Law Knowledge

24/12/2025

The failure of the prosecution to produce the relevant Daily Diary entry showing the departure of the police party to the alleged place of occurrence gives rise to a legitimate inference that the police party did not, in fact, proceed to the spot and that the entire proceedings may have been conducted within the premises of the police station. Moreover, no documentary evidence has been brought on record by the Seizing Officer or any other prosecution witness to establish the ownership of the motorcycle allegedly used in the commission of the offence, nor has any credible proof been presented to demonstrate that the premises from which the subsequent recovery was made belonged to or was in the exclusive possess10n and control of the petitioner-convict. Moreover, none of the prosecution witnesses have offered any explanation, much less plausible one, as to why the proceedings, mandatorily required to be conducted at the place of recovery, were not carried out at the initial spot where the petitioner was allegedly apprehended. This glaring omission renders the prosecution's case from its very inception highly doubtful. It is a wellestablished principle of criminal jurisprudence that where the law prescribes a specific procedure, the same must be strictly adhered to. Any deviation therefrom renders the subsequent proceedings legally questionable. This principle assumes even greater significance m cases arising under special enactments such as the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which not only provide for stringent procedural safeguards but also prescribe severe penal consequences. In such matters, the burden upon the prosecution is heightened, and the requirement of producing unimpeachable, credible, and legally admissible evidence becomes all the more stringent to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Prior to the exhibition of the allegedly recovered crushed poppy straw/ o***m, the same was destroyed on 19.06.2008 without issuance of any notice to the petitioner-convict., Such omission constitutes a grave violation of the cardinal principle of natural justice, namely, audi alteram partem, that no person shall be condemned unheard. The issuance of notice prior to the destruction of case property is not a mere formality but an essential requirement of law.
The petitioner-convict was thus deprived of his valuable right to inspect and examine the case property at the time of trial, and to raise objections pertaining to, inter alia, the weight of the narcotic substance, the number and nature parcels, the seals affixed thereon, the question of lawful possession, or to make a request for sending the entire recovered substance for chemical analysis. All such objections could have been raised had the property been produced before the learned Trial Court, or had notice been issued prior to its destruction. It is a settled principle of law that where the Court, of its own motion or otherwise, deems it necessary to destroy case property, it must, before passing such an order, ensure issuance of notice to both the accused and the prosecution. Only after hearing their respective contentions and objections, if any, may a just and legal order for destruction be passed. The requirement to hear the parties before passing an adverse order is a fundamental tenet of natural justice, which, unless expressly excluded by statutory language, must be read into every statute.
CRIMINAL APPEAL N0.159-L OF 2021
Muhammad Abdullah Tariq Versus The State etc
02-10-2025
Azhar Ali Bohio Advocate.03043509399

24/12/2025

*VVip informative latest judgment of Supreme Court*

*False FIR under Section 182 PPC — Scope of Sections 173, 190 & 195 CrPC اور سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان کا تجزیاتی فیصلہ"*

PRESENT: Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi Cr.P.L.A. No.147-K/2025 (Against order dated 29.5.2025, in Criminal Misc. Application.No.655/2024, passed by Single Judge High Court of Sindh, Karachi)

فیصلہ کا خلاصہ یہ ہے کہ دفعہ 182 تعزیراتِ پاکستان کے تحت کسی عدالت کو اس وقت تک کسی جرم کا نوٹس لینے کا اختیار نہیں ہے جب تک کہ متعلقہ سرکاری ملازم یا اس کا اعلیٰ افسر تحریری شکایت درج نہ کرے۔ اس سلسلے میں عدالتِ عالیہ کے مقدمہ عبدالرحمٰن بنام ریاست (1968 P Cr. L J 215) پر انحصار کیا جا سکتا ہے۔ مزید براں، بھارتی عدالتِ عظمیٰ کے مقدمات سلونی اروڑہ بنام ریاست دہلی (AIR 2017 SC 391) اور دولت رام بنام ریاست پنجاب (1962 AIR 28) بھی حوالہ کے طور پر دیے جا سکتے ہیں۔ دی گئی صورتحال میں صرف متعلقہ پولیس افسر کی تحریری شکایت پر مجسٹریٹ کارروائی کر سکتا تھا، جبکہ مجسٹریٹ یا ایکس آفیسیو جسٹس آف پیس کے پاس اس ضمن میں شکایت درج کرنے یا ہدایت جاری کرنے کا کوئی اختیار نہیں تھا۔

زیر نظر کیس میں یہ بات سامنے آئی کہ نہ تو تفتیشی افسر (I.O) نے یہ رائے دی کہ شکایت کنندہ کی اطلاع جھوٹی تھی اور نہ ہی دفعہ 173 ض فوجداری کے تحت مقدمہ ’’بی کلاس‘‘ میں خارج کرنے کے لیے مجسٹریٹ کے سامنے رپورٹ پیش کی، بلکہ ’’سی کلاس‘‘ میں خارج کرنے کی سفارش کی گئی۔ اس کے باوجود مجسٹریٹ نے معاملے کا نوٹس لیا اور ملزمان کو عدالتی کارروائی کے ذریعے سزا دی۔ اس فیصلے کو اپیل میں چیلنج کیا گیا جہاں اپیلٹ فورم نے ٹرائل کورٹ کے تضادات کی بنیاد پر ملزمان کو بری کر دیا۔ تاہم، اپیلٹ کورٹ نے یہ قرار نہیں دیا کہ شکایت کنندہ کی طرف سے پولیس کو دی گئی اطلاع جھوٹی تھی۔

چونکہ نہ تو تفتیشی افسر کی رائے اور نہ ہی کسی عدالتی فورم کی یہ قرار داد موجود ہے کہ شکایت کنندہ کی اطلاع جھوٹی تھی، لہٰذا دفعہ 182 تعزیراتِ پاکستان اس کیس پر لاگو نہیں ہوتی۔ بصورتِ دیگر، قانون کی اس تشریح سے ایک ہی فوجداری کارروائی سے متعدد مقدمات جنم لیں گے اور ہر اس کیس میں جہاں شکایت کنندہ ناکام ہو جائے، خواہ وہ دائرہ اختیار کی کمی، مدت کی پابندی، ناکافی شواہد یا فائدہ بہ شک کے سبب ہو، جھوٹا مقدمہ قرار دے کر بے بنیاد فوجداری کارروائیوں کا سیلاب شروع ہو جائے

قانونی تجزیاتی جائزہ تیار کر دیتا ہوں جس میں:

دفعہ 182 تعزیراتِ پاکستان (PPC) کی Bare Act Wording (اصل عبارت + اردو ترجمہ)

دفعہ 195 ض فوجداری (CrPC) کی Bare Act Wording (اصل عبارت + اردو ترجمہ)

دونوں دفعات کا قانونی تجزیہ اور تقابل

عدالتی نظائر (پاکستانی اور بھارتی)

اس فیصلے سے اخذ کردہ قانونی اصول

دفعہ 182 تعزیراتِ پاکستان (PPC)

Bare Act Wording:
"False information, with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person.
Whoever gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, such public servant—
(a) to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him, or
(b) to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees, or with both."

