Prosecution dept. as prosecutor

What is ZIMNI in a Criminal case ? فوجداری مقدمات میں ضمنی سے کیا مراد ہے ؟

Ref:
Section .172 CrPC
Art. 6 & 155 QSO
Section 25.53 of Police Rules

Section .172 Cr.P.C .....Police Diary is known as Zimni.
Daily Case Diary is prepared by investigation officer about daily proceedings in investigation. Daily Case Diary is prepared under section 172 Cr PC & Police Rules Chapter 25 Rule 53. It is a secret document of investigation officer only court can demand it & inspect it. Defence counsel has no right to inspect it. It is a privileged document under Article No.6 of QSO Read with Police Rules Chapter 27 Rule 16(II).
The investigation officer records in it every detail which he undertooks relating to a particular case. e.g if he records the statement of any person/witness or take remand/ visit spot/ make site plan etc he writes therein.
As it is a privileged diary, it not allowed to be given to accused or his lawyer. Only statements of witnesses which are recorded u/s 161 CrPC are given to accused.

2 kinds of Zimni
Anderoni Zimni & Beroni Zimni

○ Anderoni Zimni
Androoni zimni is drafted at police station
○ Beroni Zimni
barooni Zimni is drafted at the place of occurrence, place of recovery etc outside of police station.

saperation of variable :heat and wave equation # saperation of variable heat and wave equation

P L D 2022 Supreme Court 541

Present: Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Amin-ud-Din Khan, JJ

ALLAH WASAYA---Petitioner

Versus

The STATE and others---

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S. 497(1), fourth proviso---Bail---Expression "hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal" as used in the fourth proviso to Section 497(1) Cr.P.C.---Scope of the expression "hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal" explained.

The word "criminal" in the phrase "hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal" of the fourth proviso to Section 497(1), Cr.P.C., is not to be construed in the technical sense for a person who has been adjudged guilty of a charge in a Court of law, i.e., a convicted person; it has rather been used in its ordinary sense for a person who violates the law of the land and is accused of committing a crime. Further, the fourth proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. deals with the previously convicted offenders separately. Therefore, in order to bring an accused within the compass of a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal, it is not necessary to prove that he has a previous criminal record of conviction. It is thus obvious that the previous criminal record of convictions or of pendency of other criminal cases, though may be taken into consideration as a supporting material, is not an exclusive deciding factor to form an opinion as to whether the accused is a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal. Such an opinion is to be formed by the court mainly on basis of the facts and circumstances of the case, borne out from the material available on record, wherein the bail is applied on the ground of delay in conclusion of the trial, by considering inter alia, the nature of the offence involved, its effects on the victims or the society at large, the role attributed to the accused, the manner in which the offence was committed and the conduct of the accused. The formation and recording of such opinion as to the character of the accused, like the opinion as to reasonable grounds for believing his involvement in the commission of the offence, is of tentative nature, and is thus open to reexamination and final determination on conclusion of the trial.

The words "hardened, desperate or dangerous" point towards a person who is likely to seriously injure and hurt others without caring for the consequences of his violent act and can pose a serious threat to the society if set free on bail, and such tentative opinion as to the character of the accused is to be formed by the court upon careful examination of the facts and circumstances of the case. The court may also refer to any previous criminal record, if available, for forming such opinion but it matters little if the accused does not have a previous criminal record. The very gravity and severity of the act alleged to have been committed by the accused, even though for the first time, may be sufficient to attract the fourth proviso to section 497(1) Cr.P.C. in the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case and may lead the court to form opinion that the accused is a hardened, desperate or a dangerous criminal.

Shakeel Shah v. State 2022 SCMR 1 and Nadeem Samson v. State PLD 2022 SC 112

https://youtu.be/45LIb7W-zWk

Simple Card For child..❤ How to make simple cards for child..its very simple plz like, share and subscribe

اندراج مقدمہ سے قبل 157 ض ف کے تحت کاروائی عمل میں نہ لائی جاسکتی ھے۔SHO دفعہ 157 ض ف کا سہارا لیکر مقدمہ درج کرنے سے انکار نہ کر سکتا ھے
Section 157 of the Code read with Rule 24.4 cannot be employed before the registration of a criminal case under Section 154 of the Code. When information of a cognizable offence is received by the SHO, he cannot embark upon an inquiry to examine the reliability or credibility of such information to refuse the registration of a criminal case. He is under a statutory duty to register a criminal case and then to proceed with the investigation, if he has reason to suspect the commission of an offence, which he is empowered under Section 156 to investigate, subject to proviso (b) to Section 157(1) of the Code read with Rule 24.4 of the Rules, whereby an investigating officer has the ample power to dispense with the investigation altogether.

