SLJ Lawyers PK

درخواست گزار کو فوجداری مقدمے میں ٹرائل کورٹ نے مجرم قرار دے کر قید کی سزا سنائی اور ساتھ ہی یہ حکم دیا کہ چونکہ وہ اب تک ضمانت پر تھا، لہٰذا اُسے گرفتار کر کے سزا بھگتنے کے لیے جیل روانہ کیا جائے۔ تاہم، درخواست گزار فیصلہ سنتے ہی عدالت سے فرار ہو گیا، جس پر عدالت نے اُس کے خلاف ناقابلِ ضمانت دائمی وارنٹ گرفتاری جاری کر دیے۔

بعد ازاں، اُس نے ہائیکورٹ میں سزا کے خلاف اپیل دائر کی اور ایک متفرق درخواست کے ذریعے سزا معطل کرنے کی استدعا کی، جو مسترد کر دی گئی۔

ہائیکورٹ کے فیصلے کے خلاف درخواست گزار نے سپریم کورٹ میں آرٹیکل 185(2) کے تحت "اجازتِ اپیل" (Leave to Appeal) دائر کی اور ساتھ ہی سزا پر عمل درآمد روکنے (Stay) کی بھی درخواست دی۔

🔹قانونی نکتہ:

سپریم کورٹ کے روبرو سوال یہ تھا کہ آیا سپریم کورٹ رولز 1980 کے آرڈر XXIII رول 8 کی پروویژو کے تحت، جب تک سزا یافتہ شخص اپنی سزا کے سامنے "سرنڈر" نہ کرے، اُس وقت تک اس کی درخواستِ اجازتِ اپیل قابلِ سماعت (Maintainable) ہو سکتی ہے یا نہیں؟

🔹سپریم کورٹ کا فیصلہ و تجزیہ:

✍️1. رول 8 کے تحت یہ اصول طے شدہ ہے کہ اگر کسی فوجداری مقدمے میں سزا کا حکم صادر ہو چکا ہو، تو ایسی صورت میں سپریم کورٹ میں اجازتِ اپیل (Leave to Appeal) کی درخواست صرف اسی وقت قابلِ سماعت ہو گی جب ملزم پہلے اپنے خلاف صادر سزا کے سامنے سرنڈر کرے یعنی رضاکارانہ طور پر گرفتاری دے۔

✍️2. صرف عدالت کے سامنے پیش ہونا، یا ضمانت کی درخواست دائر کرنا، "سرنڈر" کے زمرے میں شمار نہیں ہوتا، جب تک کہ وہ خود کو عدالت کے جاری کردہ سزا کے حکم کے تحت حوالۂ پولیس نہ کرے۔

✍️3. مذکورہ کیس میں، درخواست گزار ٹرائل کورٹ کی سزا کے بعد عدالت سے فرار ہو گیا اور اب تک اُس نے کسی بھی سطح پر اپنی گرفتاری نہیں دی۔ ٹرائل کورٹ کے جاری کردہ دو علیحدہ گرفتاری کے احکامات بدستور موجود ہیں۔

✍️4. ایسی صورت میں، جب تک درخواست گزار اپنے خلاف جاری کردہ سزا کے حکم کے مطابق گرفتار نہیں ہوتا، اُس وقت تک سپریم کورٹ میں نہ تو اجازتِ اپیل (Leave to Appeal) کی درخواست قابلِ سماعت ہے اور نہ ہی سزا پر عمل درآمد معطل کیا جا سکتا ہے۔

🔹نتیجہ:

درخواست گزار چونکہ سزا کے حکم کے سامنے سرنڈر نہیں ہوا اور عدالت کے جاری کردہ وارنٹسِ گرفتاری اب بھی مؤثر ہیں، اس لیے سپریم کورٹ نے درخواستِ اجازتِ اپیل کو ناقابلِ سماعت قرار دے کر مسترد کر دیا۔

🔹قانونی اصول کا خلاصہ:

