Quick Legal Services QLS

Quick Legal Services QLS About Criminal, Civil, NAB, FIA, PEMRA, Service Matters, family,narcotics ,Banking and corporate

31/05/2024

2020 SCMR 458
S.497 Ss. 324,148,149,337-A(I) F(1)
Bail grant of
Delay in Conclusion of trial.
1. Statutory Ground
2. Non conclusion of trial
Nor was he desperate or hardened criminal
Bail grant of
2023 SCMR 1450
S. 497(1) third proviso Ss. 324, 379, 337-A(I)
Murderous Assault bail grant of statutory Ground. After framing of charge it is the duty of trial court to conclude the trial.
Bail grant of
2019 YLR 626
S. 497 Ss. 302, 324 qatl-i- amd, attempt to qatl-i- amd bail grant of. on the basis of statutory Ground. 70 adjournment were provided to prosecution for production of evidence but prosecution failed to produce evidence.
Bail was allowed.
2017 PCR. LJ Note 60
S.497(2) Ss. 302, 324 qatl-i- amd, attempt to qatl-i- amd bail grant of further inquiry.
Mere heinousness of offence is not a ground to refuse bail. Bail grant of.
Muhammad Sajjad Baloch Advocate High Court

15/07/2022

دعوی تعمیل معاہدہ مختص بقایا رقم عدالت میں جمع کرانا ضروری ہے بصورت دیگر دعوی خارج ہوگا
PLD 2022 lahore 372 DB.

Balance sale consideration, deposit of---Suit for possession through specific performance---Appellant/plaintiff had allegedly paid earnest money at the time of ex*****on of agreement---Specific notice was assertedly issued to respondents/defendants notifying that balance sale consideration had been arranged---Civil Court granted status quo which was ordered to be maintained subject to payment of remaining sale consideration---Appellant was also directed to affix proper Court fee---Appellant failed to deposit remaining sale consideration----To meet the ends of justice one "absolute" "last opportunity" was being provided to the appellant---Direction to deposit the balance sale consideration, failing which no further opportunity shall be given and "order shall be passed in accordance with law"---Appellant had not deposited the remaining sale consideration nor any plausible reason was brought on record---Suit was consequently dismissed---Validity---[Per Rasaal Hasan Syed J.; Shahid Karim J. dissenting]---Repeated caution and last opportunity given by the Civil Judge to the appellant on non-deposit of the balance sale consideration, were couched in general terms of reiterating that in case of failure to deposit, "an order would be passed in accordance with law"---Such expression could be interpreted to entail the vacation of the status quo order qua alienation granted in favour of appellant----No explicit/ unequivocal warning of dismissal of suit as specific penal consequence of non-deposit of balance sale consideration was recorded by putting appellant on notice nor could anything to that effect be shown by respondents---Dismissing the suit itself on non-deposit of the balance sale consideration did not appear to be readily covered by the phrase "order shall be passed in accordance with law" repeatedly used by the Civil Judge---Suit could not be dismissed on non-deposit unless the Trial Court had specifically directed deposit of remaining sale consideration and put the plaintiff on explicit notice to such effect bearing clear warning that non-deposit of balance sale price should be deemed to be his inability of performing his part of contract---No such clear/unambiguous and pointed warning was ever issued to the appellant in the case as to explicitly notify the appellant of the penal effect of dismissal of suit---Appeal was allowed; undertaking was taken that appellant should deposit the balance sale consideration within 7 days; and appellant was put on notice that in case of failure to deposit the said amount within seven days of the date of appearance immediately, his suit would be deemed to be automatically dismissed

07/07/2022

-Autistic minor----Interim maintenance allowance had been raised from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per month-

(((2022 - C L C - 89)))
[Lahore (Multan Bench)]

