to the service provider ROW on terms and conditions which were no less favourable than the terms and conditions to incumbent service providers. Citation Name: 2022 CLD 31 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Bookmark this Case VS S. 3---Abuse of dominant position---Scope---Refusal to deal or refusal to supply is a behaviour in which a dominant undertaking refuses to sell, supply, or grant access to another firm, or is willing to sell only at a price that is considered "too high", or is willing to sell, supply or grant access only under such conditions that are unacceptable, in addition, refusal can also take the form causing undue delay or otherwise imposing of unreasonable conditions in return for the supply. Citation Name: 2022 CLD 31 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Bookmark this Case VS S. 3---Abuse of dominant position---Scope---When a dominant under taking owns and/or controls and/or itself uses and/or has the ability to grant the right to use an essential facility i.e. the facility or the infrastructure without access to which other undertakings cannot provide competing services to the end consumers, refuses competitors to access such facility or grants access to competitors only on terms less favourable than those which it gives to others, it places the competing undertakings at a disadvantage; these are considered exclusionary practices that are specifically prohibited under S. 3 read with subsection (3) clauses (e) and (h) of the Competition Act, 2010. Citation Name: 2022 CLD 31 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Bookmark this Case VS S. 3---Abuse of dominant position---Scope---Where a dominant undertaking takes advantage of its dominant position and uses it as a bargaining tool to induce customers to accept certain trading conditions of its choice, such a practice comes under the umbrella of exclusionary practices and such practices are strictly prohibited under section 3of the Competition Act, 2010. Citation Name: 2022 CLD 31 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Bookmark this Case VS Ss. 3 & 2(1)(k)---Abuse of dominant position---Relevant market---Product market---Scope---Commission issued show cause notice to the respondent housing authority for violation of S. 3 of the Competition Act, 2010 for not issuing NOC (No Objection Certificate) to a CIT (Cable Internet and Telephony) service provider---Contention of respondent was that Commission lacked the mandate to determine the ROW (Right of Way)---Validity---Product market in the case consisted of grant of ROW to provide CIT services and the relevant geographic market consisted of the area where the respondent had developed the housing societies, as the conditions of competition were sufficiently homogeneous throughout that area and distinct from other neighbouring areas---While CIT service providers needed ROW permit, on a timely basis, any undue or unreasonable delay or restrictive practices on the part of public body or private entity, managing the specified territory could increase the operator's cost of deployment of such network(s)---Modern-day technology development required the CIT services of infrastructure laying that involved civil/earths for infrastructure operation and maintenance---For CIT services providers, ROW could be described as essential facility for laying down their infrastructure across the public and/or private areas for the provision of CIT services to the residents of that area---Respondent was directed to offer to the service provider ROW on terms and conditions which were no less favourable than the terms and conditions to incumbent service providers. Citation Name: 2021 CLD 887 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Bookmark this Case ALL PAKISTAN FRUIT AND VEGETABLE EXPORTERS, IMPORTERS AND MERCHANTS ASSOCIATIONS (PFVA), AIR CARGO AGENTS ASSOCIATION OF PAKISTAN (ACAAP) VS PIA, EMIRATES, QATAR AIRWAYS, OMAN AIR, TURKISH AIRWAYS, GULF AIR, SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES, ETIHAD AIRWAYS Ss. 3, 37(2) & Preamble---Abuse of dominant position---Proof---Competition law---Object, purpose and scope---Complaint was against foreign Airlines who were allegedly charging higher rates for transporting vegetables and fruits---Complainants did not produce any evidence to Enquiry Committee to prove violation of S. 3 of Competition Act, 2010---Contention of complainants was that in response to proceedings undertaken by Enquiry Committee their grievance was redressed which had been pending since long---Effect---Conclusions of Enquiry Report were well founded and could not be controverted---One of the grievances of complainants stood addressed during the conduct of enquiry and did not require further emphasis---Competition Law was a subject of principles stimulating innovation, productivity and competitiveness, contributing to an effective business environment in country---Such competition generated economic growth and employment and also had created possibilities for small and medium sized enterprises, removed barriers that had protected entrenched elites and reduced opportunity for corruption---Competition increased a country's attractiveness as a business location, triggering national and foreign investments--- Competition also delivered benefits for consumers through lower prices, improved services and greater choice---Competition generated total consumer welfare and also contributed to creating a level playing field for business which had to apply a common set of standards, supporting competition---Complaint was dismissed in circumstances. Citation Name: 2019 CLD 116 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Bookmark this Case PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LTD. (PTCL) VS 1997 CLC 2039, 2000 PLC (C.S.) 769, 2012 CLD 767, 2017 CLD 1101, 2017 SCMR 1218, PLD 1997 SC 426, PLD 2012 SC 268, PLD 2017 Lah. 588, PLD 2017 Lahore 588, Ss. 3, 30 & 37---Competition Commission (General Enforcement) Regulations, 2007, Reglns.21 & 36---Abuse of dominant position---Complaint against--- Withdrawal of complaint--- Procedure---Complainants filed complaint against respondent/PTCL with Competition Commission for being engaged in abuse of its dominant position in violation of S. 3 of Competition Act, 2010---Enquiry in terms of S. 37(2) of the Competition Act, 2010 was initiated by the Commission---Based upon the conclusions and recommendations of the enquiry report, Commission approved initiation of proceedings under S. 30 of the Competition Act, 2010 and show-cause notice was issued to the respondent---Complainants filed, subsequently, application for withdrawal of complaint---Commission vide letter informed the complainants that it had initiated the enquiry in the matter and that it could permit the withdrawal of the complaint under Regln.26 of the Competition Commission (General Enforcement) Regulations, 2007, however, proceedings or enquiry initiated would not necessarily abate with said