Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 51

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.

C.M. No. _______________/2000


In
I.C.A. No. _______________/2000

Asian Construction Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Govt. of Punjab, etc.

Application for hearing of above-captioned case.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That the above-captioned case was filed before this Hon’ble
Bench, as urgent, because of a stay matter, which was fixed
for preliminary hearing on 21.3.2000.
2. That as the certified copy of judgment dated 15.3.2000 was
not available on the record, the case was adjourned for
27.3.2000 to place the same on record.
3. That the copy of judgment was delivered to the applicant on
25.3.2000 and the same could not be submitted in office to
place on file.
4. That on 27.3.2000 this Hon’ble Bench directed the applicant
to submit the copy of judgment through office. The copy of
judgment is placed through diary No. 266 on 27.3.2000.
It is humbly prayed that the case may please be allowed
to fix as early as possible for preliminary hearing.
Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit
may please be extended in favour of the applicant.
Humble Applicant

Through: -
Sh. Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts,
Multan.
C.C. No. 20176.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

C.M. No. _______________/2000


In
I.C.A. No. _______________/2000

Asian Construction Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs.Govt. of Punjab, etc.

Affidavit of: -
Javed Iqbal son of Abdullah Khan Director Asian
Construction Co. caste Gurmani Bloch, resident of
Bukhariwala, Girls College Road, Muzaffargarh.

I, the above named deponent do hereby


solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above application are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has
been kept concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of March 2000 that the contents of this affidavit
are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONEN
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

W.P. No._____________/2000

Riffat Rabia widow of Abdul Rahim Shah, caste Khagga, R/o Chak
No. 58/10-R (Chak Shahana) Tehsil & District Khanewal.
Petitioner
Versus
1. S.P. Khanewal.
2. S.H.O. Police Station Sadar, Khanewal.
3. Naubahar Shah son of Siddiq Shah caste Khagga, R/o Chak
No. 58/10-R (Chak Shahana) Tehsil & District Khanewal.
4. Izhar Shah son of Siddiq Shah caste Khagga, R/o Chak No.
58/10-R (Chak Shahana) Tehsil & District Khanewal.
5. Zafar Kamlana, caste Kamlan, R/o Chak No. 58/10-R (Chak
Shahana) Tehsil & District Khanewal.
6. Khalid Sheikh R/o Chak No. 58/10-R (Chak Shahana) Tehsil
& District Khanewal.
Respondents

Writ Petition under Article 199


Of The Constitution of Islamic
Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That names and addresses of the parties are given correct for
the purpose of service and citation.

2. That brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the
petitioner is a resident of above-mentioned address. The
petitioner was married to one Abdul Rahim Shah 12/13 years
back, and from the wedlock a son namely Bilal Rahim born.
Bilal Rahim is 10 years old and residing with the petitioner.
The husband of the petitioner was died six months ago. There
was dispute for inheritance, but the petitioner could not face
all these things alone and settled the matter of inheritance.
Now land 14 acres and 5 acres is in the names of Bilal Rahim
and the petitioner, respectively in the said Chak. One
Naubahar Shah son of Siddiq Shah caste Khagga resident of
the same Chak helped the petitioner in the disputes of
inheritance. After the settlement of disputes the said
Naubabhar Shah desired to marry the petitioner, but on her
refusal, Naubahar did no dare to repeat the demand.

3. That on 15.3.2000 at about 10 a.m., as usual, the petitioner,


her father Altaf Shah and brother Muhammad Taqi Shah along
with other females were present at their home. Mst. Kalsoom
wife of Naubahar came to the petitioner at her home, desired
to go to Khanewal for shopping and requested to give her
company. When the petitioner came to the house of Mst.
Kalsoom, her husband Naubahar Shah was present on the
driving seat of white coloured Toyota Corolla car, who
boarded the petitioner and his wife and dropped at Khanewal
city. At about 1.30 p.m. shopping was finished, Mst. Kalsoom
asked to visit the house of Azhar Shah, the real brother of
Naubahar Shah. It was just half an hour when the petitioner
and Mst. Kalsoom were sitting in drawing room Naubahar
Shah, Izhar Shah, Zafar Kamlana, Khalid Sheikh and two
unknown person (can be identified if appeared) entered and
Mst. Kalsoom left the drawing room on their arrival. Izhar
Shah, Zafar Kamlana and Khalid Sheikh pointed the pistols on
the petitioner, when, Naubahar Shah placed before the
petitioner some white papers and stamp papers and ordered to
fix the thumb impression and signatures upon those papers.
On hesitation of the petitioner, Izhar Shah, Zafar Kamlana and
Khalid Sheikh placed the barrels of the pistols on her head and
threatened to be shooted if the demand of Naubahar Shah
could not be complied. The petitioner, under the fear of her
life, affixed the thumb impression and signatures upon all the
papers. Naubahar Shah left the room and remaining three
Izhar Shah etc. detained the petitioner with the fear of
weapons. At about 6 p.m. Naubahar Shah came with a car.
Khalid Sheikh etc. forced the petitioner to sit in the car. When
they reached near the school on Chak Shahana Road, they
pushed the petitioner out and fled away. Ansar Shah and
Asghar Shah sons of Bashir Ahmad Shah, caste Khagga,
resident of the same village brought the petitioner to her
house. The petitioner brought the matter in the knowledge of
her father, who along with some relatives, tried to contract
Naubahar Shah but Naubahar Shah was not present in his
home.

4. That on the next day, the petitioner along with her father
narrated the whole matter to the respondent No. 2 who
instructed the petitioner to bring an application in this respect.
The petitioner submitted the application to respondent No. 2
as per his instructions, which is Annex “A”.

5. That the respondent No. 2, on receipt of the application,


directed the petitioner to come after the Eid holidays and
when the petitioner appeared before the respondent No. 2 on
20.3.2000 and after that many times, the respondent No. 2
remained reluctant to fulfill his constitutional obligations by
registering an F.I.R. against the culprits.

6. That aggrieved from the conduct and behaviour of the


respondent No. 2, the petitioner submitted an application to
the respondent No. 1 on 29.3.2000, but could not succeed to
bring the culprits in the iron hands of law. The respondents
No. 3 to 6 are now not only threatening the petitioner but also
extending threats to her old father and other members of
family in case of follow up the application. Application to
respondent No. 1 is Annex “B”.

7. That the respondents No. 1 & 2 being the state functionaries


are under obligation and duty bound to act in accordance with
law. They are under constitutional obligations to provide
protection to the petitioner and her family as mentioned in
Article 9 and 25 of the Constitution. The respondents No. 1 &
2 failed to perform their duties under the pressure and
influence of respondents No. 3 to 6.

8. That the petitioner is left with no other remedy except to


invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court for
the redressal of her grievance.

It is therefore, respectfully prayed that the


respondents No. 1 & 2 may please be directed to
register a case against the respondents No. 3 to 6 as
they committed cognizable offence and must be treated
under the law. It is further prayed that any other
direction, order, writ or relief which this Hon’ble Court
deems fit, may please be extended in favour of the
petitioner.
Humble Petitioner,

(Riffat Rabia)

Through: -
1. Sh. Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts,
Multan.
C.C. No. 20176.