جو شخص کسی سرکاری ملازم کو ایسی اطلاع دے جس کے متعلق وہ جانتا یا یقین رکھتا ہو کہ وہ جھوٹی ہے، اور اس نیت سے کہ وہ سرکاری ملازم:
(a) ایسا کوئی فعل کرے یا نہ کرے جو صحیح حقائق معلوم ہونے کی صورت میں وہ نہ کرتا، یا
(b) اپنے قانونی اختیارات کو کسی شخص کے نقصان یا ایذا کے لیے استعمال کرے،
تو اسے چھ ماہ تک قید یا تین ہزار روپے تک جرمانہ یا دونوں سزائیں دی جا سکتی ہیں۔

دفعہ 195 ض فوجداری (CrPC)

Bare Act Wording (relevant portion):
"No Court shall take cognizance—
(a) of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Pakistan Penal Code, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned, or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;"

کوئی عدالت ان جرائم کا نوٹس نہیں لے گی جو تعزیراتِ پاکستان کی دفعات 172 سے 188 تک میں قابلِ سزا ہیں، سوائے اس صورت کے کہ متعلقہ سرکاری ملازم یا اس کا کوئی بالا افسر تحریری شکایت کرے۔

قانونی تجزیہ

دفعہ 182، PPC صرف اس وقت لاگو ہو سکتی ہے جب:

اطلاع جھوٹی ثابت ہو عدالتی کارروائی کے ذریعے؛

اطلاع دینے والے کا علم یا یقین جھوٹ پر مبنی ہو؛

اطلاع کا مقصد یا امکان یہ ہو کہ سرکاری ملازم اپنے اختیارات کا غلط استعمال کرے۔

دفعہ 195، CrPC اس بات کی شرط لگاتی ہے کہ عدالت ازخود اس جرم کا نوٹس نہیں لے سکتی۔ شکایت صرف وہی سرکاری ملازم کر سکتا ہے جس کے سامنے جھوٹی اطلاع دی گئی تھی، یا اس کا بالا افسر۔
اس لیے اگر محض شکایت کنندہ اپنے الزامات ثابت نہ کر سکے تو اسے جھوٹا قرار نہیں دیا جا سکتا۔ اسے صرف ’’Not proved‘‘ کہا جائے گا، ’’False‘‘ نہیں۔

عدالت کا اختیار (Cognizance) محدود ہے: بغیر متعلقہ سرکاری ملازم کی تحریری شکایت کے مجسٹریٹ یا جسٹس آف پیس کارروائی شروع نہیں کر سکتا۔

۔ عدالتی نظائر (Case Law)

عبدالرحمٰن بنام ریاست (1968 P Cr. L J 215):
عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ دفعہ 182، PPC کے تحت کارروائی صرف متعلقہ سرکاری ملازم کی تحریری شکایت پر ہو سکتی ہے

Supreme Court of India – Saloni Arora Vs. State of NCT Delhi (AIR 2017 SC 391):
محض ناکافی ثبوت یا benefit of doubt جھوٹی اطلاع کے مترادف نہیں۔

Daulat Ram Vs. State of Punjab (1962 AIR 28):
یہ واضح کیا گیا کہ مجسٹریٹ ازخود دفعہ 182 کے مقدمہ کا اختیار نہیں رکھتا۔

اخذ کردہ اصول

دفعہ 182 PPC کا اطلاق صرف اس وقت ہوگا جب:

جھوٹ عدالتی فیصلے سے ثابت ہو۔

اطلاع دانستہ اور بدنیتی پر مبنی دی گئی ہو۔

دفعہ 195 CrPC عدالت کو اس جرم کا نوٹس لینے سے روکتی ہے، جب تک متعلقہ سرکاری ملازم تحریری شکایت نہ کرے۔

محض یہ کہ شکایت کنندہ اپنے الزامات ثابت نہ کر سکا، اسے جھوٹا نہیں کہا جا سکتا۔

اگر اس اصول پر عمل نہ کیا جائے تو ہر ناکام فوجداری مقدمہ کے بعد شکایت کنندہ پر دفعہ 182 PPC لگا کر فالتو اور انتقامی مقدمات کا سیلاب آ جائے گا۔

قانونی پوزیشن (Summary Note for Court):

مجسٹریٹ یا جسٹس آف پیس دفعہ 182 PPC کے مقدمے کا نوٹس ازخود نہیں لے سکتا۔

شرط یہ ہے کہ متعلقہ سرکاری ملازم تحریری شکایت کرے (سیکشن 195 CrPC)۔

جب تک عدالتی فیصلے میں شکایت کو ’’جھوٹی‘‘ قرار نہ دیا جائے، دفعہ 182 PPC لاگو نہیں ہو سکتی۔

ناکافی شواہد، دائرہ اختیار کی کمی، مدت کی پابندی یا benefit of doubt کو جھوٹی اطلاع نہیں کہا جا سکتا۔

دفعہ 173 ض فوجداری – پولیس افسر کی رپورٹ

اس باب کے تحت ہر تفتیش غیر ضروری تاخیر کے بغیر مکمل کی جائے گی اور جوں ہی مکمل ہو، تھانہ انچارج افسر کو چاہیے کہ [سرکاری وکیل کے ذریعے] درج ذیل رپورٹ مجسٹریٹ کو پیش کرے جو پولیس رپورٹ پر مقدمہ سننے کا اختیار رکھتا ہے:

(الف) ایسی رپورٹ جو صوبائی حکومت کی مقرر کردہ صورت میں ہو، جس میں فریقین کے نام، معلومات کی نوعیت، ان افراد کے نام جو واقعات سے واقف معلوم ہوتے ہیں، اور یہ وضاحت ہو کہ ملزم (اگر گرفتار ہے) تو اسے حراست میں بھیجا گیا ہے یا ضمانت پر رہا کیا گیا ہے، اور اگر رہا کیا گیا ہے تو ضامن کے ساتھ یا بغیر۔

دفعہ 190 ض فوجداری – مجسٹریٹ کی طرف سے جرائم پر کارروائی

تمام فرسٹ کلاس مجسٹریٹ یا کوئی بھی دوسرا مجسٹریٹ جسے صوبائی حکومت ہائی کورٹ کی سفارش پر خصوصی اختیار دے، کسی بھی جرم پر کارروائی کر سکتا ہے:

(الف) ایسے حقائق کی شکایت موصول ہونے پر جو کسی جرم کا ارتکاب ظاہر کرتے ہوں؛
(ب) کسی پولیس افسر کی جانب سے ایسے حقائق کی تحریری رپورٹ پر؛
(ج) کسی شخص (پولیس افسر کے علاوہ) سے موصولہ اطلاع، یا اپنی معلومات یا شبہ کی بنیاد پر کہ کوئی جرم ہوا ہے، جسے وہ خود سن سکتا ہے یا سیشن کورٹ کو بھیج سکتا ہے۔

اگر ایسا جرم جس پر کارروائی ہو صرف سیشن کورٹ کے دائرہ اختیار میں ہے، تو مجسٹریٹ صرف مقدمہ سیشن کورٹ کو بھیجے گا، بغیر شواہد ریکارڈ کیے۔

دفعہ 195 ض فوجداری – سرکاری ملازمین کے قانونی اختیارات کی توہین پر کارروائی وغیرہ

کوئی عدالت درج ذیل صورت میں کارروائی نہیں کر سکتی:

(الف) تعزیرات پاکستان کی دفعات 172 سے [187] تک کے تحت قابل سزا کسی بھی جرم پر، سوائے اس کے کہ متعلقہ سرکاری ملازم خود تحریری شکایت کرے یا کوئی دوسرا سرکاری ملازم جو اس کا ماتحت ہو، شکایت کرے۔

اہم قانونی نکتہ:

دفعہ 173 کے تحت پولیس رپورٹ (چالان، یا بی/سی/ای کلاس رپورٹ) مجسٹریٹ کو بھیجتی ہے۔

دفعہ 190 کے تحت مجسٹریٹ فیصلہ کرتا ہے کہ وہ مقدمہ سن سکتا ہے یا آگے بھیج سکتا ہے۔
*M FAROOQ KHILJI ADVOCATE 03336287215*
دفعہ 195 ایک بار (bar of cognizance) لگاتی ہے کہ مخصوص جرائم (مثلاً دفعہ 182 پی پی سی) پر کارروائی صرف سرکاری ملازم کی شکایت پر ہی ممکن ہے، کسی نجی فرد یا عدالتی حکم پر نہیں۔