withdrawal---Respondent/PTCL had stressed that the complainants having withdrawn their complaint and being no more interested in pursuing the matter even at the enquiry stage, the matter should have been closed by the Commission---Validity---Held, Competition Commission was established with exclusive statutory mandate to provide free competition in all spheres of commercial and economic activities to enhance economic efficiency and to protect consumers from anti-competition behaviour---Under the provisions of S.37(2) of the Competition Act, 2010 it was mandatory obligation of the Commission to conduct an enquiry in the matter complained of, unless it was of the opinion that the complaint was frivolous or vexatious or was based on insufficient facts or was not substantiated with prima facie evidence---Commission, while, allowing the parties to withdraw the complaint, under Regln.21 of Competition Commission (General Enforcement) Regulations, 2007, placed reliance on the categorical stipulation in the same Regulation that the enquiry or the proceedings thereof, would not necessarily abate on such withdrawal and the Commission could proceed in the matter, if so decided by it---Upon conclusion of the enquiry and in pursuance of the provisions of S.37(4) of the Competition Act, 2010, Commission could initiate proceedings under S.30 of Competition Act, 2010, where it was in the public interest to do so as Commission was entrusted with the responsibility of looking after the interest of general public---Unilateral withdrawal of the complaint by the complainants would not prejudice the proceedings against the respondent/PTCL pending before the Commission---Complainants, however, were allowed to withdraw themselves from the proceedings---Proceedings before the Commission in the matter of show-cause notice issued to 'PTCL' for prima facie violation under S.3 of the Competition Act, 2010, were maintainable and would continue in accordance with law. Citation Name: 2018 CLD 292 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Bookmark this Case UTILITY STORES CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN (PVT.) LIMITED VS 2016 SCMR 430, PLD 2014 SC 1, Ss. 3, 30 & 37---Abuse of dominant position---Undertaking, floated an advertisement, whereby a "Request for Proposal" RFP was issued for the purchase/procurement of "Enterprise Resource Planning" ERP software and related hardware implementation service---Complainant had impugned the "Request for Proposal" on the grounds that through certain clauses in the "RFP", unfair terms and conditions had been imposed, thereby excluding, discriminating and restricting fair participation of local vendors, including the complainant, in the bidding process---Complainant had further alleged that the 'RFP' was tailor-made, so as to select only a specific international vendor; which directly or indirectly, excluded local vendors including the complainant from the market---Undertaking in question was a public sector organization operating and managing a retail chain of about 6,000 stores across Pakistan and fell within the purview of a term "undertaking"---Commission, found that the undertaking 'ERP' software and related equipment, were highly unlikely to be substitutable for other markets and businesses---Undertaking was a dominant one in the relevant market, as it had the ability to work upto an appreciable extent independently of its competitors, customers, consumers or suppliers---Undertaking had a sufficient degree of market power to either adversely affect competition or distort competitive dynamics of the relevant market and had significant market power, while enabled it to favour one or more suppliers over the others---Undertaking had a retail network of around 6,000 stores with annual revenue of approximately sixty billion of rupees, which made it the single largest retail network dealing in household items targeting the lower strata of consumers across the country---Said undertaking also availed direct or indirect State subsidies on regular basis---In presence of valid procurement contract, no other vendor of 'ERP' software would be bidding for the same project and most probably could not even supply after value added services required by the undertaking---Undertaking would continue to have a dominant position in the relevant market by virtue of its number of stores in its network---Pre-qualification mandatory criteria laid down in relevant clauses of 'RFP' were unwarranted and unreasonable, discriminatory and exclusionary in effect and also appeared to favour particular bidders in defiance of the provisions of S.3 of the Competition Act, 2010---Clause 4.2 and clause 5 of the 'RFP' left the actual and potential bidders with uncertainty owing to which an insufficient number of bidders had been able to make meaningful bids; consequently competition in the relevant market was constrained to an appreciable extent in the market of suppliers of 'ERP' software and relative equipment in Pakistan in violation of S.3 of the Competition Act, 2010---Commission had noticed that the technical specifications and the evaluation criteria laid down in relevant clauses of the RFP, were arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, discriminatory and exclusionary in effect and restricted for opportunity of participation within the competitive bidding process---Commission, directed the undertaking to be mindful of broad guidelines/directions while drafting future tender and to refrain from falling, adopting, implementing or carrying out any activity, in violation of Competition Act, 2010---Commission had passed an interim order which restrained the undertaking from awarding the contract, until the final order from the Commission---In view of the compliance oriented approach of the undertaking and fact that the contract had not been awarded the Commission did not impose any financial penalty---Order accordingly. Citation Name: 2017 CLD 1003 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Bookmark this Case SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED TO MESSRS JCR-VIS CREDIT RATING COMPANY LIMITED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 OF THE COMPETITION ACT, 2010 VS Abuse of dominant position--Term , Competition Act 2010--3 , Competition Act 2010--37 , Competition Act 2010--4 , Ss. 3, 4 & 37(2)---Abuse of dominant position---Predatory pricing---Complainant, a Credit Rating Company, had alleged that the credit rating award to the respondent, another such company, for proposed issue of sukuk was too low or below the cost bidding in contravention of Ss.3 & 4 of the Competition Act, 2010---Both, the complainant and the respondent had participated in procuring credit rating assignment---Complainant quoted Rs.7.22 million, whereas the respondent quoted a total Rs.1,100 (an initial fee of PKR and surveillance fee of PKR 100 per annum) for the rating assignment spanning 10 years---Complainant, had alleged that the token bid by the respondent was devoid