Dr. MUHAMMAD JAWAD JAN ARIF
Versus
Dr. AYESHA CHAUDHRY and 2 others

(a) Family Courts Act (###V of 1964)---
----S.17A---Interim maintenance---Autistic minor---Petitioner's 5½ years old daughter was suffering from the Autism Spectrum Disorder---Interim maintenance allowance had been raised from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per month---Petitioner had served at eminent positions as neurosurgeon in Pakistan and abroad---Petitioner admitted that his wife's father was killed and that she had to provide for her mother as well---Held, that reason for excessive interim maintenance was manifestly reflected in the impugned order that the child whose maintenance was in issue was an autistic child whose needs/requirements were indeed over and above and in excess of what were generally associated with typical 5 years old children---In the present days of massive inflation, impugned order, especially in the case of an autistic child, could not be said to be unreasonable or even harsh---Amount fixed had a rational nexus with the requirements/needs of a differently abled child and, therefore, was quite proportionate---Impugned order was passed in the presence of the petitioner, who was heard by Family Judge---Autistic individuals had lifelong needs, more so at the tender age of 5---Facilities that would be luxury to typical kids were basically necessities for an autistic child, for example, swimming, skating, therapy etc. are basic skills to prevent drowning and develop coordination respectively---Specialist coaches were indeed expensive---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
(b) Family Courts Act (###V of 1964)---
----S.17A---Interim maintenance---Power to enhance/decrease amount---Family Court, jurisdiction of---Scope---Purpose behind the powers under provisions of S.17A of the Family Courts Act, 1964, to grant interim maintenance to the concerned parties was to ensure that during pendency of proceedings for grant of maintenance, affected minors were not faced with financial constraints---Family Court did not have un-fettered/un-bridled powers to fix interim maintenance at its discretion---Court may broadly look into the social status of the parties; earning of the defendant; his capacity to pay; requirements of the minor and on this touchstone fix interim maintenance---No right of appeal etc. had been provided against such a determination, because the order was tentative and interim in nature---Court had power to enhance or decrease the quantum of maintenance eventually after appraising/deciphering/examining the evidence produced during trial---Findings qua interim maintenance normally could not be interfered with, if the same were fixed upon the said parameters.
(c) Constitution of Pakistan---
----Art.199---Constitutional jurisdiction---Judicial review---Scope---Judicial review was the means to ensure legitimacy and legality in administrative and legislative action---Such was a process whereby the intent of the parliament as contained in a statute was harnessed, secured and protected.
(d) Family Courts Act (###V of 1964)---
----S. 14---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Scope---Family court---No right to appeal---Held, that when the Legislature had specifically prohibited the filing of an appeal against an interim order, constitutional petition, if perpetuated, would tantamount to defeating/diverting the intent of the Legislature---Principle of judicial review could not be used to negate/erase/offend the manifest intent of the law-maker.
e) Medical jurisprudence---
----"Autism", defined---Special needs/problems/expenditures of autistic child elaborated.

01/11/2021

پاکستانی عدالتیں آج سے قبل ڈی این اے کو بنیادی شہادت ماننے کو تیار نہ تھیں لیکن سیریم کورٹ نے اپنی حالیہ ججمنٹ میں ڈی این اے کو ملزم کی شناخت کے لئے بہترین شہادت قرار دیا ہے ۔
PLD 2021 SC 550

R**e.--- Sexual history/character of r**e victim---Relevancy---"Two-finger test (TFT) or "virginity test"---Constitutionality and legality---In r**e cases sexual history/character of r**e victim was not relevant and it could not be used to discredit the victim's credibility---Furthermore the two- finger test" (TFT) or "virginity test" had no scientific justification or evidentiary relevance to determine the commission of the sexual assault of r**e---Reporting sexual history of a r**e survivor amounted to discrediting her independence, identity, autonomy and free choice thereby degrading her human worth and offending her right to dignity guaranteed under Art. 14 of the Constitution---Principles relating to relevance of sexual history of r**e victim and constitutionality of two- finger test" (TFT) or “virginity test" stated.
PLD 2021 SC 550

----S. 376--R**e----DNA test report-- Evidentiary value---DNA test report due to its scientific accuracy and conclusiveness, was considered as a gold standard to establish the identity of an accused and a very strong corroborative piece of evidence.