دفعہ 182 پی پی سی جھوٹی اطلاع دینے کو جرم بناتی ہے، لیکن اس پر براہِ راست کارروائی عدالت نہیں کر سکتی جب تک کہ متعلقہ سرکاری افسر خود شکایت نہ کرے۔

تفتیشی افسر (I.O) تفتیش مکمل کرنے کے بعد پولیس رولز 1934 کے رول 24.7 کے تحت کسی ایف آئی آر کے اخراج کی سفارش درج ذیل انداز میں کر سکتا ہے:

کلاس "A": اگر مقدمہ سچا ہے لیکن ملزم ناقابلِ سراغ (Untraceable) ہے۔

کلاس "B": اگر پولیس کو دی گئی اطلاع بدنیتی پر مبنی جھوٹی ثابت ہو۔

کلاس "C": اگر معاملہ ناقابلِ دست اندازی پولیس (Non-cognizable) ہو، یا محض دیوانی دعویٰ ہو، یا حقائق کی غلطی کی بنیاد پر مقدمہ درج ہوا ہو۔

اس حوالے سے مقدمہ سید قمبر علی شاہ بنام صوبہ سندھ و دیگر (2024 SCMR 1123) پر انحصار کیا جا سکتا ہے۔

جب ایسی رپورٹ متعلقہ مجسٹریٹ اول (First Class) یا کسی اور مجسٹریٹ کے سامنے پیش کی جاتی ہے جسے صوبائی حکومت نے ہائی کورٹ کی سفارش پر خصوصی طور پر بااختیار بنایا ہو، تو ایسے مجسٹریٹ کے پاس یہ اختیار ہوتا ہے کہ وہ:

رپورٹ کو قبول کرے، یا

رپورٹ کردہ جرم پر نوٹس (Cognizance) لے، یا

تفتیشی افسر کو مزید تفتیش (Reinvestigation) کی ہدایت دے اور مقررہ مدت میں نئی رپورٹ طلب کرے۔

تاہم، مجسٹریٹ کے پاس یہ اختیار نہیں ہوتا کہ وہ تفتیشی افسر کو حکم دے کہ ایف آئی آر کو کلاس "A"، "B" یا "C" میں خارج کرے۔

I.O کا اختیار: A / B / C کلاس (Rule 24.7 — Police Rules, 1934)

تفتیش مکمل ہونے پر تفتیشی افسر Police Rules, 1934 (Rule 24.7) وغیرہ کے تحت ایف آئی آر کی disposal کے لیے سفارش کر سکتا ہے:

Class A — کیس سچا مگر ملزم ناقابلِ سراغ؛

Class B — اطلاع بدنیتی پر مبنی/maliciously false (=> ممکنہ 182 کے لیے بنیاد)؛

Class C — غیر قابلِ دست اندازی/دیوانی نوعیت/غلط فہمی وغیرہ۔

جب I.O نے C-class سفارش کی ہو تو اس کا مطلب یہ ہے کہ معلومات کو جھوٹا ثابت کرنے کی بنیاد موجود نہیں — صرف ثبوت ناکافی/غلط فہمی کا امکان۔ ایسی صورت میں عدالتی حکم سے براہِ راست 182 کی کارروائی کا حکم دینا غلط استعمالِ عملِ عدل ہوگا

موجودہ کیس پر تفصیلی تجزیہ (Issue-wise)

کیا مجسٹریٹ/Ex-Officio JP 182 کی کارروائی کا حکم دے سکتا تھا؟
— قانوناً نہیں (قابلِ اعتراض) کیونکہ دفعہ 195 نے express bar رکھی ہے اور 182 کی شروعات عمومی طور پر اُس public servant یا superior police officer کی شِکایت/رائے سے ممکن ہے جو اصل اطلاع پر عمل کیا۔ عدالتی ہدایت بذاتِ خود اس بار کو عبور نہیں کر سکتی

کیا I.O کی C-class سفارش کے باوجود مجسٹریٹ نے اطلاقِ اختیار کر لیا؟
— اگر مجسٹریٹ نے IO-کی C-class رپورٹ کو نظر انداز کر کے ازخود B-class یا 182 کارروائی کا حکم دیا تو وہ اختیار سے تجاوز سمجھا جائے گا۔ مجسٹریٹ کو I.O کی رائے پر سمجھی ہوئی کارروائی کی توضیح کرنی چاہیے اور صرف جائز/قابلِ عمل شواہد کی بنیاد پر ہی cognizance لینا چاہیے۔

دیر سے رابطہ (≈15 سال) اور civil remedy پہلے سے اختیار کرنے کا اثر؟
— عدالت نے اس کو weight دیا: دیر سے رجوع اور civil remedies پہلے اپنانے کا مطلب یہ ہے کہ مدعی نے مقدماتی چارہ جوئی/نزاع کو عدالتی/دیوانی راہ سے حل کرنے کی کوشش کی اور پھر بعد ازاں اسی فعل کو فوجداری شکل دینے کی کوشش کی — یہ motives کو مشکوک بناتا ہے اور Ex-Officio JP کو محتاط رکھنے کی وجہ بنتا ہے۔
(Case law میں اسی طرزِ عمل کو ملازمِ سنگینی سے دیکھا گیا)۔

کیا 182 کے لیے show-cause یا IO-opinion ضروری ہے؟
— ججوں کی رخ صحیح روایات میں یہ پایا گیا کہ 182 کی کارروائی عام طور پر صرف اس وقت قابلِ اقدام ہوتی ہے جب: (a) FIR واقعی رجسٹر، تفتیش اور عدالتی عمل کے نتیجے میں false ثابت ہو؛ یا (b) I.O واضح طور پر maliciously false ہونے کی رائے دے اور پھر relevant public servant شکایت کرے۔ اس کا مطلب یہ ہے کہ مجسٹریٹ کی جانب سے ازخود 182 کی شروعات عموماً غیر مناسب سمجھی گئی ہے۔

بی کلاس (B-Class) رپورٹ

مفہوم:
ایسی رپورٹ جس میں پولیس یہ نتیجہ اخذ کرے کہ مقدمہ جھوٹا یا بے بنیاد ہے، اور شکایت کنندہ نے دانستہ طور پر جھوٹا مقدمہ بنایا۔

قانونی اثر:

اگر مجسٹریٹ اس رپورٹ کو منظور کر لے تو مقدمہ جھوٹا قرار پاتا ہے۔

ایسی صورت میں شکایت کنندہ پر دفعہ 182 PPC یا دیگر قانونی کارروائی کا دروازہ کھل سکتا ہے، لیکن صرف اسی صورت میں جب متعلقہ سرکاری ملازم تحریری شکایت کرے (سیکشن 195
CrPC)۔

سی کلاس (C-Class) رپورٹ

مفہوم:
ایسی رپورٹ جس میں پولیس یہ نتیجہ اخذ کرے کہ مقدمہ بلا ارادہ، بے دلیلی یا غلط فہمی پر مبنی تھا، لیکن اسے جھوٹا نہیں کہا جا سکتا۔

قانونی اثر:

مقدمہ خارج ہو جاتا ہے، لیکن شکایت کنندہ پر جھوٹے مقدمے (False case) کا الزام نہیں لگتا۔

شکایت کو ’’Not Proved‘‘ سمجھا جاتا ہے، ’’False‘‘ نہیں۔

شکایت کنندہ کے خلاف دفعہ 182 PPC یا دیگر فوجداری کارروائی نہیں ہو سکتی کیونکہ اطلاع بدنیتی سے جھوٹی ثابت نہیں ہوئی۔