of any legitimate business justification, or lacked a commercial sense thereof and was solely made to oust its competitor from the bidding---Complainant, further alleged that the respondent had acted in contravention of the Competition Act, 2010 and that since the bid was too low, that also amounted to predation in violation of S.3 of the Competition Act, 2010---Competition Commission, on the basis of said allegations, initiated an enquiry pursuant to S.37(2) of the Competition Act, 2010 and appointed Enquiry Committee to investigate the matter for possible violations of provisions of Competition Act, 2010---Enquiry Committee observed that "the general approach with regards to predatory pricing, was that prices were assumed to be predatory if they were below average variable costs; that in such a case, there was no conceivable economic purpose other than the elimination of a competitor, since each item produced and sold, entailed a loss for the undertaking and that in line with said observation, it was concluded that by respondent's own admission, it had submitted a bid that did not reflect its cost, rather it was a token bidding"---One of the material issues that emerged from the facts and submission made by the parties, was as to what was the relevant market and whether the respondent held a dominant position in the relevant market---'Relevant product (or services) market', was determined as the provisions of "credit rating and other allied services"---Conditions for the provision of credit rating services in the country, were uniform and homogenous, as there were no barriers within the territory of Pakistan in terms of geographic location for the competitors, customers and consumers---Relevant geographic market consisted of whole of Pakistan---Complainant and the respondent, both being engaged in the business of credit rating in Pakistan, market for credit rating in Pakistan was highly concentrated; both were providing their services in all categories of rating, such as entity rating, instrument rating, infrastructure project rating, real estate grading, corporate governance rating and financial risk assessment---Both complainant and respondent had market share of 55 percent and 45 percent respectively---Dominant position of the undertakings, did not solely flow from a market share that was a lesser or greater than the 40 percent threshold---Both the complainant and the respondent, held dominant position and were in a position to behave to an appreciable extent independently of their competitors, consumers and suppliers, irrespective of their market share in the relevant market---Complainant had made diverse allegations ranging from unfair, discriminatory and exclusionary conduct, including the predatory pricing to outset the complainant from the relevant market---Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2010, provided a non-exhaustive and illustrative list of abusive conditions---Commission, could take cognizance of other forms of abuses that were not outlined in S.3 of the Competition Act, 2010---Having a dominant position in the relevant market was not condemned by itself---Term "practices" used in S.3 of the Competition Act, 2010, included practice or conduct, or a single time infringement as its core objective was to assess, whether the conduct of a dominant undertaking in the relevant market, was aimed to impair or distort competition in the relevant market---Concept of "predatory pricing" comprised, not only of "predatory prices", but also strategies and exclusionary conduct by the dominant undertakings---No requirement existed that the alleged infringement of S.3 of the Competition Act, 2010, must have been repeated until the eventual closure of the competitor from the relevant market---Final bid submitted by the respondent, therefore, reflected a predatory pricing strategy---Respondent had failed to provide a viable commercial sense or any objective justification in terms of efficiency gained for the same---Commission, found no merit in the argument of the respondent that its quotation of Rs.1.100, was a pro bono and in the national interest---Commission concluded that the respondent had been engaged in predatory pricing in contravention of subsection (3) of Cl.(F) read with subsection 3(i)(2) of S.3 of the Competition Act, 2010---On account of violation of provisions of S.3 of the Competition Act, 2010, a penalty of Rupees Five Hundred Thousand (Rs.500,000) was imposed on the respondent, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2017 CLD 881 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Bookmark this Case SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED TO PAKISTAN BAHRIA TOWN (PVT.) LIMITED VS S. 3--- Abuse of dominant position--- Competition Commission received an e-mail, highlighting concerns that the residents of a Residential Colony were deprived of any alternate "Cable, Internet and Telephony Services (C.I.T. Services)" provider; that they were forced to subscribe a specific service; and that no other option or substitute was available because the Management of the Colony was not granting "Right of Way" (R.O.W.) to lay down C.I.T. in the Colony---Enquiry Committee concluded that Management of the Colony had exclusive control and dominant position in granting "R.O.W." in the area that its conduct appeared to be violative of S.3(1) read with 3(e), (g) and (h) of the Competition Act, 2010 by applying dissimilar conditions on the other network excluding it to provide its C.I.T. service---Based on the findings of the enquiry report, the Competition Commission issued show-cause notice to the Management of the Colony---One of the main issues involved in the case was; "whether 'Residential Colony' and the specific C.I.T. Operator had been dealt with in accordance with the procedure laid down in Competition Act, 2010"---Held, proceedings were based on an enquiry authorized by the Competition Commission pursuant to S.37(1) of the Competition Act, 2010 and show-cause notice was issued under S.37(2)(b) of the said Act---Commission found it appropriate that there had been no substantive or procedural anomaly during the enquiry stage and during the proceedings---All concerned parties were given ample opportunity of being heard and to present their view both in writing as well as during the conduct of the hearing---Both, the Residential Colony and the C.I.T. Operator had been dealt with in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Competition Act, 2010, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2017 CLD 354 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Bookmark this Case INDUS MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED VS Ss. 2(1)(q), 3(3)(a), 30 & 37---Abuse of dominant position---Terms and conditions stipulated in 'Provisional Booking Order' issued by seller company to its potential buyers for purchase of new car, appeared to create a significant imbalance in the parties' rights in favour of the Seller Motors