PLD 2021 SC 550

04/09/2021

Differences between “Review” and “Revision” under C.P.C:

Review:

1. Section 114 Order 47 deals with Review.

2. Any court, which passed the decree or made order, can review the case.

3. The review can be made only on an application by an aggrieved party.

4. The order granting the review is appealable.

5. Review can be made even when an appeal lies to the High Court.

6. The grounds for review are: (a) discovery of new and important matter or evidence; (b) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (c) any other sufficient reason.

Revision:

1. Section 115 deals with the Revision.

2. The High Court can only do revision of any case which has been decided by any court subordinate to it.

3. Revisional powers can be exercised by the High Court on an application or even suo motu (of its own motion).

4. An order passed in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction is not appealable.

5. Revisional power can be exercised by the High Court only in a case where no appeal lies to the High Court.

6. The Conditions:
(a) A case must have been decided; (b) the Court which has decided the case must be a Court subordinate to the High Court;
(c) The order should not be an appeaiable one;
(d) The subordinate court must have

– (i) exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or
(ii) failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it, or
(iii) acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material Irregularity.

03/09/2021

آئین پاکستان 1973 میں اب تک کی گئی 25 ترامیم آسان اردو زبان میں ملاحظہ فرمائیں۔


پہلی_ترمیم_1974
آئین پاکستان 1973 کی پہلی ترمییم میں پاکستان کے حدود اربعہ کا دوبارہ تعین کیا گیا

دوسری_ترمیم_1974
قادیانیوں کو غیر مسلم اقلیت قرار دیا گیا

تیسری_ترمیم_1975
اس ترمیم میں Preventive Detention کی مدت کو بڑھایا گیا، Preventive Detection کا مطلب ہے کسی ایسے شخص کو نامعلوم مقام پر رکھنا جو ریاست پاکستان کے خلاف سرگرمیوں میں ملوث ہو۔

چوتھی_ترمیم_1975
اقلیتوں کو پارلیمنٹ میں اضافی سیٹیں دی گئیں۔

پانچویں_ترمیم_1976
ہائ کورٹ کا اختیار سماعت وسیع کیا گیا

چھٹی_ترمیم_1976
ہائ کورٹ اور سپریم کورٹ کے ججز کی ریٹائرڈمنٹ کی مدت بالترتیب 62 اور 65 سال کی گئ۔

ساتویں_ترمیم_1977
وزیر اعظم کو یہ پاور دی گئ کہ وہ کسی بھی وقت پاکستان کی عوام سے اعتماد کا ووٹ حاصل کر سکتا ہے۔

آٹھویں_ترمیم_1985
پارلیمانی نظام سے سیمی صدارتی نظام متعارف کروایا گیا اور صدر کو اضافی پاورز دی گئیں۔

نویں_ترمیم_1985
شریعہ لاء کو لاء آف دی لینڈ کا درجہ دیا گیا۔

دسویں_ترمیم_1987
پارلیمنٹ کے اجلاس کا دورانیہ مقرر کیا گیا کہ دو اجلاس کا درمیانی وقفہ 130 دن سے نہیں بڑھے گا

گیارھویں_ترمیم_1989
دونوں اسمبلیوں میں سیٹوں کی Revision کی گئ۔

بارھویں_ترمیم_1991
سنگین جرائم کے تیز ترین ٹرائل کے لئے خصوصی عدالتیں عرصہ 3 سال کے لئے قائم کی گئیں

تیرھویں_ترمیم_1997
صدر کی نیشنل اسمبلی تحلیل کرنے اور وزیر اعظم ہٹانے کی پاورز کو ختم کیا گیا۔

چودھویں_ترمیم_1997
ممبران پارلیمنٹ میں Defect پائے جانے کی صورت میں ان کو عہدوں سے ہٹانے کا قانون وضح کیا گیا۔

پندرھویں_ترمیم_1998
شریعہ لاء کو لاگو کرنے کے بل کو پاس نا کیا گیا۔

سولہویں_ترمیم_1999
کوٹہ سسٹم کی مدت 20 سے بڑھا کر 40 سال کی گئ

سترھویں_ترمیم_2003
صدر کی پاورز میں اضافہ کیا گیا

اٹھارویں_ترمیم_2010
اس ترمیم میں
NWFP
کا نام تبدیل کیا گیا اور آرٹیکل 6 متعارف کروایا گیا،اور اس کے علاوہ صدر کی نیشنل اسمبلی تحلیل کرنے کی پاور کو ختم کیا گیا۔