2. Hamad Afzal Bajwa,


28-District Courts,
Multan.
C.C. No. 20959.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

W. P. No. _____________/2000

Riffat Rabia Versus S. P. Khanewal, etc.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Riffat Rabia widow of Abdul Rahim Shah, caste
Khagga, R/o Chak No. 58/10-R (Chak Shahana) Tehsil
& District Khanewal.

I, the above named deponent do hereby


solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above Writ Petition are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has
been kept concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this ____ day
of April 2000 that the contents of this affidavit
are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

C.M. No. _____________/2000


In
W.P. No._____________/2000

Riffat Rabia Versus S. P. Khanewal, etc.

APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE


FILING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURES.
=========================================

Respectfully Sheweth: -
That certified copies of Annexures “A & B” are not
available. However, uncertified/photo state copies of the
same have been annexed with the Petition, which are true
copies of original documents.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble


court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copies
of documents.
PETITIONER

Dated: _________
Through: -
1. Sh. Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts,
Multan.
C.C. No. 20176.

2. Hamad Afzal Bajwa,


28-District Courts,
Multan.
C.C. No. 20959.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

C.M. No. _____________/2000


In
W.P. No._____________/2000

Riffat Rabia Versus S. P. Khanewal, etc.

Dispensation Application

Affidavit of: -
Riffat Rabia widow of Abdul Rahim Shah, caste
Khagga, R/o Chak No. 58/10-R (Chak Shahana) Tehsil
& District Khanewal.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly


affirm and declare that the contents of the above
application are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept
concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of
April 2000 that the contents of this affidavit are true to
the best of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

W. P. No. _____________/2000

Riffat Rabia Versus S. P. Khanewal, etc.

INDEX

S. No. NAME OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXURES PAGES


1 Urgent Form
2 Stamp Paper worth Rs. 500/-
3 Writ Petition.
4 Affidavit
5 Photocopy of Application. A
6 Photocopy of Application. B
7 Dispensation Application.
8 Affidavit.
9 Vakalatnama
PETITIONER
Dated: __________

Through: -
1. Sh. Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts,
Multan.
C.C. No. 20176.

2. Hamad Afzal Bajwa,


28-District Courts,
Multan.
C.C. No. 20959.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

C.M. No. _______________/2000


In
I.C.A. No. _______________/2000

Asian Construction Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs.Govt. of Punjab, etc.

Affidavit of: -
Javed Iqbal son of Abdullah Khan Director Asian
Construction Co. caste Gurmani Bloch, resident of
Bukhariwala, Girls College Road, Muzaffargarh.

I, the above named deponent do hereby


solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above application are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has
been kept concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of March 2000 that the contents of this affidavit
are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONEN
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

S.A.O. No._____________/2000
AMENDED APPEAL

1. Rehan Iqbal s/o Iqbal Muhammad Khan.


2. Mst. Aneela daughter of Rehan Iqbal.
3. Mst. Mehwash daughter of Rehan Iqbal.
4. Mst. Sana
5. Nida
6. Sahrash daughters Minors through appellant No.1
7. Manzil
8. Mohsin Iqbal Khan son
All Barni Pathan by caste, R/o Shop No. 9 Property No. 28/B
Goal Bagh, Gulgasht Colony, Multan city.
Appellants
Versus
1. Dr. Meraj Din (deceased) S/o Ch. Fazal Din, Caste Kamboh,
R/o 28/B Goal Bagh, Gulgasht Colony, Multan city, through
legal heirs: -
1-A. Rahat Meraj
1-B. Azmat Meraj sons
1-C. Faisal Meraj
1-D. Riffat Yasmin wife of Dr. Iqbal Ahmad
1-E. Nighat Yasmin wife of Iftikhar Ahmad daughters
1-F. Nilofer Kokab wife of Mujtaba Yasin
2. Additional District Judge, Multan.
Respondents

Appeal u/s 15 (6) Punjab Urban


Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959
against orders dated 11.3.2000
passed by the learned A.D.J.
respondent No. 2 by which the
defence of appellants was struck off
during the course of Appeal against
orders dated 6.10.98 passed by the
learned Rent Controller, Multan.
CLAIM IN APPEAL: -
(i) To accept the appeal and to set
aside the impugned judgment and
decree and case be ordered to be
tried on merits by the learned
Rent Controller.
(ii) Court fee of Rs. 540/- is affixed as
per law.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That the predecessor of appellants rented a shop at the rate of
rent Rs. 500/- per month from respondent No. 1. The rent was
regularly paid by the predecessor of the appellants.
Respondent No. 1 owned many shops, but having single
electricity connection for all. In the summer season, there are
always problems in electricity supply due to over-loading. On
the protest, the supply of electricity was disconnected for the
shop of predecessor of appellants and respondent No. 1 filed
ejectment petition on 12.9.95 against the predecessor of
appellants. The predecessor of appellants filed reply on
11.2.96. On 14.2.96, order u/s 13 (6) were passed for the
payment of future rent @ 500/- per month on the10th of every
month.
1-A. That the respondents No. 1-A to 1-F are impleaded as
respondent by the order of Hon’ble Court dated 27.3.2001.
2. That on 7.3.96, the respondent No. 1 examined AW1 when the
AW2 was examined on 25.11.96. Instead of completing the
evidence, the respondent No. 1 filed the first application on
5.4.97 for striking the defence for the predecessor of
appellants (respondent in ejectment petition). The reply of
application was submitted on 8.4.97. The second application
for the same purpose was submitted on 11.10.97 and the reply
was filed on 15.12.97. The learned rent controller was pleased
to dispose the first and to dismiss the subsequent application
vide order dated 28.2.98. The respondent No. 1 preferred an
appeal against the said order which was accepted vide order
17.6.98 and the case was remanded for a fresh decision
especially a cut line regarding the dispute for the rent
deposited in respect of December 1997. The copy of
ejectment petition, its reply, application dated 11.10.97, its
reply along-with order U/s-13 (vi) dated 14.2.96, order of
Rent Controller dated 28.2.98 and the order passed in appeal
dated 17.6.98 are annexed herewith as Annexures “A, B, C,
D, E and F”.
3. That on remand of the case, the learned Rent Controller again
dismissed the application vide order dated 6.10.98 and the
same was assailed through appeal which was decided by the
respondent No. 1 vide impugned judgment and decree dated
11.3.2000, by striking the defence of the appellants. It is
pertinent to point out that during the pendency of said appeal,
the present appellants were impleaded as party because of the
death of Mst. Fozia Begum the real tenant. The copy of the
order dated 6.10.98 passed by the learned Rent Controller and
the judgment and decree dated 11.3.2000 are Annex “G & H”.
4. That the impugned judgment and decree is liable to be set
aside inter alia on the following
GROUNDS

i) That the impugned judgment and decree is against the


facts and law.

ii) That the impugned judgment and decree is against the


principles of natural justice and law of equity.

iii) That there is no provision under the law for the appeal
against the interim order.

iv) That the learned Additional District Judge decided the


case on the bases of technicalities but the real essence
of justice is no appreciated.

v) That the matter, which must be substantiated by the


evidence, is decided without adducing any evidence, in
a summary manner.
vi) That the learned A.D.J. did not appreciate the fact on
the basis of documents. The rent is always deposited in
advance for every month and there is no question of
default on the part of appellants.

vii) That the impugned decree and judgment caused great


miscarriage of justice to the appellants.

viii) That the respondent No. 1 when could not succeed on


the basis of evidence, he brought a technical
controversy to knock out the appellants.

ix) That during the proceeding before the respondent No. 2


no guardian ad-litem was appointed for the minors.