Conjunctural reading of Section 154 of the Code and Rule 24.1(1) of the Rules makes it abundantly clear that on receiving the information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence, the same shall culminate in the registration of a criminal case. The legislature by using the word 'every' to qualify the word 'information', ultimately left no discretion with an SHO to refuse the registration of a criminal case after receiving information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence. The words 'every information' clearly postulate that the legislature designedly abstained from further qualifying these words. It can be observed that in Section 154 of the Code, the legislature in its collective wisdom carefully and cautiously used the expression 'every information' contrary to Sections 22-A(3)(a) and 54 of the Code wherein the expressions, 'reasonable complaint' and 'credible information' have been used. Apparently, the use of the words 'every information' in Section 154 unlike in Sections 22-A(3)(a) and 54 of the Code is for the reason that the SHO should not have the power to refuse to record the information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence and to register a case thereon on the ground that he is not satisfied with the reasonableness or credibility of the information. In other words, 'reasonableness' or 'credibility' of the said information is not a condition precedent for the registration of a criminal case. A comparison of the present Section 154 of the Code with those of the earlier Codes indicates that the legislature had intentionally thought it appropriate to employ only the words 'every information' without qualifying the said words. An overall reading of all the Codes makes it clear that sine qua non for recording a first information report is that there should be an information and that information must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence.

Section 156 of the Code confers the power upon a police officer to investigate a cognizable offence whereas Section 157 lays down the manner, in which that investigation should be carried out. The commencement of investigation by a police officer under Section 157 (1) of the Code is subject to two conditions, firstly, the police officer should have reasons to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence and secondly, the police officer should subjectively satisfy himself as to whether there is sufficient ground for entering on an investigation even before he starts an investigation into the facts and circumstances of the case. Under the provisos (a) & (b) to Section 157 (1) of the Code, there are situations where investigation can be dispensed with. Firstly, when any information as to the commission of a cognizable offence is given against a person by name and case is of a trivial nature, the investigating officer shall not make an investigation on the spot and secondly, where it appears to the officer incharge of police station that there is no sufficient ground for carrying out the investigation. Section 158 of the Code further lays down the self-explanatory procedure to submit a report under Section 157 of the Code. 7. Comprehensive scrutiny of Sections 154, 156, 157 and 158 of the Code makes it abundantly obvious that Section 157 read with Rule 24.4 of the Rules is post registration of criminal case stage, therefore, Section 157 read with Rule 24.4 cannot be pressed into service before the registration of a criminal case. It is only the registration of a criminal case which activates Rule 24.4 of the Rules read with Section 157 of the Code.

Criminal Proceedings
9549/21
Arsalan Raza Vs JOP Gujrat etc
Mr. Justice Ali Zia Bajwa
07-09-2022
2022 LHC 6953

ی 452 PPC کب اور کہاں لگ سکتا ہے۔۔۔
اس بابت ایک بہترین اور جدید فیصلہ
2022 MLD 1059
For the attraction of section 452 PPC, preparation for causing hurt is sine qua non and when facts and circumstances of a case suggest that accused were not armed with any weapon at the time of occurrence, applicability of section 452 PPC becomes highly doubtful. When parties are closely related to each other, express penal provisions of section 452, PPC shall not be attracted because both the parties shall have access to the each others houses without any interference.
: 2022 MLD 1059
The petitioners have not been shown to be armed with any kind of weapon at the time of alleged occurrence. More so, for the attraction of section 452 PPC, preparation for causing hurt is sine qua non, which is very much lacking in this case.

It is crystal clear from the facts and circumstances of the case that petitioners were not armed with any weapon at the time of alleged occurrence, in this way applicability of section 452 PPC is highly doubtful.

It evinces from the record that the complainant is sister-in-law (Bhabi) of accused persons and is living with their real brother. The petitioners have easy access to enter in the house of their brother due to the close kith and kin. It is admitted at all hands that the parties are closely related to each other, therefore, express penal provisions of section 452, PPC are not attracted against the petitioners as they had access to the houses of each other without interference.

Even otherwise, if an accused person has a good case for post arrest bail mere at the wish of complainant, he cannot be sent behind the bars for few days by dismissing his application for pre-arrest bail. It is by now well settled that merits of the case can also be taken into consideration while deciding the bail before arrest.

R**e:
Resgestae includes... Tender years exception and spontaneous declaration of victim of r**e...