انیسویں_ترمیم_2010
اسلام آباد ہائ کورٹ قائم کی گئ،اور سپریم کورٹ کے ججز کی تعیناتی کے حوالے سے قانون وضح کیا گیا۔

بیسویں_ترمیم_2012
صاف شفاف انتخابات کے لئے چیف الیکشن کمشنر کو الیکشن کمیشن آف پاکستان میں تبدیل کیا گیا۔

اکیسویں_ترمیم_2015
سانحہ APS کے بعد ملٹری کورٹس متعارف کروائ گئیں۔

بائیسویں_ترمیم_2016
چیف الیکشن کمیشن آف پاکستان کی اہلیت کا دائرہ کار تبدیل کیا گیا کہ بیورو کریٹس اور ٹیکنو کریٹس بھی ممبر الیکشن کمیشن آف پاکستان بن سکیں گے۔

تئیسویں_ترمیم_2017
سال 2015 میں قومی اسمبلی نے اکیسویں ترمیم میں 2 سال کے لئے ملٹری کورٹس قائم کیں۔ یہ دوسال کا دورانیہ 6 جنوری 2017 کو ختم ہو گیا،اس تئیسویں ترمیم میں ملٹری کورٹس کے دورانیے کو مزید 2 سال کے لئے 6 جنوری 2019 تک بڑھایا گیا۔

چوبیسویں_ترمیم_2017
مردم شماری کے نتائج کی بنیاد پر حلقہ بندیوں کو دوبارہ تشکیل دیا گیا۔

پچیسویں_ترمیم_2018
فاٹا کو خیبر پختونخواہ میں ملانے کے لئے صدر نے 31 مئ 2018 کو دستخط کئے.