Company and tantamount to unfair terms as envisaged in S.3(3)(c) of Competition Act, 2010---Enquiry Committee, in its report noted that, seller company, held a substantial market share and enjoyed economic power in the 1300 CC segment of car market, which enabled it to behave independent of its competitors and customers; thereby making it a dominant player in the relevant market---Seller company's buyer was apparently in a weaker bargaining position---Said 'Provisional Booking Order' gave seller company the sole right to; charge the price; design/specification; delivery scheme without any notice to the buyer; a conclusive right to interpret the terms of the contract, and; to decide the dispute between a buyer and seller company---Such terms created a significant imbalance to the disadvantage of buyer's rights and obligations arising under the contract---Terms of said Provisional Booking order prima facie, being unfair to the buyers, were in contravention of S.3(3)(a) of the Competition Act, 2010---Show-cause notice was issued to the seller company---Seller company filed a written response explaining its position and requested to allow opportunity to revive the draft of Provisional Booking Order to rectify the concerns raised by the Commission---Seller company submitted the final revised draft of 'provisional Booking order'---Initially, seller company had sole and absolute discretion to accept or reject the request of cancellation by the buyer; it was at the entire discretion of the seller company and the buyer would be bound to take delivery of the vehicle on full payment of the same---Seller company had rectified that imbalance, not only by relinquishing its unilateral right to reject the request for cancellation by the buyer, but also waiving off any charges in case the application for cancellation was based on an unsatisfactory charge in price or delivery schedule---Such rectification, made by seller company, had put the consumer at an equal footing with regard to aspect of cancellation---Under original Provisional Booking Order, seller company had the sole right to alter some or all terms and conditions of Provisional Booking Order and also the right to interpret them conclusively---Said clause had been completely removed from the revised draft of Provisional Booking Order---Another condition, whereby any dispute between the customer and seller company, was to be conclusively decided by the Managing Director of the company, had been amended to refer such dispute to the arbitrator to resolve and settle matter---Such revision of the terms had given fair and equal right to both the parties---Initially, seller company held the sole right to change the design, construction specification without notice to the buyer---Provisional Booking Order, was revised, which specifically mentioned that seller company, could make minor alterations to the design and construction specification of the vehicle, and would make such alterations in the vehicle as required by any Federal and/or Provincial Legislation---Seller company had sole right to change price of the vehicle without notice to buyer at the time of delivery---Said clause had created uncertainty as to price and buyer was not sure of how much extra amount was to be paid at the time of delivery--- Said lacuna had been removed by explicitly mentioning in the revised draft Provisional Booking Order that revision of price could only be subject to a change, if any in Government levies/taxes and/or currency fluctuation---Provisional Booking Order had been amended and rectified to address the competition concerns raised in terms of S. 3(3)(a) of the Competition Act, 2010, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2017 CLD 47 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Bookmark this Case UREA MANUFACTURERS VS Abuse of dominant position--Term , Competition Act 2010--2 , Competition Act 2010--3 , Competition Act 2010--30 , Competition Act 2010--37 , Competition Commission (General Enforcement) Regulations 2007--RULE , Ss. 2(1)(q), 3(3)(a), 30 & 37---Commission's (General Enforcement) Regulations, 2007, Regln.27---Abuse of dominant position---Urea Manufacturing Companies, who were engaged in the manufacturing and sale of fertilizers, were 'undertakings' as defined in clause (q) of subsection (1) of S. 2 of Competition Act, 2010---Competition Commission took notice of the increase in price of 50 Kg urea bags by the urea manufacturing units---Such unprecedented increase in the price of urea appeared to be anti-competitive and Competition Commission appointed an Enquiry Team---Enquiry Committee, was assigned the task to investigate the reasons behind the price hike, and to submit before the Commission; whether the price hike was a result of anti-competitive behaviour adopted by relevant undertakings individually/collectively in violation of provisions of Competition Act, 2010---Commission, also hired an independent consultant, who was given the task to carry out a comprehensive analysis of the prevailing price of urea and determine the rationale, reasonability, or otherwise of the price increase---Enquiry report was submitted before the Commission and with recommendation of the enquiry report, show-cause notices were issued to each of the undertakings---After taking into account factors, namely the effect of alleged gas curtailment, input costs, subsidies, profitability analysis, undertakings appeared to have indulged in the practice of unreasonable price increase---Undertakings being dominant in the relevant market, appeared to have abused their dominant position, both individually and collectively by carrying out unreasonable price increase in urea without any justification, which stood to prima facie violate clause (a) of subsection (3) of S.3 and subsection (2)(1) of said S.3 of the Act---Undertakings replied the show-cause notice and detailed grounds to justify increase in price of urea---'Farmers Associates Pakistan', during said proceedings requested the Commission to allow it to file an intervener application in accordance with Regln.27 of the Commission's (General Enforcement) Regulations, 2007, which request was granted by the Commission and undertaking objected to said intervening application---“Farmers Associates Pakistan” in its written submission, apprised the Commission that it represented a broad cross-section of farmers approximately 1900 hailing from all over Pakistan and that its membership was extended to them without regard to size of members, land holdings, it, in circumstances represented the interests of the farmers of Pakistan in general and its sizable and diverse members' community in particular---Out of seven undertakings, three raised objection that Farmers Associates Pakistan could not be allowed to join the proceedings as an intervener, whereas other parties/undertakings did not press that issue---First issue which arose and needed to be addressed for disposal of the matter was “whether the intervener's application