فوجداری مقدمے میں سزا کے خلاف سپریم کورٹ میں اجازتِ اپیل (Leave to Appeal) کی درخواست صرف اُس وقت قابلِ سماعت ہو گی جب درخواست گزار سزا کے سامنے باقاعدہ طور پر سرنڈر کرے۔ بغیر گرفتاری کے ایسی درخواست نہ قابلِ سماعت ہے، نہ ہی سزا پر عمل درآمد روکنے کا حکم جاری ہو سکتا ہے۔

🔴 2015 S C M R 1570
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Ejaz Afzal Khan and Iqbal Hemeedur Rahman, JJ

MUHAMMAD ADNAN alias DANA---Petitioner

Versus

THE STATE and others---Respondents

Criminal Petition No. 433 of 2015, decided on 19th August, 2015.

(Against the order dated 6-4-2015 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Miscellaneous No.1 of 2015 in Criminal Appeal No.645 of 2015)

📍Supreme Court Rules, 1980---

----O. XXIII, R. 8, proviso---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(2)---Petition for leave to appeal---Criminal proceedings---Stay of ex*****on of order of Trial Court for imprisonment pending disposal of a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court---Bar under proviso to O.XXIII, R.8 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, that "unless surrender was first made to an order of imprisonment, petition for leave to appeal shall not be entertained"---Scope---Petitioner, in the present case, was convicted and sentenced by Trial Court, and at time of announcement of judgment by Trial Court, petitioner slipped away and non-bailable warrants of arrest had been issued against him---Petitioner thereafter filed appeal against conviction and sentence before the High Court and vide miscellaneous application sought suspension of sentence; which application was dismissed by High Court---Question before the Supreme Court was "whether the petition for leave to appeal against impugned order of High Court could be entertained in view of the bar contained in proviso to O.XXIII, R.8 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980"---Contention of petitioner was that after recording of his conviction and sentence by the Trial Court, he had surrendered before the High Court at the time of hearing of his application seeking suspension of sentence; hence his petition for leave to appeal should be entertained---Held, that per O.XXIII, R.8 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980; surrender to an order of imprisonment was a condition precedent for entertainment of petition for leave to appeal and it was only after a valid and proper entertainment of such petition that the relief regarding stay of ex*****on of the order for imprisonment or fine could be granted---Requirement of surrender to an order of imprisonment pertained only to criminal petitions involving an order of imprisonment; for example, cases where a conviction had been recorded or upheld and an express order has been passed that the petitioner may be taken into custody or cases where bail of the petitioner has been disallowed or cancelled and an order had been passed that he may be taken into custody and the same did not apply to criminal petitions seeking bail before arrest in a criminal case where no order of imprisonment had so far been passed---Trial Court, in the present case, had convicted and sentenced the petitioner and had simultaneously passed an order that the petitioner, who was on bail till then, was to be arrested and lodged in jail to serve his sentence of imprisonment---When the petitioner slipped away from the Trial Court, the Court had also issued perpetual non-bailable warrants for his arrest---Two orders of imprisonment already stood outstanding against the petitioner and admittedly he had not surrendered to the said orders of imprisonment so far---Surrender to an order of imprisonment was not the same thing as surrendering before a higher court without actually being imprisoned in compliance of a judicial order passed in such regard---Present petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner could not be entertained till he surrendered to his orders of imprisonment, as made explicit by the first proviso to R.8 of O.XXIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980---Petition for leave to appeal, being not maintainable, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Mazhar Ahmed v. The State and another 2012 SCMR 997 and Musharaf Khan v. The State 1985 SCMR 900 distinguished.

Tariq Mehmood Butt, Advocate Supreme Court with Petitioner in person.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 19th August, 2015.

🔴 ORDER

ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---Muhammad Adnan alias Dana petitioner was convicted for an offence under section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 vide judgment dated 23-7-2015 handed down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven months and a fine of Rs.9,000 or in default of payment thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. It is of some importance to mention here that at the time of announcement of the judgment by the trial Court the petitioner had slipped away and resultantly perpetual non-bailable warrants of arrest had been issued by the trial Court against him. The petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 645 of 2015 before the Lahore High Court, Lahore challenging his conviction and sentence and also filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.1 of 2015 seeking suspension of his sentence during the pendency of his appeal. The said appeal was admitted to regular hearing by the High Court on 6-4-2015 but on the same date the miscellaneous application filed by the petitioner seeking suspension of his sentence was dismissed because of the conduct of the petitioner displayed before the trial Court. Hence, the present petition before this Court.

