Criminal Orders HC-Rules

Contents
Dear Members
HC Rules and Orders main Remand, Bail, Discharge, issuance of bailable, non-bailable
warrant, proclamation order, superdari order, identification parade, judgment writing,
examination-in-chief, cross-examination, framing of charge, agree/ disagree cancellation
report, probation order, judgment in complain case buht ahm hain. Yh sub es file main
hain. Please daikh lain but must not confused………..
Regard
Babar Nadeem………..Civil Judge……….Lahore.
Kuch Topic end pay add keay hain…
Ager ap view---------> navigation pane per click kar lain tu ap k leay buht easy ho jaey ga
koe bh topic search karna….
3-Directions to Ahlmad .................................................................................12

3.1 Direction to annex bail bond ................................................................12
3.2 Bail-bond annexed. ..............................................................................12
3.3 Bail-bonds not annexed. ......................................................................12
3.4 Direction to compile file ......................................................................13
3.5 File not compiled .................................................................................13
3.6 Report that bailbonds have not been submitted. ..................................13
4-Investigation ...............................................................................................13
4.1 Remand (Bailable Offence) .................................................................13
4.2 Discharge (Compromise) .....................................................................15
4.3 Judicial Remand ...................................................................................19
4.4 Physical Remand (First Time) .............................................................21
4.5 Physical Remand Subsequent ..............................................................22
4.6 Physical Remand Request Turned Down ............................................23
4.7 Police request for proceeding u/s 87 ....................................................26
4.8 Judicial Remand to forward Challan ...................................................26
4.9 Correction of Name in MLC ................................................................27
4.10 Judicial Remand (Challan is already sent to court) ...........................27
4.11 Statement under section 164 ..............................................................28
4.12 Summoning of Accused for Remand .................................................34
4.13 Female, Physical Remand Request Turned Down ............................34
4.14 Police request for non-bail warrant ....................................................34
5- Fresh Challan .............................................................................................35
5.1 Registration ..........................................................................................35
5.2 Summoning (Home).............................................................................36
5.3 Summoning (Home as well as Jail) .....................................................36
5.4 Column No. 02 .....................................................................................37
5.4.1 Notice for Arguments ....................................................................37
5.4.2 Order for summoning ....................................................................37
5.4.3 Order for discharge .......................................................................37
5.5 Order(Challan u/s 512) ........................................................................37
5.6 Order (Un-Traced Report) ...................................................................38
5.7 Order (Supplementary Challan) ...........................................................38
5.8 Send to Court of Sessions ....................................................................39
5.8.1 Challan Case..................................................................................39
5.8.4 Complaint Case .............................................................................41
5.8.3 Supplementary Challan .................................................................42
6-Accused Absent ..........................................................................................43
6.1 Not returned, summons again ..............................................................43
6.2 Not returned, BWs again......................................................................43
6.3 Not returned, NBWs again...................................................................43
6.4 Returned, It is unsatisfactory, summons again ....................................45
6.5 Returned, It is unsatisfactory, BWs again ...........................................46
6.6 Returned, It is unsatisfactory, NBWs again.........................................47
6.7 Returned, Valid Reason, summons again ............................................47
6.8 Returned, Valid Reason, BWs again ...................................................48
6.9 Returned, Valid Reason, NBWs again.................................................49
6.10 Returned, Non-service, BWs Now ....................................................49
6.11 Returned, Non-service, NBWs now ..................................................49
6.12 present then absent (one accused) ......................................................50
6.13 Process not issued, summons again ...................................................50
6.14 Process not issued, BWs again ..........................................................51
6.15 Process not issued, NBWs again........................................................51
6.16 Order for proclamation proceeding....................................................51
6.17 Awaiting Proclamation ......................................................................52
6.18 Declaring proclaimed offender .........................................................52
6.19 present then absent (More accused) ...............................................53
6.20 Attendance dispensed with ................................................................53
6.21 Abatement on death ...........................................................................53
6.21.1 Calling Death Certificate.............................................................54
6.21.2 Death Certificate not produced ...................................................54
6.21.3 Abatement on process server statement ......................................54
6.21.4 Abatement on production of death certificate .............................55
6.22 Returned, In Jail .................................................................................55
6.23 Returned, Address is not correct ........................................................56
6.24 Show-cause to Ahlmad ......................................................................56
6.25 Returned, name is not correct ............................................................57
7-Accused Present .........................................................................................57
7.1 Summoning of witness .........................................................................57
7.2 Appearance of Court P.O .....................................................................58
7.3 Suspending operation of NBWs till next date of hearing ....................58
7.4 Few appeared other absent ...................................................................60
7.5 P.O (Without Pre-arrest Bail) ..............................................................61
8-Witness Absent ...........................................................................................62
8.1 Not returned, summons again ..............................................................62
8.2 Not returned, BWs again......................................................................62
8.3 Not returned, NBWs again...................................................................63
8.4 Returned, It is unsatisfactory, summons again ....................................64
8.5 Returned, It is unsatisfactory, BWs again ...........................................65
8.6 Returned, It is unsatisfactory, NBWs again.........................................66
8.7 Returned, Valid Reason, summons again ............................................66
8.8 Returned, Valid Reason, BWs again ...................................................67
8.9 Returned, Valid Reason, NBWs again.................................................68
8.10 Returned, Non-service, BWs Now ....................................................68
8.12 Process not issued, summons again ...................................................69
8.13 Process not issued, BWs again ..........................................................69
8.14 Process not issued, NBWs again........................................................70
8.15 Letter to D.P.O to produce witnesses ................................................70
8.16 Bound but absent................................................................................71
8.17 Coercive Measures .............................................................................71
9-Witness Present ..........................................................................................72
9.1 Lawyers on strike, adjourned ...............................................................72
9.2 Attendance marked, request by accused counsel .................................72
9.3 Attendance marked, request by complainant counsel .........................73
9.4 Attendance marked, Joint request ........................................................73
9.5 Partly evidence recorded ......................................................................73
9.6 Partly evidence available .....................................................................74
9.7 Calling Case property ..........................................................................74
10-Trail ..........................................................................................................75
10.1 Supply of documents..........................................................................75
10.2 Charge framed ....................................................................................75
10.3 Summon Challan ................................................................................75
10.4 Abatement on death ...........................................................................76
10.5 Challan not submitted ........................................................................77
10.6 Undertaking to produce evidence ......................................................77
10.7 Interim Challan, Summoning Complete ............................................78
10.8 Complete Challan not submitted........................................................78
10.9 Consolidating of Two Challans .........................................................78
10.10 Charge not framed............................................................................79
10.11 Prosecution evidence is complete ....................................................79
10.12 Consolidating supplementary into incomplete ................................80
11-Cancellation Report ..................................................................................80
11.1 Agree in presence of complainant .....................................................80
11.2 Notice to complainant ........................................................................81
11.3 Not returned, Notice again .................................................................82
11.4 Complainant appeared .......................................................................82
11.5 returned, valid reason, Notice again ..................................................82
11.6 Served but not appeared .....................................................................83
11.7 Returned, It is unsatisfactory, Notice again .......................................83
11.8 Agree in absence of complainant .......................................................83
11.9 Disagree .............................................................................................84
15- Complaint Case .......................................................................................95
15.1 Issuance of process ............................................................................95
15.2 Surety Bond (All present) ..................................................................95
15.3 Adjournment for remaining cursory evidence ...................................96
15.4 Adjournment for preliminary arguments ...........................................96
15.5 Order (Noor Elahi Case) .................................................................97
15.6 Adjournment for documentary evidence ...........................................97
15.7 Fresh Complaint, cursory evidence not recorded ..............................97
15.8 Fresh Complaint, cursory evidence recorded ....................................98
15.9 Not Fresh Complaint, cursory evidence recorded .............................98
15.10 Surety Bonds (Few present) .............................................................98
15.11 Send to court of session ...................................................................99
16- Applications.............................................................................................99
16.1 Request for adjournment ....................................................................99
16.2 Application filed ..............................................................................100
16.3 Application decided .........................................................................100
16.4 Order for dispensing with attendance ..............................................100
16.5 Order (Application to amend charge) ..............................................102
16.6 Arguments of one party heard .........................................................103
16.7 Summoning evidence by pending application .................................104
16.8 Order (Summoning Column.02 Accused) .......................................104
17-Compromise Non-Compoundable Offence............................................105
17.1 one accused, one witness .................................................................105
17.2 More accused, one witness ..............................................................110
17.3 More accused, more witness ............................................................114
17.4 One accused, more witness ..............................................................120
18-Compromise Compoundable Offence ....................................................120
18.1 one accused, one witness .................................................................120
18.2 more accused, one witness ...............................................................121
18.3 More accused, more witness ............................................................121
18.4 One accused, more witness ..............................................................121
18.5 Acquittal (489-F, 249-A) .................................................................122
19- Dar-ul-Eman ..........................................................................................126
19.1 Sending Statement ...........................................................................126
19.2 Sending Order ..................................................................................126
19.3 Summoning Order ............................................................................127
19.4 Releasing Statement .........................................................................127
19.5 Releasing Order ...............................................................................130
19.6 Meeting Order ..................................................................................130
20- Letters ....................................................................................................133
20.1 Letter to D.P.O to produce witnesses ..............................................133
21- Consignment ..........................................................................................135
21.1 Consign to record-room (Section 512) without recording evidence135
21.2 Consign to record-room (Section 249) ............................................135
21.3 Fresh application to call for record from record room ....................137
21.4 Record not produced ........................................................................137
21.5 Incomplete particulars ......................................................................137
21.6 Record Produced (Fixing for arguments) ........................................138
21.7 Record produced (Dispose of Application) .....................................138
21.8 Record produced (order in main file) ..............................................138
21.9 Consign to record room after recording of evidence .......................139
23-Bail .........................................................................................................146
23.1 Fresh bail application .......................................................................146
23.2 Notice and calling Record................................................................146
23.3 Process not returned .........................................................................146
23.4 Record not produced ........................................................................146
23.5 Neither Process nor Record .............................................................147
23.6 Complainant served but not appeared ..............................................147
23.7 Complainant served and appeared ...................................................147
23.8 Compromising Statement ................................................................147
23.9 Statement Recorded, Fixing for argumetns .....................................148
23.10 Record produced ............................................................................148
23.11 Fixing Case for arguments .............................................................148
23.12 Request for adjournment ................................................................149
23.13 Final interim order .........................................................................149
23.14 Dismissal in Default .............................................................149
Order (Compromise) ..........................................................................150
Order (Default, Accepted) ................................................................151
Order (S.457, 380, Accepted) .........................................................155
Order (S. 419, 420, 468, 471, Accepted) ....................................162
Order (S. 380, 457, 411, Accepted) ..............................................164
Order (S. 419, 420, 468, 471, Rejected) .....................................166
Order (S. 379, 411, Accepted) ........................................................170
Order (S. 379, 411, Accepted) ........................................................171
Order (S. 3/4/479 Rejected) ..........................................................173
Order (S. 379, 411, Rejected) .........................................................176
Order (S.382, Accepted) ...................................................................178
Order (S.337, Accepted) ...................................................................181
Order (337F(iv), Accepted) ...............................................................185
Order (S.381-A, 411, Accepted) .....................................................190
25- Surety (Orders) ...............................................................................214
Personal
Causal Leave
From
Babar Nadeem,
Civil Judge Class III,
Chichwatni.
To
The Worthy District & Sessions Judge,