could be allowed in the proceedings under S.30 of the Competition Act, 2010”---Intervention was a method by which a person or undertaking, not involved in the litigation as claimant or defendant, could make representation and submit information/evidence or expertise and could make an effective contribution to the decision-making process---Definition of 'Intervener', which had been laid out in Regln. No.2(1)(i) of Commission's (General Enforcement) Regulations, 2007, clearly spelled out that an intervener, could be either a person or persons or an undertaking to be allowed intervention in any proceedings under said Enforcement Regulations---No prerequisite of being an undertaking to be allowed to join the proceedings as an intervener existed Citation Name: 2016 CLD 444 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Bookmark this Case ACQUISITION OF BUSINESS RELATING TO A PORTFOLIO OF ONCOLOGY PRODUCTS (EXCLUDING MANUFACTURING) VS Abuse of dominant position--Term , Competition (Merger Control) Regulations 2007--Rule , Competition Act 2010--11 , Competition Act 2010--2 , Competition Act 2010--3 , Competition Act 2010--31 , Determination--Term , Meaning--Term , Ss. 11, 3, 31(1)(d)(i) & 2(e)---Competition (Merger Control) Regulations, 2007, Reglns. 5 & 6---Pre-merger application, acceptance of---Approval of merger---Factors for determination of substantial lessening of competition---Merger which substantially lessens competition by creating or strengthening a dominant position in relevant market---Determination---"Dominant position"---Meaning---Abuse of dominant position---Applicant, a pharmaceutical company, pursuant to sale and purchase agreement, submitted pre-merger application seeking clearance for acquisition of business relating to portfolio of oncology products (excluding manufacturing) from another pharmaceutical company---During the first phase review of proposed merger, Commission found other company to be in dominant position in relevant product market and that company would create dominant position as result of proposed merger by acquiring market share of other company---Applicant company had marketed seventeen oncology products in Pakistan and other company, five products; out of which only one oncology product from each merger parties was substitutable with each other, and for which they had competed with each other in Pakistan---Relevant geographic market was national in scope---Applicant company had given its share in market, and was a small player in market for said common oncology product; whereas, other company was dominant---Large number of alternative to said common oncology products were available and were being marketed in Pakistan---Consumers would still have choice after completion of proposed acquisition---Competition Commission observed that proposed merger would reduce from 11 to 10 major companies developing and distributing said common product, which was large number of players---History of collusion (between merger parties) had not been found---Total sales generated from said common products by applicant company was negligible---Low price difference existed between said common products of applicant company and that of other company---If there was ten per cent increase in price of the product, consumers and purchasers might switch to one of many alternative products which were available in the market---Applicant company had not planned to discontinue its product and intended to market the same under brand name of the other company---Consumers and suppliers would, therefore, still have choice of purchasing said product with same name---Proposed acquisition was not likely to have appreciable adverse effect on competition in Pakistan---Competition Commission, allowing application, authorized proposed merger unconditionally in terms of S. 31(1)(d)(i) of Competition Act, 2010---Pre-merger application was allowed in circumstances. Citation Name: 2013 CLD 1184 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Bookmark this Case INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF PAKISTAN (ICAP) VS Abuse of dominant position--Term , Competition Act 2010--38 , Competition Act 2010--4 , Ss. 4 & 38(3)---Abuse of dominant position---Institution of Chartered Accountants of Pakistan (ICAP), issued 'July Directive' whereby it had prohibited its members and chartered accountant firms from training non-ICAP accountancy students---'ICAP', maintained that pursuant to subsequent directive (October Circular), said prohibition was narrowed down to such members and accountancy firms who were approved training organization of 'ICAP'---Said 'July Directive', had a wider scope and had placed an absolute bar on all members of 'ICAP' engaging trainees of other accounting bodies---Contention of 'ICAP' that subsequent to the 'October circular', show-cause notice issued to it had lost its basis had no merit---Such prohibition on accountancy firm foreclosed, shut out and precluded not only a large segment of the relevant market for non-ICAP students, but the most valuable segment---Accountancy firms were restricted in their choice and freedom to engage a trainee; while it deprived the non-ICAP students, both quantitatively and qualitatively, from gaining such experience, practically from the most prestigious segment of the training market which adversely impacts the accountancy firms as well as the value of the qualification offered by direct competitors of 'ICAP', thereby restricting, preventing and reducing competition in the relevant market---Normally, each accountancy body had a best of public practice firms and/or commercial organizations, which were recognized for imparting training, necessary to complete the requirements for getting membership of the institute---Those recognized trainers, then accept accountancy students and certify that experience gained by the students---Training through a public practice accounting firms, was a valuable form of training for accountancy students---Said 'July Directive', had also created a barrier for those students seeking entry in the market for provision of accountancy services in Pakistan---'ICAP' need not ban its members from training students of other accountancy bodies to purportedly improve the quality of training for their own students---'ICAP' ought not discourage, discriminate or otherwise unequally treat growing number of a human resource, essential for a vibrant economy---As a natural corollary of competition in the market, the increase in the number of such professionals in the past had provided and should continue to provide, the businesses and other consumers, not only with a greater choice, but also improved quality and reduced costs for accountancy services---'July Directive' and 'October Circular', were declared to be in violation of S.4 of Competition Act, 2010, and to be without any legal force---Penalty of Rs.25 millions, was imposed on 'ICAP', and it was restrained, from issuing similar Directives and Circulars, in future.