2. Upon filing of this petition by the petitioner the office of this Court had raised an objection regarding its entertainability in view of the provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 which objection of the office was assailed by the petitioner before a learned Judge-in-Chamber of this Court through Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal No. 20 of 2015. On 15-6-2015 a learned Judge-in-Chamber of this Court had directed the main petition to be fixed before a Bench of this Court which would consider the question of maintainability of this petition and would then decide the petition on its merits, if need be. This petition was fixed before a Bench of this Court on 29-6-2015 and on that occasion the hearing of the matter was adjourned with an observation that the question of maintainability of this petition would be adjudicated upon by the Court on the next date of hearing besides considering the merits of the case, if found necessary. The present petition has now been fixed for hearing today and we have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. The learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly contended that after recording of his conviction and sentence by the trial court the petitioner had surrendered before the High Court at the time of hearing of his miscellaneous application seeking suspension of sentence and, thus, the High Court ought to have decided the said miscellaneous application on its merits. In support of this submission the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the case of Mazhar Ahmed v. The State and another (2012 SCMR 997).

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the relevant record of the case appended with this petition we have observed that the objection raised by the office to entertainability of the present petition is grounded in the provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 which read as follows:

"(8) Pending the disposal of a petition under this Order, the Court may direct that ex*****on of any order for imprisonment or fine, against which leave to appeal is sought, be stayed, on such terms as the Court may deem fit:

Provided that unless surrender is first made to an order of imprisonment, as above, the petition shall not be entertained.

Provided further, petitions involving bail before arrest may be entertained and posted for hearing if the petitioner undertakes to appear and surrender in Court."

A bare reading of the above mentioned first proviso to Rule 8 of Order XXIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 makes it abundantly clear that a criminal petition is entertainable by the office of this Court only after a surrender is made by the petitioner to an order of imprisonment outstanding against him and after entertaining of such a petition after such surrender to the order of imprisonment this Court may stay ex*****on of the order of imprisonment or fine. Surrender to an order of imprisonment is, thus, a condition precedent for entertainment of such a petition and it is only after a valid and proper entertainment of such petition that the relief regarding stay of ex*****on of the order for imprisonment or fine can be granted. It is also quite clear that the requirement of surrender to an order of imprisonment pertains only to criminal petitions involving an order of imprisonment (e.g., cases where a conviction has been recorded or upheld and an express order has been passed that the petitioner may be taken into custody or cases where bail of the petitioner has been disallowed or cancelled and an order has been passed that he may be taken into custody) and not to criminal petitions seeking bail before arrest in a criminal case where no order of imprisonment has so far been passed. In the case in hand on 27-3-2015 the trial court had convicted and sentenced the petitioner for an offence under section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and had simultaneously passed an order that the petitioner, who was on bail till then, was to be arrested and lodged in a jail to serve his sentence of imprisonment and upon slipping away of the petitioner from the trial court on that occasion the said court had also issued perpetual non-bailable warrants for the petitioner's arrest. It is, thus, obvious that not one but two orders of imprisonment already stand outstanding against the petitioner and admittedly he has not surrendered to the said orders of imprisonment so far. It goes without saying that surrender to an order of imprisonment is not the same thing as surrendering before a higher court without actually being imprisoned in compliance of a judicial order passed in that regard. In this view of the matter we have entertained no manner of doubt that the present petition filed by the petitioner is not entertainable till he surrenders to the above mentioned orders of imprisonment, as made explicit by the first proviso to Rule 8 of Order XXIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner upon the case of Mazhar Ahmed v. The State and another (supra) has been found by us to be inapt because in that case no discussion was made about the provisions of the first proviso to Rule 8 of Order XXIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 and at the fag end of the judgment passed by this Court in that case a reference was made to the second proviso to Rule 8 of Order XXIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 in the context of a precedent case cited before the Court. The judgment passed by this Court in that case is not relevant to the point in issue in the present petition because what is relevant to the present petition is the first proviso to Rule 8 of Order XXIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 and not the second proviso to the said Rule. We have also observed that in the case of Musharaf Khan v. The State (1985 SCMR 900) leave to appeal had been granted by this Court to consider as to whether a person could approach this Court for his bail before arrest in a criminal case by surrendering before this Court or not but that issue again is not relevant to the present petition as the present petition pertains to suspension of sentence or stay of ex*****on of an order for imprisonment and not to bail before arrest which matter is regulated by the second proviso to Rule 8 of Order XXIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 and not the first proviso to that Rule.

