Sheikh Faheem

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

Amended W.P. No.

11328/1999

Abida Parween W/o Ansar Iqbal Caste Chohan R/o Chak No. 96/10R Tehsil Jahania District Khanewal. Petitioner Versus 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

S.H.O. P/S Jahania District Khanewal. Muhammad Yasin Haji Muhammad Saleem Sons of Nek Muhammad Muhammad Amin Muhammad Munir Sons of Muhammad Saleem. All Caste Chohan R/o Chak No. 96/10-R Tehsil Jahania District Khanewal. Respondents

Writ Petition under Article 199 Of The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the names and address of the parties are given correct for the purpose of service and citations. 2.

That the petitioner was engaged with one Ansar Iqbal S/o Sanauallah, a resident of the same Village 5/6 years before by the respondent No. 2 to 5. It was grown up in the mind of the petitioner that she would finally be married to the said person. The respondent No. 3 negotiations for the marriage of another sister of the petitioner, but the other party demanded the hands of two sisters for their two sons. The petitioner remained taken aback when the father of the petitioner acknowledged their demand and offered the hand of the petitioner along with other sister. Coming to know this fact, the petitioner became mentally disturbed and also resisted and agitated upon the settlement of the

respondent No. 3. This agitation and resistance of the petitioner of course could not bear fruit and being SUI JURIS, exercised her right and contracted marriage with said Ansar Iqbal, to whom the petitioner was initially engaged. Copy of “Nikah Nama” is attached as Annexure “A”. 3.

That the respondents No. 2 to 5 along with the other relatives boycotted the petitioner and her husband. Since the marriage of the other sisters was ahead, the respondents No. 2 to 5 entered into compromise for the Petitioner and her husband, so the petitioner and her husband attended the marriage ceremony. After the marriage ceremony, the respondents No. 2 to 5 tried to restrain the petitioner to join her husband, forcibly but the petitioner went to her husband and joined the matrimonial life again. The respondents No. 2 to 5 nursed and grudged against the petitioner and her husband. Resultantly the husband of the Petitioner was attacked by the respondents No. 2 to 5 on 12.1.99, when they were armed with deadly weapons and caused injuries on the person of the petitioner’s husband. Since the day of occurrence, the petitioner’s husband is admitted in the T.H.Q Hospital Jahania in a precarious condition. F.I.R. is lodged in this regard which is Annexure “B”. However, the motive in this F.I.R was camouflaged for the sake of honour of both the families.

4. That taking the privilege of the absence of the petitioner’s husband, the respondents No. 2 to 5 started to visit the house of the petitioner and pressurised the petitioner to obtain divorce from her husband. Due to the strained relations with the respondents No. 2 to 5, the petitioner did not allow them, even to enter in the house but the respondent No. 1, under the colour of his uniform backing the respondents and threatening the petitioner to be roped up in the false cases along with her husband and his relatives. It is pertinent to point out that till now no criminal case is registered/ pending against the petitioner or her husband.

5. That the petitioner and her husband have all the protections and safe guards under the Article 9, 14 and 35 of the Constitution. On the other hand, the respondent No. 1 has no authority to put his nose in the matrimonial life and affairs of the petitioner. The petitioner repeatedly requested the respondent No. 1 to perform his duties within the Four Corners of law but always given a deaf ear towards the petitioner. 6. That the petitioner is left with no other efficacious, adequate as well as speedy remedy, except to invoke the extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court, because the respondent No. 1 miserably failed to perform his legal and constitutional duties and obligations. Hence, this Petition. It is therefore, humbly prayed that the respondent No. 1 may please be directed not to call any type of illegal and unlawful harassment/humiliation to the petitioner and her husband. He further be directed to act strictly in accordance with law. Any other relief, order, direction or remedy which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, may please be granted. Humble Petitioner Dated: -6.12.99. Abida Parween

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

Certificate: As per instructions of my client, no identical Writ Petition has already been filed in this Hon’ble Court. Advocate.

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

W.P. No.____________/1999 Abida Parween

Vs.

S.H.O. etc.

AFFIDAVIT of:Abida Parween W/o Ansar Iqbal Caste Chohan R/o Chak No. 96/10-R Tehsil Jahania District Khanewal.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the 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 6th day of December, 1999 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. _____________/1999 In W.P. No._____________/1999 Abida Parween

Vs.

S.H.O. etc.

Dispensation Application. AFFIDAVIT of:Abida Parween W/o Ansar Iqbal Caste Chohan R/o Chak No. 96/10-R Tehsil Jahania District Khanewal.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the 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 6th day of December, 1999 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. _____________/1999 In W.P. No._____________/1999 Abida Parween

Vs.

S.H.O. 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: 6.12.99

Abida Parween

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

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

Amended W.P. No. Abida Parween

11328/1999 Vs.

S.H.O. etc.

INDEX S. No. NAME OF DOCUMENTS

ANNEXURES PAGES

1

Urgent Form

2

Stamp Paper worth Rs. 500/-

3

Writ Petition.

4

Affidavit

5

Nikah Nama

A

6

F.I.R. with better copy.

B/B-1

7

Dispensation Application.

15

8

Affidavit.

17

9

Vakalatnama

19

1 to 5 7 9 11-13

Petitioner Dated: -6.12.99.

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

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

W.P. No._________________/1999 Malik Qadeer Uddin

Vs.

The Province of Punjab etc.

Dispensation Application

Affidavit of: Malik Qadeer Uddin S/o Malik Shabbir Ahmad Caste Khokhar, R/o Sughran Haveli Mall Godown Road, Chowk Shaheedan, Multan. _______________ 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 October, 1999 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.

Crl. Misc. No.____________/B/2000 1. Muhammad Hanif 2. Abdul Khaliq, both sons of Haji Allah Wasaya Caste Sumra, R/o Chak No. 22/M, Tehsil Kahror Pakka District Lodhran. Versus The State Pre-Arrest Bail Application U/s 498 Cr.P.C. Case F.I.R. No. 10/2000 Dated 18.1.2000 U/s 302, 148/149 P.P.C. P.S. Dhanot, District Lodhran. Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That it is the first petition for the subject cited relief. No such application or any bail petition is filed before this Hon’ble Court and any other Court. 2.