In view of the above, it is humbly prayed


that the appeal in hand may please be accepted
by setting aside the impugned judgment and
decree and case may please be directed to be
decided on merits.

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court


deems fit may please be extended in favour of
appellants.

Humble Applicants

Through: -
Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20959 C.C. No. 20176

Certificate: -
Certified that this is the first appeal on
the matter and no appeal has earlier
been filed in this August Court.
Advocate.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

S.A.O. No._____________/2000

Rehan Iqbal etc. Versus Dr. Maruf Din etc.

Application for the appointment of guardian ad-


litem for the appellants No. 4 to 8 being minors.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That the contents of appeal may please by read as part and
parcel of this application.
2. That the appellants No. 4 to 8 are minors and cannot sue
without next friend.
3. That the appellant No. 1 is the real father of the minors and
his no interest is against the interest of minors.
It is therefore, requested that the applicant may
please be appointed guardian ad-litem for the minors
appellants No. 4 to 8 till the disposal of matter in hand.

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems


fit may please be extended in favour of appellants.
Humble Appellants

Through: -
1. Sh. Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts,
Multan.
C.C. No. 20176.

2. Hamad Afzal Bajwa,


28-District Courts,
Multan.
C.C. No. 20959.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

S.A.O. No._____________/2000
Rehan Iqbal etc. Versus Dr. Maruf Din etc.

Application for the suspension of operation


of impugned judgment and decree.

1. That the contents of appeal may please by read as part and


parcel of this application.
2. That the impugned judgment and decree is passed against the
facts and law, so the appellants have a good prima facie case.
3. That if the applicants are ejected from the disputed property,
they will face an irreparable loss.
4. That the applicants are in possession of the disputed property
and regularly depositing the rent fixed by the learned Rent
Controller. So the balance of convenience leans in favour of
the applicants.
It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the operation of
impugned judgment and decree may please be suspended till
the final disposal of the appeal. It is further prayed that any
other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, may please be
granted in favour of appellants.
Humble Applicants,

Through: -
1. Sh. Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts,
Multan.
C.C. No. 20176.

2. Hamad Afzal Bajwa,


28-District Courts,
Multan.
C.C. No. 20959.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

S.A.O. No._____________/2000
Rehan Iqbal etc. Versus Dr. Maruf Din etc.

Application for the suspension of operation


of impugned judgment and decree.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Rehan Iqbal S/o Iqbal Muhammad Khan, caste
Barni Pathan, R/o Shop No. 9 Property No. 28/B
Goal Bagh, Gulgasht Colony, Multan city.

I, the above named deponent do hereby


solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above application are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief and nothing
has been kept concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this ____day
of April 2000 that the contents of this affidavit
are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

S.A.O. No._____________/2000

Rehan Iqbal etc. Versus Dr. Maruf Din etc.

Application for the appointment of guardian ad-


litem for the appellants No. 4 to 8 being minors.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Rehan Iqbal S/o Iqbal Muhammad Khan, caste
Barni Pathan, R/o Shop No. 9 Property No. 28/B
Goal Bagh, Gulgasht Colony, Multan city.

I, the above named deponent do hereby


solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above application are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief and nothing
has been kept concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this ____day
of April 2000 that the contents of this affidavit
are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

C.M. No. _____________/2000


In
S.A.O. No._____________/2000

Rehan Iqbal etc. Versus Dr. Meraj Din etc.

APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE


FILING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURES.
=========================================

Respectfully Sheweth: -
That certified copies of Annexures “A to H” are not
available. However, uncertified/photo state copies of the
same have been annexed with the Petition, which are true
copies of original documents.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble


court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copies
of documents.
APPELLANTS

Dated: _________
Through: -
1. Sh. Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts,
Multan.
C.C. No. 20176.

2. Hamad Afzal Bajwa,


28-District Courts,
Multan.
C.C. No. 20959.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

C.M. No. _____________/2000


In
S.A.O. No._____________/2000

Rehan Iqbal etc. Versus Dr. Meraj Din etc.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Rehan Iqbal S/o Iqbal Muhammad Khan, caste Barni
Pathan, R/o Shop No. 9 Property No. 28/B Goal Bagh,
Gulgasht Colony, Multan city.

I, the above named deponent do hereby


solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above application are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief and nothing
has been kept concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this ____day
of April 2000 that the contents of this affidavit
are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

S.A.O. No._____________/2000
Rehan Iqbal etc. Versus Dr. Meraj Din etc.
INDEX
S. No. NAME OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXURES PAGES
1 Memo of Appeal.
2 Copy of Ejectment Petition. A
3 Reply of Ejectment Petition. B
4 Copy of Application dt. 11.10.97. C
5 Reply to the Application. D
6 Order of Rent Controller dt.28.2.98. E
7 Order passed in appeal dt. 17.6.98. F
8 Copy of the order passed by the G
Rent Controller.
9 Judgment & Decree dt. 11.3.2000. H
10 Application for appointment of
Guardian.
11 Affidavit.
12 Application for the suspension of
impugned judgment & decree.
13 Affidavit.
14 Dispensation Application.
15 Affidavit.
16 Vakalatnama
Dated: __________

Through: -
1. Sh. Muhammad Faheem, 2. Hamad Afzal Bajwa,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, 28-District Courts,
Multan. Multan.
C.C. No. 20176. C.C. No. 20959.

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,


MULTAN.
Crl. Misc. No._____________/B/2000

1. Abdur-Rauf Akhtar S/o Muhammad Yousuf, caste Jat, R/o Chak


No. 363/WB Tehsil Duniya Pur, District Lodhran, presently
servant gang Mate gang No.36 under PWI Railway Multan.
2. Nisar Ahmad S/o Malik Sakhi Muhammad, caste Awan, R/o Garh
Maharaja, Tehsil Shorkot, District Jhang, presently PWI,
Railway, Multan.
3. Asghar Ali S/o Ghulam Muhammad, caste Jat, R/o 363/WB
Tehsil Duniyapur, District Lodhran, presently AWI Railway
Multan.
Petitioners
VERSUS
The state ……..……
Respondent

Case F.I.R. No. 94/99 (wrongly maintain F.I.R.


No. 93 by the Police) dated 17.12.99 u/s 109/161,
420/468/471 P.P.C. R/W 5 (2) 47 P.C.A. P.S.
Railway Police Multan Cantt.