Sahiwal.
No._______________ Dated._______2016.
Subject: CASUAL LEAVE.
Dear Sir,
I have the honour to submit that on 11.01.2016, first birth day of my

daughter Urooj-e-Babar, so I will have to stay at home on that day.
It is, therefore, requested that one day casual leave i.e 11.01.2016 may
kindly be granted with permission to leave the station.
Thanking you in anticipation.
Yours faithfully,
Babar Nadeem,
Magistrate,
Chichawatni.
Station Leave
From
Babar Nadeem,
Chichwatni.
To

Sahiwal.
No._______________ Dated._______2016.
Subject: STATION LEAVE.
Dear Sir,
I have the honour to submit that on 16.01.2016 I have to go to my native
place Kasur to see my family. It is therefore, humbly requested that I may be allowed to
leave the station after court hours today.
Yours faithfully,
Babar Nadeem,
Magistrate First Class,
Chichawatni.
Intimation for duty on Sunday
From
Babar Nadeem,
Civil Judge Class III, Magistrate First Class
Chichawatni.
To

Sahiwal.
No._________ Dated.________/2016.
Subject: INTIMATION REGARDING DUTY ON SUNDAY AS DUTY

JUDGE.
Dear Sir,
I have the honour to submit that I have to perform duty as
duty judge on Sunday dated 20.03.2016 but due to urgent piece of work,
I have to go home. It is, therefore, humbly intimated that Mr. Khalid
Iqbal Civil Judge First Class, Magistrate First Class, Chichwatni is going
to perform duty on my behalf on Sunday dated 20.03.2016.
Certified that I will perform duty as

duty judge on Sunday dated
20.03.2016, on behalf of my learned Yours faithfully,
colleague.
Khalid Iqbal, Babar Nadeem,

Magistrate First Class Civil Judge Class III,
Chichwatni. Magistrate First Class
Chichwatni.
1-Transfer Cases
1.1 Transfer Order
Present case has been entrusted to this court vide transfer order number
2498/Tf dated 02.10.2016 passed by Worthy District and Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, let it
be filed.
1.2 Further order on transfer.
Accused is/are present. His/Her/Their attendance has been marked on the
margin of order sheet. Learned counsel for the complainant is also present.
Perusal of record transpires that previously present case was fixed for
summoning of prosecution witnesses through summons. Let the case be adjourned for
summoning of prosecution witnesses through summons for 04.12.2016.
2- Power of attorney
2.1 Fresh Power of Attorney
Fresh power of attorney has been filed by Mr. Ch. Kamran Advocate on
behalf of accused Muhammad Ali, let it be filed.
2.2 Direction to submit power of attorney
Record perused from where it transpires that accused Muhammad Ali is

without any counsel, so accused is directed to engage a counsel till next date of hearing.
3-Directions to Ahlmad
3.1 Direction to annex bail bond
Contents of present judicial file transpires that accused persons namely

……………….is/are on bail but bail bonds are not annexed to present file. So Ahlmad is
directed to report in that regard till next date of hearing.
3.2 Bail-bond annexed.
Bail bonds to the extent of accused persons namely ………….. is/ are annexed to
present file.
3.3 Bail-bonds not annexed.
Record perused from where it transpires that on last date of hearing Ahlmad
was directed to annex and report about bail bonds but neither bail bonds are annexed nor
any report is annexed. Again ahlmad is directed to annex and report about bailbonds.
3.4 Direction to compile file
Perusal of record transpires that present judicial file is not in sorting order
as interim orders are not date-wise arranged, so, Ahlmad is directed to produce this file
on next date of hearing after due compilation.
3.5 File not compiled
Perusal of record transpires that on last date of hearing Ahlmad was

directed to produce present file after due compilation but he failed to do so. Let show-
cause notice be issued to the Ahlmad to submit his reply in this regard.
3.6 Report that bailbonds have not been submitted.
On the last date of hearing Ahlmad was directed to annex bail bonds to
present file and today he has reported that no bail bond has been submitted by the
accused up till now.
4-Investigation
4.1 Remand (Bailable Offence)
Present: Accused Imdad Hussain in police custody.
I.O Muhammad Ashraf alongwith record.
ADPP Muhammad Kamran for the state.
Accused has been tagged in instant case under section 13(2)(a) of Arms
Ordinance No.20 of 1965 as amended up-to-date and investigating agency has requested
for judicial custody. section 13(2)(a) of Arms Ordinance No.20 of 1965 as amended up-
to-date as per attached schedule with Cr.P.C is bailable in nature hence, bail as right in
favour of present accused is hereby extended subject to furnishing surety bond to the tune
of Rs.50,000/- with one local surety. In case of non-furnishing of surety bond he be
committed to judicial custody for 14 days and produced before Court of competent
jurisdiction alongwith report under section 173 Cr.P.C (complete or incomplete) with set
of prosecution witnesses on 06.01.2016.
Announced. Babar Nadeem,

23.12.2016. Majistrate First Class
Chichwatni
4.2 Discharge (Compromise)
Present: Accused Muhammad Sarwar Khan in police custody.
I.O Ghulam Farid SI alongwith record.
Accused has been tagged in instant case under sections 5 and 6 of Punjab
Prohibition of child labour at brick kilns ordinance 2016 and investigating agency has
requested for judicial custody. sections 5 and 6 of Punjab Prohibition of child labour at
brick kilns ordinance 2016 as per attached schedule with Cr.P.C is bailable in nature
hence, bail as right in favour of present accused is hereby extended subject to furnishing
surety bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/- with one local surety. In case of non-furnishing of
surety bond he be committed to judicial custody for 14 days and produced before Court
of competent jurisdiction alongwith report under section 173 Cr.P.C (complete or
incomplete) with set of prosecution witnesses on 01.02.2016.