01/09/2021

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES
[CRIMINAL CASES]
Change of language. Unnecessary and superfluous language in prior legislation deleted from later statute. No presumption can be drawn from the change. PLD 1949 Lah. 188. Abdul Wahid v. Crown .
Construing a Constitution Act. Power of legislature. Unrestricted scope to be given within its own ambit. (FC) PLD 1950 FC 1 Muhammad Ali v. Crown.
Construing an amending Act. In order to construe an amending Act it is not only legitimate but highly convenient to refer both to the former Act and the evils which it gave rise to and the latter Act which provided the remedy (FC) PLD 1951 FC 118 Muhammad Haroon v. Crown.
Expiry of temporary statute. Its effect in case of cancellation of notification PLD 1956 Kar. 535. Nisar Ahmed v. Crown.
Proviso not to be given meaning by implication which is not to be found in the enacting part. (PC) PLD 1948 P.C. 211 Governor General v. M.C. Madura.
Court cannot probe into choice of legislature when enactment providing sufficient safeguards against its abuse. PLD 1956 BJ 17 Miran v. Crown.
Later enactment cannot be judged in the light of the language of the earlier when the legislation is separated by half a century and enacted by different bodies. PLD 1956 Lah. 664. Ilam Din.
English Law. It is dangerous to construe Indian Act by reference to English Law. (PC) PLD 1947 P.C. 103 Thiagraja v. Emperor.
Courts not to enquire into reasons of legislation. Executive Officer empowered to curtail or take away liberty of citizen on his being satisfied that such action was necessary in the interest of public safety or public order. Courts are concerned with meaning and interpretation of law. PLD 1952 Lah. 624. Abdul Ghafoor v. Crown.
Faulty drafting of statute resulting in contradiction absurdity, hardship or injustice presumably not intended, a construction may be put upon it which modifies the meaning of the words and even the structure of the sentences. (FB) PLD 1950 Lah. 384. Sarfraz Khan etc. v. Crown.
Special Law. Where there is special and general law applicable to a matter, the principle is, that special law will prevail. PLD 1950 Dac. 37. Safi-ud-Din Kazi v. P.C. Roy.
General principles of interpreting statutes are that the interpretation should be natural, appropriate and simple and should give the words their ordinary meaning. It should be consistent with the intention of legislature and should help the administration of justice. It should not offend the common sense. It should not lead to ridiculous consequences. (DB) PLD 1956 Pesh. 110. State v. Said Akbar.
Consideration of mischief and remedy are to be kept in view, History of the Act and the reasons which led to its being passed and not only the words used in the Act. It is the duty of the judge to construe a statute so that it shall "suppress the mischief and advance the remedy." Extended meaning to the words and phraseology can be given to prevent failure of justice and the legislation may not be reduced to futility. (FC) Muhammad Haroon (DB) PLD 1958 Kar. 35. Moazzam Hussain.
Illustration to sections may be called in aid to interpret the intention of the legislature. (FC) PLD 1951 FC 62, Ghulam Rasul v. Crown. (DB) PLD 1959 Lah. 429. Salim Ullah Beg v. Mst. Motia Begum.
Judge not to add or take out from statute except that there be adequate grounds justifying inference that legislature intended something which it omitted to express. (DB) PLD 1949. Nazar Muhammad v. Crown.
Court may add words to provisions to be construed when literal construction is repugnant to good sense. (FC) PLD 1959 FC 209. Working Muslim Mission etc. v. Crown.
Penal Act-Liberal Constructions. Provisions of Penal Act ought to be construed liberally so as to lean towards the liberty of the subject. (FB) PLD 1954 Lah. 14. Mazhar Ali Khan v. Governor of the Punjab.
Penal Statutes-to be construed strictly. The statutes which trench upon the liberty of the subject must be construed strictly and nothing should be deemed to fall within the terms of any such statute unless the words used are wide enough to cover it PLD 1952 Lah. 578 Rahmat Aslam v. Crown.
Penal statutes language is to be strictly construed. Question of carrying forward any legal fiction" does not arise. (SC) PLD 1975 SC 506. Bring F.B. Ali. PLJ 1975 Sc 369 = PLD 1963 Lah. 474. G.N. Dalmia. PLD 1964 Lah. 423.
Penal Statutes-in case of doubt. Interpretation to be in favour of the subject case of doubt. (QB) 42 Cr.LJ 125, King v. Aung Nyun.