Academic disqualification

Back Back Your Search returned total 1 records from 0 - 1 Citation Name: 2013 CLC 1279 ELECTION-TRIBUNAL-SINDH Bookmark this Case Dr. FAHMIDA MIRZA VS Syed ALI BUX SHAH Academic disqualification--Term , Representation of the People Act 1976--14 , S. 14(3)(5)---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 62(1)(f), 63 & 199---Provincial Assembly, election of---Academic disqualification---Respondent was alleged to have submitted fake degrees in previous election of local bodies and general election---Acceptance of respondent's nomination papers by Returning Officer---Validity---Returning Officer had no jurisdiction to hold that bar contained in Art.62(1)(f) of the Constitution was applicable to respondent---Jurisdiction of Election Tribunal was co-extensive with that of Returning Officer, but neither greater nor more extensive than his---Election Tribunal being a statutory appellate forum having limited jurisdiction under and for purposes of S.14(5) of Representation of the People Act, 1976 was not a "Court of law" within meaning of Art.62(1)(f) of the Constitution, thus, bar contained therein could not be invoked against respondent in proceedings before Tribunal in absence of declaration to contrary by a court of law in relation to him---Tribunal dismissed appeal in circumstances---Principles.

Academic doctrines

Back Back Your Search returned total 1 records from 0 - 1 Citation Name: 2015 PLD 401 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case DISTRICT BAR ASSOCIATION, RAWALPINDI VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Academic doctrines--Term , Utilization of such doctrines/theories by courts for deciding Constitutional and legal issues---Caution to be exercised by courts---Court must exercise caution against unthoughtful utilization of purely academic theories while adjudicating upon practical issues, particularly in matters affecting governance and running of the State---Academic theories depicting intellect, scholarship and ingenuity and advanced through a lecture or a book were like intellectual kite-flying which may be essential or useful for intellectual growth, making contribution to jurisprudence and advancement of learning through triggering thought processes but such theories remained in the air till they attained general acceptability on the ground---Hazardous consequences may follow where a court of law decided Constitutional or legal issues solely on the basis of half-baked academic theories until such theories matured and seasoned as doctrines fit for being used as standards or yardsticks and until they attained general acceptability or widespread recognition.

Academic matters

Back Back Your Search returned total 2 records from 0 - 2 Citation Name: 2012 SCMR 1841 SUPREME-COURT-OF-INDIA Bookmark this Case SANCHIT BANSAL VS JOINT ADMISSION BOARD (JAB) Academic matters--Term , Educational Institution--Term , Academic matters---Interference by court---Scope---Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. Citation Name: 2012 SCMR 1841 SUPREME-COURT-OF-INDIA Bookmark this Case SANCHIT BANSAL VS JOINT ADMISSION BOARD (JAB) Academic matters--Term , Educational Institution--Term , Educational policies--Term , Statutory professional bodies---Academic matters---Educational policies---Interference by courts---Scope---Courts are neither equipped nor have the academic or technical background to substitute themselves in place of statutory professional technical bodies and take decisions in academic matters involving standards and quality of technical education---If courts start entertaining petitions from individual institutions or students to permit courses of their choice, either for their convenience or to alleviate hardship or to provide better opportunities, or because they think that one course is equal to another, without realizing the repercussions on the field of technical education in general, that will lead to chaos in education and deterioration in standards of education---Role of statutory expert bodies on education and role of courts are well defined by a simple rule i.e. "if it is a question of educational policy or an issue involving academic matter, the courts keep their hands off but where any provision of law or principle of law has to be interpreted, applied or enforced, with reference to or connected with education, the courts will step in."

Academic qualification

Back Back Your Search returned total 2 records from 0 - 2 Citation Name: 2014 PLC(CS) 413 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case NIDA TAHIR VS PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary Schools Academic qualification--Term , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--199 , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--25 , Constitutional petition--TERM , Discrimination--Term , Arts. 25 & 199---Constitutional petition---Advertised post, eligibility for---Discrimination----Academic qualification---Provisional certificates of education---Petitioner applied for advertised post of school educator---After clearing the recruitment process and interview, petitioner's name was still not included in the final merit list as she had appended her provisional certificates of bachelor's degrees with her application and not her original academic transcripts and/or degree---Plea of petitioner that her University had not issued original academic transcripts/degrees in time when she applied for the post in question; that there was no variance between her provisional certificates and original academic transcripts; that a similarly placed candidate from another district was selected for post of school educator on basis of provisional certificates, therefore she had been discriminated against---Validity---Petitioner was declared successful by her University and in such respect a provisional certificate was issued to her, which she appended with her application at the time of applying for the post in question---Petitioner applied for the post within time---Whilst petitioner was declined appointed for lack of original academic transcripts and/or degree, a similarly placed candidate in another district was appointed to post of school educator on basis of his provisional certificate---Post in question came under the purview of Provincial Department of Education, therefore if in one district candidates could be accommodated on basis of provisional certificates, then question was why not candidates from another district---Seats for the post in question were lying vacant---High Court directed the Provincial Secretary Education (Schools) to consider the petitioner's case after affording her an opportunity of fair hearing bearing in mind that in another district similarly placed candidates had been accommodated and that seats for the post in question were lying vacant in the petitioner's district---Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly. Citation Name: 2010 PLD 817 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case Nawabzada IFTIKHAR AHMAD KHAN BAR VS CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER ISLAMABAD Academic qualification--Term , Civil Procedure Code --Order X of C.P.C. Examination of Parties by the Court--2 , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--185 , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--199 , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--62 , Representation of the People Act 1976--14 , Representation of the People Act 1976--7 , Representation of the People Act 1976--99-C , Ss. 7, 14 & 99-C---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.62(d)(e)(f), 185 & 199---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. X, R. 2---National Assembly, election of---Academic qualification---Returned candidate holding degree of Alshahadat-ul-Aalmia (equivalent to M.A. in Islamic Studies) issued by a Jamia---Writ of quo warranto by contesting candidate for declaring the returned candidate not to be qualified to become member of National Assembly for not being a graduate and his removal from said office--Dismissal of such writ by High Court for being premature as respondent had not been notified till then as returned candidate by Election Commission---Validity---Nazim of Tanzeem-ul-Madaris, Ahal-e-Sunnat [an institution recognized by Higher Education Commission] denied to have issued four alleged Sanads produced by respondent and issued by the Jamia, which was neither included in list of ten (10) religious institutions approved/recognized by Higher Education Commission nor competent to issue same in name of Tanzeem-ul-Madaris nor affiliated/registered with Tanzeem-ul-Madaris---Respondent claimed to have successfully completed studies for Sanvia Aama (equivalent to Matric), Sanvia Khasa (equivalent to intermediate), Alshahadatul Aalia (equivalent to B.A.), and Alshahadatul Aalmia (equivalent to M.A.) each being of two years course---Sanad equivalent to Matric was allegedly obtained by respondent in year 1993, while remaining three Sanads were allegedly issued to him with regular intervals of two years, which showed that he would have joined said Jamia in year 1991, while on court's question, he submitted to have joined the Jamia in year 1994---Respondent having studied Uloom-e-Islamee for eight long years would be expected to be an "AALAM" well-conversant with all matters relating to Arabic language and religion of Islam, but he on Supreme Court's questions could not tell number of verses and SURAS (chapter) of Holy Qur'an, name of first and second SURAS and Tafseer and meaning of "TAJWEED"---Respondent during such court's questions sought time to make decision either to defend his case or not, whereupon he was granted time and then alone his counsel returned to the Supreme Court and submitted that respondent had decided not to defend his case and had tendered his resignation to Speaker of National Assembly for not being a graduate and placed on record copy of resignation--Respondent being constitutionally and legally debarred from being a member of Parliament had managed to sneak therein by making false statement on oath and using bogus, fake and forged documents polluting piety of Parliament---Such conduct of respondent had demonstrated not only his callous contempt for basic norms of honesty, integrity and his own oath, but undermined sanctity, dignity and majesty of Parliament---Respondent was guilty of impersonation i.e. posing to be what he was not i.e. a graduate---Respondent was guilty of having been a party to making false statements and then dishonestly using same for his benefit knowing same to be false---Respondent was guilty of cheating not only his own constituents, but the nation at large---Supreme Court observed that such like "HOUSE-BREAKING" tendencies on part of dishonest and unscrupulous individuals must be strongly checked before virus becomes an uncontrollable epidemic---Petitioner had not prayed for punishing respondent for his such acts, thus, Supreme Court declined to take any action against him---Returning Officer had not taken any steps to determine eligibility of respondent or whether he was actually possessed of acclaimed qualification---Supreme Court set aside all orders and decisions rendered in such matter by concerned authorities including impugned judgment and directed Election Commission to conduct bye election of the seat vacated by respondent in accordance with law.

