Moulvi Law Associates

28/08/2026

The Punjab Food Authority was created under the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011.

The Sindh Food Authority was established under the Sindh Food Authority Act, 2016. The Act was subsequently published as Sindh Act No. XIV of 2017.

So there is a five-year difference in the establishing legislation:

However, the two authorities are very similar in institutional concept.

Both are specialised provincial bodies dealing principally with the following

1. food safety;
2. food standards;
3. adulteration;
4. inspection;
5. licensing/registration;
6. food testing;
7. hygiene;
8. enforcement; and
9. protection of consumers from unsafe or substandard food.

14/08/2026

17/06/2026

The abbreviation CAIP can mean different things depending on the context.

In the AI certification field, it commonly refers to Certified Artificial Intelligence Practitioner (CAIP), an entry-level professional certification that validates practical knowledge of AI concepts, machine learning, neural networks, AI ethics, and AI applications.

It is intended for professionals who want to demonstrate AI competency without necessarily being AI researchers or developers.

17/06/2026

In law, intelligence is ultimately validated through professional action.
A moderately gifted lawyer who effectively advocates, drafts pleadings, and provides timely counsel may have greater practical impact than a brilliant lawyer who possesses deep theoretical knowledge but does not engage in practice or represent clients.
In legal practice, competence is measured not only by understanding the law, but by the ability to apply it to real cases and deliver results for clients.

12/06/2026

Demeanour of witness .

11/06/2026

Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, (Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872) is germane to the proof of ex*****on of document required by law to be attested which cannot be used as evidence until "two attesting witnesses" at least are called for the purpose of proving its ex*****on, if there be two attesting witnesses alive and subject to the process of the court and capable of giving evidence. In fact this Article is reproduction of Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 with the difference that, under it only one attesting witnesses was required to prove the document rather than two. The evidence recorded in the Trial Court reflects that the appellant produced his brother PW Khaliq Dino as attesting witness of the agreement to sell but another attesting witness Hashim son of Allah Warrayo Behrani was not produced nor any justification or reason of not calling him was assigned.
The PW Muhammad Umar, the vendor, only identified the parties whereas the Ex.69/J does not bear the signature of PW Zaheer Ahmed Abro. The omission or oversight of not calling both the attesting witnesses is detrimental and adversative to the admissibility of the document. The attestation and ex*****on both have distinct characteristics. The ex*****on of document attributes signing in presence of attesting witnesses including all requisite formalities which may be necessary to render the document valid. While the fundamental and elemental condition of valid attestation is that two or more witnesses signed the instrument and each of them has signed the instruments in presence of the executants. This stringent condition mentioned in, Article 79 is uncompromising. So long as the attesting witnesses are alive, capable of giving evidence and subject to the process of Court, no document can be used in evidence without the evidence of such attesting witnesses. The provision of this Article is mandatory and noncompliance will render the document inadmissible in evidence. If ex*****on of a document is specifically denied, the best course is to call the attesting witnesses to prove the ex*****on. When the evidence brought forward by a party to prove the ex*****on of a document is contradictory or paradoxical to the claim lodged in the suit, or is inadmissible, such evidence would have no legal sanctity or weightage.
In the case of Hafiz Tassadug Hussain v. Muhammad Din through Legal Heirs and others (PLD 2011 SC 241); the Court held in paragraph 8 that the command of the Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 is vividly discernible which elucidates that in order to prove an instrument which by law is required to be attested, it has to be proved by two attesting witnesses, if they are alive and otherwise are not incapacitated and are subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence. The powerful expression "shall not be used as evidence" until the requisite number of attesting witnesses have been examined to prove its ex*****on is couched in the negative, which depicts the clear and unquestionable intention of the legislature, barring and placing a complete prohibition for using in evidence any such document, which is cither not attested as mandated by the law and/or if the required number of attesting witnesses are not produced to prove it. As the consequences of the failure in this behalf are provided by the Article itself, therefore, it is a mandatory provision of law and should be given due effect by the Courts in letter and spirit. The provisions of this Article are most uncompromising, so long as there is an attesting witness alive capable of giving evidence and subject to the process of the Court, no document which is required by law to be attested can be used in evidence until such witness has been called, the omission to call the^ requisite number of attesting witnesses is fatal to the admissibility of the document. It was further held that the scribe of a document can only be a competent witness in terms of Articles 17 and 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 if he has fixed his signature as an attesting witness of the document and not otherwise; his signing the document in the capacity of a writer does not fulfill and meet the mandatory requirement of attestation by him separately, however, he may be examined by the concerned party for the corroboration of the evidence of the marginal witnesses, or in the eventuality those are conceived by Article 79 itself not as a substitute. In the case of Nazir Ahmad and another v. M. Muzaffar Hussain (2008 SCMR 1639), the Court held that: "Attesting witness was the one who had not only seen the document being executed by the executant but also signed same as a witness. Person who wrote or was 'scribe' of a document was as good a witness as anybody else, if he had signed the document as a witness (Emphasis supplied) No legal inherent incompetency existed in the writer of a document to be an attesting witness to it". Whereas in the case of N. Kamalam and another v. Ayyasamy and another (2001) 7 Supreme Court cases 507), it was held that: "Evidence of scribe could not displace statutory requirement as he did not have necessary intent to attest." In Badri Prasad and another v. Abdul Karim and others (1913 (19) IC 451), it was held: "The evidence of the scribe of a mortgage deed, who signed the deed in the usual way without any intention of attesting it as a witness, is not sufficient to prove the deed."