It is not necessary in all cases that h***n be freshly torn or completely torn: medical conducted even after three days is sufficient to declare r**e:

PLD 2022 Lahore 645

Cross-version:
Bail:

Every case of cross version is not one of further inquiry; bail was cancelled:

PLD 2022 SC 694

سؤال: جرح (Cross Examination) کیا ہوتی ہے اور جرح کیسے کریں؟ جرح کا بنیادی مقصد کیا ہوتا ہے؟
جواب :
فنِ_جرح ۔۔۔۔۔۔ Cross Examination
گواہان پر جرح کرنے سے پہلے ہمیں جرح کا بنیادی مقصد/مقاصد پتا ہونا چاہیے۔ جو کہ درج ذیل ہو سکتے ہیں

◾1: مدعی/مثتغیث کے کیس کو اس میں مٹیریل کنٹراڈکشنز لاتے ہوے غلط ثابت کرنا
۔۔۔۔ مٹیریل کنٹراڈکشن:
اس کی تعریف کہیں نہیں کی گئی(کم از کم میری نظر سے نہیں گزری) لیکن عام طور پر وہ کنٹراڈکشن مٹیریل کنٹراڈکشن کہلاتی ہے جو وقوعہ/ ملزم کے خلاف پائے جانے والے کسی اہم ثبوت میں پائی جائے۔
🔹مثال: "ایک کیس میں پولیس گشت پر تھی، انہیں اطلاع ملی کہ f8 مرکز میں ایک بندہ قتل ہو گیا ہے"
اب پولیس تھانے سے گشت پر کس وقت نکلی؟ کون کون ساتھ تھا؟ کس گاڑی میں تھے؟
قتل کس وقت ہوا؟ (عینی شاہدین سے پوچھا جانے والے سوال)
پہلے تین سوالوں میں پائی جانے والی کنٹراڈکشن کرابریٹری تو ہے لیکن وہ مٹیریل نہیں۔۔۔۔ کیوں کہ وہ مین مدعا کے متعلق نہیں۔ انہیں ہیومین ایرر کہہ کر درگزر کیا جا سکتا ہے!!
جبکہ چوتھے سوال میں کنٹراڈکشن آنے پر وقوعہ ہی مشکوک ہو جاتا ہے اور بندہ بری ہو سکتا ہے۔
اس لیے کیس میں مٹیریل کنٹراڈکشنز لانے کی تیاری کریں.
◾2: اگر ہو سکے تو انہی گواہان سے اپنی پلی ایڈمٹ کروانا
۔۔۔۔ ہمارے ہاں اکثر بہت سے کیسز سچ کی بجائے جھوٹ پر "بنائے" جاتے ہیں ۔۔۔۔۔ان کیسز میں مدعی/مثتغیث آپ کے حق میں پائے جانے والے کچھ اہم پوائنٹس بیان نہیں کرتا۔۔۔۔ لیکن وہ اتنے قوی ہوتے ہیں کہ با آسانی ایڈمٹ کروائے جا سکتے ہیں۔
🔹مثال: ایک کیس میں ملزم اغواء ہوا۔ ہائیکورٹ میں رِٹ فائل کرنے پر اس پر جھوٹا کیس ڈال کر گرفتار کر لیا گیا۔ تفتیشی نے ہائیکورٹ پیش ہو کر بتا دیا کہ فلاں کیس میں یہ گرفتار ہے۔
اب تفتیشی کا یہ فرض تھا(بمطابق صغراں بی بی کیس... pld 2018 SC 595) کہ وہ اغواء کے ایلیگیشن پر بھی تفتیش کرے اور فائنل رپورٹ میں اس کو سچ یا جھوٹ بتائے۔ جبکہ اس نے اس حوالے سے ایک لفظ بھی نہ لکھا۔
چونکہ رِٹ وغیرہ موجود تھی۔ جس میں تفتیشی کی حاضری بھی تھی۔ لہذا با آسانی وہ یہ مان گیا کہ اغواء کی پلی کو چھپایا ہے۔ اس سے تفتیشی کی میلافائڈی ظاہر ہو گئی
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
◾3: کچھ کیسز(مثلا نابغان کی کسٹڈی یا جن میں تزکیۃ الشہود شرط ہے) میں گواہ کا کریکٹر امپیچ کرنا.
۔۔۔۔انتہائی ضروری نہ ہو تو یہ مت کریں۔ اور اگر کریں تو سڑرونگ شہادت کی بنیاد پر ہی کریں۔ صرف الزامات نہ لگائیں
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
اس مقصد کے لیے درج ذیل کام کریں
▫️1: ۔مکمل کیس (فائل) آپ کی فنگر ٹپس پر ہو
---- کیس کی مکمل فائل کاپی کروائیں، بشمول وارنٹ، پرچہ سزا وغیرہ۔۔۔۔ کوئی ایک بھی پیج مِس نہ ہو۔
۔۔۔۔ پیج نمبرنگ کریں
۔۔۔۔ FIR, پھر MLC/پوسٹ مارٹم رپورٹ، مرگ رپورٹ چالان، ریکوری میموز اور پھر باقی فائل کا ایک ایک پیج پرھیں۔
۔۔۔۔ اگر آپ کو تجربہ ہے تو دو سے تین مرتبہ پڑھ کر کیس سمجھ آ جائے گا۔ سمجھ آنے سے مراد یہ ہے کہ کیس کے ہر پیج کا لنک آپ کو پتہ ہو کہ یہ کیوں لگایا گیا ہے۔۔جب تک یہ پتا نہ چلے بار بار پڑھیں.