18.01.2016. Magistrate First Class
Chichwatni
Present: I.O Manzoor Hussain alongwith record.
Accused Jaffar Ali under police custody.
Learned Counsel for the Accused Mr.Rana Zulifqar Advocate
Victim/ Abductee Sakina Bibi in person
Learned Counsel for the victim/ abductee Mr. Sajjid Mehmood Kyani
Learned ADPP Muhammad Kamran for the state.
Arguments heard. Record perused. I.O has requested for 14 days physical
remand of the accused in order to affect recovery. The abductee through her counsel has
produced affidavit Mark-A and stated that no one has abducted her or her child Sanam.
No one has committed Zana with her. Present case number 380/15, police station Ghazia
Abad is false and frivolous and she has no objection if all accused persons be acquitted.
The accused Jaffar is in custody, so, in the light of statement of victim as well as
submission of affidavit, there is no incriminating material available on the file to connect
the accused with the commission of alleged offence, so, accused jaffar is hereby
discharged in the case in hand and be released if not required in any other case. Affidavit
be annexed with file
Babar Nadeem,
Announced. MIC, Chichawatni,
04.11.2016. Sahiwal.
Present: I.O Rasheed Ahmad alongwith record.
Accused Muhammad Naeem under police custody.
Complainant Zulifqar Ahmad son of Hassan Muhammad in person
Learned Counsel for the complaint Qaiser Abass Khan Lagari Advocate
Arguments heard. Record perused. I.O has requested for 14 days judicial
remand remand. The complainant through his counsel has produced affidavit Mark-A and
stated that he has entered into a compromise with the accused. I have taken all amount
from the accused person. I have no objection if the present accuse be discharged or
acquitted in the present case. The accused Muhammad Naeem is in custody, so, in the
light of statement of the complainant as well as submission of affidavit, accused
Muhammad Naeem is hereby discharged in the case in hand and be released if not
required in any other case. Affidavit be annexed with file
23.12.2016. Magistrate First Class,
Chichawatni.
4.3 Judicial Remand

Present: I.O Ghulam Farid SI alongwith record.
Accused Muhammad Hafeez under police custody.
I.O has requested for judicial remand of the accused. As per request of the
I.O the judicial remand of the accused for 14 days is allowed. Accused be produced
before the court alongwith the report of U.S 173 Cr.P.C on 05.01.2016.
Babar Nadeem,
Announced.
MIC, Chichawatni,
22.12.2016.
Sahiwal.
4.4 Physical Remand (First Time)
Present: I.O Muhammad Afzaal alongwith record.

Accused Tariq Mahmood and Majeeb-ur-Rehman under police custody.
I.O has requested for 14 days physical remand of the accused in order to
affected recovery of sotta. Record perused from where it transpires that Accusation is
well founded as the accused is specifically nominated in the F.I.R and there is real
necessity for further investigation as recovery in the form of sotta is still to be effected.
Hence keeping in view the instructions and guide lines laid down in Ghulam Sarwar Case
(1984 PCrLJ 2588), physical remand of two days is hereby granted. I.O. is directed to
show progress during this period of remand. Accused again be produced in the court on
12.11.2016. Copy of this order be sent to the Worthy District & Sessions Judge, Sahiwal
for information.
Babar Nadeem,
04.11.2016. Sahiwal.
4.5 Physical Remand Subsequent
Present: I.O Ghulam Farid alongwith record.
Accused Muhammad Ameen, Mumtaz and Abdul Jabbar under police
custody.
I.O has requested for 14 days physical remand of the accused in order to
affected recovery of 3 goats. Record perused from where it transpires that Accusation is
well founded as the accused is specifically nominated in the F.I.R and partial recovery
has been effected from the accused and there is real necessity for further investigation as
recovery in the form of goats is still to be effected. Hence keeping in view the
instructions and guide lines laid down in Ghulam Sarwar Case (1984 PCrLJ 2588),
further physical remand of three days is hereby granted. I.O. is directed to show progress
during this period of remand. Accused again be produced in the court on 25.11.2016.
Copy of this order be sent to the Worthy District & Sessions Judge, Sahiwal for
information.
22.12.2016. MIC, Chichawatni,
Sahiwal.
4.6 Physical Remand Request Turned Down
Present: I.O Mukhtar Ahmad A.S.I alongwith record.
Accused Muhammad Zahid and Muhammad Sajjad under police custody.
I.O has requested for further physical remand of 06 days mainly on the
ground that another co-accused is still to be arrested on the pointation of the present
accused persons. Relevant Ziminis, F.I.R and previous remand orders have been perused
from where it transpire that recovery in the form of two pistoals have been effected on the
pointation of the accused persons and now these accused persons are not further required
for any other recovery. In respect of the I.O’s request that present accused persons are
required for pointation of other co-accused persons, it is submitted that it is not a strong
and exceptional ground to grant the remand of the present accused persons. Hence,
keeping in the view the guidelines laid down in Ghulam Sarwar Case (1984 P.Cr.L.J
2588), I.O’s request for further remand is hereby turned down and accused is hereby sent
to judicial lockup on judicial remand. The accused again be produced in the court
alongwith report U.S 173 Cr.P.C on 31.12.2016.
Sahiwal.
Present: I.O Muhammad Mansha A.S.I alongwith record.
Accused Mehmood Sultan under police custody.
I.O has requested for first physical remand of 14 days mainly on the ground
that accused is still to be investigated. I.O’s request that present accused is required for
further investigation is not a strong and exceptional ground to grant the physical remand.
Hence, keeping in the view the guidelines laid down in Ghulam Sarwar Case (1984
P.Cr.L.J 2588), I.O’s request for first physical remand is hereby turned down and accused
is hereby sent to judicial lockup. The accused again be produced in the court alongwith
report U.S 173 Cr.P.C on 13.01.2016.
30.12.2016. Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Chichawatni.
4.7 Police request for proceeding u/s 87
06.07.2016
Present: I.O alongwith record.
ADPP Muhammad Kamran for the State.
Report on warrants perused.
The I.O has requested for issuance of proclamation under section 87 Cr.P.C
against the accused persons because despite issuance of non bailable warrants of arrest,
the accused persons could not be arrested and they are deliberately avoiding their arrest
due to fear of this case. File perused. I.O’s request is genuine, so, in the interest of justice,
proclamation under section 87 Cr.P.C be issued in the name of accused persons and the
I.O is directed to submit his report till 14.012.2016.
Babar Nadeem,
04.11.2016. Sahiwal.
4.8 Judicial Remand to forward Challan
Dated:- 09.06.2014.
Present:- I.O in person.
Learned ADPP for the State.
Report under section 173 Cr.P.C in case FIR No.166/14, case FIR
No.155/14 and case FIR No.168/14 P/S Jalilabad against accused Assadullah son of
Mehdi so far been not forwarded. Application for postponement of proceedings in terms
of section 344 Cr.P.C by the investigating officer forwarded and he undertakes that
within few days report under section 173 Cr.P.C in supra cases after due scrutiny be
available before the Court. On request accused persons be produced on 23.06.2014 for
presence of report under section 173 Cr.P.C for commencement of trial.

Chichawatni.
4.9 Correction of Name in MLC
Dated: 17.01.2016.
Present: Learned counsel for the petitioner.
By the order of instant Court dated 12.09.2014 medical examination of

Fayyaz son of Muhammad Ramzan was conducted by M.O. Learned counsel for the
petitioner raised inadvertence which was metted while filing the said application for
medical examination by mentioning the name of injured as Riaz instead of Riaz son of
Muhammad Ramzan. The FIR No.153/14 shows his correct name as Fayyaz son of
Muhammad Ramzan. MLC also shows similar name, except in petition earlier preferred
for permission to conduct medical examination his name instead of Fayyaz due to some
inadvertence written as Riaz. The same inadvertence has now brought in the knowledge
of the Court for all purposes hereinafter comes name of Riaz available in application shall
construe as Fayyaz.