Application under sections 497/498 Cr.P.C.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That the names and addresses of the parties are given correct
for the purpose of services and citations.
2. That the above-mentioned F.I.R. was registered on the
application of one Basheer Ahmad narrating the general type
of allegations without any substantial evidence. However, the
above-mentioned offences were assessed from the bare
reading of F.I.R. The F.I.R. is annexed as Annexure “A” with
better copy as “A/1”.
3. That the petitioners were arrested by the concerned police and
brought before the competent court for the physical remand.
The petitioner No. 1 was sent to judicial lock-up without any
physical remand and the remaining two petitioners passed the
considerable period under the physical remand. However, no
recovery was effected from both the petitioners. The
petitioners filed application for the grant of post arrest bail in
the court of Special Judge (Central) Multan, the court of first
instance. This bail application was dismissed vide order dated
8/4/2000 for the reasons stated therein. Copy of this order is
annexed as Annexure “B”.
4. That the petitioners seek post arrest bail inter alia on the
following
GROUNDS

a) That the case is false and registered on the bases of


malafide intention, and ulterior motive for the political
rivalry existed in the department. An F.I.R. in this
regard is annexed as annexed as Annexure “C” with
better copy as “C/1”.
b) That the petitioners are innocent in roped up in this case
due to the connivance of complaint with the police.
c) That the petitioners No. 2 & 3 remained on physical
remand for five days but no incriminating material or
any type of evidence could be gathered by the
prosecution agency. Only some amount was planted
upon petitioner No. 2, which has no value in the eye of
law.
d) That the offences as described in the F.I.R. are not
attracted in the circumstances as narrated in the F.I.R.
or investigated, because the necessary ingredients for
the constitution of said offences are absent.
e) That the Railway police is an agency constituted under
special enactment having no power to register the case
under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and in this
situation all the action of Railway Police has no value
in the eyes of law.
f) That no evidence has been collected by the
investigating agency against the petitioners. The case
falls within the preview of further inquiry, as no cogent
reasons are available to connect the petitioners with
these offences.
g) That keeping in view the judgment PLD 1995 SC 34
titled “Tariq Basheer vs. State”, the petitioners are
entitled for the concession of bail as there is no
apprehension to temper with the record.
h) That the petitioners neither have any previous record
nor convicted persons.
i) That as per contents of F.I.R. or material collected by
the police, the case of petitioners does not falls within
the preview of prohibitory clause of Sec. 497 Cr.P.C.
j) That the investigation upto the extent of the petitioners
is complete and they are no more required for the
further investigation. If the petitioners will remain in
the judicial lock-up, in any case it will, serve no
purpose for the prosecution.
k) That there is no likelihood to submit the final report/
challan in near future.
It is humbly prayed that the bail petition
may please be accepted by extending the
concession of post arrest bail in favour of the
petitioners and the petitioners be released from
the judicial lock-up.
Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court
deems fit, may please be granted to the
petitioners.
1. Sh. Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts,
Multan.
C.C. No. 20176.

2. Hamad Afzal Bajwa,


Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts,
Multan.
C.C. No. 20959.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

Crl. Misc. No._____________/B/2000

Abdur-Rauf Akhtar etc. VERSUS The state

INDEX

S. No. NAME OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXURES PAGES


1 Bail Application.
2 Copy of F.I.R. No. 94/99 A
3 Better Copy of F.I.R. A/1
4 Copy of order (petitioner No. 1). B
5 Copy of order (petitioners No.2 & 3). B/1
6 Copy of F.I.R. No. 9/2000 C
7 Better Copy of F.I.R. C/1
8 Application for Dispensation.
9 Vakalatnama

Dated: __________

1. Sh. Muhammad Faheem,


Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts,
Multan.
C.C. No. 20176.

2. Hamad Afzal Bajwa,


Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts,
Multan.
C.C. No. 20959.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

C.M. No. _____________/B/2000


In
Crl. Misc. No.___________/B/2000

Abdur-Rauf Akhtar etc. VERSUS The state

APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE


FILING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURES.
=========================================

Respectfully Sheweth: -
That certified copies of Annexures: _________ are not
available. However, uncertified/photo state copies of the
same have been annexed with the Petition, which are true
copies of original documents.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble


court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copies
of documents.
PETITIONER

Dated: _________

Through: -
1. Sh. Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts,
Multan.
C.C. No. 20176.

2. Hamad Afzal Bajwa,


Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts,
Multan.
C.C. No. 20959.
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

It is certified that Malik Khursheed Ahmad S/o Qadir Bakhsh


R/o Chak No. 9/WB; Vehari was a lessee under the Irrigation
Department for Plot No. A-1 and B-1. His lease term is going to be
expired on 30.6.2000. He apprehended that the further lease for that
land will not be through open auction. He filed writ petition No.
3762/2000 titled Malik Khursheed Ahmad Vs. Chief Engineer etc. on
24.4.2000 which was fixed before his lordship Mr. Justice Ali
Nawaz Chowhan (J) and he was pleased to issue a direction to the
authorities that the said land will not be given without holding the
open auction and notice of this auction shall be published for the
information of all concerned. With this direction the writ petition was
disposed off.

Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,


Advocate High Court.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE.

Crl. Appeal No._____________/2000

STATE. ………………. Petitioner

Versus
1. Judge, Special Court, Suppression of Terrorist Activities,
Faisalabad.
2. Amjad Ali, both sons of Ali Asghar, caste Waraich,
3. Khalid Javaid R/o Rajpal Nagar, Gojra Tehsil & District
Faisalabad.
4. Muhammad Riaz S/o Ghulam Hussin, caste Waraich, R/o
Chak No. 306, Gojra, Tehsil and District Faisalabad.
5. Muhammad Bashir alias Saqi S/o M. Hussain, caste Jat, R/o
Chak No. 303, Gojra, Tehsil and District Faisalabad.
Respondents

Appeal U/s 7 (1) of Suppression of


Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act,
1975 against the Judgment passed by
respondent No. 1 Malik Muhammad
Afzal the learned Judge, Special Court
Suppression of Terrorist Activities
Faisalabad dated 14.4.2000 by which the
respondents No. 2 to 5 were acquitted.