قانونی نکتہ (Court Argument Style):

’’معزز عدالت، تفتیشی افسر نے دفعہ 173 ض فوجداری کے تحت مقدمہ بی کلاس میں جھوٹا قرار دینے کی بجائے سی کلاس میں خارج کرنے کی سفارش کی، جو اس امر کا واضح ثبوت ہے کہ شکایت کنندہ کی طرف سے دی گئی اطلاع جھوٹی نہیں بلکہ ناقابلِ ثبوت تھی۔ چونکہ بی کلاس رپورٹ موجود نہیں ہے اور کسی عدالتی فورم نے بھی اطلاع کو جھوٹا قرار نہیں دیا، اس لیے دفعہ 182 تعزیراتِ پاکستان بالکل لاگو نہیں ہوتی۔ کسی اور تعبیر کو تسلیم کرنا قانون کے خلاف اور فالتو فوجداری مقدمات کے دروازے کھولنے کے مترادف ہوگا۔‘‘
*Azhar Ali Bohio Adv. 03043509399

23/07/2025

PLD 2025 Lahore 581
VVVVI. MUST READ JUDGEMENT.

The questions of limitation, waiver and acquiescence cannot be brushed aside in every claim of inheritance.

The distinction has to be drawn between a claim of inheritance agitated during the lifetime of the legal heir(s) and the one agitated after death of such legal heir(s).

The law has been well settled that if a predecessor has not challenged a transaction in his/her lifetime, which transaction purports to deprive the predecessor of his/her share and 3rd party rights have been created, simple claim on the basis of inheritance will not absolve the question of limitation. A careful perusal of the law laid down by the Apex Court clearly leads to an ineluctable conclusion that the question of limitation cannot be dubbed irrelevant in every claim of inheritance. Based on a thorough analysis of the judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the settled legal position emerges that only in the cases of exceptional facts, the question of limitation has not been treated as a statutory bar against the claims of inheritance. Those exceptional cases may be summed up in the following terms:

i. Cases filed by female heirs, within their lifetime, claiming fraud and misrepresentation played against them qua the immoveable property left behind by their predecessor in interest;

ii. Cases where it is pleaded and proved that the deprived female heir(s) were being paid some proportionate share from the income/lease of the immoveable property in question;

iii. Cases where a co-sharer has successfully pleaded and proved that the rival heir or co-sharer was in deemed possession of immoveable property on behalf of all other heirs/siblings;

iv. Cases where no third-party rights have been created in the immoveable property, which is/was subject matter of undisputed inheritance;

v. Cases where the elements of acquiescence and waiver are absent on the part of the claimant legal heir or his/her predecessor in interest.

WP 10459/19
Muhammad Hafeez Vs Muhammad Ramzan etc

19/11/2024

*LEGAL INSIGHT ⚖️*

*Legal Terms With Their meanings*

Cancellation ﻣﻨﺴﻮﺧﯽ
Case diaries ﺿﻤﻨﯽ
Cause of action ﺑﻨﺎﮰ ﺩﻋﻮﯼ / ﺑﻨﺎﮰ ﻧﺎﻟﺶ
Cause List ﻓﮩﺮﺳﺖ ﭘﯿﺸﯽ
Certified copy ﻣﺼﺪﻗﮧ ﻧﻘﻞ
Charge (criminal law) ﻓﺮﺩ ﺟﺮﻡ
Circumstantial Evidence ﻗﺮﺍﺋﻨﯽ ﺷﮩﺎﺩﺕ
Civil ﺩﻳﻮﺍﻧﯽ
Civil Miscellaneous ﺩﯾﻮﺍﻧﯽ ﻣﺘﻔﺮﻕ
Code of Civil Procedure ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻉ ﺿﺎﺑﻄﮧ ﺩﻳﻮﺍﻧﯽ
Cognizable Offence ﻗﺎﺑﻞِ ﺩﺳﺖ ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯﯼ
Complaint ﺍﺳﺘﻐﺎﺛﮧ
Complainant ﻣﺴﺘﻐﻴﺚ
Compromise deed ﺭﺍﺿﯽ ﻧﺎﻣﮧ
Compensation for hurt ﻋﺮﺵ
Confession ﺍﻗﺒﺎﻝِ ﺟﺮﻡ
Consolidation ﺍﺷﺘﻤﺎﻝ
Correspondence ﻣﺮﺍﺳﻠﮧ
Criminal Procedure Code ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻉ ﺿﺎﺑﻄﮧ ﻓﻮﺟﺪﺍﺭﯼ
Cross Examination ﺟﺮﺡ
Competent authority ﻣﺠﺎﺯ ﺍﺗﮭﺎﺭﭨﯽ
Contempt of Court ﺗﻮﮨﯿﻦ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺖ
Constitution ﺁﺋﻴﻦ / ﺩﺳﺘﻮﺭ
Constitutional Democracy ﺩﺳﺘﻮﺭﯼ ﺟﻤﮩﻮﺭﯾﺖ
Criminal ﻓﻮﺟﺪﺍﺭﯼ
Criminal breach of trust ﺧﯿﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﺠﺮﻣﺎﻧﮧ
Custody ﺣﻀﺎﻧﺖ / ﺗﺤﻮﯾﻞ
Acceptance قبولیت
Affidavit بیان حلفی
Aggrieved party متاثرہ فریق
Agreement to Sell اقرار نامہ
Alleged مبينہ
Amendment ترميم
Amicus curiae عدالتی معاون
Anti-Terrorist اِنسدادِ دہشت گردی
Applicant سائل
Arrears of land revenue بقایاجات مالیہ
Arbitration Council ثالثی کونسل
Attachment/Distraint/Seizure of property in order to obtain payment قرقی
Family Law/matrimonial law عائلی قوانین
Farmer ID (Holding slips) ختونی
Federal Shariat Court وفاقی شرعی عدالت
Federation of Pakistan وفاق پاکستان
Fiduciary relationship نگہبانی تعلق/امانتی
FIR ابتدائ اطلائ رپورٹ
Freedom of expression اظہار رائےکی آزادی
Freedom of movement نقل و حرکت کی آزادی
Fundamental rights بنيادی حقوق
Cancellation منسوخی
Cancellation/revocation of Power of attornet اِبطال نامہ
Case diaries ضمنی
Cause of action بناۓ دعوی/ بناۓ نالش
Cause List فہرست پیشی
Certified copy مصدقہ نقل
Charge (criminal law) فرد جرم
Circumstantial Evidence قرائنی شہادت
Civil ديوانی
Civil Miscellaneous دیوانی متفرق
Code of Civil Procedure مجموع ضابطہ ديوانی
Cognizable Offence قابلِ دست اندازی
Competition Law مسابقتی قانون
Complaint استغاثہ
Complainant مستغيث
Compromise deed راضی نامہ
Compensation for hurt عرش
Confession اقبالِ جرم
Conflict of Interest مفاداتی تصادم
Consolidation اشتمال
Contract معاہدہ
Correspondence مراسلہ
Criminal Breach of Trust خیانت مجرمانہ
Criminal Procedure Code مجموع ضابطہ فوجداری
Cross Examination جرح
Competent authority مجاز اتھارٹی
Conditional Judgment مشروط فیصلہ
Contempt of Court توہین عدالت
Confront/confronting a witness تقابُل/ گواہ کو متقابل کرانا
Constitution آئين/ دستور
Constitutional Democracy دستوری جمہوریت
Criminal فوجداری
Criminal Abetment اعانتِ مجرمانہ
Criminal breach of trust خیانتِ مجرمانہ
Criminal intimidation تخویفِ مجرمانہ
Custody حضانت/ تحویل
Earnest money زر بیعانہ
Easement حق آسائش
Environmental law ماحولیاتی قانون
Estoppel امر مانع تقریر مخالف
Exclusion clause استثنائی شق
Ex*****on اجراء
Exempt مستثنی
Ex parte يکطرفہ
Ejectment بےدخلی
Examination in chief ابترائی بیان
Extrinsic Evidence خارجی شہادت
Daily diary روزنامچہ
Damages ہرجانہ
Deceased متوفی
Declaration دعوی استقرارِ حق
Declaration of Legal heirship وراثت نامہ
Deed writer وثیقہ نویس
Defamation ہتک عزت
Defection انحراف
Defendant مدعاعلیہ
Defendants مدعاعليھم
Delimitation of constituencies حلقہ ہائے انتخابی حد بندی
Discovery & inspection of documents دستاویز کے انکشافات و معائنہ
Discriminatory laws امتیازی قوانین
Discretion صوابدید
Disputed متدعويہ
Dissolution of marriage تنسیخ نکاح
Divorce
Delegated right of divorce