Penal statutes-Construction favourable to citizen. When two interpretations of a provision are possible then the one which is favourable to the citizen should be adopted. (DB) PLD 1973 Kar. 78. Liaqat Ali v. Government of Sindh. PLD 1963 Kar. 1001 Muhammad Nakifo. PLD 1964 Kar. 384. State v. Abdul Hakim.
Dictionary meanings. Dictionaries cannot be taken as authoritative exponents of the meaning of the words used in the Act of Legislature for the plainest words may be controlled by a reference to the context. (DB) 47. Cr.LJ 44. Rup Lal Mehra v. Emp. 221 IC 48 = AIR 1945 Lah. 158.
Grammatical meaning. Plain words of a statute free from ambiguity, strict grammatical meaning should be followed. (DB) PLD 1951 Sindh. 1 Noor Muhammad v. Sardar Khatoon.
Preamble and construction. Though the preamble may be considered to be a key to the Act itself, it cannot normally be applied to explain the act itself except where the provision contained in its body are otherwise vague. (DB) PLD 1950 Pesh. 22. Shah Muhammad v. Crown.
Preamble and construction. Where the section is very clear on the point it is not necessary to consider the preamble (DB) PLD 1952 Dac. 272. Nur-ud-Din Akhan v. Kuti Baru Bibi.
Preamble and construction. The preamble cannot either restrict or extend the enacting party, when the language and the object and scope of the Act are not open to doubt. (DB) PLD 1952 Dac. 425. Soudamint Roy v. Narendra Chandra.
Preamble and construction. Preamble will not qualify enactment in itself clear and unambiguous. PLD 1953 Sindh 15 S.M. Solomon v. M.J. Solomon.
Preamble: marginal notes or head notes. When the language of the section is obscure and ambiguous, the preamble, marginal note or head notes may be referred to for discovering intention of the legislature. (DB) PLD 1955 Pesh. 76. Gul Muhammad Khan v. Dilawar Khan (FB) PLD 1958 Lah. 120 Muhammad Umar Khan v. Tehsildar Mardan. (FB) PLD 1958 Pesh. 73. Abdur Rauf v. N.W.F.P. Government.
Provision prospective or retrospective. Provisions affecting substantive rights are prospective in effect in the absence of express words or necessary intendment indicating retrospective operation. Right of appeal is a substantive right. (SC) PLD 1956 SC 256 = PLD 1956 Lah. 865. Dilbar Hussain v. Khurshid Ahmed.
Retrospective effect if intended, must be expressed by words or object must be clear from the Act. (DB) PLD 1950 Lah. 221. Amir Shah v. Crown, PLD 1951 BJ 47. Mst. Fazal Bibi v. Habib Ullah. PLD 1959 Lah. 915. Khaliq and Najam Co. (DB) PLD 1960 Kar. 20 Shah Mustan Khan v. Sui gas.
Proviso may limit enactment. A proviso may limit and severely limit the application of an enactment to which it is a proviso but it could only be held in the most exceptional circumstances that the proviso nullifies the enactment (PC) PLD 1955 PC 4. Dyal Singh v. Kenyan Insurance Ltd.
Proviso-Construction. A proviso is of great importance when the Court has to consider what cases come within the enacting part of the section, and it is always to be construed with reference to the proceeding parts of the clause to which it is appended. (DB) PLD 1950 Lah. 12. Khan Iftikhar Hussain Khan of Mamdot.
Repeal (implied). The Court should ordinarily lean against an implied repeal. The latest expression of the legislature will and ought to prevail although there is no express repealing clause in the new enactment. An Act which contains a provision offending against a constitutional provision would be ultra vires. (FB) PLD 1955 Lah. 215. Lal Khan v. Crown. (FC) PLD 1956 FC 157 157 Punjab Province v. Sita Ram. (FB) PLD 1958 Lah. 229. Mst. Maryam v. Dost Muhammad, (SC) PLD 1964 SC 673. Abul Alla Maudoodi.
Repeal and re-enactment: If any Central Act is repealed and re-enacted then, unless otherwise provided, any appropriate notification, under, scheme, rule, forum shall continue in force unless same are inconsistent with new enactment. PLD 1997 Lah. 563, State v. Shafi M. Sehwani. (D.B.).
"Beneficial construction." The rule of beneficial construction comes into play only when the language used is so ambiguous that two constructions are equally or almost equally possible. Where the language is clear the rule of beneficial construction has no applicability. (FC) PLD 1951 FC 118. Muhammad Haroon v. Crown.
Strict Interpretation of Penal Laws. Penal law must be interpreted strictly and in favour of the subject not so as to deprive him of his legal rights. PLD 1958 FC 145. Abdus Sattar Molla v. Crown.
Penal Provision. Strict construction. Sense which best harmonises with context or effectuates the legislative intent should be adopted. PLD 1949 Lah. 188. Abdul Wahid v. Crown.