۔۔۔ اس کے بعد اپنے کلائنٹ کی سٹوری کو سمجھیں۔ جائے وقوعہ کا جا کر مشاہدہ کریں۔ کیس جس بارے میں ہو اسے سمجھیں۔
مثلاً اگر چرس کے بارے میں ہے تو چرس کی اقسام اور اس حوالے سے اہم ججمنٹس پڑھیں۔
اگر فائر آرم انجری ہے تو فائر آرم، انجری ٹائپس، بلیکنگ، برنگ، اِنٹری وونڈ اور ایگزٹ وونڈ وغیرہ کو سمجھیں
۔۔۔۔ اب دوبارہ فائل کو پڑھیں ۔۔کورٹ کی اجازت سے پولیس فائل کو پڑھیں۔۔۔ اگر آپ کا تجربہ ہے تو دو، چار مرتبہ پڑھ کر ہر حصہ میں پائی جانے والی(یا جو آپ نے پیدا کرنی ہے) کمی/لیکونا/کنٹراڈکشن آپ کو نظر آنے لگے گی۔ اسے ہائی لائٹ کرتے جائیں۔ آخر میں کام آئے گی۔
▫️2: گواہان کی تقسیم(سیٹ بنانا)
۔۔۔۔ اس کام کے لیے گواہان کا ایک ٹیبل بنا لیں۔ ہر گواہ کے سامنے اس کی ممکنہ گواہی کا لکھ لیں
۔۔۔۔ کسی ایک پوائنٹ یا ثبوت کے متعلق گواہان کو سیٹ کے گواہ کہا جاتا ہے۔ مثلاً وقوعہ کے عینی شاہدین، گرفتاری کے گواہ، ریکوری کے گواہ وغیرہ۔
اکثر ان کی جرح ایک ہی دن کی جاتی ہے۔
فوجداری کیس میں پراسیکیوشن نے خود گواہان کو سیٹ میں تقسیم کیا ہوتا ہے۔ لیکن آپ خود سے بھی ضرور چیک کریں۔
🔹مثال: ایک منشیات کے کیس میں FIR کے مطابق کانسٹیبل زید بوقت مبینہ گرفتاری ملزم موجود تھا۔ لیکن اسے اضافی سمجھتے ہوے وقوعہ کا گواہ نہ بنایا گیا۔ بعد ازاں مبینہ طور پر ملزم کی نشاندہی پر مزید منشیات کی ریکور کی گئی۔ زید اس ریکوری کا گواہ ہے۔
اب پراسیکیوشن زید کو صرف دوسری ریکوری تک گواہ بنائے گی۔ اس کی تیاری بھی دوسری ریکوری تک ہو گی۔ لیکن آپ کو پتا ہونا چاہیے کہ زید پہلے وقوعہ کا بھی گواہ ہے اور اسے کیسے استعمال کرنا ہے۔
▫️3: کیس(یا سٹوری) کی مختلف حصوں میں تقسیم
۔۔۔۔ ہر کیس میں بہت سے سٹَیپس اور ثبوت ہوتے ہیں۔ اپنے خلاف پائے جانے والے ہر ثبوت کو الگ سے تقسیم کریں۔ کیوں کہ ممکنہ طور پر آپ نے ہر ثبوت میں کنٹراڈکشن پیدا کرنی ہے۔ ہر پوائنٹ یا ثبوت کے متعلق الگ تیاری کریں۔
🔹مثال:
ایک نامعلوم ملزم قتل کیس میں ملزم گرفتار ہوے، ان کی شناخت پریڈ ہوئی، پستول/ آلہ قتل برآمد ہوا
اس کی تقسیم درج ذیل پوائنٹس میں ہو سکتی ہے:
۔۔ وقوعہ قتل
۔۔ عینی شاہد
۔۔ قتل کی خبر
۔۔ جائے وقوعہ، نقشہ وغیرہ
۔۔ اگر کچھ خ*ل وغیرہ ریکور ہوے
۔۔ رپورٹ FIR
۔۔ مرگ رپورٹ
۔۔ پوسٹ مارٹم رپورٹ
۔۔ ریکوری میموز
۔۔ گرفتاری ملزم
۔۔ شناخت پریڈ
۔۔ ریکوری پسٹل
۔۔ رپورٹ فرانزک آلہ قتل
۔۔ 161 کے بیانات
کیس کو تقسیم کر کے ہر پوائنٹ پر الگ سے تیاری کریں
◾4: کون سے سوالات کرنے ہیں
یہ مرحلہ سب سے اہم ہے۔ اس میں خاص احتیاط سے چلیں۔ وہ سوالات جو کرنے ہیں انہیں آپ درج ذیل میں تقسیم کر سکتے ہیں
▫️4.1: وہ سوال جس کا جواب آپ جانتے ہیں(اور ثابت کر سکتے ہیں) اور اس جواب سے حاصل ہونے والے مقصد کو جانتے ہیں.
اگر آپ نے فائل اچھی طرح سمجھی ہے، پراسیکیوشن اور اپنے کلائنٹ کا موقف اچھی طرح جانتے ہیں تو ہر کیس میں کم از کم 90% سوالات وہ ہوتے ہیں جن کے جوابات آپ جانتے ہیں۔
🔹مثال: میں نے ایک کیس میں مجسٹریٹ صاحب کو شناخت پریڈ پر سوال پوچھا کہ "کیا ملزمان(دو کس) کی شناخت پریڈ جوائنٹلی(یعنی ایک ہی مرتبہ دو لائنز بنا کر) کروائی گئی یا الگ الگ؟"
اس کا جواب جوائنٹلی تھا جو کہ مجھے میرے کلائنٹ سے پتا تھا اور ثابت کرنے کے لیے ریکارڈ بھی اس طرف اشارہ کر رہا تھا۔
جبکہ اس جواب کو حاصل کرنے کا مقصد شناخت پریڈ کی حیثیت ختم کرنا تھا۔ کیونکہ جوائنٹ شناخت پریڈ کی کچھ حیثیت نہیں