طلاق
طلاق تفویض

(For more follow legal insight channel on what's app)

Doctrine of Laches نظریہ غفلت/ تاخیر
Doctrine of necessity نظریہ ضرورت
Documentary evidence دستاویزی شہادت
Dower
Deferred dower
Prompt dower
Customary dower

حق مھر
مھر موجل
مھر معجل
مھر مثل

Due process واجب عمل
Duress اکراہ
General Adjournment عمومی التواء
Gift Deed ھبہ نامہ
Guardianship ولایت
Harvest Inspection Register خسرہ گرداوری
Hostile witness منحرف گواہ
High Court عدالت عاليہ
High Treason سنگین غداری
Hue & Cry Notice اشتہارِ شوروغوغہ
Leading question ہدایتی سوال
Lease پٹہ
Legal Capacity قانونی اہلیت
Letter of administration پروانہ انصرام جائیداد
Limitation معياد
List of Documents فہرست دستاویز
List of Reliance فہرست انحصار
Local Bodies بلدیاتی
Jactitation of Marriage تکزیب ِ نکاح
Judgment Debtor مدیون ڈگری
Judicial activism عرالتی فعالیت
Judicial restraint عرالتی تحمل
Jurisdiction
Territorial jurisdiction

Pecuniary jurisdiction

دائرہ اختیار/سماعت
علا قائی اختیارِ سماعت

مالیاتی اختیارِ سماعت

Justice of peace منصفِ امن
Matter of fact امر متعلقہ واقع
Matter of law امر متعلقہ قانون
Maintenance (eg wife/child) نان و نفقہ
Medico legal Report طبی رپورٹ
Memorandum of Address فرد پتہ
Minor نابالغ
Misappropriates خوردبرد کرنا
Mortgage رہن
Motive وجہ عناد
Murder (intentional) قتلِ عمد
Mutation اِنتقال
Mutual Legal Assistance باہمی قانونی معاونت
Oath حلف
Objective Resolution قراردادِ مقاصد
Offer ایجاب
Option of puberty حقِ خیار البلوغ
Order Sheet حکم نامہ
Order of court to produce records روبکار
Negotiable Instruments دستاویز قابلِ بیع و شری
Non Prosecution عدم پیروی
Pakistan Penal Code مجموعہِ تعزیراتِ پاکستان
Pending زیرِ التویٰ
Permanent Injunction حکم امتناعی دوامی
Personal law شخصی قانون
Petitioner/Applicant سائل / درخواست گزار
Plaint عرضی دعویٴ
Plaintiff مرعی
Plaintiffs مدعيان
Power of attorney مختادنامہ
Prayer استدعا
Preliminary Objections عزرات ابتدائی
Preemption شفع
Presiding Officer افسر جلیس
Process Fee فرد طلبانہ
Public at large عوامالناس
Public interest مفادِ عامہ
Public importance قومی نوعیت/عوامی اہمیت
R**e زنا بِالجبر
Record of Rights
Periodical record of rights

فرد ملکیت/جمعبندی/مسل حقیقت/رجسٹر حقدارانِ زمین
مسل میعادی

Recovery Memo فرد برآمدگی/مقبوضگی
Redemption بازیابی
Relief دادرسی
Relinquishment Deed دستبرداری نامہ
Respondent (if Applicant or Petitioner) جواب دہند گان
Respondents مسؤل عليھم
Restitution of conjugal rights اعادہ حقوقِ زن آشوئ/اعادہ حقوقِ زوجیت
Retribution قِساس
Review نظر ثانی
Revision نگرانی
Rough crime scene sketch (plan) نقشہ موقع
Ultra Vires ماورائےاختیار/ ماورائےقانون
Under Objection تابعِ عزر/زیرِ اعتراض
Sale Deed معاہدہ بيع/بیع نامہ
Separation (marital) علیحد گی
Short Order مختصر حکم
Specific Performance تعميل مختص
Specific Relief Act 1877 قانون دادرسی مختص مجریہ 1877
State ریاست
Statement of informant فرد بیان
Succession جانشينی
Summon طلبی
Supreme Court عدالت عظمی
Suit دعوی
Suo Motu اَز خود
Surety ضامن
Survey Number (Field register) خسرہ نمبر
Tariff نرخ
Temporary Injunction حکم امتناعی عارضی
Tort فعل بےجا
Trade marks نشانات تجارت
Without Prejudice بلا تعصب, کسی جانبداری کے بغیر
Witness گواہ
Written Statement جواب دعوی
Writ petition آئینی درخواست
Wrongful confinement حبسِ بے جا
Valuation قيمت تخمينہ/ مالیت دعوی
Verification تصديق
Versus بنام
Violence تشدد
Azhar Ali Bohio advocate ⚖️*

18/11/2024

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1BGGqNtVJ7/

18/11/2024

18/11/2024

1.New Citations
*Muhammad Nawaz vs. The State (2019)*: Lahore High Court (LHC) dismissed the bail application of the accused, who was charged under Section 337A-1 (causing hurt to deter public servant from duty) and Section 506/2 (criminal intimidation). The court held that the accused's actions were a serious threat to public order and that granting bail would undermine the administration of justice. (Source: 2019 LHC 1335)
2. *Abdul Razzaq vs. The State (2018)*: Sindh High Court (SHC) rejected the bail application of the accused, who was charged under Section 337A-F-1 (causing grievous hurt) and Section 506/2. The court observed that the accused's actions were premeditated and that granting bail would pose a risk to public safety. (Source: 2018 SHC 1512)
3. *Muhammad Iqbal vs. The State (2017)*: Supreme Court of Pakistan (SCP) upheld the dismissal of bail by the LHC in a case involving Sections 337A-1 and 506/2. The SCP held that the accused's actions were a serious threat to public order and that granting bail would undermine the administration of justice. (Source: 2017 SCP 405)

17/03/2024

سپریم کورٹ کا سائفر کیس میں بانی پی ٹی آئی عمران خان اور وائس چیئرمین شاہ محمود قریشی کی ضمانت منظور کرنیکا مکمل تحریری فیصلہ۔
تحریری فیصلہ جسٹس اطہر من اللہ کے اضافی نوٹ سمیت کل نو صفحات پرمشتمل ہے۔
عدالتی فیصلہ جسٹس سید منصور علی شاہ نے تحریر کیا ہے جوکہ چار صفحات پر مشتمل ہے جس سے اتفاق کرتے ہوئے جسٹس اطہر من اللہ نے مزید پانچ صفحات کا اضافی نوٹ تحریر کیا ہے

Grant of bail to Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi and Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Qureshi in Cypher case.