CLAIM IN APPEAL: -
To accept the appeal and to convict the
respondents under the charge of 302, 307,
427, 148/149 and 109 P.P.C.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That names and addresses of the parties have correctly been
given for the purpose of services and summons.
2. That the brief facts giving rise to this instant petition are that
one Hamid Nawaz (not examined) when present in Civil
Hospital Faisalabad on 17.10.89 at 8.25 p.m. made a
statement ExPD before M. Bashir I./S.H.O. P.S. Thikri Wala
District Faisalabad (PW12) when present along-with two dead
bodies of Saeed Ahmad and Muhammad Ashraf and two
injured persons Muhammad Waseem and Abid Shah. He
stated: -
“That in the year 1983, Haq Nawaz and Rana Abdul
Sattar were killed and Muhammad Ilyas, Muhammad Naeem
and four others were tried by the Special Court for Speedy
Trial, Faisalabad and said Muhammad Ilyas and Muhammad
Naeem were convicted and an appeal against conviction was
filed in the Lahore High Court, Lahore. The appeal was fixed
for hearing on 16.10.1989. The complainant Hamid Nawaz,
who was not examined, is cousin of said Muhammad Ilyas,
Muhammad Naeem and deceased Saeed Ahmad. On
16.10.1989, early in the morning the complainant Hamid
Nawaz along with the deceased Saeed Ahmad, deceased
Muhammad Ashraf, Abid Hussain (PW-11) and deceased
Muhammad Waseem went to Lahore from Chak No. 364/JB
in Toyota Corolla Car No. FDL-9354. The appeal was
adjourned and both the deceased and above named persons
came back from Lahore and stayed at night at Sheikhupra. On
17.10.1989, all the above named five persons left Sheikhupura
in the above car and came to Faisalabad. From Faisalabad
they proceeded to their Chak No. 364/JB and the car was
being driven by deceased Muhammad Ashraf and the
deceased Saeed Ahmad was sitting on the front seat of the car
and others were sitting on the rear seat. At about 5.30 P.M.
when the complainant and others crossed Adda Chak No.
75/JB (Sohal) and had gone ahead for some distance, then
from behind a Toyota white colour car came in which accused
Amjad Ali, deceased accused Muhammad Lak, Muhammad
Afzal and absconder accused Muhammad Younis and Aitzaz
were sitting while the accused Amjad Ali was sitting on the
front seat. The car was being driven by the absconder accused
Aitzaz and remaining four accused were armed with
Klashinkoves. The accused in their car came almost parallel to
the car of both the deceased and it is alleged that the accused
persons gave Lalkara that they would take revenge for the
murders of Ali Asghar and Haq Nawaz. Accused Amjad Ali
and deceased Muhammad Lak fired shots from their
Klashinkoves and the shots hit the deceased Muhammad
Ashraf, deceased Saeed Ahmad, Muhammad Waseem and
Abid Hussain (PW-11). The front tyre of the car bursted and
the car stopped. The complainant Hamid Nawaz according to
F.I.R. did not suffer any injury and he, after getting down,
went behind the trees. In the meanwhile, the accused also
stopped their car at some distance and after getting down the
car, the accused indiscriminately fired from their weapons
which resulted in serious injuries to the deceased Saeed
Ahmad, deceased Muhammad Ashraf, Abid Hussain (PW-11)
and Muhammad Waseem. The glasses of the car were broken
and the complainant also fired from his weapon and the
accused boarded their car and ran away towards Pensra side.
The complainant Hamid Nawaz took all the four who were
injured seriously to Civil Hospital, Faisalabad. On reaching
the hospital, the deceased Saeed Ahmad succumbed to his
injuries and other three were admitted in the hospital. After
some time, the deceased Muhammad Ashraf also died due to
injuries.
2. The motive alleged behind the occurrence is that in the
year 1980 Ali Asghar, father of accused Amjad Ali, and in the
year 1983 uncle of the accused Amjad Ali was murdered and
the deceased Saeed Ahmad and Muhammad Ilyas were
challaned in that case. On account of the above, the accused
Amjad Ali, Afzaal, Younis and Aitzaz, who are related to each
other, in consultation with the deceased Muhammad Lak
committed the murders of deceased Saeed Ahmad and
Muhammad Ashraf and attempted to commit murders of
Muhammad Waseem (who has also died) and Abid Hussain
(PW-11). It was further alleged that this occurrence took place
on the abetment of accused Khalid Javed, Muhammad Riaz
and Muhammad Bashir Saqi.
On this statement the formal F.I.R. was recorded by Munir
Hussain HC(PW-8) and comparing with the original record
the photocopy available on the Judicial file was exhibited as
ExPE as secondary evidence.

3. That the case remained under investigation for a considerable


period. The respondents along-with one Afzal were charge
sheeted and the Trial of Muhammad Younis S/o M. Sharif and
Aitraz alias Toti S/o Muhammad Riaz was separated under
Sec. 512 Cr.P.C, being the absconders. The prosecution during
the course of Trial examined as many as 16 witnesses when
the Hamid Nawaz, Sana-Ullah and Asghar were given up,
being win-over, and Habib Ullah S.I., Akbar Ali Constable
and Murtaza (private witness) being unnecessary. The
prosecution also tendered ExPY report of chemical examiner
and ExPZ report of serologist along with other documents. On
the defence side except respondent No. 2 no other preferred to
bring any type of evidence on the file who tendered certain
F.I.R. ExDH to ExDY.

4. That the learned Trial Court vide impugned judgment dated


14.4.2000 convicted accused Afzaal Ahmad when the
respondents No. 2 to 5 were acquitted from all the charges and
held: -
“Afzaal guilty of offences under sections 302/149 (on
tow counts), 307/149 (on two counts), 427/149 and 148 P.P.C.
and convict him for murder of deceased Saeed Ahmad, I
sentence the accused Afzaal to death and fine of Rs. 20,000/-
and in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo
further R.I. for one year. Under section 544-A Cr.P.C., it is
ordered that the accused shall pay a compensation of Rs.
100,000/- (one lac rupees) to the legal heirs of the decease
Saeed and in default of payment of compensation, the accused
shall undergo S.I. for six months. For the murder of deceased
Muhammad Ashraf, sentenced the accused Afzaal to death
and fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the
accused shall undergo further R.I. for one year. Under section
544-A Cr.P.C., it is ordered that the accused shall pay a
compensation of rupees one lac to the legal heirs of the
deceased Muhammad Ashraf and in default of payment of
compensation the accused shall undergo S.I. for six months.
For attempt to commit murder of injured Abid Ali, the
accused Afzaal is sentenced to R.I. for seven years and fine of
Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the accused
shall undergo further R.I. for six months. For attempt to
commit murder of injured Waseem (since dead), the accused
Afzaal is sentence to R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs.
10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the accused shall
undergo furhther R.I. for six months. Under section 427/149
P.P.C., the accused Afzaal is further sentenced to R.I. for one
year. Under section 148 P.P.C., the accused Afzaal is
sentenced to R.I. for one year. The copy of Judgment is
Annexure “A”.

5. That the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside to the


extent of respondents No. 2 to 5 inter alia on the following

GROUNDS

(i) That the impugned judgment is against facts and


evidence of the case upto extent of the respondents No.
2 to 5.

(ii) That the impugned judgment is against the law, justice


& natural justice.

(iii) That the impugned judgment is a result of mis-reading


and non-reading of evidence upto the extent of the
respondent No. 2 to 5.

(iv) That vide the impugned judgment the learned Trial


Court formulated the following point for the
determination of the case: -
(a) Whether the accused Amjad Ali, Afzaal and
absconders Muhammad Younis, Aitezaz and
deceased Muhammad as members of the unlawful
assembly and in prosecution of common object of
the unlawful assembly committed rioting and
murdered deceased Saeed Ahmad and Muhammad
Ashraf and attempted to commit murder of injured
Abid Ali Shah and deceased Waseem?

In para No. 11 of the judgment of the learned


Trial Judge dealt with the aforementioned point
formulated by him and has specifically given the
finding that though weapons of offence were not
recovered, but soon after the occurrence, the I.O.
has visited the place of occurrence and from 35
Crimes empties P8/1 to 35 were taken into
possession vide Memo PQ it mentioned that the
Crime Empties were of Klashinkove and there is
nothing in the cross examination of any witness to
indicate that the Crime Empties recovered were not
of Klashinkove. As such, the recovery of Crime
Empties proved the use of Klashinkove in the
commission of the offence.