(شناخت پریڈ پر ڈیٹیل ججمنٹ کے لیے کنور انور علی کیس دیکھیں PLD 2019 SC 488)
10٪ وہ سوالات ہوتے ہیں جن کا جواب تو آپ شاید نہیں جانتے لیکن ان سوالات کو بذریعہ ان سوالوں کے کور کریں جو آپ جانتے ہیں۔
🔹مثال: آپ نہیں جانتے کہ
پولیس گشت کے لیے تھانے سے کب نکلی؟
لیکن آپ یہ جانتے ہیں کہ کورٹ فائل اور پولیس فائل میں روزنامچہ، جس میں گشت پر نکلنے کا اندراج ہو، کی کاپی نہیں لگی۔
لہذا سوال روزنامچہ کا پوچھیں وقت کا نہیں
یاد رہے کہ جس سوال کا ممکنہ جواب آپ نہیں جانتے وہ جوا ہوتا ہے۔ اس سے پرہیز ہی بہتر ہے۔
▫️4.2: وہ سوال جس کے ممکنہ دو جواب آپ جانتے ہیں
مثال:
ایک کیس میں "محمد اجمل" دو ریکوری میموز کا گواہ تھا۔ جبکہ ایک ریکوری میمو پر نام "اجمل خان" لکھا تھا۔
اب اس کا اصل نام دو میں سے جو بھی ہو، ایک ریکوری میمو جعلی نکلتا ہے۔۔۔ جس سے تفتیشی جھوٹا ثابت ہوتا ہے اور omnibus پرنسپل کے تحت بندہ بری ہو سکتا ہے۔
(پرنسپل omnibus چیک کرنے کے لیے خضر حیات کیس دیکھیں PLD 2019 SC 527
◾5: کون سے سوالات نہیں کرنے
▫️5.1: جس کا جواب آپ نہیں جانتے
▫️5.2: جس پوائنٹ پر آپ نے سوال کیا اور مرضی کا جواب مل گیا۔ اس پوائنٹ پر دوسرا سوال مت کریں
🔹مثال: ایک کیس میں دو الگ الگ ریکوری میمو تھے، ایک کورٹ فائل میں ہاتھ سے لکھا، جبکہ دوسرا پولیس فائل میں کمپیوٹرائزڈ۔ تفتیشی پہلے سوال پر مان گیا کہ دونوں اسی کیس کے ہیں۔
اتنا کافی تھا، اس پر اور سوال نہیں کرنا چاہیے تھا۔۔
جب اس سے مزید وضاحت طلب کی گئی کہ ان میں تو چیزیں ہی مختلف لکھی ہیں تو وہ کمپیوٹرائزڈ سے مکر گیا کہ یہ کسی اور نے ڈالا ہے.
▫️5.3: جو ثبوت آپ کے خلاف تھا لیکن گواہ اِن چیف میں مِس کر گیا۔ اس پر سوال مت کریں
🔹مثال: ایک دہشتگردی کیس 7ATA/302ppc کی اِن چیف میں تفتیشی پسٹل ریکوری کا بتانا بھول گیا۔ دو ملزمان میں سے ایک میرا جبکہ دوسرا "سینئر ایڈوکیٹ سپریم کورٹ" کا کلائنٹ تھا۔
میں نے بطور عزت سینئر ایڈوکیٹ صاحب کو موقعہ دیا کہ وہ پہلے جرح کر لیں۔ اور ساتھ ہی درخواست کی کہ پسٹل پر کچھ سوال نہ کریں۔
لیکن انہوں نے اس سے پوچھا کہ پسٹل ریکوری نہیں لکھوائی نا؟!!!
پھر اس نے کھل کر لکھوائی۔۔۔۔میں چیختا رہا کہ جج صاحب میرا سوال نہیں تھا میری حد تک نہ لکھیں، جج صاحب مسکراتے رہے اور لکھتے رہے۔
▫️5.4: ایڈمشن بذریعہ سجیشن
یاد رہے کہ سول کیس میں مدعی کے ہر ہر ثبوت کو بذریعہ سجیشن رِیبَٹ کرنا ہوتا ہے۔ اگر نہ کریں تو ایڈمیشن کہلاتا ہے۔
🔹مثال: اگر مدعی کہتا ہے کہ میں نے گاڑی خریدنے کی مد میں دس لاکھ نقد ادا کیا۔۔۔!
تو جرح کے آخر پر سپیسیفکلی سجیشن دی جائے گی کہ یہ جھوٹ/غلط ہے کہ میں گاڑی خریدنے کی مد میں کوئی رقم/دس لاکھ ادا نہ کیا ہے۔
جبکہ فوجداری کیس میں اس کی ضرورت نہیں۔
(اس کے لیے آسیہ مسیح کیس PLD 2019 SC 64 دیکھیں)
لیکن سجیشن دیتے ہمیشہ یاد رکھیں کہ یہی سجیشن آپ کے خلاف ایڈمیشن بھی بن سکتی ہے۔
🔹مثال: گاڑی والی مثال میں اگر میں حاشیہ گواہ کو سجیشن دوں کہ "یہ غلط ہے کہ جب دس لاکھ ادا کئے گئے اس وقت آپ موجود تھے"
اس کو وہ ڈینائی کرے گا لیکن
اس سجیشن میں میں اس گواہ کی موجودگی تو ریبٹ کر رہا ہوں لیکن دس لاکھ ایڈمٹ کر رہا ہوں۔
اس لیے احتیاط کریں۔
👈 میری ذاتی رائے کے مطابق ایڈمشن بذریعہ سجیشن کا تصور بھی صرف سول معاملات میں درست ہے کریمینل میں نہیں۔
لیکن آصف سعید خان کھوسہ صاحب نے درج ذیل دو کریمینل کیسز میں اپلائی کیا ہے۔ لہذا احتیاط کریں