11/06/2026

Article 84 of the Qanun-e-shahadat Order, 1984 is an enabling stipulation entrusting the Court to reassure itself as to the proof off handwriting or signature. The Court has all the essential powers to conduct an exercise of comparing the handwriting or signature to gett hold of a proper conclusion as to the genuineness of handwriting or signature to effectively resolve the bone of contention between the parties. The real analysis is to ruminate the general character of the inscriptions/signatures for comparison and not to scrutinize the configuration of each individual letter. It is an unadorned duty of the
Court to compare the writings in order to reach at precise conclusion but this should be done with extreme care and caution and from dissimilarity and discrepancy of two signatures, Court may legitimately draw inference that one of these signatures is not genuine and when the Court is satisfied that the signature is forged and feigned then nothing prevents the Court from pronouncing decisions against the said documents. In the case of Chulam Rasool v. Sardar-ul-Hassan (1997 SCMR 976), the petitioner contended that the Trial Court was not justified recording its Finding on the question of signature by comparing the signature in dispute with the admitted signature as it was required to refer the matter to the handwriting experts which contention was found untenable by this Court and it was held that it is within the power of Court to compare the disputed signature with the admitted signature and to form its view though it is advisable to refer the matter to the handwriting expert.

However, the fact that the same was not referred would not render the order/judgment legally infirm as to warrant interference. While in the case of Messrs Wagas Enterprises v. Allied Bank of Pakisian and 2 others (1999 SCMR 85), the Court held that it is settled principle that in certain eventualities the Court enjoins plenary powers to itself to compare the signature along with other relevant material to effectively resolve the main controversy. The learned counsel for the appellant • referred to the case of Rehmat Ali Ismailia v. Khalid Mehmood (2004 SCMR 361), in which, while recording the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the Court was not competent to compare the signature of the petitioner on the agreement of sale under Article 84 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, the Court held that the above provisions do empower the Courts to make the comparison of the words or figures so written over a disputed document to that of admitted writing/ signature and the Court could exercise its judgments on resemblance of admitted writing on record. It is true that it is undesirable that a Presiding Officer of the Court should take upon himself the task of comparing signature in order to find out whether the signature/writing in the disputed document resembled that of the admitted signature/writing but the said provision does empower the Court to compare the disputed signature/writing with the admitted or proved writing. Reference may be made to (i) Ghulam Rasool and others v. Sardar-ul-Hassan and another 1997 SCMR 976; (ii) Mst. Ummatul Waheed and others v. Msr. Nasira Kausar and others 1985 SCMR 214 and Messrs Waqas Enterprises and others v. Allied bank of Pakistan and others 1999 SCMR 85.

10/06/2026

The Eid al-Mubahala (or Mubahila Day) is a commemorative occasion observed primarily by Shia Muslims on 24 Dhu al-Hijjah of the Islamic calendar. It marks the historical event of Mubahala (“mutual invocation of God’s curse upon those who are lying”), which took place between the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and a Christian delegation from Najran around 631 CE.

According to Islamic tradition, the Christians of Najran and the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ engaged in discussions concerning the nature and status of Prophet Jesus (Isa عليه السلام). When the discussions failed to produce an agreement, a Qur’anic verse instructed the Prophet ﷺ to invite the Christians to a Mubahala. In this solemn procedure, each side was to bring its closest family members and invoke the curse of Allah upon whichever party was speaking falsely. The relevant verse is Qur’an 3:61, commonly known as the Verse of Mubahala.

A question often raised is why, during the Mubahala event, the Prophet ﷺ reportedly brought only Ali ibn Abi Talib, Fatimah al-Zahra, Hasan ibn Ali, and Husayn ibn Ali, rather than other eminent Companions such as Abu Bakr, Umar, or Uthman. Historically, the verse itself refers to “our sons” (abnā’anā), “our women” (nisā’anā), and “ourselves” (anfusanā). According to the traditional reports, the Prophet ﷺ presented Hasan and Husayn as “our sons,” Fatimah as “our women,” and Ali as the person encompassed within the expression “ourselves.”

Both Sunni and Shia traditions generally agree regarding the identities of those who accompanied the Prophet ﷺ at the Mubahala. The principal difference lies in the interpretation of the significance of that choice. Sunni scholars commonly regard the event as demonstrating the exceptional virtue, purity, and closeness of the Prophet’s family (Ahl al-Bayt) to him. Shia scholars, while also affirming these virtues, often view the event as evidence of the unique spiritual rank and religious authority of Ali ibn Abi Talib and the Prophet’s household.

Thus, while there is broad agreement concerning the historical participants in the Mubahala, Muslim scholars have differed regarding the theological and doctrinal implications that should be drawn from the event.