A bare reading of the above clearly


implicated respondent No. 2. There is specific
evidence as well as the allegations contained in the
F.I.R. Ex.PE that he was also armed with a
Klashinkove and opened fire on both the deceased
as well as the injured PW’s. No reason whatsoever
has been given as not to believe the aforementioned
piece of evidence against respondent No. 2.

(v) That the learned Trial Court has also held that the
inmates of Car No. FDL-9354, were fired at when the
car was moving. The memo ExPR shows that the front
screen and glasses of the windows were broken and
there were also number of marks of firing on the body
of the car and sufficient blood was lying on the seats of
the car. The broken pieces of glasses were secured vide
Memo ExPN and the said aspect of the recovery shows
that both the deceased and injured were in the car when
they were fired at by their assailants. Even the post-
mortem reports of the deceased and medical certificates
of PW’s fully corroborate the ocular evidence. There is
corroboration of the ocular evidence as to the distance
from which the accused, who were travelling in the
other car, fired at the deceased and injured PW’s on the
car in which they were travelling, as there were
blackening around the wounds dependent on the nature
of the projectile. The learned Trial Court dealt in length
and also referred to Modi’s Text Book of Jurisprudence
and Toxicology and have repelled the arguments of the
defence in this regards. The above finding is relatable to
the manner established from the prosecution evidence
as well as dimensions of the wounds and the blackening
that the occurrence narrated by the injured PW-11, Abid
Ali Shah, is correct and made out from the evidence
produced by the prosecution. Admittedly respondent
No. 2 is fully implicated by the above pieces of
evidence and there is no reason whatsoever to acquit
him vide the impugned judgment.

(vi) That the time of occurrence has been believed by the


learned Trial Court vide its observation contained in
para No. 12 of the impugned judgment. The same is
well reasoned and made out from the evidence of
Muhammad Bashir PW-12, Dr. Muhammad Ajmal
PW15. The time of the occurrence having been
believed. No benefit of any doubt could be extended to
respondent No. 2, who was one of the assailants. There
is not any iota of doubt as to his presence at the spot as
the assailants while armed with Klashinkove and
having fired at both the deceased and the injured PW’s.
There was no reason in law and facts involve the matter
to absolve respondent No. 2, from the crime committed
by him.

(vii) That the motive too has been believed vide observation
contained in the para No. 13 of the impugned judgment.

(viii) That the defence plea taken up by respondent No. 2 in


his statement u/s 342 Cr.P.C. and particular reliance on
F.I.R. No. 62/90, registered at P.S. Harappa ExDH, on
record have no adverse bearing as to the prosecution
case. The learned Trial Court has also observed that the
mere fact that the complainant in that case had set up a
motive does not mean that the motive was true as there
is no evidence that the complainant Ghulam Mustafa
was in any way associated with the party of the
deceased. The learned Trial Court has even repelled the
inference drawn and set up by the defence in favour of
respondent No. 2 on the basis is of First Information
Reports ExDH to ExDY.

(ix) That the impression was tried to be built by the defence


with many other persons. The learned Trial Court
uninfluenced of the aforementioned argument has not
given any weight to it including the F.I.R’s referred to
above. The only inference in law and facts inferred and
admitted by the learned Trial Court is that the presence
of enmity of the complainant party with other persons
would in no manner whatsoever rendered the
prosecution evidence unreliable.

(x) That vide observation in para No. 14 of the impugned


judgment the learned Trial Judge specifically gave
finding that injured Abid Ali Shah, PW-11, is an
important witness in the case and his presence at the
time of occurrence cannot be doubted. The defence,
during arguments have sought to discredit the evidence
of the aforementioned witness by referring to ExDD, an
affidavit, allegedly sworn by him, exonerating the
accused named in the F.I.R. inclusive respondent No. 2
to 5. The learned Trial Court has repelled the
aforementioned argument and gave a definite finding
that the affidavit ExDD has not been proved as required
by law and has no evidentiary value and the court was
not inclined to attach any importance to it. In presence
of the aforementioned conclusive finding the evidence
of PW-11, Abid Ali Shah, besides, being confidence
inspiring, materially cogent left unshakable by the
defence. The learned Trial Judge has erred in law and
fact in not taking into consideration the aforementioned
piece of evidence of Abid Ali Shah PW-11 also to the
extent of respondent No. 2.

(xi) That the observation made in para No. 15 of the


impugned judgment that it is proved from the
admission of respondent No. 2 in his statement u/s 342
Cr.P.C. that his uncle Haq Nawaz was murdered on
4.12.87 and in that case Ilyas and Naeem brothers of the
deceased Saeed were sentenced to death and they were
in jail at the time of occurrence. It is, therefore, proved
from the above admission that the brothers of the
deceased Saeed were involved in the case of murder of
uncle of accused-respondent No. 2 Amjad Ali, and the
brothers of the deceased were under sentence of death
in those days. The above finding being definite and
categorical, the same has been ignored capriciously and
arbitrarily while acquitting respondent No. 2. The same
is corroborative to the motive established by
prosecution.

(xii) That the learned Trial Court has also erred in trying to
draw parallel inference and confronted the evidence of
PW-11, Abid Ali Shah that it was not stated that F.I.R.
ExPD, that accused Amjad Ali was sitting on the front
seat of the car when the shot fired by respondent No. 2
had hit the deceased. It is misconceived as per law his
evidence cannot be confronted with the F.I.R. Merely
because Abid Ali PW11 did not state specifically the
sitting position of respondent No. 2 in his previous
statement ExDC, and that respondent No. 2 had fired at
deceased Ashraf and also has to have raised Lalkara, his
evidence cannot be relegated to oblivion.

(xiii) That the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that
the aforementioned piece of evidence of PW11 Abid Ali
Shah is neither an improvement nor the same is
contradictory to the previous statement referred to
above. The case set up in statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. by
prosecution witness need not be an elaborate and
pictorial version of the occurrence. In ExDC,
respondent No. 2 has specifically mentioned to be
present in the car armed with Klashinkove and fired at
the deceased. Even under the principle of shifting the
grain from the chaff, the evidence cannot be stretched
on imaginary basis to extend benefit to respondent No.
2 as to his presence and also an assailant at the time of
occurrence.

(xiv) That the learned Trial Court has judiciously appreciated


the role played by the defence of putting pressure upon
the prosecution witness and to win them over. It has
been observed that Abid Ali PW-11, is confined in the
jail and he too was pressurised not to support the
prosecution case. At page 24 in line No. 3, conclusion
drawn by the Trial Court speaks louder to the evidence.
For the convenience of this August Court the observed
is reproduced as follows: -

“It appears to my mind that efforts were made to


pressurise the only witness Abid Ali for not
supporting the prosecution case.”
The learned Trial Court after having given the
aforementioned finding have nor properly appreciated
in the aforementioned background the evidence of
PW-11 Abid Ali Shah as to the involvement of
respondent No. 2 for having fired killing two persons
and causing injuries by Klashinkove on two prosecution
witnesses. He is individually and vicariously
responsible for the

(xv) That the inference drawn by the learned Trial Court that
Abid Ali Shah PW-11 is the employee of Muzaffar
Cheema who was an accused in the case of murder of
Ali Asghar, father of Amjad Ali. Further observation
that this witness is confined in the jail in which Ilyas,
brother of the deceased Saeed is confined and the
inference drawn that in view of the back ground of
enmity (already repelled) it appears that the
improvements have been made by this witness to
consciously assigned a major role to accused Amjad Ali
(respondent No. 2). The learned Trial Judge has not
taken note of the fact that provision of section 34 P.P.C.
are fully attracted. Respondent No. 2 is vicariously
responsible for the act of his co-accused and even
himself being the principle accused having the motive
is liable to be punished and awarded normal capital
punishment of death. The inference drawn is the result
of the pulls and pushes of the mind of the learned Trial
Court. The same being besides, farfetched is too
hypothetical and does not commensurate with the
benefit extended by the learned Trial Court to
respondent No. 2.