4. For what has been discussed above we have found that the present petition is not entertainable because the mandatory requirement of surrender to an order of imprisonment contemplated by the first proviso to Rule 8 of Order XXIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 has not been fulfilled by the petitioner. In this view of the matter the objection raised by the office regarding entertainability of this petition is sustained and this petition is dismissed on that score.

KMZ/M-35/SC Petition dismissed.

فوری فائلر بغیر چالان ادا کئے.
اب کوئی لیٹ فائلر نہیں ہوگا۔

السلام علیکم! امید ہے آپ خیریت سے ہوں گے۔ ایف بی آر نے فائلر، لیٹ فائلر اور نان فائلر کے لیے قانون تبدیل کر دیا ہے۔ اب اگر آپ فائلر ہونا چاہتے ہیں تو صرف اور صرف 2025 کی ٹیکس ریٹرن فائل کریں، فوری طور پر اپ کا سٹیٹس ایکٹو فائلر ہو جائے گا اور کوئی بندہ لیٹ فائلر نہیں ہوگا۔ اب آپ کو 2024 کی ٹیکس ریٹرن فائل کرنے کی بھی ضرورت نہیں، 2025 کی ٹیکس ریٹرن فائل کرنے کے بعد آپ بغیر اے ٹی ایل چالان ادا کیے ایکٹو فائلر ہو سکتے ہیں۔

ملک عبدالجبار ایڈووکیٹ ہائی کورٹ
03470167158
03000467158

سپریم کورٹ نے اپنے حالیہ فیصلے میں قرار دیا ہے کہ ملازم اپنی زندگی کے قیمتی سال محکمہ کی خدمت میں گزار دیتا ہے اور ایسے ملازم کی پینشن میں تاخیر محکمے کی طرف سے سنگین قانونی اخلاقی زیادتی ہے۔
2025 PLC (C.S) 886

معطّلی اور محکمانہ کاروائی کے دوران سول سرونٹ تنخواہ کے ساتھ ساتھ بونس اور میڈیکل الاؤنس بھی لینے کا حقدار ہوتا ہے۔
2015 PLC (C.S) 1440

2025 CLC 572
Section 3 of the West Pakistan Disposition (Saving & Shamlat) Ordinance, 1959 read with Para 7-19 of the Land Record Manual".

Sale of owned land in a village---
Share in the Shalmat land cannot be presumed as transferred unless specifically mentioned in the instrument of disposition.---
In the matters of unauthorized entries, every new entry in the revenue record creates afresh cause of action and aggrieved person of such entries has recurring cause of action.
Civil Revision 377-D-03
Allah Bakhsh VS
Muhammad Hanif

دیہات میں ملکیتی زمین کی فروخت--- شاملات اراضی میں حصہ کو منتقل شدہ تصور نہیں کیا جا سکتا جب تک دستبرداری میں واضح ذکر نہ ہو.
2025 CLC 572

بمطابق بجٹ مالی سال 2025-2026 تنخواہ اور ذاتی کاروبار پر شرح انکم ٹیکس حسب ذیل ہے:
________________________________________________________________________________________________
سالانہ آمدن:
Up to 600,000

ٹیکس ریٹ سال 2025
0%
ٹیکس ریٹ سال 2026
0%
________________________________________________________________________________________________
سالانہ آمدن:
600,001-1,200,000