That as per F.I.R the facts of case are that the complainant is resident of Chak No. 22/M. On the day of occurrence at 8.30 A.M., he along with his two sons Mumtaz Ahmad, Sajjad Ahmad and Muhammad Amin son Muhammad Bakhsh Caste Dhudi R/o the same village were coming to their place of residence through “Kaccha Road” leading Girls Primary school to Basant Pur Miner. When they reached Bhani Lodhran Wali, situated in Square No. 53 Qilla No. 1 on the road, suddenly Abdur-Razzaq armed with gun 12 bores, Muhammad Siddique armed with 12 bores gun, Abdul Khaliq armed with hatchet, Hanif armed with iron pipe, Abdul Majeed armed with pistol all sons of Allah Wasaya Caste Sumra R/o 22/M appeared on Motor Cycles. Hanif raised “Lalkara” addressing Mumtaz that today all you should be

taught lesson for asking the price of cotton as well as to insult the brother Abdul Khaliq in today morning. On this, as well as returned Abdur-Razzaq fired straight which landed on the left side of chest of my son Sajjad. Muhammad Siddique too fired with his 12 bore gun which hit on the upper part of arm. We resiled with fear. Muhammad Sajjad son fell in injured condition on the ground. On our noise, many people gathered, but on the threats of Abdul Khaliq, Muhammad Hanif and Majeed no one could help us. All the accused persons fled away on their motor cycles along with their respective weapons. My son Muhammad Sajjad scumed too injuries after some time on the spot. The motive behind this occurrence is my son Mumtaz early in the morning tried to settle the rate of cotton and price of 118 monds cotton on which there was an altercation, in which Mumtaz slapped Hanif. On this grievance, all these accused persons in consultation with each other inflicted firearm injuries to my son Sajjad which resulted his death. I left Mumtaz Ahmad son and Muhammad Amin Dhudi along with the dead body reported the matter. Copy of F.I.R is annexed as Annexure “A” and better copy is annexed as “A/1”. 3. That the petitioners are entitled for the concession of pre-arrest bail in the shape of protective bail on the following GROUNDS a.

That the F.I.R is a concocted story which is registered with the malafide consultation and assistance of the Police.

b.

That the petitioners are innocent and involved in this case falsely.

c.

That the petitioners have not inflicted any injury to the deceased as per bare reading of F.I.R.

d.

That actually Mumtaz the real brother of deceased Sajjad along with other two committed robbery and extorted Rs. 100,000/- from the petitioner No. 2. When Mumtaz and his accomplices chased by the petitioner No. 2 and his two brothers Mumtaz and Sajjad along

with others from one side and Rafiq, Siddique both by Caste Dhudi started firing upon the petitioner No. 2 and brothers. In this cross firing Sajjad received fires from the guns of Rafiq and Siddique. This matter was also reported to the Police, but they did not bother to take any action. e.

That the Police in league with complainant party under the malafide and ulterior motive are causing harassment and humiliation to the petitioners. The Police, complainant party and Police officials surrounded and guarded the Sessions Court in such a way that the petitioners cannot approach to avail the right of prearrest bail.

f.

That aggrieved by the conduct of complainant party/Police, the petitioners are forced to file this petition before this Hon’ble Court for the grant of protective bail, to approach the proper forum. It is therefore, humbly prayed that the petitioners may please be granted pre-arrest bail in the shape of protective bail, enable the petitioners to approach the proper forum. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit may please be extended in favour of the petitioners. Humbly Petitioners

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

Crl. Misc. No.____________/B/2000 Muhammad Hanif etc.

Vs.

The State

Pre-Arrest Bail Application U/s 498 Cr.P.C. INDEX S. No. NAME OF DOCUMENTS

ANNEXURES PAGES

1

Bail Application.

2

Affidavit

3

F.I.R.

A

4

Better Copy of F.I.R.

A/1

5

Application for Dispensation.

6

Affidavit

7

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

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

Crl. Misc. No.____________/B/2000 Muhammad Hanif etc.

Vs.

The State

Pre-Arrest Bail Application U/s 498 Cr.P.C. APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE FILING OF CERTIFIED COPY OF ANNEXURE. ========================================= Respectfully Sheweth:That certified copy of Annexure “A” is not available. However, uncertified/photo state copy of the same has been annexed with the Petition, which is true copy of original document. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copy of the document. Petitioners

Dated: 25.01.2000 Through: Sh. Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176.

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

Crl. Misc. No.____________/B/2000 Muhammad Hanif etc.

Vs.

The State

Pre-Arrest Bail Application U/s 498 Cr.P.C.

AFFIDAVIT of: Muhammad Hanif son of Haji Allah Wasaya Caste Sumra, R/o Chak No. 22/M, Tehsil Kahror Pakka District Lodhran. I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the 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 January 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.

Crl. Misc. No.____________/B/2000 Muhammad Hanif etc.

Vs.

The State

Dispensation Application. AFFIDAVIT of: Muhammad Hanif son of Haji Allah Wasaya Caste Sumra, R/o Chak No. 22/M, Tehsil Kahror Pakka District Lodhran. I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the 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 January 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.

Crl. Appeal No.____________/2000 Rana Ghulam Mahboob Subhan S/o Rana Ghulam Gilani, Caste Rajput, R/o Kameer Town, Tehsil & District Sahiwal. Appellant Versus 1.

The State.

2.

Ghulam Rasool alias Gamni S/o Pahlwan.

3.

Zafar Iqbal S/o Muhammad Yuosaf.

4.

Manzoor S/o Bahawal.

5.

Pahlwan S/o Kaloo. All caste Main R/o Kameer Town, Tehsil & District Sahiwal.

6.

Abdul Ghafoor S/o Sohna, Caste Dalloo, R/o Chak No. 121/9-L, Mauza Kameer Tehsil & District Sahiwal. Respondents Appeal U/s 417 (2-A) Cr.P.C. against the order dated 13.1.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sahiwal by which the learned Trial Court acquit the respondents No. 2 to 6. F.I.R No. 175/94 dated 22.7.94 P.S. Kameer (Sahiwal) U/s 324, 427, 148/149, 109 P.P.C. Claim in Appeal to set aside the impugned order along with request to remand the case for decision on merits after recording the prosecution evidence.