Chichwatni.
4.10 Judicial Remand (Challan is already sent to court)
Dated: 20.10.2016
Present: Accused Habib in police custody
Mr. Muhammad Kamran learned A.D.P.P for the State.
Today accused Habib appeared in police custody and it was stated by the
police officer that challan of present accused has already been sent to court. At this
Ahlmad is hereby directed to trace the challan in F.I.R no. 146/15 under section 380
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 and produce before this court. On production and perusal it
transpired that it has been fixed by my predecessor for summoning of present accused in
custody for 07.01.2016. Hence, as per law and in the interest of justice, the date of
hearing is hereby shortened from 07.01.2016 to 08.12.2016.
As the case was fixed for summoning of the accused and accused is before
this court, so attendance of the accused has been marked on the margin of the sheet,
documents required under section 241-A of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 are hereby
supplied to the accused. Let the case be adjourned for 08.12.2016 for framing of charge.
Perusal of the record transpires that accused is without counsel, so accused
hereby directed to engage his counsel till next date of hearing.
Babar Nadeem,
Chichawatni.
4.11 Statement under section 164
From
Babar Nadeem,
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Chichawatni.
To
The worthy District & Sessions Judge,
Sahiwal.
No.______ Dated:______/2016.
Subject:- STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 164 CR.P.C.
Dear Sir,
Please find enclosed herewith recorded statement under section 164 Cr.P.C of
Mst. Rayqa Shaz, New Name Nosheen in case FIR No.369/15 dated 26.11.2016 P/S
Ghaziabad Chichawatni, Shahiwal.
Yours faithfully,
Babar Nadeem,
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Chichawatni.
STATEMENT U/S 164 CR.P.C
07.10.2016
Present: All accused persons
Alleged abductee Mst. Rayqa Shaz, New Name Nosheen in custody of
Rukhsana Asmat Ullah 1315/LC.
I.O Ghulam Farid alongwith record.
O R D E R:
Police has requested for recording the statement U.S 164 Cr.P.C of the
abductee. It has been informed to Mst. Rayqa Shaz, New Name Nosheen that she is not
bound to get record her statement U/S 164 Cr.P.C and if she does so, the same can be
used as evidence against her. A time of half an hour is given to think over. All the un-
concerned people have been ordered to leave the courtroom.
Chichwatni.
28-11-2016
Presence: As before.
She has insisted to record her statements U/S 164 Cr.P.C. Therefore, before
recording her statement, following questions are put to her.
Q. No.1 Do you know that you are appearing before a Magistrate for recording your
statement.
Ans. Yes, I know that I am appearing before a Magistrate.
Q No.2 Do you know that you are not bound to record your statement U/S 164
Cr.P.C and if you do so, the same may be used as evidence against you?
Ans. Yes, I know the same.
Q. No.3. Do you know that nobody has forced you in making the statement?
Ans. Yes, I am getting recorded my statement with my own free consent.
I have got myself satisfied that Mst. Rayqa Shaz, New Name Nosheen
wants to get record her statement with her own free consent. Therefore, her statement is
hereby recorded.
Chichwatni.
STATEMENT OF VICTIM MST. RAYQA SHAZ, OTHER NAME
NOSHEEN
Stated that
xxxxxxxxx
Opportunity given to the accused persons for cross examination but they
did not opt to cross examine the victim.
Chichwatni.
CERTIFICATE:
It is certified that I have explained to Mst. Rayqa Shaz, New Name
Nosheen that she is not bound to record her statement U/S 164 Cr.P.C and if he/she does
so, the same can be used as evidence against her and I believe that her statement has been
made voluntarily. It is taken in my presence and hearing and statement is dictated and
signed by me and the same has been read over to Mst. Rayqa Shaz, New Name Nosheen
and admitted by her as correct and it contains a full and true of the statement made by
her. Ahlmad is directed to seal the statement U/S 164 Cr.P.C and be sent to the Worthy
District & Sessions Judge, Sahiwal.

Chichwatni.
4.12 Summoning of Accused for Remand
Present: I.O Muhammad Musa alongwith record.

I.O has stated that accused persons namely Nisar Ahmad, Ahsan alias Shani
and Muhammad Afzal were sent to jail for identification parade. Now identification
parade has been conducted and accused persons are required for further investigation as
recovery is still to be affected, so above mentioned accused persons be summoned from
jail. The reason mentioned by the I.O is plausible. Let the accused persons be summoned
from Central Jail, Sahiwal for 05.12.2016.
Babar Nadeem,
04.11.2016. Sahiwal.
4.13 Female, Physical Remand Request Turned Down
Present: I.O Muhammad Afzaal alongwith record.

Accused Tariq Mahmood and Majeeb-ur-Rehman under police custody.
I.O has requested for 05 day physical remand. Perusal of record reveals that
09 days physical remand has already been granted but no sufficient progress has been
shown by the I.O. Therefore, further physical remand is not justified and request of the
I.O for further physical remand is hereby turned down and accused is hereby sent to
judicial lockup on judicial remand. The accused again be produced in the court alongwith
report U.S 173 Cr.P.C on 15.07.2016.
Babar Nadeem,
04.11.2016. Sahiwal.
4.14 Police request for non-bail warrant
02.01.2016
Present: I.O alongwith record.
ADPP Muhammad Kamran for the State.
The I.O has requested for issuance of non-bailb warrant of accused persons
namely Abbas, Allah Baksh, Dur Muhammad and Nazir Ahmad. On the ground that
accused are to be arrested from a place out of district. File perused. I.O’s request is
genuine, so, in the interest of justice, non-bailable warrant are hereby issued.
Babar Nadeem,
04.11.2016.
Sahiwal.
4.15 Remand in PEHO Case

Present: Accused Imran son Ghulam Rasool in police custody along
with his counsel Rao Qasim Raza Advocate
I.O Abdul Gafoor ASI alongwith record.
Request for 14 days physical remand of the accused has been
made by the I.O. Perusal of record shows that accused has been charged
u/s 3/4/4/79 PEHO, 179 but prima facie no evidence as to selling liquor
is not available on record. Hence, tentatively section 03 of PEHO is not
applicable whereas section 04 is bailable. Therefore, accused is directed
to submit the surety bonds of Rs.50,000/- with one local surety in the
like amount to the satisfaction of this court. If the accused person
submits the bail bonds, he be released if not required in any other case,
otherwise, he be sent to judicial lockup and again be produced in the
court on 21.11.2015 meanwhile challan be submitted.
Fresh power of attorney has been filed by Rao Qasim Raza Khan
Advocate, on behalf of accused, let it be annexed with remand paper.
Announced: (Babar Nadeem),

07.11.2015 Magistrate First Class,
Chichawatni.
5- Fresh Challan
5.1 Registration
The State versus --------------------
CASE FIR NO.------------ DATED --------------

OFFENCES UNDER -------------------, P.S --------------------
, Chichawatni
Dated:- --.--.----
Present:- Accused -----1------ ------2-------
Learned ADPP Muhammad Kamran for the State.
Instant report is a/an ……………… duly forwarded by prosecution

department, let it be registered.
1- Description of all accused persons

2- Present/ Absent/ under custody of (name of the officer)
3- complete Report/ incomplete report/ supplementary challan
5.2 Summoning (Home)
Contents of the police report under section 173 of Code of Criminal
Procedure 1898 transpires that accused persons namely …………… is/are on bail, so, the
said accused persons be summoned through summons from their residential address for
……………… as mentioned in the said report.
5.3 Summoning (Home as well as Jail)
Whole judicial file perused but it is silent about the fact whether presently
accused persons namely …………….. is/are on bail or in jail. So let the accused persons
be summoned through summons from residential address for ……………….. and a
robkar also be issued in the name of Superintendent Central Jail, Sahiwal to produce the
accused persons (if any) on the said date.
5.4 Column No. 02
5.4.1 Notice for Arguments
Accused namely Muhammad Ameen son of Muhammad Hassan Caste

Bhatti R/O 172/9-L Chichawatni, Sahiwal has/have been declared innocent in the police
investigation and he/she/they have been placed at column No.2 of the report under
Section 173 Cr.P.C. Oral notice has been given to the public prosecutor present before
the court to argue on ……………..on the point that whether sufficient incriminating
material is available on the record to summon accused persons placed in column number
02 or not.
5.4.2 Order for summoning
Arguments heard.
Perusal of record reveals that the accused persons has/have been
specifically nominated in the F.I.R. All the calendar witnesses have specifically
nominated the accused persons in their statement under section 161 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1898. Hence, sufficient incriminating material is available on record
to summon the accused persons in order to face the trial. Let all the accused persons
including Muhammad Ameen son of Muhammad Hassan Caste Bhatti R/O 172/9-L
Chichawatni, Sahiwal be summoned in order to face the trial for 02.12.2016.
5.4.3 Order for discharge
Arguments heard.
Perusal of record reveals that no incriminating material is available on the
record to commence trail against the accused persons placed in the column no. 02 of the
Challan. So the accused persons namely ……….. is/are hereby discharged of their
liability. Let the remaining accused persons be summoned through summons for
…………….. in order to face the trail.
5.5 Order(Challan u/s 512)

The State versus --------------------
CASE FIR NO.------------ DATED --------------

, Chichawatni
Dated:- --.--.----
Dated:- 24.01.2016.
Present:- Learned ADPP for the State.
Accused remained proclaimed offender.
Report is with regard to absconding accused persons namely Muhammad

