Sh

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.

2.

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

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.

2.

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

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

7.

Manzil

8.

Mohsin Iqbal Khan

daughters Minors through appellant No.1 son

All Barni Pathan by caste, R/o Shop No. 9 Property No. 28/B Goal Bagh, Gulgasht Colony, Multan city. Appellants

Versus 1. 1-A. 1-B. 1-C. 1-D. 1-E. 1-F.

Dr. Meraj Din (deceased) S/o Ch. Fazal Din, Caste Kamboh, R/o 28/B Goal Bagh, Gulgasht Colony, Multan city, through legal heirs: Rahat Meraj Azmat Meraj sons Faisal Meraj Riffat Yasmin wife of Dr. Iqbal Ahmad Nighat Yasmin wife of Iftikhar Ahmad daughters 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)

(ii)

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. 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, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959

Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. 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 adlitem 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.

2.

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

2.

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

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 adlitem 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.

2.

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

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

9

Rent Controller. Judgment & Decree dt. 11.3.2000.

H

10

Application for appointment of

11

Guardian. Affidavit.

12

Application for the suspension of

13

impugned judgment & decree. Affidavit.

14

Dispensation Application.

15

Affidavit.

16

Vakalatnama

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.

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

determination of the case: -

following

point

for

the

(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 postmortem 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 AlHamd 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 AlHamd 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) (i) (ii) (iii)

Sh. Maqbool Ahmad Sh. Sarfraz Ahmad Mst. Akhtari Begum 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 AlHamd 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 1

Memo of Appeal.

2

Copy of Judgment.

Dated: __________

ANNEXURES PAGES

A