Respectfully Sheweth: -

1.

That the names and addresses of the parties are given correct for the purpose of service of the parties and citations.

2.

That the above mentioned case was registered on the statement of the appellant. That on 5.30 p.m. be along with his son Ghulam Rabbani, Muhammad Hanif and Mahram Khan the owner of car No. 9777 MNB while riding on the same car after paying visit at Darbar Baba Muhammad Panah were returning their home. The said car was driven by son Ghulam Rabbani while he was sitting on the passenger seat and while Mahram Khan and Muhammad Hanif were sitting on the rear seat of the car. When they reached near the office of Union Council Kameer, suddenly Ghulam Rasool alias Gamni armed with 222 riffle, Zaffar S/o Yousaf armed with 7mm riffle, Manzoor S/o Bahawal armed with 12 bore gun, Noor S/o Hayat armed with 7 mm riffle (died) all main by caste R/o Kameer Town and Abdul Ghafoor S/o Sohna caste Dalloo R/o Chak No. 121/9-L armed with 12 bore gun appeared before the car. Noor raised a Lalkara that today took the revenge of murder and Rana Mahboob should not be escaped, in response of Lalkara, Ghulam Rasool, Zafar, Abdul Ghafoor, Manzoor, and Noor started firing on the car with their respective weapons. The fire of Ghulma Rasool alias Gamni hit the front screen of the car, the wind screen was broken and the fire after the left ear of Ghulam Rabbani landed on the front of left side of chest of Muhammad Hanif. The remaining fire could not injure any one because keeping in view the situation, Ghulam Rabbani accelerated the car. The accused persons remained on firing which hit the rear side of car and both tyres. In the meantime, people of locality gathered there after listening to the firing noise. At this instance, all the accused fled away from the spot along with their respective weapons. The motive behind this

occurrence is that five years ago the son of Noor accused namely Muhammad Yuosaf was murdered in which the complainant and his brother Muhammad Akram were accused but acquitted by the Court. By this grudge, all the accused persons constituted the unlawful assembly and launched a murderous assault upon the complainant and his companions. A formal F.I.R was recorded at 6.45 p.m. on the same day. The case was investigated, weapons were recovered and all the accused persons mentioned in F.I.R were challaned along with another accused Muhammad Ramzan S/o Charagh. 3.

That the challan was submitted in the Court. On 28.2.95, the copies under section 265 Cr.P.C were provided to the accused persons and they were charge sheeted on 14.3.95. The learned Trial Magistrate acquitted the accused persons vide order dated 13.1.2000 u/s 249-A Cr.P.C. which is Annex “A”. This order is impugned on the following: GROUNDS a.

That the impugned order is illegal, unlawful and void ab-initio.

b.

That the learned Trial Court exercised the powers, which are not available under the law.

c.

That the learned Trial Court does not fulfill the requirements of section 249-A Cr.P.C.

d.

That the delay in trial cannot be attributed to the prosecution if the order sheet is perused carefully. The certified copy of interim order is Annex “B”.

e.

That many adjournments were happened due to the non-availability of learned Presiding Officer.

f.

That many adjournments were happened due to frequent transfer of case from one Court to another

Court under the administrative orders of learned Sessions Judge. g.

That the service of summons/warrants issued by the learned Trial Court was oftenly not effected upon the witnesses.

h.

That the evidence of the witnesses was not recorded by the learned Trial Court without any justification or plausible explanation.

i.

That the impugned order was passed in haste, without application of judicial mind, principles and norms.

j.

That the learned Trial Court does not exercise the discretion within Four Corners of law.

k.

That the impugned order caused a great discourage of justice to the appellant. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the impugned order may please be set aside by way of accepting this appeal and case may please be remanded to the Trial Court for fresh decision after recording the prosecution evidence. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit may please be extended in favour of appellant in the interest of justice. Appellant

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

Crl. Appeal No.____________/2000 Rana Ghulam Mahboob Subhan

Vs.

The State etc.

Appeal U/s 417 (2-A) Cr.P.C.

INDEX S. No. NAME OF DOCUMENTS

ANNEXURES PAGES

1

Appeal.

2

Affidavit

3

Impugned order dated 13.1.2000.

A

4

Copy of interim order.

B

5

Vakalatnama APPELLANT

Dated:

.2.2000 Through: Sh. Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176.

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

Crl. Appeal No.____________/2000 Rana Ghulam Mahboob Subhan

Vs.

The State etc.

Appeal U/s 417 (2-A) Cr.P.C.

AFFIDAVIT of: Rana Ghulam Mahboob Subhan S/o Rana Ghulam Gilani, Caste Rajput, R/o Kameer Town, Tehsil & District Sahiwal. I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the appeal 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 February 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.

Crl. Appeal No.____________/2000 1. Muhammad Nadeem Mustafa S/o Ghulam Mustafa, Caste Arain, R/o Gali No. 2 Madina Town, Old Shujabad Road, Multan. 2. Shakeel Ahmad S/o Saeed Ahmad Caste Qureshi, R/o Gali No. 2 Madina Town, Old Shujabad Road, Multan. Appellants Versus The State.

Respondent Appeal U/s 410 Cr.P.C against the judgment dated 17.1.2000 passed by Ch. Muhammad Siddiq Tabassam the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan by which the appellants/ accused are convicted U/s 365-A P.P.C and sentenced life imprisonment along with 50,000/- as compensation to each.

F.I.R No. 209/96 dated 21.10.96 U/S 365-A 302/34 P.P.C. P.S Qutabpur, Multan. Claim in appeal to set aside the judgment of the learned Trial Court, along with request of acquittal of Appellants/accused persons.

Respectfully Sheweth: 1.

That the names and addresses of the parties are given correct for the purpose of service of the parties and citations.

2.