خدیجہ صدیقی کیس(جو کہ انتہائی کمزور فیصلہ ہے)
(PLD 2019 SC 261)
امجد علی بنام سرکار
(PLD 2017 SC 661)

2022 SCMR 186

It is most salutary principle of law that each criminal case has its own facts and circumstances and it cannot coincide with others. In the instant case, there is no denial to this fact that the petitioner is nominated in the crime report wherein he is assigned role of raising “Lalkara” whereas the co-accused of the petitioner resorted to indiscriminate firing with their respective weapons causing death of Wasif Khan and Asif Khan. Undeniably, the accusation levelled against the petitioner is twofold:-

(i) Raising of “Lalkara”. (ii) Kicking the dead bodies after the occurrence.

Admittedly the petitioner is aged about 65 years and he is also suffering from ailment. Close scrutiny of the accusation levelled by the prosecution, no overt-act is ascribed to the petitioner except the proverbial “Lalkara. The question which require determination is whether the “Lalkara” raised by the petitioner was commanding in nature or that was mere a proverbial “Lalkara”. During the course of proceedings before us, it has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner cannot be saddled with the responsibility of sharing common intention with the co-accused on the ground that the petitioner was not enjoying good relationing with co-accused especially Shahid, because of the reason that a proclamation in this regard was already published in the newspaper disassociating itself from all affairs of said Shahid and he was also deprived from movable and immovable property owned by the petitioner. This Court vide order dated 23.10.2020 persuaded the learned counsel to offer his good offices for the production of said Shahid who is fugitive from law. The learned counsel at the strength of the proclamation published in the newspaper has stated that as the petitioner is behind the bar and he has no access to his son with whom he has already strained relations, therefore, it is not within his command to produce him before the police. Keeping in view the arguments of the learned counsel and law on the subject, as the proclamation was issued much prior to the lodging of the crime report; question qua its being a commanding “Lalkara” or otherwise it seems to be determined by the learned trial court after recording of evidence. As far as second limb of the accusation is concerned, co-accused with similar allegation was extended pre-arrest bail by the learned trial court; hence, the petitioner is entitled for the same on this score alone. Liberty of a person is a precious right which has to be resolved in favour of the accused being favourite child of law, denial of same require extreme compelling reasons.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances narrated above and law on the subject, we are of the considered view that the case of the petitioner is of further inquiry fully covered u/s 497(2) Cr.PC entitling for concession of bail.