جسٹس سید منصور علی شاہ کے فیصلہ سے اہم نکات
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
The offences of wrongful communication of the official confidential information, etc., as defined in defined in clause (a) to (d) of Section 5(1) of the Official Secrets Act 1923 (“Act”) are generally punishable, under clause (b) of Section 5(3), with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both, and are bailable under clause (b) of Section 12(1) of the Act. It is only when an offence is committed in contravention of clause (a) of Section 5(1) and is intended or calculated to be, directly or indirectly, in the interest or for the benefit of a foreign power, or is in relation to any of the defense installations or affairs, or in relation to any secret official code, that it is punishable under clause (b) of Section 5(3) of the Act, with death or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to fourteen years. Such an offence is non-bailable and also falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (“CrPC”). In respect of such offences, other than the provisos to Section 497(1), bail is granted under Section 497 (2), CrPC, if it appears to Court at any stage of the investigation, inquiry or trial, as the case may be, that there are not reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed such an offence but rather that there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt.

The only question, therefore, before us in the present case is that whether there are not reasonable grounds for believing, at this stage, that the petitioners have committed the offence punishable under clause (b) of Section 5(3) of the Act but rather that there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into their guilt of the said offence. In this regard, we are cognizant of the one of the elementary principles of the law of bail that to answer the said question, the Court cannot indulge in the exercise of a deeper appraisal of the material available on record of the case but is to determine it only tentatively by looking at such material.

Having so examined the material available on record, we find that there is no sufficient incriminating material available, at this stage, which could show that the petitioner, Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi communicated the information contained in the Cypher Telegram received from Parep Washington, USA to the public at large with the intention or calculation, directly or indirectly, in the interest or for the benefit of a foreign power nor the disclosed information relates to any of the defence installations or affairs, nor did he disclose any secret official code to the public at large. We, therefore, are of the tentative opinion that there are not reasonable grounds for believing, at this stage, that the petitioners have committed the offence punishable under clause (b) of Section 5(3) of the Act but rather that there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into their guilt of the said offence, which is to be finally decided by the learned trial court after recording of the evidence of the parties. The discretion exercised by the High Court in declining bail to the petitioners is found to have been exercised perversely, that is, against the weight of the material available on record of the case, which warrants interference by this Court.
Needless to mention that the observations made in this order are of tentative nature which shall not in any manner influence the trial court, and that this concession of bail may be cancelled, if the petitioners misuse it in any manner, including causing delay in the expeditious conclusion of the trial.

جسٹس اطہر من اللہ کے اضافی نوٹ سے اہم نکات
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (‘Constitution’) unequivocally contemplates that the authority of the government is solely premised on the will of the people. The will of the people is essentially expressed through exercising the right to participate in the political process and to vote on the day fixed for polls. Elections are the primary and exclusive mode which facilitates and enables the citizen, particularly the registered voter, to choose the person who would represent them and through whom the latter would participate in the governance of the State and exercise the authority of the government. This is one of the most fundamental right of every citizen recognized by the framers of the Constitution. There are other equally important rights associated with or implicit in the right of a citizen to vote and they, inter alia, include the right to meaningfully participate in the political process, freedom of expression, assembly, association and movement. The importance of the right of access to information regarding the competing political parties, their manifestos and candidates cannot be overstated. Each party and candidate must enjoy an equal and non discriminatory opportunity to effectively function without any fear or threat of intimidation. The United Nations has explicitly recognized the concept of an ‘informed choice’ as an integral part of 'free choice'. It has been emphasized that 'if elections are to be genuine then they must demonstrably reflect the will of the people. 'Voters can neither formulate nor express that will without access to information about the candidates, the parties and the process'. In order to achieve these fundamental tenets it is not enough to hold elections but to ensure that the citizens have a fair opportunity to express their will by exercising their electoral rights through 'genuine elections'. Our Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights unambiguously recognize 'genuine elections' as the only true manifestation of the expression of the will of the people.

The essential characteristics of a 'genuine election' have been described as a political process which would 'reveal and give effect to the freely expressed will of the people. Sham elections, designed temporarily to quell internal dissent or to distract international scrutiny obviously do not meet the international standards'. Genuine elections can only be ensured if they offer an actual and free choice to an informed voter. Discrimination or intimidation on the basis of political opinions are alien to the concept of genuine elections and even such a perception would be sufficient to compromise the integrity of the electoral process and relegate it to the status of sham elections. Every candidate and political party must have an equal opportunity to reach out to the citizens and to have access to the public resources, including the print and electronic media. The framework of the Constitution has created and guarantees a political right in favor of every citizen to govern the State and exercise the authority of the government through their chosen representatives. Implicit in this fundamental right is the expression of the will of the people. 'The ultimate indication of whether elections are free is the extent to which they facilitate the free expression of the political will of the people concerned. It is, after all, this will which, according to the Universal Declaration (art 21, para 3), is the very basis of legitimate government authority'. The concept of facilitating the effective and meaningful expression of the political will of the people through 'genuine elections' is thus embedded in the scheme of the Constitution and the edifice of the fundamental rights is built upon it. The test of 'genuine elections' is the ability of the voter, political worker, candidate and political party to effectively exercise and enjoy the aforementioned rights without discrimination or any threat of intimidation, direct or indirect. The concept of genuine election is the key to leveling the playing field for all the stakeholders. When all the political competitors do not enjoy the same advantages and disadvantages during the election period, then the fundamental rights of the citizens are breached and, simultaneously, the Constitution is gravely violated. It is, therefore, inevitable to ensure that every political competitor is treated equally without discrimination and everyone has the same chance to succeed. Incarceration of a political competitor during the period of elections, except when it is necessary due to exceptional circumstances, gravely affects the fundamental rights of the voters and prejudices the genuineness and integrity of the elections. As far as the question is concerned as to why political leaders and political workers should be extended preferential treatment, the answer, as already discussed, is that there is a higher and greater interest of the people at large involved which is always given preference over other interests. Moreover, unnecessary incarceration, which would not serve any useful purpose in itself, becomes a ground for releasing an ordinary accused on bail unless the offence alleged to have been committed is heinous or there are exceptional circumstances for refusing extension of bail. There cannot be a greater public interest than ensuring genuine elections and if the incarcerated person intends to contest elections or the standing of a political party is dependent upon the latter then in my opinion this ought to be considered a ground for the grant of bail during the election period. The concession of bail in such an eventuality should be considered favorably as a rule and declined in exceptional circumstances. The strict application of this principle is also essential keeping in view the chequered electoral history during the past seven decades.

The process of democratization and democracy itself were gravely undermined from the very inception of Pakistan as an independent sovereign State. The undemocratic elite had struck for the first time when the Constituent Assembly was dissolved and later the unconstitutionality was legitimized by the Federal Court by contriving the doctrine of necessity. It laid the foundations for repression against political opponents. Almost all the elected Prime Ministers remained incarcerated after being prematurely removed from office. Prime Ministers were disqualified and political opponents were persecuted for dissent and prevented from competing in elections by denying a level playing field. The last general elections held in 2018 was an example of denying equal treatment to a particular political party. One of the Prime Ministers was even sent to the gallows and people were later restrained from attending his funeral. Half of the nation’s life has been spent under military dictators who did not face a days incarceration for abrogating the Constitution, toppling elected Prime Ministers and subjecting political workers to the worst form of oppression. In stark contrast, the elected Prime Ministers and chosen representatives were prevented from participating in the electoral process by keeping them incarcerated or forcing them into exile. The incarceration of political leadership belonging to Baluchistan, the then North West Frontier Province or Sindh for their political dissent and opinions cannot be erased from history books. The notion of 'genuine election' has remained illusory in the past seven decades and it definitely has profound consequences for the democratic process and the rights of the people. It is the duty of the Election Commission and the respective Governments to ensure that the people are facilitated in expressing their will through 'genuine election'. It is also their duty to ensure that there is no perception of oppression or repressive actions against one political party while others are treated favourably. The unflattering electoral history and oppressive treatment of political dissidents during the period of elections necessitates considering the grant of bail favorably as a rule.
PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 91
[Appellate Jurisdiction]

Present: Sardar Tariq Masood, ACJ, Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and
Athar Minallah, JJ.