That the facts of the case as mentioned in the F.I.R are that Fazl-ur-Rehman complained/made statement before the Police that he has a shop of children school bag in Safdar Market. His son Irfan Ahmad aged 12 years was student of fifth (5th)

class. On 11.6.96 at 4.30 p.m. Irfan Ahmad went to tuition from Muhammad Ashraf. At that time, Irfan Ahmad was wearing grey pent, white shirt and Banyan and light green chappal in his feet. When Irfan Ahmad did not come back home then he went to the house of Master Muhammad Ashraf. He came to know that Master Muhammad Ashraf was not present in his house. He continued to search for his son Irfan Ahmad but he found no clue. On 12.9.96 he lodged report No. 13 at P.S. Qutab Pur for missing of his son Irfan Ahmad so that publicity in T.V and Newspapers, etc. could be made. He had been receiving telephonic calls on his telephone in which the caller demanded ransom of Rs. 50,000/- for return of his son Irfan Ahmad. Then he arranged for an observation on his telephone No. 582130. After installation of observation, messages were received form different telephone numbers but be had been contacted the said telephone numbers but nothing about Irfan Ahmad could be found. During search Zamir Abbas S/o Afzal Caste Syed R/o Abuturab Colony and Akbar Khan S/o Charagh Khan Caste Pathan R/o Chowk Shaheedan, Mohallah Fareedabad told the complainant two days before the registration of case that Nadeem Mustafa S/o Ghulam Mustafa Caste Arain armed with pistol and Shakeel Ahmad S/o Saeed Ahmad Caste Qureshi were taking Irfan Ahmad on Motor Cycle when Irfan Ahmad was sitting between both of them. Shakeel Ahmad was driving the motorcycle and Nadeem Mustafa was sitting behind Irfan Ahmad. Both of the above said PW’s had gone out for their work and on return, they had come to know about the abduction of Irfan Ahmad. On this information, he along with Nazir Ahmad & Muhammad Latif inquired from Nadeem Mustafa and Shakeel Ahmad accused about Irfan Ahmad. After some hesitation, they told that they had left Irfan Ahmad at about 6 p.m. Irfan Ahmad has not been found despite great struggle. Accused had abducted Irfan Ahmad for ransom and had concealed him somewhere or had murdered him. In this respect, he has got proofs with him. Hence this case.

3.

That the accused were arrested and challaned. At first instance, the challan of the case was submitted in the Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Multan. As the case was not one, falling within the jurisdiction of Special Court as per Schedule, so the same was returned and thereafter submitted to the Sessions Judge, Multan.

4.

That the accused persons were charge sheeted U/s 365-A/ 302/34 P.P.C at 13.5.99. The prosecution produced 14 PW’s within a period on 7 months. The statements of accused persons U/s 342 Cr.P.C were recorded on 13.12.99. The learned Trial Court was pleased to acquit the accused persons from the charge U/s 302/34 P.P.C but convicted U/s 365-A/34 vide Judgment dated 17.1.2000 (Annex “A”).

5.

That the judgment dated 17.1.2000 is liable to set aside on the following: GROUNDS a.

That the impugned judgment is against the law and norms of justice.

b.

That the impugned judgment is a result of non-reading and misreading of the evidence.

c.

That the prosecution evidence was given unnecessary weight when the material infirmities discrepancies and irregularities are not considered.

d.

That there is no evidence against the accused persons and the impugned judgment is a result of conjectures and surmises.

e.

That the prosecution did not bring cogent with evidence against the accused persons. Whole the case of the prosecution is based upon the extra judicial confession of the accused persons, which is the weakest type of evidence in the eyes of law. The extra judicial confession, which was brought upon the file by the

prosecution, is a joint admission. The same is otherwise not admissible in evidence. Such statement has no legal sanctity and could not be a base for the conviction. f.

That there are material discrepancies and improvements in the statement of prosecution witnesses and the benefit of all these things was not extended to the accused persons.

g.

That the impugned judgment is the formula judgment and judicial mind is not applied. Even the impugned judgment is against the theory of criminal law.

h.

That the complainant appeared as PW 4. He made improvements during the examination in chief instead of it, his evidence was shattered during the crossexamination. It is pertinent to point out that all the prosecution witnesses admitted the fact that they did not know the person who was going to call them on the telephone. He also admitted the fact that they could not succeed to have a meeting with the callers. The learned Trial Court under the law of presumption, without keeping the fact in mind, convicted the appellants under an offence, which was not committed by them.

i.

That the bare reading of section 365-A P.P.C bifurcated the offence into two parts i.e. the first part relates with the abduction of any person whereas the second part relates with the demand for the release of the said abductee. The analogy of section 365-A P.P.C under which the appellants are convicted, is not proved by the prosecution evidence. Thorough examination of the prosecution evidence does not connect in any way the appellants with the offence.

j.

That the PW’s 7 & 8 are the witnesses for the extra judicial confession. They along with the PW’s 4 & 5

unanimously admitted that it was the joint confessional statement of the accused persons before all of them. k.

That the best evidence (expert, mother of alleged deceased), which can be produced by the prosecution, was withheld and the law in this regard favours the accused persons but the learned Trial Court does not emphasise upon the case from this angle.

l.

That the statement made by the accused persons must be placed in just-a-position along with the prosecution evidence but the learned Trial Court failed to exercise its legal duty to compare the both and then sort out the truth.

m.

That the learned Trial Court made four points to base the impugned judgment: i.

The last scene/ocular evidence. This evidence is available on the file in the shape of PW 8 and PW 9. Bare reading of the statement makes crystal clear that the evidence is fabricated one. It is no matter if one is riding with another on a motor cycle but it is very special when a boy aging 12 years is going to be abducted in the bright day light on a thickly populated and busy road, but neither he is making any noise nor he is struggling to escape himself from the clutches of the culprits. It became more special when a culprit in such a situation has a fire arm in his hand (as improved by PW 4, complainant, the father of the alleged deceased person). This aspect of the evidence makes the evidence of PW 4, 5 and 8, 9 highly doubtful.

ii.

Extra Judicial confession. Without going into the deeper analogy of such evidence, it can be examined on the verdict of the

Hon’ble High Courts and Supreme Court that in first instance it is a weaker type of evidence and if does not inspire the confidence, no conviction could be passed on the bases of such evidence. In the present case, it is a joint and is not in such terms, which could be considered according to the ingredient of any offence. iii.

Recoveries. Except the last-worn clothes and bones no recovery alleged to be made on the pointation of the appellants. As well as the bones are concerned the evidence of PW1 in this regard, based upon the presumptions and assessments. Also, no age of bones is given along with the time between the death and recoveries. It is pertinent to point out that the recoveries were effected by the Police as per record on 21.10.96, while the appellants were taken into custody by the Police on 26.10.96. keeping in view this situation, the appellants could not be connected with these recoveries.

iv.