Akhtar and Muhammad Akbar sons of Allah Diwaya. Declaration of their abscondance is
processed through Area Magistrate due non-bailable warrants of arrest followed by
proclamation process through Court and Court in terms of section 190(1) Cr.P.C is
satisfied with the procedure has earlier undergone. Let the prosecution evidence be
summoned through summons for ………………..in order to preserve the evidence

Chichawatni.
5.6 Order (Un-Traced Report)
The State versus --------------------
CASE FIR NO.------------ DATED --------------

, Chichawatni
Dated:- --.--.----
Present:- Accused -----1------ ------2-------
Perusal of record transpires that police has submitted instant un-traced

report of case FIR No.238/13, offences u/s 392-397 PPC, P/S Harappa, Sahiwal. Reasons
mentioned in the report are cogent and convincing. This court agrees with this Adam Pata
Report. However, if any clue or information is received to the investigating agency about
the culprits, the police will act in accordance with law. File be consigned to record room.
5.7 Order (Supplementary Challan)
The State versus --------------------
CASE FIR NO.------------ DATED --------------
, Chichawatni
Dated:- --.--.----
Present:- Accused -----1------ ------2-------
Contents of the present report transpire that is a supplementary challan and

an incomplete challan has already sent to court by prosecution department. So Ahlmad is
hereby directed to trace and report about already sent incomplete challan for
…………………..
5.8 Send to Court of Sessions
5.8.1 Challan Case
The State versus Abdul Majeed
CASE FIR NO.276/15 DATED 11.08.2016 OFFENCES

UNDER SECTION 496-A, 376 PPC, P.S Ghaziabad,
Chichawatni
Dated:- 19.10.2016.
Present:- Accused Abdul Majeed S/O Ali Share in custody
Fresh challan, let it be registered.
Instant incomplete challan with due forwarding by the Muhammad Kamran

Assistant District Public Prosecutor, Chichawatni received today. Offence under section
376 PPC is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions hence in terms of section 190(3)
Cr.P.C instant report under section 173 Cr.P.C is hereby humbly submitted before
worthy District & Sessions Judge, Sahiwal for an appropriate order for 22.10.2016.
Attendance of the accused is marked on the margin of the sheet and concerned authority
is directed to produce the accused before the worthy Court on the above mentioned fixed
date. Ahlmad concerned is hereby directed to humbly submit instant file before worthy
Court after its due completion.

Chichawatni.
5.8.4 Complaint Case
Safia Bibi versus Rashid Etc
Dated:- 15.10.2016.
Fresh complaisant, be registered accordingly.
Complainant Safia Bibi Wife Of Muhammad Mumtaz in person turned up

alongwith her counsel namely Mr. Rana Farzand Ali Khan advocate. Complaint pertains
to offence under section 376/511 PPC which as per schedule-II attached with Cr.P.C
exclusively triable by Court of Sessions hence in terms of section 190(2) Cr.P.C instant
file is hereby humbly submitted before worthy District & Sessions Judge, Sahiwal for an
appropriate order for 19.10.2016. Ahlmad concerned is hereby directed to forthwith
submit instant file before worthy Court after its due arrangement.

14.10.2016 Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Sahiwal.
5.8.3 Supplementary Challan
The State versus Muhammad Saleem etc
CASE FIR NO.215/14 DATED 12.07.2014 UNDER

SECTION 302, 394, 397 PPC POLICE STATION
GHAZIABAD, CHICHAWATNI.
Dated:- 19.10.2016.
Requisitioned report from Punjab Forensic Science Laboratory received

with fresh interim report under section 173 Cr.P.C. As per report of Ahlmad previously
an incomplete report under section 173 Cr.P.C has already been forwarded for
cognizance of case which is subjudice before the Court of
Mr. Nasir Hussain, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chichawatni. Keeping in view the
perpetuity of trial with regard to similar FIR instant requisitioned report with forensic
expertise in terms of section 190(2) Cr.P.C for an appropriate order is hereby humbly
submitted before worthy District & Sessions judge, Sahiwal for 22.10.2016. Ahlmad
concerned is hereby directed to forthwith submit instant file before worthy Court after its
due arrangement.

Chichawatni.
6-Accused Absent
6.1 Not returned, summons again
Dated: 09.11.2016
Present: Accused Aalam Sher absent
Learned A.D.P.P Muhammad Kamran for state
Accused is absent. Once again process has not returned. Once Again/ Now
accused be summoned again through summons for 01.12.2016 from home address. In
case of non-service, process server and parvi officer be appeared in person.

09.11.2016. MIC, Chicawatni
Sahiwal.
6.2 Not returned, BWs again
Dated: 09.11.2016
Present: Accused Aalam Sher absent
Accused Alam is absent. Once again process has not returned. Now/Again
accused be summoned again through BWs valuing Rs. 10000/- for 01.12.2016. In case of
non-service, process server and parvi officer be appeared in person.

Sahiwal.
6.3 Not returned, NBWs again
Dated: 09.11.2016
Present: Accused Aalam Sher with counsel …., present and accused Aalam Sher
absent
Accused alam is absent. Once again process has not returned. Now/Again
accused be summoned again through NBWs for 01.12.2016. Again/Also notice be issued
to surety to submit his reply in that regard. In case of non-service, process server and
parvi officer be appeared in person.

Sahiwal.
6.4 Returned, It is unsatisfactory, summons again
Dated: 09.11.2016
Present: Accused Javed absent
Accused is absent. Process has returned but it is it is unsatisfactory. Let

accused be summoned through summmons for 01.12.2016. In case of non-service,
process server, parvi officer be appeared in person.
Sahiwal.
6.5 Returned, It is unsatisfactory, BWs again
Dated: 09.11.2016
Accused is absent. Process has returned but it is it is unsatisfactory. Let

accused be summoned through BWs valuing Rs. 10000/- for 01.12.2016. In case of non-
service, process server, parvi officer be appeared in person.
Sahiwal.
6.6 Returned, It is unsatisfactory, NBWs again
Dated: 09.11.2016
Present: Accused Javed present
Accused Javed absent.
Accused Javed Iqbal absent. Process has returned but it is it is

unsatisfactory as process was not served upon the accused persons personally. Let
accused be summoned through NBWs for 01.12.2016. Again notice be issued to surety to
submit his reply in that regard. In case of non-service, process server, parvi officer be
appeared in person.
Sahiwal.
6.7 Returned, Valid Reason, summons again
Dated: 09.11.2016
Process has returned according to which accused could not be served due to
certain reasons. Let accused be summoned through summmons for 01.12.2016 from
home address as well as central jail, Multan. In case of non-service, process server, parvi
officer be appeared in person.
Sahiwal.
6.8 Returned, Valid Reason, BWs again
Dated: 09.11.2016
Accused is absent. Process has returned according to which accused could

not be served due to certain reasons. Let accused be summoned through BWs valuing Rs.
10000/- for 01.12.2016. In case of non-service, process server, parvi officer be appeared
in person.
Sahiwal.
6.9 Returned, Valid Reason, NBWs again
Dated: 09.11.2016
Accused Javed absent.
Accused Javed Iqbal absent. is absent. Process has returned according to

which accused could not be served due to certain reasons. Let accused be summoned
through NBWs for 01.12.2016. In case of non-service, process server, parvi officer be
appeared in person.
Sahiwal.
6.10 Returned, Non-service, BWs Now
Dated: 09.11.2016
Accused is absent. On the last date of hearing accused was summoned

through summons. Process has returned according to which attendance of the accused
could not be procured through summons. Let accused be summoned now through BWs
valuing Rs. 10000/- for 01.12.2016.
Sahiwal.
6.11 Returned, Non-service, NBWs now
Dated: 09.11.2016
Accused is absent. On the last date of hearing accused was summoned
through BWs. Process has returned according to which attendance of the accused could
not be procured through BWs. Let accused be summoned now through NBWs for
01.12.2016.
Sahiwal.
6.12 present then absent (one accused)
Dated: 09.11.2016. 655

Present: Accused Muhammad Irfan on bail absent
Complainant Hassan Talal in person
Complainant counsel Mr. Ch. Muhammad Akbar Advocate
Accused Naeem is absent. Let accused be summoned again through NBWs

for 01.12.2016. Record perused from where it transpires that on last dates accused was
present but now he is absent. His surety bonds are hereby forfeited. Show-cause notice to
surety to submit reply in that regard.

Sahiwal.
6.13 Process not issued, summons again
Dated: 09.11.2016
Present: Accused Muhammad Rafiq absent
Accused is absent. Record perused which transpires that process was not
issued on last date of hearing. Let show-cause notice be issued to concerned Ahlmad for
submitting his reply in this regard. Now accused be summoned again through summons
for 01.12.2016.
Sahiwal.
6.14 Process not issued, BWs again
Dated: 09.11.2016
submitting his reply in this regard. Now accused be summoned again through bailable
warrants valuing Rs. 10000/- for 01.12.2016.