Acceptance of nomination papers

Back Back Your Search returned total 2 records from 0 - 2 Citation Name: 2020 MLD 551 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case AIJAZ HUSSAIN JAKHRANI VS MUHAMMAD MIAN SOOMRO S. 63---Appeal against scrutiny order---Acceptance of nomination papers---Scope---Appellant filed appeal against the order of Returning Officer whereby nomination papers of respondent were accepted---Validity---Nomination Form contained details of properties owned by respondent and if any omission was found in the nomination papers, same could not be considered as a concealment on the part of respondent, when details had been disclosed through annexures---If any omission was found, it could be corrected at the time of scrutiny or even thereafter, if required---Where Nomination Form provided insufficient space, the candidate was allowed to use separate sheets---Respondent had categorically stated that neither he had obtained nationality of any other country nor he intended to do so---Respondent was a green card holder but holding of green card being not a nationality---Impugned order being within four corners of law, appeal was dismissed. Citation Name: 2013 CLC 1667 ELECTION-TRIBUNAL-PUNJAB Bookmark this Case AMMIR SOHAIL VS RETURNING OFFICER (PP-20) 2013 CLC 271, Acceptance of nomination papers--Term , Representation of the People Act 1976--12 , Representation of the People Act 1976--14 , Ss. 12 & 14---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.62 & 63---Acceptance of nomination papers---Appellant impugned acceptance of respondent's nomination papers on the ground that the respondent had in election held in the year 1996 declared himself to have passed the intermediate level of education, however, he had in the current year, declared himself to be Matriculate, and was therefore not sagacious, righteous, honest and ameen in view of Art.62(1)(f) of the Constitution---Validity---Appellant had been unable to show any declaration/ conviction/order of any court of law against the respondent in relation to the allegations that had been levelled against him---Appellant had also been unable to show that the Retuning Officer had passed an order by exercise of excess jurisdiction or that the same was perverse---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Acceptance of request

Back Back Your Search returned total 1 records from 0 - 1 Citation Name: 2015 PLC(CS) 663 SERVICE-TRIBUNAL-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case AMIR NADEEM SHAH VS INSPECTOR-GENERAL, BALOCHISTAN POLICE, QUETTA 2005 SCMR 1928, 2008 SCMR 1078, Acceptance of request--Term , Balochistan Civil Pension Rules 1989--Rule , Baluchistan Service Tribunals Act 1974--4 , Request for premature retirement--Term , S. 4---Balochistan Civil Pension Rules, 1989, R.3.5(ii)---Request for premature retirement---Acceptance of request---Application for withdrawal of the request---Employee, serving as Police constable, on completion of his 25 years of qualifying service, vide an application requested for his pre-mature retirement/LPR, which request was accepted---Later on, after about 5 months of acceptance of his request for premature retirement, he submitted application for withdrawal of his demand of premature retirement---Said application was rejected by the Competent Authority---Validity---Under R.3.5(ii) of Balochistan Civil Pension Rules, 1989, once application for such retirement was submitted same would be final and would not be allowed to be modified or withdrawn---Request submitted by the employee for pre-mature retirement after completion of 25 years qualifying service, after its acceptance having become final, same would not be allowed to be modified or withdrawn---Application of employee for withdrawal of premature retirement, was rightly rejected, in circumstances.

Acceptance or rejection

Back Back Your Search returned total 2 records from 0 - 2 Citation Name: 2024 SCMR 775 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case TAHIR SADIQ VS FAISAL ALI Arts. 17(2), 19, 62 & 63---Elections Act (XXXIII of 2017), S. 62---Elections---Right to vote for a candidate of one's choice---Scope---Interpretation of elections laws in favour of enfranchisement rather than disenfranchisement---Nomination papers for elections---Acceptance or rejection---Principles. Citation Name: 2017 YLR 436 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case TALIB HUSSAIN VS State S. 342---Statement of accused---Acceptance or rejection---Statement of accused under S.342, Cr. P. C. was to be accepted or rejected as a whole.