Medical Evidence. Neither this evidence connects the accused persons/appellants any way with the offence nor it is the requirement of section under which the appellants are convicted. The examination in such a way collapse the building of conviction, formed by a learned Trial Court.

n.

That

the

impugned

judgment

caused

great

miscarriage of justice to the appellants. It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the impugned judgment may please be set aside

and the accused persons/appellants be acquitted. Any other relief, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems fit may please be extended in favour of appellants. Humble appellants Dated:

.2.2000. Through: 1. Ch. Muhammad Akram Waqar, Advocate High Court, District Courts, Vehari.

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

Certificate: As per instructions of my client, no such appeal was filed earlier in this Hon’ble Court. Advocate.

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

Crl. Appeal No.____________/2000 Muhammad Nadeem Mustafa etc.

Vs.

The State.

Appeal U/s 410 Cr.P.C. AFFIDAVIT of: Muhammad Nadeem Mustafa S/o Ghulam Mustafa, Caste Arain, R/o Gali No. 2 Madina Town, Old Shujabad Road, Multan. I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the appeal 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 February 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.

Crl. Appeal No.____________/2000 Muhammad Nadeem Mustafa etc.

Vs.

The State.

Appeal U/s 410 Cr.P.C.

INDEX S. No. NAME OF DOCUMENTS 1

Opening Sheet.

2

Appeal.

3

Copy of Judgment dated 17.1.2000.

4

Vakalatnama.

ANNEXURES PAGES

A

APPELLANT

Dated:

.2.2000 Through: 1. Ch. Muhammad Akram Waqar, Advocate High Court, District Courts, Vehari.

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

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

Crl. Misc. No. ___________B/2000 1.

Zaffar Hussain.

2.

Ijaz Hussain.

3.

Shabbir Hussain all sons of Muhammad Bakhsh, caste Bhatti, r/o Chak No. 103/15-L Tehsil Mian Channun District Khanewal.

4.

Allah Ditta s/o Sikandar, caste Sipra, r/o 104/15-L Tehsil Mian Channun District Khanewal. Petitioners Versus

The State…………………

Respondent

Petition u/s 498 Cr.P.C. for pre-arrest bail. F.I.R. No. 3/2000 dated 17.1.2000 P.S. Chab Kalan (Khanewal) under section 440/148/149 P.P.C.

Respectfully Sheweth: 1.

That names and addresses of the parties with other relevant particulars of case are stated correct for the service and citations.

2.

That the above mentioned case was registered on the instance of one Mushtaq Ahmad and briefly stated the facts that he is a cultivator and residing in a house on his land. On 10.1.2000 he, in Qila No. 5 Square No. 3 in the boundary of Chak No. 103/15-L, on his lands he planted the “Kinoo” in the shape of a garden same day at 10.30 a.m. Zaffar Hussain armed with rifle 222, Shabbir Hussain and Ijaz Hussain armed with pistols all sons of Muhammad Bakhsh, all Bhatti by caste, resident of Chak No. 103/15-L along with Allah Ditta son of Sikandar,

caste Sipra, resident of Chak No. 104/15-L came there and started to sever the “Kinoo” plants from Kila No. 5. He along with witnesses attracted there and tried to restrain them but could not succeed. They severed the 130 number of plants. It is also alleged that Zaffar Hussain etc. threatened them. Motive behind this occurrence is stated that the agricultural land of Zaffar Hussain etc. and complainant falls in the same Khewat and a stay order not to change the position and nature of this land is issued by the learned Civil Judge, Mian Channun (Mr. Shahbaz Ali Paracha) in favour of Zaffar Hussain etc. Hence this F.I.R. Annex “A”. 3.

That all the accused persons applied for pre-arrest bail before the learned Additional Session Judge, Mian Channun. The request of the petitioners was turned down vide order dated 20.3.2000. They copy of the bail application along with order is annexed as Annexure “B”.

4.

That the petitioners are entitled for pre-arrest bail inter alia on the following GROUNDS a)

That question of malafide and ulterior motive, which is the essence for the grant of pre-arrest bail, was not decided by the learned judge.

b)

That a suit for perpetual injunction is pending between the parties. During the pendency of this suit, the complainant party violated the interim stay order for which the petitioners moved application for contempt proceedings. The learned Civil Judge also issued a commission in this regard. The local Commissioner vide his report dated 25.2.1999 verified the fact of violation. The complainant is likely to be convicted in this contempt proceeding so as a counter blast lodged this F.I.R. The copy of first interim injunction, copies of

contempt application and report of local Commissioner are annexed as Annexures “C”, “D”, “E”, “F” and “G”. c)

That the narration of F.I.R. is incorrect because humanly it is not possible to severe 130 plants when armed with weapons also.

d)

That contents of F.I.R itself prove the violation of stay order and such behaviour of complainant does not entitle him for grant of any relief from the Court of law.

e)

That keeping in view the strand relations between the parties, possibilities of false implications is not ruled out.

f)

That “Kinoo” plants are neither produced before the Police nor taken into possession by the police as the sole proof of the contention of the complainant.

g)

That there is seven days unexplained delay in the registration of case. This only fact is sufficient to discard the version of the complainant.

h)

That the narration of F.I.R. does not constitute any offence and the ingredients of section 440 P.P.C. are absent.

i)

That the three real brothers are roped up falsely only to pressurise the family of the petitioners.

j)

That the punishment for the offences in F.I.R. does not fall within the preview of prohibitory clause.

k)

That on the same facts, a co-accused has been granted relief when the case of the present petitioners is identical.

l)

That no specific role is attributed to any of the petitioners.

m)

That the petitioners belong to respectable family. The police in league with complainant under the malafide intention and ulterior motive want to arrest the petitioners and this act of police will cause humiliation and harassment to the petitioners. It is therefore, humbly prayed that the petitioners may please be granted ad-interim pre-arrest bail till the final disposal of the petition and same may please be confirmed till the final decision of case. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, may please be granted in favour of the petitioners. Humble Petitioners

1.

2.

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

Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan.

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

Crl. Misc. No. ___________B/2000

Zaffar Hussain, etc.