Sahiwal.
6.15 Process not issued, NBWs again
Dated: 09.11.2016
submitting his reply in this regard. Now accused be summoned again through non-
bailable warrants for 01.12.2016.

Sahiwal.
6.16 Order for proclamation proceeding
Present: Accused persons Muhammad Anwar absent.

Mr. Muhammad Kamran ADPP on behalf of state.
Riasat Ali 121/C process server in person.
As per report of process server submitted on 06.10.2016 the accused

persons namely has/have gone under-ground and is/are intentionally avoiding
his/her/their legal arrest and requested that proclamation u/s 87 Cr.P.C be issued. A
separate statement of the process server in this regard has also been recorded.
So, in the light of the statement of the process server, let the proclamation be
issued against accused persons namely Pervaiz Anjum U/S 87 Cr.P.C. for 17.11.2016.
The proclamation shall be publish/affixed as follow:-
i) It shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in
which such person ordinarily resides,
ii) It shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house in which such
person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or
village.
iii) A copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the court
house.
Announced:
16.10.2016
Babar Nadeem
Magistrate 1st Class,
Chichawatni.
6.17 Awaiting Proclamation
Present: Accused Rana Hamid absent

Proclamation has not returned. Let the case be adjourned for

awaiting proclamation for 28.10.2016.
6.18 Declaring proclaimed offender

Present: Accused Adnan is absent.
ADPP on behalf of state.
In view of the placed proclamation warrants, submitted as Mark-B
and separate statement of the process server there is no chance of arrest of the accused
persons namely …………………and he is not appearing in the court intentionally,
therefore, I declare the said accused as Proclaimed offender and now the proceedings U/S
514 Cr.P.C be initiated separately against surety, bail bond of the accused has already
been forfeited. Perpetual non bailable warrant of arrest in the name of S.H.O concerned
be issued for the arrest of accused. Now prosecution witnesses be summoned through
summons for recording of evidence under section 512 Cr.P.C for 21.01.2016.
Sahiwal.
6.19 present then absent (More accused)
Dated: 09.11.2016
Present: Accused Farooq on bail absent
Learned counsel for accused Farooq Mr. Ghulam Haider Gill Advocate
Accused Jafar absent
Accused Jafar is absent. Let accused be summoned again through NBWs
for 04.12.2016. Record perused from where it transpires that on last dates accused was
present but now he is absent. So His surety bonds are hereby forfeited. Show-cause notice
to surety to submit reply in that regard.

Sahiwal.
6.20 Attendance dispensed with
Dated: 09.11.2016
Learned ADPP Muhammad Kamran for state
An application for dispensation of attendance has been filed by accused
Muhammad Ali. Reason for absence stated in the application is plausible as……………
, so, application is hereby accepted and attendance of accused Muhammad Ali
only for today is dispensed with. Let the prosecution witnesses be summoned through
summons for 30.11.2016.
6.21 Abatement on death
6.21.1 Calling Death Certificate
Dated: 09.11.2016
Today case was fixed for summoning of accused Rashid son of Maqbool
caste Muslim Sheikh resident of 147/9-L, Chichwatni, Sahiwal. Process has returned
according to which accused died. Under these circumstances concerned S.H.O is directed
to produce death certificate of allegedly deceased Rashid son of Maqbool caste Muslim
Sheikh resident of 147/9-L, Chichwatni, Sahiwal on 14.12.2016.

Sahiwal.
6.21.2 Death Certificate not produced
Dated: 09.11.2016
Today case was fixed for production of death certificate of accused Rashid
son of Maqbool caste Muslim Sheikh resident of 147/9-L, Chichwatni, Sahiwal but same
has not produced. Again robkar be issued in the name of S.H.O to produce death
certificate on 20.10.2016.
Sahiwal.
6.21.3 Abatement on process server statement

Dated: 09.11.2016
Today, the case is fixed for submission of death certificate of the accused.
Ghulam Hussain No.171-C/process server has appeared in person before the court and
wants to get record his statement. Let his statement be recorded.

Sahiwal.
Statement by Ghulam Hussain No.171-C/process server police station Harappa, Sahiwal
on oath.
Stated that the accused Muhammad Yar has died on 8.12.2009 and his legal
heirs have not yet registered his death in the concerned Union Council.
O R D E R:-
In view of the statement got recorded by the process server, the proceedings
to the extent of accused namely Muhammad Yar is hereby abated. The file be consigned
to the record room after its due completion.
Sahiwal.
6.21.4 Abatement on production of death certificate

Dated: 09.11.2016
Today, death certificate of the accused Allah Yar in original has been
produced before the court. A photocopy after comparing with original has been made part
of present file and original death certificate has been returned.
Under these circumstances, the proceedings to the extent of accused namely
Muhammad Yar is hereby abated. Let the case be adjourned for summoning of
prosecution witnesses through summons for 30.10.2016.

Sahiwal.
6.22 Returned, In Jail
Dated: 09.11.2016
Accused Javed Iqbal absent. Process has returned according to which

accused is behind the bar. Let robkar be issued in the name of superintendent of central
jail, Sahiwal to produce the accused on 30.01.2016.
Sahiwal.
6.23 Returned, Address is not correct
Dated: 09.11.2016
Accused Javed Iqbal absent. Process has returned according to which the
address of the accused is neither correct not complete. So robkar be issued in the name of
concerned S.H.O to trace the correct and complete address of the accused and then
summon the accused through summons from that correct and complete address. Notice
also be issued in the name of surety to appear and submit correct and complete address of
the accused.
Sahiwal.
6.24 Show-cause to Ahlmad

address of the accused is neither correct not complete. Perusal of the record transpires
that it is Ahlmad’s negligence that incorrect address was mentioned in the warrant. Let
show-cause notice be issued in the name of both Ahlmad to submit their reply within two
days in that regard. Accused be summoned again through NBWs for 02.02.2016.

Sahiwal.
Dated: 09.11.2016
address of the accused is neither correct nor complete. So robkar be issued in the name of
concerned S.H.O to trace the correct and complete address of the accused and then
summon the accused through summons from that correct and complete address. Notice
the accused.
Sahiwal.
6.25 Returned, name is not correct
Dated: 09.11.2016
name and parentage of the accused is neither correct nor complete. So robkar be issued in
the name of concerned S.H.O to trace the correct and complete name of the accused and
then summon the accused through summons with that correct and complete name. Notice
the accused.
Sahiwal.
7-Accused Present
7.1 Summoning of witness
Dated: 09.11.2016. 181
Present: Accused Iftekhar alias Estaa on bail present
Accused Shaban is present. Accused is warned that he will be sent to jail

next time if he disappears without court permission. An application for restoration of
surety bonds has been filed which is accepted in the interest of justice. Let the case be
fixed for summoning of prosecution witnesses through summons for 19.11.2016.

Sahiwal.
7.2 Appearance of Court P.O
Dated: 03.10.2014.
Present: Learned A.D.P.P Muhammad Kamran for the State.
Bashir Ahmad ASI P/S Alpa produced Tanveer Ahmad son of Muhammad
Siddique after his arrest through perpetual non-bailable warrants of arrest being remained
proclaimed offender. Perusal of Faisala Register and application preferred from the
accused side it found that present accused was in attendance in criminal trial when fled
away from the proceedings and ultimately proclamation against him was issued and today
produce from the concerned police authority in connection with his perpetual non-
bailable warrants of arrest. It is also stated in the application that the present accused had
already been enlarged in case FIR No.81/09 on post-arrest bail and today ready to furnish
his fresh bonds with assurance to attend the trial proceedings. Keeping in view the earlier
bail allowed in favour of present petitioner in instant case if present petitioner today
furnished fresh surety to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the investigating
officer concerned he be released from custody and he is hereby directed to appear on
17.10.2014 and Ahlmad concerned is hereby directed to requisition the consigned file of
case FIR No.81/09 for the date fixed through a Talbi Robkar to Incharge record-room.
Copy of the order is hereby also sent to the Ahlmad concerned to do the needful.

Chichawatni.
7.3 Suspending operation of NBWs till next date of hearing
Dated: 04.02.2016.
Present: Learned A.D.P.P Muhamamd Kamran for the State.
Petitioner Miraj Din in person. Through instant application it is revealed

that due to non-attendance of present petitioner his non-bailable warrants of arrest were
earlier issued. Record is hereby requisitioned for 07.02.2016 and till perusal of the record
petitioner is hereby directed to furnish personal surety bonds for appearance under
section 91 Cr.P.C. Subject to furnishing bonds, operation of the issued warrants of arrest
is hereby ordered as suspended accordingly.
Chichwatni.
7.4 Few appeared other absent
Dated: 09.11.2016
Present: Accused Iftekhar alias Estaa on bail present
Accused Nasir and Amjad present. Remaining accused persons Mazhar

Abbas , Zamir Khan and Mian Khan are absent. Let the absentee accused persons be
summoned through NBWs for 17.12.2016..