Access Promotion Contribution

Back Back Your Search returned total 1 records from 0 - 1 Citation Name: 2017 CLC 105 ISLAMABAD Bookmark this Case LINKDOTNET TELECOM VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN 1999 SCMR 138, 1999 SCMR 467, 2001 SCMR 1161, 2004 SCMR 400, 2007 SCMR 1357, PLD 1999 Lah. 187, PLD 2001 Kar. 30, PLD 2004 SC 108, PLD 2010 SC 1066, PLD 2011 Lah. 160, Access Promotion Contribution--Term , Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-Organization) Act 1996--4-K , S. 4-K--- Access Promotion Contribution--- Suspension of notification---Effect---Petitioners assailed clarifications dated 15-6-2015 and 22-6-2015 and demand notices issued by authorities on the basis of such clarifications---Order/notification in question was suspended for the time being and when stay was vacated it revived---In the year 2014 the directive was stayed by two different High Courts and stay orders came to an end on 24-2-2015 and the result of the same was that 2014 policy directive was revived and became operative from its original date---Effect---Clarifications issued by authorities were not sustainable and the demand based on such clarifications issued by authorities were also not tenable---Authorities issued notification dated 1-7-2014, which was in field and was suspended only for some period, therefore, authorities were estopped from demanding charges on the basis of 2013 policy directive---Clarifications dated 15-6-2015 and 22-6-2015 as well as demand notices based thereon were set aside by High Court with direction that authorities to implement notification letter dated 1-7-2014 from its date of issuance-Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Access to justice, right of

Back Back Your Search returned total 2 records from 0 - 2 Citation Name: 2017 SCMR 1887 SUPREME-COURT-OF-UK Bookmark this Case R (on the application of UNISON) VS LORD CHANCELLOR Effectiveness, principle of---Scope---Effective judicial protection, principle of---Scope---Imposition of fees for access to (employment) tribunals and appeal tribunal---Whether such fees breached 'principle of effectiveness' and the 'principle of effective judicial protection' (recognized under European Union law)---Prior to the Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal Fees Order, 2013 ("the Fees Order"), a claimant could bring and pursue proceedings in an Employment Tribunal and appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal without paying any fees---After the 'Fees Order' came into force , claims and appeals in the tribunals and appellate tribunal could only be commenced and continued on payment of fees, except where an individual applied and qualified for a remission; held, that 'principle of effectiveness' and the 'principle of effective judicial protection' were recognized as general principles (of European Union) law---Proper administration of justice might justify imposition of a financial restriction, such as payment of fees, on access to a remedy, however, the restriction had to retain a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the legitimate aim sought to be achieved---Proportionality required the fees charged to be proportionate in amount to the sums being claimed in the proceedings---Ability of a person to pay fees was not determinative of their proportionality: it was merely one among a number of relevant factors---Amount of the fees assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of a given case, including the applicant's ability to pay them, and the phase of the proceedings at which that restriction had been imposed, were factors which were material in determining whether or not a person enjoyed the right of access to a court---Financial restrictions on access to a court which were unrelated to the merits of a claim or its prospects of success should be subject to particularly rigorous scrutiny by the courts---In relation to the phase of the proceedings at which the restriction had been imposed, the court ought to regard it as significant if non-payment of a fee may result in a claim's never being examined on its merits---Since the fees imposed under the 'Fees Order' were in practice unaffordable by some people and were so high as to prevent persons who could afford them from pursuing small or non-monetary claims, the 'Fees Order' imposed limitations on the exercise of (European Union) rights which were disproportionate and therefore unlawful under the (European Union) law---'Fees Order' was also unlawful because it contravened the (European Union) law guarantee of an effective remedy before a tribunal; it imposed disproportionate limitations on the enforcement of (European Union) employment rights---Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal Fees Order, 2013 was unlawful under the (European Union) law because it prevented access to justice---Supreme Court (UK) declared the Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal Fees Order, 2013 to be unlawful ab initio and quashed the same. Citation Name: 2017 SCMR 1887 SUPREME-COURT-OF-UK Bookmark this Case R (on the application of UNISON) VS LORD CHANCELLOR Scope--- Proceedings before tribunals--- Fees, payment of---Imposition of fees for access to (employment) tribunals and appeal tribunal---Whether such fees breached (common law) right of access to justice---Prior to the Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal Fees Order 2013 ("the Fees Order"), a claimant could bring and pursue proceedings in an Employment Tribunal and appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal without paying any fees---After the 'Fees Order' came into force, claims and appeals in the tribunals and appellate tribunal could only be commenced and continued on payment of fees, except where an individual applied and qualified for a remission---Objectives of the 'Fees Order' were to transfer the cost burden from taxpayers to users of the tribunals; to deter unmeritorious claims, and to encourage earlier settlement---Appellant-trade union sought judicial review of the decision to introduce fees, on the grounds that making of the 'Fees Order' was not a lawful exercise because the prescribed fees interfered unjustifiably with the right of access to justice (under common law), and frustrated the operation of Parliamentary legislation granting employment rights---High Court and Court of Appeal dismissed the trade union's claim; held, that the constitutional right of access to justice was inherent in the rule of law and ensured that rights created by Parliament and interpreted by courts and tribunals were applied and enforced---Tribunals were not merely the providers of a service which was only of value to users who brought claims before them---Right of access to justice was to be understood in a broader social context as establishing principles of general importance and resolving questions of genuine uncertainty in interpreting legislation---Value to society of such access extended to the knowledge that rights would be enforced and that remedies existed where obligations were not met---In particular, the possibility of claims being brought by employees whose rights were infringed had to exist if employment relationships were to be based on respect for such rights---Furthermore negotiation and mediation could only work fairly in the context of the awareness of those involved that a fair and just system of adjudication was available---Right of access to justice, administered promptly and fairly, had long been recognised and could only be curtailed by clear and express statutory words---Any hindrance or impediment by the executive in such regard required clear Parliamentary authorisation and a statutory power authorising any intrusion was to be interpreted as doing so only to the extent reasonably necessary to fulfil the particular objective in question---Question as to whether any fees effectively prevented access to justice must be decided according to the likely impact of the fees on behaviour in the real world---Fees must be affordable not in a theoretical sense, but in the sense that they could reasonably be afforded