Versus

The State.

Petition u/s 498 Cr.P.C. for pre-arrest bail.

AFFIDAVIT of: Zaffar Hussain son of Muhammad Bakhsh, caste Bhatti, r/o Chak No. 103/15-L Tehsil Mian Channun 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 March 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 Crl. Misc. No. ___________B/2000 Zaffar Hussain, etc.

Versus

The State.

APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE FILING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURES. ========================================= Respectfully Sheweth: That certified copies of Annexures “A to G” 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. PETITIONERS

Dated: _________ 1.

2.

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

Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan.

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

C.M. No. _____________/2000 In Crl. Misc. No. ___________B/2000 Zaffar Hussain, etc.

Versus

The State.

Dispensation Application

Affidavit of: Zaffar Hussain son of Muhammad Bakhsh, caste Bhatti, r/o Chak No. 103/15-L Tehsil Mian Channun 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 March 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.

Crl. Misc. No. ___________B/2000 Zaffar Hussain, etc.

Versus

The State.

INDEX S. No. NAME OF DOCUMENTS

ANNEXURES PAGES

1

Urgent Form

2

Bail Application.

3

Affidavit

4

Photocopy of F.I.R.

A

5

Copy of bail application along with

B

6

order. Copy of 1st interim injunction.

C

7

Copy of contempt application.

D

8

Copy of contempt application.

E

9

Copy of contempt application.

F

10

Copy of report of Local

G

11

Commissioner. Dispensation Application.

12

Affidavit.

13

Vakalatnama PETITIONER

Dated:__________ Sh. Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176. IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN.

1. Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad

Versus

Mst. Balqees Begum

etc. RENT APPEAL NO. 8/14 OF 1983 2. Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad

Versus

Mst. Balqees Begum

etc. SUIT FOR DECLARATION NO. 164 OF 1979 3. Sheikh Imdad Ahmad

Versus

Sheikh Maqbool Ahmad etc.

SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND PARTITION NO. 383 OF 1983 APPLICATION FOR RELEASE OF DEFENCE SAVING CERTIFICATES.

RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH: 1.

That the rent appeal at S-1/NO. 1 came up against the order of Rent Controller Multan Cantonment dated 31.3.1983. During the proceedings of this appeal, all the parties mentioned in above mentioned 3 cases agreed on 8.12.1983 to decide all these cases through ARBITRATION. Sheikh Anwar-ul-Haq the Hon’ble Ex-chief Justice Supreme Court of Pakistan was appointed as SOLE ARBITRATOR. All the 3 matters were referred to the Arbitrator vide letter No. 1003/A h 1 (Civil) dated 21.2.83.

2.

That on 14.5.1986 the award was announced and was received in this Hon’ble Court on 19.5.1986. Along with other matters as per para No. 5 of award amount Rs. 815,167/- had to be deposited by two parties and had to be divided between three parties. The contents of para No. 5 of award are as under: Para No. 5. (i)

Sheikh Imdad Ahmad shall pay

Rs. 679,084/-

(ii)

Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad shall pay

Rs. 136,083/-

Total:

Rs. 815,167/-

The above amount of Rs. 815,167/- will be divided to the following persons: -

(i)

Sheikh Maqbool Ahmad

Rs. 495,917/-

(ii)

Mst. Shabeeran

Rs. 159,625/-

(iii)

Mst. Akhtari Begum

Rs. 159,625/-

The payments as above were directed to be made within one month from the date of award (14.5.1986). 3.

That Sheikh Imdad Ahmad late (predecessor of the applicants) accepted the award expressly, and deposited the required amount in the treasury through Court on 5.6.1986 till the final decision. Some parties did not file objections upon the award. Sheikh Maqbool Ahmad and Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad filed objections. Sheikh Maqbool Ahmad however, did not own the objections vide interim order dated 25.6.86 and Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad remained in field as sole contested objector.

4.

That during the proceedings of this case on 6.12.1986 Shiekh Imdad Ahmad late filed an application under section 151 C.P.C. stating that the amount of Rs. 679,084/- deposited by him may please be invested in some profitable scheme so that in case of delay in court proceedings, he may be benefited from the return/profit of this deposit. This application was allowed vide interim order dated 21.4.88. The Defence Saving Certificates amounting Rs. 679,084/- were issued in the name of this Hon’ble Court vide interim order dated 21.4.88. These certificates were sent to the custody of Civil Nazir Multan vide order dated 27.9.90.

5.

That the objections filed by Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad against the award were turned down by this Hon’ble Court and the award dated 14.5.86 was made RULE OF COURT vide Judgment and decree dated 18.4.92. This order was assailed in the Hon’ble High Court, Multan bench through: (i)

RFA No. 43/1992 Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad Vs. Balqees Begum etc.

(ii)

RFA No. 54/1992 Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad Vs. Balqees Begum etc.

(iii)

RFA No. 55/1992 Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad Vs. Sh. Imdad Ahmad etc.

(iv)

RFA No. 67/92 Sh. Muhammad Muslim Vs. Sh. Imdad Ahmad etc.

(v)

RFA No. 73/1992 Mst. Nusrat Tasleem Vs. Sh. Imdad Ahmad etc.

(vi)

RFA No. 74/92 Sh. Muhammad Saleem Vs. Sh. Imdad Ahmad etc.

All the above mentioned matters were withdrawn by compromise outside the court as the appellants/assailants accepted the awards. The

court passed order dated 17.5.99 and hence the Judgment/Decree dated 18.4.92 declaring the award as RULE OF COURT attained finality. 6.

That during the litigation Sheikh Imdad Ahmad late (father) and Mst. Balqees Begum (mother) of applicants died and the successors/ applicants impleaded as party in the titled matter. However, the succession certificates were also obtained in this regard and annexed herewith also. It is, therefore, requested that the Defence Saving Certificates purchased in lieu of amount deposited by the predecessor of applicants may please be released after their endorsement in favour of Sheikh Afzaal Ahmad (applicant No. 4) Attorney of the applicant udner the true letter and spirit of order dated 21.4.88 of this Hon’ble Court. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit may please be granted to the applicants. Humble Applicants

(i)

Sheikh Akhlaq Ahmad

(ii)

Sheikh Iftikhar Ahmad

(iii)

Sheikh Ashfaq Ahmad

(iv)

Sheikh Afzaal Ahmad

Also as General power of attorney for 1 to 3.