Sahiwal.
7.5 P.O (Without Pre-arrest Bail)
The State versus Muhammad Liaqat
Dated: 20.02.2016.
Present:- Ch. Muhammad Saeed advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Fresh application, be registered.
Muhammad Liaqat son of Khadim Hussain turned up alongwith instant

application and further maintained that against him perpetual non-bailable warrants of
arrest have issued and the trial file after his proclamation consigned to the record-room.
The petitioner is hereby directed to place his surety bond for suspension of operation of
perpetual non-bailable warrants of arrest to the tune of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in
terms of section 91 Cr.P.C today to the satisfaction of instant Court and instant petition is
hereby adjourned for 16.03.2016 for requisitioning of original record earlier consigned
after issuance of perpetual non-bailable warrants of arrest. The petitioner is hereby
directed to appear continuously in instant petition till requisitioning of record and till
revival of the proceedings. Non-furnishing of surety bond as burdened above will
ultimately vanish the concession available in instant order. Notice to State in instant
petition also issued. The operation of earlier issued perpetual non-bailable warrants of
arrest with supra observation is hereby suspended.
Announced. Ehsan Sabir,

20.02.2016. Judicial Magistrate Sec-30,
Multan.
Dated: 09.11.2016
No prosecution witness present. Process has returned according to which

attendance of witnesses could not be procured through BWs. Now remaining witnesses
be summoned through NBWs for 01.12.2016.
Sahiwal.
8-Witness Absent
8.1 Not returned, summons again
Dated: 09.11.2016
Present: Accused Aalam Sher present
No prosecution witness is present. Once again process has not returned.

Once Again/ Now prosecution witnesses be summoned again through summons for
01.12.2016. In case of non-service, process server and parvi officer be appeared in
person.
Accused is absent. Once again process has not returned. Once Again/ Now
accused be summoned again through summons for 01.12.2016 from home address. In

Sahiwal.
8.2 Not returned, BWs again
Dated: 09.11.2016
No prosecution witness present. Process has not returned. Now/Again

prosecution wtinesses be summoned through BWs valuing Rs. 10000/- for 01.12.2016. In
case of non-service process server and parvi officer be appeared in person.

Sahiwal.
8.3 Not returned, NBWs again
Dated: 09.11.2016
No prosecution witness present. Once again process has not returned. Now/
Again prosecution witnesses be summoned through NBWs for 01.12.2016. In case of
non-service process-server and parvi officer be appeared in person.

Sahiwal.
8.4 Returned, It is unsatisfactory, summons again
Dated: 09.11.2016
No prosecution witness present. Process has returned but it is it is

unsatisfactory. Let prosecution wtinesses be summoned through summmons for
01.12.2016. In case of non-service, process server, parvi officer be appeared in person.
Sahiwal.
8.5 Returned, It is unsatisfactory, BWs again
Dated: 09.11.2016

unsatisfactory. Let prosecution witnesses be summoned through BWs valuing Rs.
10000/- each for 01.12.2016. In case of non-service, process server, parvi officer be
appeared in person.
Sahiwal.
8.6 Returned, It is unsatisfactory, NBWs again
Dated: 09.11.2016

unsatisfactory as ……………. Let prosecution witnesses be summoned again through
NBWs for 01.12.2016. In case of non-service, process server, parvi officer be appeared in
person.
Sahiwal.
8.7 Returned, Valid Reason, summons again
Dated: 09.11.2016

witnesses could not be summoned due to certain reasons. Let prosecution wtinesses be
summoned through summmons for 01.12.2016. In case of non-service, process server,
Sahiwal.
8.8 Returned, Valid Reason, BWs again
Dated: 09.11.2016
No prosecution witness present. Process has returned according to process

could not be served upon the witnesses due to certain reasons. Let remaining prosecution
witnesses be summoned through BWs valuing Rs. 10000/- each for 01.12.2016. In case
of non-service, process server, parvi officer be appeared in person.
Sahiwal.
8.9 Returned, Valid Reason, NBWs again
Dated: 09.11.2016

witnesses could not be summoned due to certain reasons. Let remaining prosecution
witnesses be summoned again through NBWs for 01.12.2016. In case of non-service,
process server, parvi officer be appeared in person.
Sahiwal.
8.10 Returned, Non-service, BWs Now
Dated: 09.11.2016
No prosecution witness present. On the last date of hearing witnesses were
summoned through summons. Process has returned according to which attendance of the
witnesses could not procured through summons. Let prosecution witnesses be summoned
now through BWs valuing Rs. 10000/- for 01.12.2016.

Sahiwal.
Dated: 09.11.2015
No prosecution witness present. On the last date of hearing witnesses were

summoned through BWs. Process has returned according to which attendance of the
witnesses could not procured through BWs. Let prosecution witnesses be summoned now
through NBWs for 01.12.2016.
Sahiwal.
8.12 Process not issued, summons again
Dated: 09.11.2016
Present: Accused Muhammad Rafiq present
No prosecution witness present. Record perused which transpires that

process was not issued on last date of hearing. Let show-cause notice be issued to
concerned Ahlmad for submitting his reply in this regard. Now prosecution witnesses be
summoned again through summons for 01.12.2016.

Sahiwal.
8.13 Process not issued, BWs again
Dated: 09.11.2016

summoned again through bailable warrants valuing Rs. 10000/- for 01.12.2016.

Sahiwal.
8.14 Process not issued, NBWs again
Dated: 09.11.2016

summoned again through NBWs for 01.12.2016.

Sahiwal.
8.15 Letter to D.P.O to produce witnesses
Dated: 09.11.2016
No prosecution witness present. Record perused from where it transpires

that on various dates prosecution witnesses were summoned but no one appeared. Once
again prosecution witnesses be summoned through NBWs for 30.11.2016. In this regard
a letter be issued to D.P.O Sahiwal to produce prosecution witnesses on next date of
hearing.

Sahiwal.
8.16 Bound but absent
Dated: 09.11.2016
No prosecution witness present. Record perused which transpires that on

last date of hearing prosecution witnesses were present and they were bounded for their
evidence but today they are absent. Hence their NBWs be issued for 25.11.2016.

Sahiwal.
8.17 Coercive Measures

Prosecution witnesses not turned up, all are police officials. Hence their
non-bailable warrants of arrest for production of their evidence through DSP Circle
concerned is hereby issued for 17.06.2016. Non-appearance after due execution by the
PWs will pave stopping of their salaries and initiation of coercive measures against them.
Otherwise delinquent will be penalized in terms of Pakistan Penal Code and
Police Order 2002. Now to come up for 14.04.2016.
Neither the complainant nor his counsel today turned up to adduce
prosecution evidence in instant case. Perusal of record transpires that charge against
present accused earlier framed in instant case on 18.10.2011 and since 18.10.2011 instant
file repeatedly been awaited prosecution witnesses to deposed against present accused.
Time and again prosecution witnesses although turned up in instant file but on each and
every date on behalf of prosecution adjournment was sought and till today single
evidence from prosecution side so far been not produced in instant trial file. Lethargically
almost three years and five months after commencement of trial have efflux without
deposition by the prosecution witnesses. Learned ADPP for the State is hereby directed to
ensure attendance of all the prosecution witnesses on next date of hearing i.e 16.04.2016
for deposition in instant case otherwise the inference will be drawn that witnesses are not
interested to depose against present accused. Non-appearance of complainant if persists
the same will also pave proceedings towards section 249 Cr.P.C. Ahlmad concerned is
hereby directed to prepare process for summoning of private prosecution witnesses
including complainant and the same handed over to learned ADPP for the State for
ensuring their attendance on date fixed.
No prosecution witnesses today turned up after due intimation by Khurram
Shahzad 1852/C P/S Budhla Sannt. Non-bailable warrants of arrest of complainant and
other private prosecution witnesses are hereby issued for 09.05.2016 for their production
as prosecution witnesses in instant trial. The process be routed through learned ADPP for
the State. Non-appearance of complainant after supra coercive measures will pave
inference that complainant is not interested to depose against present accused and the
proceedings will pave towards section 249 Cr.P.C.
9-Witness Present
9.1 Lawyers on strike, adjourned
Dated: 09.11.2016. 222
Present: All accused present
Learned counsel for complainant Mr. Ch. Babar Sultan Ahmad Naeem
Advocate
Prosecution evidence is present but lawyers on strike. Let the case