(xvi) That the ocular account given by PW-11 Abid Ali Shah
stands fully corroborated from the other sources in the
evidence. Merely because the evidence of the
investigating officer was withheld have no negative
effect upon the case of the prosecution.
(xvii) That the learned Trial Court has relied upon the
evidence of Hussain Karar Khawaja PW-16, that
Raja Sikandar Hayat, D.S.P., Malik Shabbir I.O., Altaf
Hussain D.S.P. and Ahmad Yar S.P. Crimes Branch,
declared respondent No. 2 as innocent. For the purpose
of extending any benefit to respondent No. 2, the only
course open in law and procedure was to apply for
summoning the aforementioned Investigating Officers
as Court witnesses. In the absence of their evidence on
record the mere admission of PW16 can not be read in
favour of respondent No. 2. The prosecution has also
been prejudiced as none of the aforementioned
investigating officer was called in the Court as CW thus
denying the right of cross-examination to the
prosecution as to under what circumstances and on the
basis of which evidence respondent No. 2 has been
declared innocent. The mere admission of PW16 cannot
be taken into account and read as evidence favourably
to extend any inference to respondent No.2. This aspect
of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the
learned Tial Court while passing the impugned
judgment.

(xviii)That in para No. 16 of he judgment the learned Trial


Court has evaluated the evidence of Abid Ali PW-11
who is injured and has concluded that from the cross
examination of the aforementioned witness the defence
has failed to establish that he had any motive for falsely
involving the remaining accused. The earlier
observation that the witness is partisan as to the
involvement of respondent No. 2 is not based on correct
and sound appreciation of law involved in the matter. It
has been wrongly observed that the said injured eye
witness appears to be under the influence of Ilyas and
he being a driver of Muzaffar Ali Cheema who had
enmity with accused-respondent No. 2. Merely because
it is in evidence that Muzaffar Ali Cheema had enmity
with respondent No. 2, cannot be of any help to the
respondent No. 2. Throughout the impugned Judgment
no observation whatsoever has been given as to
personal animus or motive with PW11 Abid Ali Shah to
grind his own axe against respondent No. 2 and to
falsely depose against him.

(xix) That the prosecution has fully established on the basis


of ocular account corroborated by motive and the
medical evidence as well as the recoveries the
involvement of respondent No. 2. The same has not
been weighed on the scale of justice by keeping the
same even by the learned Trial Court.

(xx) That the learned Trial Court formulated the other point
for determination of the case. The same is reproduced
for the proper appreciation by this August Court:

"Whether the accused Khalid Javaid,


Muhammad Riaz and Muhammad Bashir
planned to kill the deceased and in
consequence of their abetment the
murders of he deceased were committed?”

The learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the


evidence of Bashir Ahmad PW5, and has also fell
victim to the non-reading of the evidence in its true
perspective establishing a chain extending from the two
dead bodies to the necks of the accused-respondents
No. 3 to 5. It is in the evidence of said PW that at the
time of conspiracy/abetment by respondents No. 3 to 5,
it was specifically said by respondent No. 4:

“Accused Riaz said that so long the


deceased Saeed Ahmad is alive, he
neither allows them to prosecute the case
against said Ilyas and Naeem or to
defend the case for murders of Ghulam
Ghaus and Shafiq. Accused Riaz told me
that deceased Saeed is to got to Lahore
on 16.10.89 and it has become necessary
to kill him and we should help him in
that matter. Accused Riaz further told us
that the deceased accused Muhammad
and absconder accused Younis and
Amjad will be accompanying us for this
object.”

The above piece of evidence has neither been


challenged by the defence in the cross examination nor
the same has been dealt with by way of proper
appreciation by the learned Trial Court. It is significant
that the proximity of time between the actual murder
and the conspiracy/abetment is the most relevant
ingredient and aspect of the matter. It also reflects that
respondent No. 4 being on track knew earlier in time
that deceased Saeed has to go to Lahore on 16.10.89
and it has become necessary to kill him. All the
prosecution evidence fully corroborate the above
information passed on to PW5, Bashir Ahmad and the
hatching of the conspiracy/abetment involves
respondents No. 3 to 5, resulting into subsequent
occurrence of murder & murderous assault.

(xxi) That the learned Trial Judge has not taken into the
expression “evidence” as defined in section 3 of
Evidence Act and now Article 4 of Qanoon-e-Shahadat
Order, 1984, the expression, “evidence” and “proof”
and the definition “consideration of all matters” carries
wider connotation than evidence, deduction reaching
‘probability’, a mental cognition which leads to
‘supposition’, regarding existence of a fact ‘probability’
not lower than likelihood, which is higher than a mere
possibility, a surmise or the conjectures. The learned
Trial Court has applied some artificial rules of
appreciation of evidence and failed to attach due weight
and purposeful importance by way of evolving two
different measures in acquitting respondents No. 2 to 5
on the same set of evidence while convicting
Muhammad Afzaal their co-accused.

(xxii) That to reach a finding that the story narrated by Bashir


Ahmad PW-5, does not appeal to reason support has
been sought from the evidence of Muhammad Bahsir
PW-12, then Inspector/S.H.O. P.S. Thekri Wala who did
the initial investigation and stated in the cross
examination that 192 persons appeared on 12.11.89,
before him during the investigation and they stated that
the accused Riaz, Khalid Javaid and Muhammad
Bashir, respondents No. 3 to 5 are innocent and the
further observation that the prosecution did not examine
the other investigating officer in this case and that
PW-16 remained associated with the investigation and
stated that Malik Shabbir Ahmad, D.S.P., Altaf Hussain
D.S.P., Ahmad Yar S.P. Range Crimes, Lahore, opined
that respondent No. 2 to 5 were not involved in the
occurrence have been wrongly taken in aid to acquit
them. As stated earlier, the prosecution/complainant
stands prejudiced. The only way to produce the
aforementioned police officers as CW’s with an
opportunity to the prosecution/complainant to cross
examine them so that the facts and the circumstances
could come on record to be assessed on the touch stone
of principles evolved in this regard. The deposition of
PW-16 to the above extent is not evidence worth
extending any benefit to respondents No. 3 to 5.

(xxiii)That the learned Trial Judge has grossly erred in not


taking into consideration the principles of law that the
IPSIDIXIT of the police is not binding upon the court.
In presence of the evidence of PW-5, Bashir Ahmad,
bare reference to admission by PW-16, as to the
exclusion reached by I.O.’s not produced or called in
Court, besides being erroneous, unwarranted and is
fanciful.