Procedural Statutes. Statutes dealing with procedure come into force at once and apply to all actions brought before or after its passing. PLD 1951 Pesh. 49. Painda Khan v. Akram. PLD 1956 Lah. 865 Dilbar Hussain v. Khurshid.
Encroachment upon rights. Statutes which encroach upon the rights of the subject, whether of person or property are subject to a strict construction. Where the import of some enactment is inconclusive or ambiguous the Court may properly lean in favour of an interpretation that leaves, private rights undisturbed but where the language is clear the rule does not apply. (PC) PLD 1952 PC 29. AG of Canada v. Hallet and Carey Ltd. (SC) PLD 1959 SC 476. Yousaf Ali v. E. Pak. (PC) PLD 1959 PC 84. Ross-Clunis v. Vassos.
Temporary Act enforced but withdrawn at trial. Temporary Act enforced by notification in a particular area, prescribing enhanced penalty i.e. death instead of punishment prescribed under the Penal Code (XLV of 1860) for a certain offence. Notification in force at time of commission of the offence, but withdrawn at the time of trial. Withdrawal leaves law as it previously was. Punishment of death no longer applicable. (FB) PLD 1949 Lah. 550. Crown v. Haveli.
Temporary provisions. Offence under temporary provisions in Act, must be prosecuted and punished while the provision lasts, and as soon as the Act expires, any proceedings which are being taken against a person ipso facto Terminate. Retrial, cannot be ordered in revision after temporary provision has terminated. (DB) PLD 1950 Lah. 479. Crown v. Ghulam Muhammad.
Temporary statute, general rule. While dealing with temporary Statutes the general rule is that in the absence of special provisions to the contrary, the proceedings which are taken under it would ipso facto terminate on the expiry of the Statute. Where Special Court for Speedy Trial Ordinance, 1988 (XIX of 1988) was extended upto 12-2-1989 and Special Court recorded conviction on 11-4-87 when the Act and Ordinance had lapsed, the judgment of the Special Court was coram non judice. 1993 SCMR 1589, Muhammad Arif.
An ordinance can be promulgated time and gain even after the expiry of its life of 4 months if it is for the welfare of the society to prevent legal choas. Refer to para 17 of the judgment, PLJ 1999 SC 105 Riaz Ahmed.
Two contradictory provisions. If two provisions involve an absolute contradiction and it is impossible to construe them together the former provision must give way to the latter. (FB) PLD 1956 Lah. 807 Ahmad Saeed Kirmani v. Fazal Elahi.
Words diversity of. A diversity of terminology does not necessarily involve substantial difference in meaning. (FC) PLD 1953 FC 170 Crown v. Khushi Muhammad. AE
Change of law pending appeal. New law may be applied in deciding appeal. PLD 1961 Lah. 256 Mars. Keyas Byrne v. M. Obaidullah Khan.
Words not used by legislature cannot be read into a section of the Act. (DB) PLD 1960 Lah. 261 Siraj-ud-Din v. Allah Rakha.
Basic rules, applied in interpretation of statutes and constitution are enumerated. (1) Discover the intention of the legislature. (2) Whole enactment must be considered to find the intention. (3) Statute is not to be extended to meet a case for which clear provision has already been made. (4) In case of particular and general enactment in the same statute, the particular enactment must be operative and the general enactment applies to other part. (5) Same principles apply to the interpretation of constitution as to the statutes, effect is to be given to the intention of the framers of the Constitution. (6) Effect must be given to every part and every word of the Constitution. (7) In case of repugnancy between different provisions the Court should harmonise them if possible. (SC) PLD 1957 SC 219 Reference by the President.
Invalid law unchallenged for a number of years does not thereby become sacrosanct. (PC) PLD 1957 PC 115 Attorney General of Australia v. Queen.
Modification of language. Court may modify language of a statute to give effect to manifest and undoubted intention of legislature. (SC) PLD 1961 SC 119 Muhammad Amir Khan v. Controller of Estate Duty.
New punishment provided for past offence, can be given effect to in pending cases, but if the offence was not punishable when committed it cannot be punished retrospectively. PLD 1959 Lah. 883 Abdul Karim.
"Noscitur a sociis" A provision or phrase must be read in connection with the context. (SC) PLD 1957 SC 219 Reference by the President.
Rules cannot supply omission of the legislature in regard to a statute. (DB) PLD 1960 Lah. 709 Hakim-ud-Din v. Government of West Pakistan.