ٹیکس ریٹ سال 2025
2.5%
ٹیکس ریٹ سال 2026
5%
________________________________________________________________________________________________
سالانہ آمدن:
1,200,001-2,200,000

ٹیکس ریٹ سال 2025
11%
ٹیکس ریٹ سال 2026
12.5%
________________________________________________________________________________________________
سالانہ آمدن:
2,200,001-3,200,000

ٹیکس ریٹ سال 2025
23%
ٹیکس ریٹ سال 2026
25%
________________________________________________________________________________________________
سالانہ آمدن:
3,200,001-4,100,000
ٹیکس ریٹ سال 2025
30%
ٹیکس ریٹ سال 2026
32.5%
________________________________________________________________________________________________
سالانہ آمدن:
Above 4.100.000.

ٹیکس ریٹ سال 2025
35%
ٹیکس ریٹ سال 2026
35%
________________________________________________________________________________________________

از قلم: ملک عبدالجبار ایڈووکیٹ ہائی کورٹ
آفس: 30-میکلگن روڑ نزد لاہور ہائی کورٹ، لاہور
________________________________________________________________________________________________

03470167158
03000467158
[email protected]
________________________________________________________________________________________________
WE DEALS IN ALL KINDS OF TAX MATTERS.

Alhamdulillah I have received a participation Certificate from Lahore Tax Bar Association (The Largest Tax Bar Association of Asia).

Thanks Mr. President for this grace and honour.

دستاویز پیش کرنے کے لیے طلب کیے گئے شخص سے جرح نہیں کی جا سکتی۔
2025 LHC 2230

زرعی آمدن پر ٹیکس: کسانوں پر بوجھ، کارپوریٹ فارمنگ کو ریلیف؟

پنجاب حکومت نے 6 مارچ 2025 کو زرعی آمدن پر ٹیکس کے نفاذ کا اعلان کر دیا ہے، جس کے تحت عام کسانوں اور کارپوریٹ فارمنگ کرنے والوں کے لیے مختلف ٹیکس کی شرحیں مقرر کی گئی ہیں۔

عام کسانوں کے لیے ٹیکس شرح:

6 لاکھ روپے تک آمدن: کوئی ٹیکس نہیں

6 لاکھ سے 12 لاکھ روپے: 15% ٹیکس

12 لاکھ سے 16 لاکھ روپے: 90,000 روپے + 20%

16 لاکھ سے 32 لاکھ روپے: 1,70,000 روپے + 30%

32 لاکھ سے 56 لاکھ روپے: 6,50,000 روپے + 40%

56 لاکھ سے زائد آمدن: 16,10,000 روپے + 45%

یعنی جیسے جیسے آمدن بڑھے گی، ویسے ویسے ٹیکس کی شرح بھی بڑھے گی، یہاں تک کہ 45% تک ٹیکس ادا کرنا پڑے گا۔

کارپوریٹ فارمنگ کے لیے ٹیکس شرح:

چھوٹی کمپنیاں: 20% فلیٹ ٹیکس

دیگر کمپنیاں: 29% فلیٹ ٹیکس

یہاں حیرت انگیز بات یہ ہے کہ چھوٹے کسانوں پر تو 15% سے 45% تک ٹیکس لاگو کیا جا رہا ہے، مگر اگر کوئی کمپنی بنائے اور کارپوریٹ انداز میں فارمنگ کرے تو اس پر صرف 20% یا زیادہ سے زیادہ 29% ٹیکس لاگو ہوگا۔

سوال یہ ہے کہ آیا یہ پالیسی چھوٹے کسانوں کی حوصلہ شکنی اور کارپوریٹ زمینداری کو فروغ دینے کی ایک کوشش ہے؟ حکومت کو چاہیے کہ وہ چھوٹے کسانوں کے تحفظ اور مراعات کے لیے بھی خصوصی اقدامات کرے تاکہ وہ بھی زرعی شعبے میں بہتر انداز میں اپنا کردار ادا کر سکے.

ملک عبدالجبار ایڈووکیٹ ہائیکورٹ