IMRAN AHMED KHAN NIAZI etc.--Petitioners

versus

STATE and another--Respondents

Crl. Ps. No. 1276 & 1320 of 2023, decided on 22.12.2023.

(Against the orders of Islamabad High Court, Islamabad,
dated 27.10.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. No. 1354-B of 2023 and
dated 08.11.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. No. 1664-B/2023)

Criminal Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)--

----S. 497(2)--Official Secrets Act, (XIX of 1923), Ss. 5(3)(b) & 9--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), S. 34--Post-arrest bail--Grant of--Further inquiry--Cyper telegram--Discretion exercised by High Court--Concurrently declination--Bail is granted u/S. 497 (2), Cr.P.C., if it appears to Court at any stage of investigation, inquiry or trial, as case may be, that there are not reasonable grounds for believing that accused has committed such an offence but rather that there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt--There are not reasonable grounds for believing, at this stage, that petitioners have committed offence punishable under clause (b) of Section 5(3) of Act but rather that there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into their guilt of said offence, which is to be finally decided by trial Court after recording of evidence of parties--The discretion exercised by High Court in declining bail to petitioners is found to have been exercised perversely, that is, against weight of material available on record of case, which warrants interference by High Court--Petitions allowed. [Pp. 93 & 94] A & B

As per Mr. Justice Athar Minallah--

Criminal Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)--

----S. 497(2)--Official Secrets Act, (XIX of 1923), Ss. 5(3)(b) & 9--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), S. 34--Post-arrest bail--Grant of--Concurrently declination of bail by Courts below--Duty of election commission--No exceptional circumstances--Denying of equal treatment--Unflattering electoral history--All elected Prime Ministers remained incarcerated after being prematurely removed from office--Prime Ministers were disqualified and political opponents were persecuted for dissent and prevented from competing in elections by denying a level playing field--The last general elections held in 2018 was an example of denying equal treatment to a particular political party--Held: It is duty of Election Commission and respective Governments to ensure that people are facilitated in expressing their will through ‘genuine election’--It is also their duty to ensure that there is no perception of oppression or repressive actions against one political party while others are treated favourably--The unflattering electoral history and oppressive treatment of political dissidents during period of elections necessitates considering grant of bail favorably as a rule--The petitioners are alleged to be involved in an offence which does not fall under category of offences that threaten society such as r**e, child abuse, homicide etc--The investigation has been completed and trial is in progress--The trial is entirely dependent on documentary evidence--The incarceration of petitioners will not serve any useful purpose--Their release on bail during period of elections would ensure ‘genuine elections’ and thus enable people to exercise right to express their will effectively and meaningfully--There are no exceptional circumstances to decline concession of bail--Petition allowed. [Pp. 97 & 98] C, D & E

Mr. Hamid Khan, Sr. ASC (Through V.L. Lahore Registry) Mr. Salman Safdar, ASC, Syed Mohammad Ali Bokhari, ASC. Mr. Niazullah Khan Niazi, ASC, Mr. Qamar Inayat Raja, ASC, Barrister Tamur, Advocate, Barrister Faiza, Advocate and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR for Petitioners.

Mr. Javaid Iqbal Wains, Addl.AGP, Raja Rizwan Abbasi, ASC, Mr. Mudassar Hussain Malik, ASC, Syed Zulifqar Abbas Naqvi, ASC and Mr. Shah Khawar, ASC for Respondents.

Mian Sabir, I.O.

Date of hearing: 22.12.2023.

Order

Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, J.,--Through the present petitions, the petitioners seek leave to appeal against the orders of the Islamabad High Court, dated 27.10.2023 and 08.11.2023, whereby the post-arrest bail has been declined to them in case FIR No. 06/2023 registered at Police Station, CTW/FIA, Islamabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 5 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860.

2. Briefly, as per the crime report (FIR), the allegation against the petitioner Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi, a former Prime Minister of Pakistan, is that he communicated the information contained in a secret classified document (a Cypher Telegram received from Parep Washington, USA) to unauthorized persons, i.e., the public at large, by twisting the facts to achieve his ulterior motives and personal gains in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the State security, and had also illegally retained a copy of the said document. While the petitioner Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Qureshi, a former Foreign Minister, is alleged to have abetted him in so doing. By these actions, it is alleged, the petitioners have directly/indirectly benefited the interest of foreign powers and caused loss to the State of Pakistan.

3. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties at some length, read the cases cited by them and examined the record of the case.

4. The offences of wrongful communication of the official confidential information, etc., as defined in defined in clauses (a) to (d) of Section 5(1) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (“Act”) are generally punishable, under clause (b) of Section 5(3), with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both, and are bailable under clause (b) of Section 12(1) of the Act. It is only when an offence is committed in contravention of clause (a) of Section 5(1) and is intended or calculated to be, directly or indirectly, in the interest or for the benefit of a foreign power, or is in relation to any of the defense installations or affairs,[1] or in relation to any secret official code, that it is punishable under clause (b) of Section 5(3) of the Act, with death or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to fourteen years. Such an offence is non-bailable and also falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (“Cr.P.C.”). In respect of such offences, other than the provisos to Section 497(1), bail is granted under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C., if it appears to Court at any stage of the investigation, inquiry or trial, as the case may be, that there are not reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed such an offence but rather that there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt.

5. The only question, therefore, before us in the present case is that whether there are not reasonable grounds for believing, at this stage, that the petitioners have committed the offence punishable under clause (b) of Section 5(3) of the Act but rather that there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into their guilt of the said offence. In this regard, we are cognizant of the one of the elementary principles of the law of bail that to answer the said question, the Court cannot indulge in the exercise of a deeper appraisal of the material

available on record of the case but is to determine it only tentatively by looking at such material.

6. Having so examined the material available on record, we find that there is no sufficient incriminating material available, at this stage, which could show that the petitioner, Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi communicated the information contained in the Cypher Telegram received from Parep Washington, USA to the public at large with the intention or calculation, directly or indirectly, in the interest or for the benefit of a foreign power nor the disclosed information relates to any of the defence installations or affairs, nor did he disclose any secret official code to the public at large. We, therefore, are of the tentative opinion that there are not reasonable grounds for believing, at this stage, that the petitioners have committed the offence punishable under clause (b) of Section 5(3) of the Act but rather that there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into their guilt of the said offence, which is to be finally decided by the learned trial Court after recording of the evidence of the parties. The discretion exercised by the High Court in declining bail to the petitioners is found to have been exercised perversely, that is, against the weight of the material available on record of the case, which warrants interference by this Court.

7. For the above reasons, these petitions are converted into appeals and the same are allowed. The impugned orders are set-aside. The bail applications of the petitioners are accepted subject to their furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of one million with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

8. Needless to mention that the observations made in this order are of tentative nature which shall not in any manner influence the trial Court, and that this concession of bail may be cancelled, if the petitioners misuse it in any manner, including causing delay in the expeditious conclusion of the trial.