Through: Sh. Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan.

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN.

1. Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad

Versus

Mst. Balqees Begum

etc. RENT APPEAL NO. 8/14 OF 1983 2. Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad

Versus

Mst. Balqees Begum

etc. SUIT FOR DECLARATION NO. 164 OF 1979 3. Sheikh Imdad Ahmad

Versus

Sheikh Maqbool Ahmad etc.

SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND PARTITION NO. 383 OF 1983 APPLICATION FOR EXECUTION OF PARA NO. 5 OF AWARD DATED 14.5.86, DECLARED AS RULE OF COURT VIDE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 18.4.92.

RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH: 1.

That the rent appeal at S-1/NO. 1 came up against the order of Rent Controller Multan Cantonment dated 31.3.1983. During the proceedings of this appeal, all the parties mentioned in above mentioned 3 cases agreed on 8.12.1983 to decide all these cases through ARBITRATION. Sheikh Anwar-ul-Haq the Hon’ble Ex-Chief Justice Supreme Court of Pakistan was appointed as SOLE ARBITRATOR. All the 3 matters were referred to the Arbitrator vide letter No. 1003/Ah1 (Civil) dated 21.2.83.

2.

That on 14.5.1986 the award was announced and was received in this Hon’ble Court on 19.5.1986. Along with other matters as per para No. 5 of award amount Rs. 815,167/- had to be deposited by two parties and had to be divided between three parties. The contents of para No. 5 of award are as under: Para No. 5.

(i)

Sheikh Imdad Ahmad shall pay

Rs. 679,084/-

(ii)

Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad shall pay

Rs. 136,083 /-

Total:

Rs. 815,167/-

The above amount of Rs. 815,167/- will be divided to the following persons: (i)

Sheikh Maqbool Ahmad

Rs. 495,917/-

(ii)

Mst. Shabeeran

Rs. 159,625/-

(iii)

Mst. Akhtari Begum

Rs. 159,625/-

The payments as above were directed to be made within one month from the date of award (14.5.1986). 3.

That Sheikh Imdad Ahmad late (predecessor of the applicants No.2 to 5) accepted the award and deposited Rs. 679,084/-. Sheikh Maqbool Ahmad and Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad filed objections. Sheikh Maqbool Ahmad however, did not own the objections vide interim order dated 25.6.86 and Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad remained in field as sole contested objector.

4.

That objections filed by Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad upon award were turned down by this Hon’ble Court and the award dated 14.5.86 was made rule of Court vide Judgment and Decree dated 18.4.92. This order was assailed in the Hon’ble High Court, Multan Bench through: (i)

RFA No. 43/1992 Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad Vs. Balqees Begum etc.

(ii)

RFA No. 54/1992 Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad Vs. Balqees Begum etc.

(iii)

RFA No. 55/1992 Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad Vs. Sh. Imdad Ahmad etc.

(iv)

RFA No. 67/92 Sh. Muhammad Muslim Vs. Sh. Imdad Ahmad etc.

(v)

RFA No. 73/1992 Mst. Nusrat Tasleem Vs. Sh. Imdad Ahmad etc.

(vi)

RFA No. 74/92 Sh. Muhammad Saleem Vs. Sh. Imdad Ahmad etc.

All the above mentioned matters were withdrawn by compromise outside the court as the appellants/assailants accepted the awards. The court passed order dated 17.5.99 and hence the Judgment/Decree dated 18.4.92 declaring the award as RULE OF COURT attained finality. 5.

That mainly the RULE OF COURT is executed and desired to be executed the remaining part as stated in para No. 2 of this application, and ready to deposit the required money. It is proposed that during the litigation Sh. Imdad Ahmad, Balqees Begum, Mst. Shabiran and

Mst.Akhtari Begum died and their legal heirs were brought on file as party. 6.

That the parties are residing at different places, and for their convenience, the applicants are ready to deposit the amount in shape of D.D./Pay order as per their share, which could be dispatched on the expenses of applicants, to the entitled persons or under any other terms as directed by this Hon’ble Court. A diagram of entitled person is annexed herewith. It is, therefore, prayed that files of above-mentioned cases may please be summoned for the execution of remaining part of award/ Rule of Court. Humble Applicants Dated: ___________ (i)

Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad

(ii)

Sheikh Akhlaq Ahmad

(iii)

Sheikh Iftikhar Ahmad

(iv)

Sheikh Ashfaq Ahmad

(v)

Sheikh Afzaal Ahmad

Also as General power of attorney for 2 to 4.

Through: Sh. Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan.

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN.

1. Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad

Versus

Mst. Balqees Begum

etc. RENT APPEAL NO. 8/14 OF 1983 2. Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad

Versus

Mst. Balqees Begum

etc. SUIT FOR DECLARATION NO. 164 OF 1979 3. Sheikh Imdad Ahmad

Versus

Sheikh Maqbool Ahmad etc.

SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND PARTITION NO. 383 OF 1983 APPLICATION FOR RELEASE OF DEFENCE SAVING CERTIFICATES.

AFFIDAVIT of: Sheikh Afzaal Ahmad son of Sh. Imdad Ahmad, caste Sheikh, c/o Al-Hamad Textile Mills Tipu Sultan Road, Multan. I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-titled accompanying application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT

VERIFICATION: Verified on oath that the contents of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN.

1. Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad

Versus

Mst. Balqees Begum

etc. RENT APPEAL NO. 8/14 OF 1983 2. Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad

Versus

Mst. Balqees Begum

etc. SUIT FOR DECLARATION NO. 164 OF 1979 3. Sheikh Imdad Ahmad

Versus

Sheikh Maqbool Ahmad etc.

SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND PARTITION NO. 383 OF 1983 APPLICATION FOR EXECUTION OF PARA NO. 5 OF AWARD DATED 14.5.86, DECLARED AS RULE OF COURT VIDE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 18.4.92.