Permanent statute repealed by a temporary statute emerges again on the expiry of the temporary statutes. (DB) PLD 1960 Lah. 236 State v. Muhammad Sharif. PLD 1958 Lah. 77 Sargodha Bus Service.
Provision whether mandatory or directory. Object of the Statute should be looked at. Case Law discussed. (DB) PLD 1958 Kar. 56 Jamil Ahmad v. Chief Commissioner.
Rules powers. Rule making authority cannot clothe itself with powers which statute itself does not give. (SC) PLD 1964 SC 451 East Pakistan v. Noor Ahmad. (DB) PLD 1966 Kar. 518 Muhammad Din and Sons v. Trustees of Port.
Rules not abrogated. Amendment in Act does not abrogate rules unless the section under which they are framed is repealed. (DB) PLD 1966 Lah. 780 Muhammad Din v. Nazar Muhammad Khan.
Rules interpretation. Principles which regulate interpretation of statutes must be taken to interpret the rules as well. (DB) PLD 1960 Lah. 801 Punjab v. Nisar Ahmad.
Rule-force. Rules have the same force as the provisions of the enactment under which framed. (FB) PLD 1958 Pesh. 191 Khan Ajun Khan v. West Pakistan.
Rules cannot defeat enactment. Rules framed under a statute cannot defeat the clear intention of the legislature expressed in the statute. (SC) PLD 1959 SC 296 United Industrial Bank Limited v. Mohan Bashi Shah.
Special provisions override the general. (FB) PLD 1958 Pesh. 191 Khan Ajun Khan v. West Pakistan.
"And". "Or". Ordinarily "and" is used in conjunctive sense while "or" is used in disjunctive sense. However, often interpretation is effected by reading the two words, one for the other. PLJ 1978 Cr.C. (Q.) 421 Syed Yaqub Shah. PLD 1978 Q. 158.
"Or" and "and" are interchangeable and can be read one for the other to give effect to legislative intention. (DB) PLD 1966 Lah. 128 Muhammad Hussain v. Additional District Judge. PLD 1966 Dac. 1 = PLD 1965 Kar. 347 = PLD 1965 Dac. 358 = PLD 1966 Lah. 830 Khan Nasrullah Khan v. Member, Election Commissioner. PLJ 1978 Cr.C. (Q.) 421 Syed Yaqub Shah. PLD 1978 Q. 158.
"Shall" and "May" meaning. "Shall" in statute though generally taken in a mandatory sense, does not necessarily mean that in every case it shall have that effect and unless complied with the proceeding shall be invalid. On the other hand it is not always correct to say that where the word "May" has been used the statute is only permissive or directory in sense and non-compliance will not render the proceedings invalid. (SC Ind.) PLD 1958 Ghulam Hussain. PLD 1964 Lah. 329 Ghulam Qadir.
Jurisdiction. Act conferring jurisdiction impliedly grants power of doing all acts or employing means essentially necessary to its ex*****on. (DB) PLD 1965 Lah. 703 Muhammad Akram v. G.A. Saeed. (DB) PLD 1965 Pesh. 65 Ahmad Khan v. Commissioner Rawalpindi Division.
Alteration in procedural Law. The general principle seems to be that alterations in procedure are retrospective unless there be some good reason against such a view. New procedural law will apply to all pending cases as well as in future. (SC) PLD 1965 SC 681 State v. Muhammad Jamil.
Procedural requirements of criminal law are not mere formalities. Underlying the rules of procedure is an all pervading care to ensure the liberty of the subject and the due dispensation of justice. (FC) PLD 1953 FC 145 Abdus Sattar Molla v. Crown.
No provision in law. Courts cannot extend a statute to meet a case for which a provision has "clearly and undoubtedly" not been made. Court has no power to fill gaps in a statute. (FB) PLD 1965 Lah. 349 Khizar Hayat v. Commissioner, Sargodha Division. (DB) PLD 1966 Lah. 839 Riaz Ahmad v. Election Tribunal.
Superfluous words. No part or word of a statute is to be held surplusage. (SC) PLD 1963 SC 663 E and W Steamship Co. v. Queen Land Insurance Co. PLD 1966 SC 828 Muhammadi Steamship Co.
Policy of law is not concern of the Courts. (DB) PLD 1963 Lah. 337. Rafiq Ahmed.
Interpretation involving least alteration of existing law to be chosen where arguments on question of interpretation are evenly balanced. (SC) PLD 1977 SC 548. Muhammad Hussain Shah. PLJ 1977 SC 433
Interpretation should be made so as to harmonise and to remain consistent with other laws having relevance or nexus with the law sought to be interpreted. PLD 1991 SC 787. Mst. Amir Khatoon v. Faiz Ahmed etc

Address

Office No. 6, District Courts
Islamabad

Telephone

03357690339

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Quick Legal Services QLS posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to Quick Legal Services QLS:

Shortcuts

Share

Category