Sd/- Sd/-

Judge Judge

Athar Minallah, J.--The two petitioners, Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi and Shah Mahmood Qureshi, had sought bail but it was concurrently declined by the trial Court and the High Court respectively. They have now sought leave of this Court for restoring their liberty by ordering their release pursuant to grant of the concession of bail. Both the petitioners intend to contest the forthcoming elections which are scheduled to be held on February 08, 2024. The Election Commission of Pakistan, in exercise of powers conferred under the Election Act, 2017 (‘Act of 2017’), has announced and duly notified the election schedule. Mr. Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi had formed the political party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, and was elected as the Leader of the House in the National Assembly after the last general elections held in 2018 and, pursuant thereto, he had served as the Prime Minister of the country. Mr. Shah Mahmood Qureshi is one of the most senior office bearers of the party. The questions of public importance that have arisen for the consideration of this Court are; whether, during the election period, candidates who intend to contest the elections or who are affiliated with a political party and their participation in the political process is important for the registered voters, should remain incarcerated, or, whether, in such an eventuality granting bail ought to be considered favorably as a rule and declined only in exceptional circumstances e.g when there is likelihood of abscondence or there is threat to the society because there are grounds to believe that the accused may repeat the offence. In order to answer the questions it is essential to determine the rights of stakeholders involved in such peculiar circumstances and also examine the significance of the chequered history of the electoral process during the past seven decades.

2. The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (‘Constitution’) unequivocally contemplates that the authority of the government is solely premised on the will of the people. The will of the people is essentially expressed through exercising the right to participate in the political process and to vote on the day fixed for polls. Elections are the primary and exclusive mode which facilitates and enables the citizen, particularly the registered voter, to choose the person who would represent them and through whom the latter would participate in the governance of the State and exercise the authority of the government. This is one of the most fundamental right of every citizen recognized by the framers of the Constitution. There are other equally important rights associated with or implicit in the right of a citizen to vote and they, inter alai, include the right to meaningfully participate in the political process, freedom of expression, assembly, association and movement. The importance of the right of access to information regarding the competing political parties, their manifestos and candidates cannot be overstated. Each party and candidate must enjoy an equal and non discriminatory opportunity to effectively function without any fear or threat of intimidation. The United Nations has explicitly recognized the concept of an ‘informed choice’ as an integral part of ‘free choice’.[2] It has been emphasized that ‘if elections are to be genuine then they must demonstrably reflect the will of the people. ‘Voters can neither formulate nor express that will without access to information about the candidates, the parties and the process’.[3] In order to achieve these fundamental tenets it is not enough to hold elections but to ensure that the citizens have a fair opportunity to express their will by exercising their electoral rights through ‘genuine elections’. Our Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights unambiguously recognize ‘genuine elections’ as the only true manifestation of the expression of the will of the people.

3. The essential characteristics of a ‘genuine election’ have been described as a political process which would ‘reveal and give effect to the freely expressed will of the people. Sham elections, designed temporarily to quell internal dissent or to distract international scrutiny obviously do not meet the international standards’.[4] Genuine elections can only be ensured if they offer an actual and free choice to an informed voter. Discrimination or intimidation on the basis of political opinions are alien to the concept of genuine elections and even such a perception would be sufficient to compromise the integrity of the electoral process and relegate it to the status of sham elections. Every candidate and political party must have an equal opportunity to reach out to the citizens and to have access to the public resources, including the print and electronic media. The framework of the Constitution has created and guarantees a political right in favor of every citizen to govern the State and exercise the authority of the government through their chosen representatives. Implicit in this fundamental right is the expression of the will of the people. ‘The ultimate indication of whether elections are free is the extent to which they facilitate the free expression of the political will of the people concerned. It is, after all, this will which, according to the Universal Declaration (Art. 21, Para 3), is the very basis of legitimate government authority’.[5] The concept of facilitating the effective and meaningful expression of the political will of the people through ‘genuine elections’ is thus embedded in the scheme of the Constitution and the edifice of the fundamental rights is built upon it. The test of ‘genuine elections’ is the ability of the voter, political worker, candidate and political party to effectively exercise and enjoy the aforementioned rights without discrimination or any threat of intimidation, direct or indirect. The concept of genuine election is the key to leveling the playing field for all the stakeholders. When all the political competitors do not enjoy the same advantages and disadvantages during the election period, then the fundamental rights of the citizens are breached and, simultaneously, the Constitution is gravely violated. It is, therefore, inevitable to ensure that every political competitor is treated equally without discrimination and everyone has the same chance to succeed. Incarceration of a political competitor during the period of elections, except when it is necessary due to exceptional circumstances, gravely affects the fundamental rights of the voters and prejudices the genuineness and integrity of the elections. As far as the question is concerned as to why political leaders and political workers should be extended preferential treatment, the answer, as already discussed, is that there is a higher and greater interest of the people at large involved which is always given preference over other interests. Moreover, unnecessary incarceration, which would not serve any useful purpose in itself, becomes a ground for releasing an ordinary accused on bail unless the offence alleged to have been committed is heinous or there are exceptional circumstances for refusing extension of bail. There cannot be a greater public interest than ensuring genuine elections and if the incarcerated person intends to contest elections or the standing of a political party is dependent upon the latter then in my opinion this ought to be considered a ground for the grant of bail during the election period. The concession of bail in such an eventuality should be considered favorably as a rule and declined in exceptional circumstances. The strict application of this principle is also essential keeping in view the chequered electoral history during the past seven decades.

4. The process of democratization and democracy itself were gravely undermined from the very inception of Pakistan as an independent sovereign State. The undemocratic elite had struck for the first time when the Constituent Assembly was dissolved and later the unconstitutionality was legitimized by the Federal Court by contriving the doctrine of necessity. It laid the foundations for repression against political opponents. Almost all the elected Prime Ministers remained incarcerated after being prematurely removed from office. Prime Ministers were disqualified and political opponents were persecuted for dissent and prevented from competing in elections by denying a level playing field. The last general elections held in 2018 was an example of denying equal treatment to a particular political party. One of the Prime Ministers was even sent to the gallows and people were later restrained from attending his funeral. Half of the nation’s life has been spent under military dictators who did not face a days incarceration for abrogating the Constitution, toppling elected Prime Ministers and subjecting political workers to the worst form of oppression. In stark contrast, the elected Prime Ministers and chosen representatives were prevented from participating in the electoral process by keeping them incarcerated or forcing them into exile. The incarceration of political leadership belonging to Baluchistan, the then North West Frontier Province or Sindh for their political dissent and opinions cannot be erased from history books. The notion of ‘genuine election’ has remained illusory in the past seven decades and it definitely has profound consequences for the democratic process and the rights of the people. It is the duty of the Election Commission and the respective Governments to ensure that the people are facilitated in expressing their will through ‘genuine election’. It is also their duty to ensure that there is no perception of oppression or repressive actions against one political party while others are treated favourably. The unflattering electoral history and oppressive treatment of political dissidents during the period of elections necessitates considering the grant of bail favorably as a rule.

5. The petitioners are alleged to be involved in an offence which does not fall under the category of offences that threaten the society such as r**e, child abuse, homicide etc. The investigation has been completed and trial is in progress. The trial is entirely dependent on documentary evidence. The incarceration of the petitioners will not serve any useful purpose. Moreover, their release on bail during the period of elections would ensure ‘genuine elections’ and thus enable the people to exercise the right to express their will effectively and meaningfully. There are no exceptional circumstances to decline the concession of bail.

(Y.A.) Petition allowed

[1]. i.e., in relation to any work of defence, arsenal, naval, military or air force establishment or station, mine, mine-field, factory, dockyard, camp, ship or aircraft or otherwise in relation to the naval, military or air force affairs of Pakistan.

[2]. Article 87; Human Rights and Elections, a Handbook on the Legal, Technical and Human Rights Aspects of Elections; Centre for Human Rights, UN. (Handbook).

[3]. Human Rights and Elections, A Handbook on the Legal. Technical, and Human Rights Aspects of Elections, Centre For Human Rights, United Nations.

[4]. Article 77 of the Handbook.

[5]. Article 62 of the Handbook.no