AFFIDAVIT of: Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad son of Sh. Muahammad Shafi, caste Sheikh, resident of 105/106 Bohra Road, Multan Cantt.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-titled accompanying application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION: Verified on oath that the contents of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT

Sh. Imdad Ahmad Rs. 679,084/- + 136.083/- Sh. Sarfraz Ahmad Shall be divided

Sh. Maqbool Ahmad (alive) Rs. 495,917/-

M. Waseem M. Saleem Rs. 15,962.50

Muhammad Muslim husband of Rs. 39,906.25

M. Azeem

M. Naeem

M. Tasleem

Mst. Shabiran (died) Rs. 159,625/-

Nusrat Tasleem Rs. 1995.31

Sadaqt Khan Nuzhat (daughter) Rs. 7981.25

Nighat

Musarrat

Rifaat

M. Azeem Sidra Sumra Aamera Rs. 5,596.88 Rs. 2,793.44 H. M. Zaffar husband Rs. 39,906.25 Zahid Nawaz Son Rs. 47,887.50

Sitara Begum Daughter

Mst. Akhtari Begum (died) Rs. 159,625/Ishrat Begum Daughter

Bushra Naz Daughter Rs. 23,943.75

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN.

1. Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad

Versus

Mst. Balqees Begum etc.

RENT APPEAL NO. 8/14 OF 1983 2. Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad

Versus

Mst. Balqees Begum etc.

SUIT FOR DECLARATION NO. 164 OF 1979 3. Sheikh Imdad Ahmad

Versus

Sheikh Maqbool Ahmad etc.

SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND PARTITION NO. 383 OF 1983 To act upon the para No. 5 of Award Rule of Court. Amount shall be deposited by Sh. Imdad Ahmad:

Rs. 679,084/-

Sh. Sarfraz Ahmad:

Rs. 136,083/-

Total:

Rs. 815,167/&

Shall be divided as under: Sh. Maqbool Ahmad:

Rs. 495,917/- (Alive)

Mst. Shabiran:

Rs. 159,625/- (Died)

Mst. Akhtari Begum:

Rs. 159,625/- (Died)

Total:

Rs. 815,167/-

LEGAL HEIRS OF MST. SHABBIRAN S. No. Name

Relation

1. Muhammad Muslim 2. Sadaqat Zaman

Amount

Husband

Daughter

39,906.25

7,981.25

3. Nuzhat

-do-

7,981.25

4. Nighat

-do-

7,981.25

5. Mussarat

-do-

6. Riffat

7,981.25 -do-

7. Muhammad Salim Son

7,981.25 15,962.50

8. Muhammad Naseem

-do-

15,962.50

9. Muhammad Naeem

-do-

15,962.50

10. Muhammad Waseem

-do-

15,962.50

11.

Muhammad Tasleem

Remarks

-do-

15,962.50

Total: -

1,59,625/-

(Died)

LEGAL HEIRS OF M. TASLEEM: S. No. Name

Relation

11 A. Nusrat Tasleem

Amount

Remarks

Legal

Wife

1,995.31

Rs. 15,962/50 of deceased

11 B. Muhammad Azim heirs

Son

5,596.85

Muhammad Tasleem are

11 C. Sidra

Daughter

2,793.44

divided to the legal heirs as per their shares.

of

11 D. Sumra

Muhammad

-do-

2,793.44

11 E. Aamra

Tasleem

-do-

2,793.44

LIST OF LEGAL HEIRS OF MST. AKHTARI BEGUM 1.

H. Muhammad Zafar

Husband

33,906.25

2.

Zahid Nawaz

Son

41,906.15

3.

Sitara Begum

Daughter

20,953.15

4.

Azra Begum

-do-

20,953.15

5.

Ishrat Begum

-do-

20,953.15

6.

Bushra Naz

-do-

20,953.15 Total: -

1,59,625/-

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN.

1. Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad

Versus

Mst. Balqees Begum etc.

RENT APPEAL NO. 8/14 OF 1983 2. Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad

Versus

Mst. Balqees Begum etc.

SUIT FOR DECLARATION NO. 164 OF 1979 3. Sheikh Imdad Ahmad

Versus

Sheikh Maqbool Ahmad etc.

SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND PARTITION NO. 383 OF 1983 APPLICATION FOR EXECUTION OF PARA NO. 5 OF AWARD DATED 14.5.86, DECLARED AS RULE OF COURT VIDE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 18.4.92.

REPLY

Respectfully Sheweth: 1.

That the para No. 1 of this application is admitted as correct.

2.

That the para No. 2 of this application is admitted as correct.

3.

That the para No. 3 of this application is admitted as correct.

4.

That the para No. 4 of this application is admitted as correct.

5.

That the para No. 5 of this application is admitted as correct.

6.

That the respondent (s) has/have no objection if Demand Draft/Pay order as per entitlement may please be delivered/despatched as the given address. It is therefore, prayed that there is no objection, if the application is accepted as prayed. Humble Respondent Through: -

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN.

1. Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad

Versus

Mst. Balqees Begum etc.

RENT APPEAL NO. 8/14 OF 1983 2. Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad

Versus

Mst. Balqees Begum etc.

SUIT FOR DECLARATION NO. 164 OF 1979 3. Sheikh Imdad Ahmad

Versus

Sheikh Maqbool Ahmad etc.

SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND PARTITION NO. 383 OF 1983 APPLICATION FOR RELEASE OF DEFENCE SAVING CERTIFICATES.

REPLY Respectfully Sheweth: 1.

That the para No. 1 of this application is admitted as correct.

2.

That the para No. 2 of this application is admitted as correct.

3.

That the para No. 3 of this application is admitted as correct.

4.

That the para No. 4 of this application is admitted as correct.

5.

That the para No. 5 of this application is admitted as correct.

6.

That the para No. 6 of this application is admitted as correct. It is therefore, prayed that the application may please be accepted as prayed and the certificates may please be released in favour of applicants/attorney. Humble Respondent Through: -

To, The Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad.

Subject: -

APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITTAL.

Sir, The above subject case was conducted by me in the Court of Judge, Suppression of Terrorist Activities, (Special Courts) 1975, Faisalabald. The learned judge acquitted the accused persons and the case is fit for appeal against acquittal. Draft of appeal is attached herewith (in Triplicate). It is humbly requested that the same may please be forwarded to worthy Advocate General, PUNJAB, Lahore for filing the same in the competent Courts.