JUDGMENT SHEET
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT,
MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
(JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT)
Criminal Appeal No.363/2020
Qasim Ali Vs. The State
JUDGMENT
DATE OF HEARING: 15.02.2022.
APPELLANT BY: Mr. Muhammad Sadiq, Advocate.
STATE BY: Mr. Muhammad Ali Shahab, Deputy
Prosecutor General.
…………………………………………………….
MUHAMMAD AMJAD RAFIQ, J:- On recovery of 680 grams
of charas from him, Qasim Ali (accused/appellant) was booked in case
FIR No.29/2020 under section 9 (b) of the Control of Narcotics
Substance Act, 1997 registered at police station Ghalla Mandi, Sahiwal
and after investigation when sent up to face trial, he proceeded to
confess his guilt upon which he was given show cause notice to explain
that why he should not be convicted in the case on the basis of
confession, whereupon, he failed to offer any explanation, rather
regretted the commission of offence and undertook not to repeat the
same. As such, he was convicted under section 9 (b) of the Control of
Narcotics Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to imprisonment for
“one year and nine months with a fine of Rs.13000/-” in case of default to
further undergo four months and fifteen days’ simple imprisonment. At
the same time, considering his poor financial position, expression of
repentance and desire to live a clean future life, he was placed on
probation subject to furnishing of bond under the Probation of
Offenders Ordinance, 1960.
2. The accused/ appellant preferred the instant appeal against his
above conviction/ sentence, which was admitted for regular hearing by
this Court vide order dated 27.08.2020. Today, the learned counsel for criminal APPEAL NO.363/2020. 2
the accused/appellant when confronted that since the
conviction/sentence was recorded against the accused/appellant
pursuant to his confessional statement, how the instant criminal appeal
is maintainable, the learned counsel came out with the stance that as per
section 8 of Probation of offenders Ordinance, 1960, a right of appeal is
available to the appellant and as a matter of fact he would neither assail
the conviction nor the sentence and the sole intention to file the instant
criminal appeal is that the accused/petitioner is a student of 10th class,
therefore, the conviction recorded against him may not jeopardize his
future prospects.
3. Heard.
4. With the assistance of learned counsel for the accused/appellant
as well as the learned Deputy Prosecutor General, we have examined
the entire record and find no such perversity in the findings of
conviction/sentence recorded by the learned trial court which could
warrant interference therein, as the recovery of contraband is
established, the chain of safe custody remains intact and the PFSA
report is also supporting the prosecution case and more so, the
conviction/sentence has been passed on the basis of confession
voluntarily made by the accused/appellant, therefore, on merits we have
found no weakness in the prosecution case to justify interference. Even
otherwise, under section 412 Cr.P.C. after confession, a sentence could
only be challenged “to the extent or legality”. Period of imprisonment
for one year and 9 months in case u/s 9-B CNSA, 1997 was justified
and we have not found any illegality in the impugned judgment as such.
Yet right of appeal granted under section 8 of Probation of offenders
Ordinance, 1960 is obviously to assail any terms of probation that
affects the right of accused. For reference, relevant section is
reproduced;
8. Powers of court in appeal and revision: — Where an appeal or
application for revision is made against conviction of an offence for
which an order is made under section 4 or section 5 discharging the
offender absolutely or conditionally or placing him on probation the
appellate court or the court sitting in revision may pass such order
as it could have passed under the Code, or may set aside or amendCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.363/2020. 3
the order made under section 4 or section 5 and in lieu thereof pass
sentence authorized by law: Provided that the appellate court or the
court sitting in revision shall not impose a greater punishment than
the punishment which might have been imposed by the court by
which the offender was convicted.
This section is dealing with conviction one passed on merits and not on
the basis of confession; therefore, legal position would stand as
incorporated u/s 412 of Cr.P.C; however, when appeal is barred,
remedy of revision is available to the affected person and in this case
right to file revision against the conviction passed on the basis of
confession would remain available; therefore, appellant can file a
revision petition instead of present appeal. However, this court is not
precluded to exercise revisional jurisdiction when sitting as a court of
appeal and can pass any incidental order except to enhance the
sentence. Same is the legal position as set out in section 8 of Ordinance
under discussion. Thus, the conviction/sentence of the accused/
appellant as imposed by the learned trial court is upheld.
5. However, the ultimate prayer of the learned counsel for the
accused /appellant with regard to stigma of conviction/sentence, we are
afraid that the apprehension of learned counsel for the
accused/appellant on this particular aspect is farfetched and does not
reflect the correct legal position. Section 11 of The Probation of
Offenders Ordinance, 1960 (XLV of 1960) is very much clear. For
ready reference, the said provision of law is reproduced hereunder: -
“11. Effects of discharge and probation. 1) A conviction of an
offence, for which an order is made under section 4 or section 5 for
discharging the offender after the due admonition or conditionally
or placing him on probation, shall be deemed not to be a conviction
for any purpose other than the purposes of the proceedings in which
the order is made and of any subsequent proceedings which may be