(xxiv) That the prosecution evidence fully implicates the


respondents No. 2 to 5 as for as the submissions made
above.

(xxi) That the impugned judgment caused a great miscarriage


of justice.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this


appeal be accepted, the impugned
judgment be set aside to the extent of
respondents No. 2 to 5 and the same be
reversed. Respondents No. 2 to 5 be
awarded the normal punishment of death
as to the charge framed against them so
that justice is done.

Any other relief which this Hon’ble


Court deems fit, may please be granted.

Humble Appellant
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN.

Sh. Sarfraz Ahmad Vs. Mst. Balqees Begum.

RENT APPEAL.

ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That complete particulars of appellant are as under: -
Sh. Sarfraz Ahmad S/o Sh. Muhammad Shafi, caste
Sheikh, R/o 105/106 Bohra Road, Multan Cantt.
2. That during the course of proceedings of this appeal Mst.
Balqees Begum, respondent died and her legal heirs were
brought on the file. The names and addresses of the legal heirs
are as under: -
(i) Sh. Iftikhar Ahmad
(ii) Sh. Afzal Ahmad
(iii) Sh. Ashfaq Ahmad
(iv) Sh. Akhlaq Ahmad.
Sons of Sheikh Imdad Ahmad, caste Sheikh, R/o Al-
Hamd Textile Mills, Tipu Sultan Road, Multan.

Through: -
Sh. Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts,
Multan.
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN.

Sh. Sarfraz Ahmad Vs. (i) Mst. Balqees Begum,


(ii) Sheikh Maqbool Ahmad

SUIT FOR DECLARATION.

ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That complete particulars of plaintiff are as under: -
Sh. Sarfraz Ahmad S/o Sh. Muhammad Shafi, caste
Sheikh, R/o 105/106 Bohra Road, Multan Cantt.
2. That during the course of proceedings of this suit Mst.
Balqees Begum, defendant No. 1 died and her legal heirs were
brought on the file. The names and addresses of the legal heirs
are as under: -
(i) Sh. Iftikhar Ahmad
(ii) Sh. Afzal Ahmad
(iii) Sh. Ashfaq Ahmad
(iv) Sh. Akhlaq Ahmad.
Sons of Sheikh Imdad Ahmad, caste Sheikh, R/o Al-
Hamd Textile Mills, Tipu Sultan Road, Multan.
3. That the particulars of defendant No. 2 are as under: -
Sh. Maqbool Ahmad S/o Haji Muhammad Shafi, caste
Sheikh, R/o 24/3 M-Tufail Road, Multan Cantt.

Through: -
Sh. Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts,
Multan.
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN.

Sh. Imdad Ahmad Vs. (i) Sh. Maqbool Ahmad


(i) Sh. Sarfraz Ahmad
(ii) Mst. Akhtari Begum
(iii) Mst. Shabbiran Begum

SUIT FOR POSSESSION


ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That during the course of proceedings of above titled case
along with the other two cases, the plaintiff was died and his
legal heirs were brought on the file but one of the legal heir
Mst. Balqees Begum subsequently died and the remaining
legal heirs are as under:-
(i) Sh. Iftikhar Ahmad
(ii) Sh. Afzal Ahmad
(iii) Sh. Ashfaq Ahmad
(iv) Sh. Akhlaq Ahmad.
Sons of Sheikh Imdad Ahmad, caste Sheikh, R/o Al-
Hamd Textile Mills, Tipu Sultan Road, Multan.
2. That the particulars of defendant No. 1 are as under: -
Sh. Maqbool Ahmad S/o Haji Muhammad Shafi, caste
Sheikh, R/o 24/3 M-Tufail Road, Multan Cantt.
3. That the particulars of defendant No. 2 are as under: -
Sh. Sarfraz Ahmad S/o Sheikh Muhammad Shafi, caste
Sheikh, R/o 105/106 Bohra Road, Multan Cantt.
4. That during the course of proceedings, defendant No. 3 Mst.
Akhtari Begum was died and her legal heirs were brought on
the file. The particulars are as under: -
(i) M. H. Zaffar (husband)
(ii) Zahid Nawaz (son).
(iii) Sitara Begum (daughter).
All residents of 14/10 Drig Road, Karachi No. 8.
(iv) Mst. Azra (daughter) R/o Asif Building opposite
Abbasi Poultry Sales Depot, Sham Nagar
Chowburji, Lahore.
(v) Mst. Ishrat Bano (daughter) R/o Aslm Muslim Ink
Store Sabzi Mandi Road, Sahiwal.
(vi) Mst. Bushra Naz (daughter) R/o 722/5 Mohallah Seth
Yousif Ali, Saddar Bazar Multan Cantt.
5. (a) That during the course of proceedings, defendant No. 4 Mst.
Shabbiran Begum was died and her legal heirs were brought
on the file. The particulars are as under: -
(i) Muhammad Muslim (husband)
(ii) Sh. Muhammad Saleem (son)
(iii) Sh. Muhammad Naseem (son)
(iv) Sh. Muhammad Naeem (son)
(v) Sh. Muhammad Waseem (son)
(vi) Muhammad Tasleem (son)
(vii) Mst. Sadaqat (daughter)
(viii) Mst. Nuzhat (daughter)
(ix) Mst. Nighat (daughter)
(x) Mst. Musarrat (daughter)
(xi) Mst. Riffat (daughter)
All residents of Aslam Muslim Ink Store Sabzi Mandi
Road, Sahiwal.
5 (b) That Muhammad Tasleem one of the legal heirs (real son) of
Mst. Shabbiran Begum was died and his legal heirs were also
brought on the file. The particulars are as under: -
(i) Nusrat Tasleem (widwo)
(ii) Muhammad Azeem (son)
(iii) Mst. Sumra (daughter)
(iv) Mst. Sidra (daughter)
(v) Mst. Amera (daughter)
All residents of Aslam Muslim Ink Store Sabzi Mandi
Road, Sahiwal.

Through: - Sh. Muhammad Faheem,


Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts,
Multan.
Deputy Commissioner,
Faisalabad.

Subject: - APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITTAL TITLED


“STATE VS. AMJAD ALI, ETC.”

F.I.R. No. 424/89 dated 17.10.89


U/s: - 302/307/427/148/149 P.P.C.
P.S. Thekri Wala (Faisalabad).

Sir,
The case regarding which the particulars are mentioned above
was conducted by me in the Court of Judge, Suppression of Terrorist
Activities, Faisalabad. The learned Judge acquitted the Amjad Ali,
Khalid Javaid, Muhammad Riaz and Muhammad Bashir Saqi when
convicted accused Afzaal on the same set of evidence. The case is fit
for appeal on this sole ground as well as the grounds agitated in the
memorandum of appeal. Draft of appeal is attached herewith (in
triplicate).

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the


appeal may please be forwarded to worthy
Advocate General Punjab (Lahore), for filing
the same in the Competent Court.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE.

Crl. Appeal No. _______________/2000

STATE VS. AMJAD ALI ETC.

INDEX

S. No. NAME OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXURES PAGES


1 Memo of Appeal.
2 Copy of Judgment. A

Dated: __________