taken against the offender under the provisions of this Ordinance:
Provided that where an offender, being not less than
eighteen years of age at the time of his conviction of an offence for
which an order discharging him conditionally or placing him on
probation is made, is subsequently sentenced under this Ordinance
for that offence, the provisions of this sub-section shall cease to
apply to the conviction.
(2) Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this section, the
conviction of an offender who is discharged after due admonition
or conditionally, or who is placed on probation, shall in any event
be disregarded for the purposes of any law which imposes any
disqualification or disability upon convicted persons, or authorizes
or requires the imposition of any such disqualification or disability.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.363/2020. 4
(3) The foregoing provisions of this section shall not affect—
(a) any right of any such offender to appeal against his conviction,
or to rely thereon in bar of any subsequent proceedings for the same
offence;
(b) the revisiting or restoration of any property in consequence of
the conviction of any such offender.”
The above reproduced provision of law manifests that for future, the
conviction as imposed against the accused/appellant being solely under
the Ordinance, ibid, shall not deem to be a conviction for any purpose,
rather it would confine limited only to the proceedings wherein such
order has been passed (Probation Ordinance) or any subsequent
proceedings that too if taken against such convict again under the
provisions of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960, alone.
6. Sub-section (2) of Section 11, of the Ordinance, ibid, makes the
position further clear requiring that where any law imposes any
disqualification or disability upon a convicted person, or authorized or
required the imposition of any such disqualification or disability, then
such conviction of an offender (under the Probation of Offenders
Ordinance, 1960) shall stand disregarded for the purpose of such law
which imposes any disqualification or disability upon convicted
persons, or authorizes or requires the imposition of any such
disqualification or disability. While observing so, we are fortified in
our view by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the
case “MUMTAZ ALI and others versus DISTRICT RETURNING
OFFICER and others” (2008 SCMR 751), wherein, the nomination
papers of candidates for office of Nazim and Naib Nazim were rejected
for having been convicted and sentenced under the Probation of
Offenders Ordinance, 1960. The Hon’ble Supreme Court set-aside such
rejection of nomination papers and allowed them to contest the
election.
7. Effect of section 11 of Ordinance ibid reflects the intention of
legislature to destigmatize the one who had once been trapped or
caught into a penal regime should become a useful citizen and to urge
his social contribution and participation in the economic life of theCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.363/2020. 5
country. This intention should be given a broader touch even for those
who are already in the public service to save their families from
starvation or like sufferings. Act of benevolence is regarded next to
piety, Courts should endeavor to pass on the benefit of probation law to
all first offenders, repenting their deeds, within the parameters of
section 4 & 5 of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960.
8. Public Authorities sitting at top for maintaining the disciplinary
matters, before initiating departmental inquires on the touch stone of
earned conviction should understand that conviction under Probation of
Offenders Ordinance 1960 cannot be regarded as conviction for
imposing penalty of dismissal or removal from service. Even in
conviction, competent authority barring clause (a) of section 8 of the
Punjab Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, cannot
proceed to dismiss the civil servant straightaway but it is considered
only a ground for inquiry and the ensuing results may also be in the
form of Minor or Major penalties, except removal and dismissal from
service, which can well be imposed instead. For reference relevant
section is reproduced.
8. Action in case of conviction or plea bargain under any law: – Where
an employee is convicted by a court of law or has entered into plea
bargain or has been acquitted by a court of law as a result of
compounding of an offence involving moral turpitude or affecting human
body under any law for the time being in force, the competent authority,
after examining facts of the case, shall–
(a) dismiss the employee, where he has been convicted of
charges of corruption or has entered into plea bargain
and has returned the assets or gains acquired through
corruption or corrupt practices voluntarily; or
(b) proceed against the employee under section 7, where he
has been convicted of charges other than corruption; or
(c) proceed against the employee under section 9, where he
has been acquitted by a court of law as a result of
compounding of an offence involving moral turpitude or
affecting human body.
The above observations are supported by a verdict of Honourable
Supreme Court in a case reported as “INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE
PUNJAB, LAHORE and others versus MAHMOOD IKRAM” (1998 SCMR 765)
9. For what has been discussed above, while sustaining the
conviction/sentence of the accused/appellant, in the light of above CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.363/2020. 6
referred judicial precedents, we have no hesitation to hold that the
conviction recorded under the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960
shall not stand in the way of all kinds of future prospects of the
petitioner, except for the purpose of being dealt again under Ordinance
ibid if he repeats the offence. With these observations, the instant
appeal is dismissed.
(MUHAMAMD WAHEED KHAN) (MUHAMMAD AMJAD RAFIQ)
JUDGE. JUDGE.
Javed*
APPROVED FOR REPORTING
JUDGE