Fresh power of attorney has been filed by Mr. Ch. Babar Sultan Ahmad
Naeem Advocate on behalf of complainant, let it be filed.
Sahiwal.
9.2 Attendance marked, request by accused counsel
Dated: 09.11.2016. 222
Advocate
Learned counsel for accused Mr. Ch. Babar Sultan Ahmad
Prosecution witnesses are present but learned counsel for the accused has
request for an adjournment on the ground that fresh power of attorney has been filed. As
per request and for the sake of justice, an adjournment is hereby granted. Now
prosecution witnesses be bound for evidence for 09.11.2016.
Sahiwal.
9.3 Attendance marked, request by complainant counsel
Dated: 09.11.2016. 222
Advocate
Prosecution witnesses are present but learned counsel for the complainant
has request for an adjournment on the ground that fresh power of attorney has been filed.
As per request and for the sake of justice, an adjournment is hereby granted. Now
prosecution witnesses be bound for evidence for 09.11.2016.
Sahiwal.
9.4 Attendance marked, Joint request
Dated: 09.11.2016. 222
Advocate
Prosecution witnesses are present but both learned counsel have jointly
request for an adjournment on the ground that today is strike and promise to record
evidence on 09.09.2011. Let the prosecution witnesses be bound for their evidence for
09.11.2016.
Sahiwal.
\9.5 Partly evidence recorded
Dated: 09.11.2016. 222
Advocate
Today examination-in-chief/ evidence of witnesses Mr. Ali, Mr. Kamran

has been recorded. Let the case be adjourned for cross-examination and remaining
evidence for 28.11.2016. Now prosecution witnesses present in court are bound for next
date of hearing and absentee witnesses be summoned through summons for 28.11.2016.
Sahiwal.
9.6 Partly evidence available
Dated: 09.11.2016. 222
Advocate
Today case was fixed for prosecution evidence but only one PW who is
also complainant of the case is present before the court. Let the PW present in the court
be bound for recording his evidence. He has also recorded is statement in this behalf that
he will produce all private witnesses on next date of hearing. Prosecution witnesses also
be summoned through NBWs for 09.12.2016.

Sahiwal.
9.7 Calling Case property
Dated: 09.11.2016. 222
Advocate
Today case was fixed for prosecution evidence and today one witness is
present but learned counsel for the accused has raised objection that present witness is the
recovery witness but recovered article is not present before the court. So there is request
to call for case property. Request of the learned counsel is genuine, so a robkar be issued
in the name of concerned S.H.O to produce case property on 27.01.2016. Witness present
in the court is also bound for evidence for said date. Remaining prosecution witnesses
also summoned through NBWs for said date.
10-Trail
10.1 Supply of documents
Dated: 09.11.2016. 304

Learned counsel for accused Mr. Ch. Babar Sultan Ahmad Naeem
Advocate
Accused are present. Documents required to be supplied u/s 241-A Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1898 have been supplied to the accused free of costs. Let the case be
adjourned for framing of charge for 20.11.2016.

Sahiwal.
10.2 Charge framed
Present: Accused Muhammad Tahir on bail.

Charge has been framed. Accused has not pleaded guilty. Let the
prosecution witnessed be summoned through summons for 10.11.2016.

Sahiwal.
10.3 Summon Challan

Perusal of the record transpires that there are five accused in the
present case but only to the extent of four accused challan has been
submitted in the court. Concerned S.H.O is directed to produce challan
to the extent of accused Muhammad Akram till 20.11.2016.

Sahiwal.
10.4 Abatement on death
Dated:- 27.09.2014.
Present:- Learned ADPP Muhammad Kamran for the State.
Akhtar Hussain 861/C Parivi Officer/process server P/S Bohar Gate,
Multan.
Accused Abid is absent. As per report of the process server Abid Hussain
son of Mushtaq Ahmad had already breathed his last and separate statement in this regard
also recorded on Oath. In the light of express statement case against Abid Hussain son of
Mushtaq Ahmad, caste Ansari is hereby abated.

Chichawatni.
10.5 Challan not submitted

Perusal of the record transpires that Challan to the extent of

accused Muhammad Tahir has not been submitted. At this stage S.H.O
has been communicated telephonically through Naib Court to ensure
completed challan till 02.02.2016. Again robkar be issued in the name of
S.H.O to submit complete challan to the extent of Raouf, Mujtaba,
Ghulam Qadir, Riaz and Ghulam Rasool.
Under my direction Naib court has also communicated to the I.O
Mr. Manzoor Hussain in the said case through cell number 0307-
6925257 either to submit complete challan or submit progress report
about investigation on next date of hearing.

MIC, Chicawatni
09.11.2016.
Sahiwal.
10.6 Undertaking to produce evidence

Advocate
Prosecution evidence is present but the learned counsel for the

complainant/ accused has requested an adjournment on the ground that
fresh power of attorney has been filed. Learned counsel for the
complainant/ accused/ both complainant as well as accused has/have
ensured recording of evidence on next date of hearing. In this regard
signature has/have been taken on the margin of the order sheet. Let
prosecution witnesses be bound for their evidence on 28.11.2016.
OR
Prosecution evidence is not present. However learned counsel for

the complainant/ accused/ both complainant as well as accused has/have
ensured recording of evidence on next date of hearing. In this regard
signature has/have been taken on the margin of the order sheet. Let
prosecution witnesses be summoned through NBWs for 28.11.2016.

Sahiwal.
10.7 Interim Challan, Summoning Complete
Present: Accused Muhammad Tahir on bail absent

Perusal of record transpires that present challan is an interim

challan and complete challan has not been submitted in the court. Let
robkar be issued in the name of concerned S.H.O to produce complete
challan on next date of hearing i.e. 20.102.2016.

Sahiwal.
10.8 Complete Challan not submitted

Perusal of the record transpires that on last date of hearing

concerned S.H.O was directed to produce complete challan but he failed to do
so. Once again robkar be issued in the name of concerned S.H.O to produce
complete police report under section 173 Cr.P.C for 20.10.2016.

Sahiwal.
10.9 Consolidating of Two Challans

Perusal of record transpires that in the present case F.I.R no.

591/14 under sections 379, 337, 379, 342 PPC, there are total 10 accused
persons. Against 8 accused persons the challan is pending with the name
“State vs Shehbaz etc” and again 2 accused persons challan is pending
with the name “State vs Muhammad Afzal etc”. Both cases are fixed for
today. Let the case titled “State vs Shehbaz etc” be merged in the case
“State vs Muhammad Afzal etc”. Now order will be written in the order
sheet of case “State vs Muhammad Afzal etc”. Ahlmad is directed to
compile the file and produce the court on 16.12.2016 for further
proceeding.

Sahiwal.
10.10 Charge not framed
Dated: 09.11.2016. 304

Advocate
Today case was fixed for framing of charge but accused said that he wanted
to be charged in the presence of his counsel. Let the case be adjourned for framing of
charge for 20.11.2016.

Sahiwal.
10.11 Prosecution evidence is complete
Dated: 09.11.2016. 304

Advocate
Today prosecution evidence is has been completely recorded. Let the case
be fixed for statements of accused persons under section 342 of Cr.P.C for 11.01.2016.
Sahiwal.
10.12 Consolidating supplementary into incomplete

Two files are before this court. One is incomplete Challan and
other is supplementary challan. Let the Ahlmad be directed to
consolidate both supplementary and incomplete challan and produce the
file after compilation. Now further order shall be made in judicial file of
incomplete challan.

Sahiwal.
11-Cancellation Report
11.1 Agree in presence of complainant
Present: Complainant in person

Complainant Ali Ahmad son of Ghulam Nabi in person turned up. He/She
wanted to record his/her statement. Let it be recorded.
R.O.&.A.C. Babar Nadeem,
22.10.2016. MIC, Chichawatni
Sahiwal.
STATEMENT OF MUHAMMAD SHAFI, COMPLAIANTN IN

CASE FIR NO.387/14 DATED 18.11.2014 UNDER SECTIONS 380,
447, 427, 380, 148, 149 PPC POLICE STATION GHAZIABAD,
CHICHAWATNI, SAHIWAL.
On Oath stated that present accused persons present before the court are/is
not my culprits. Though the occurrence stated in the FIR is true yet I am satisfied that the
same occurrence was not taken place by accused persons present before the court. Due to
some misunderstanding I nominated present accused persons out of suspicion.

Sahiwal.
Present: Complainant in person

Learned ADPP for the state.
Police has prepared cancellation report on the ground that facts and circumstances of the
case are that a compromise has been effected between the parties, hence, present
cancellation report. A notice was served upon the complainant; he appeared before the
court and recorded his statement on oath that present accused persons present before the
court are/is not my culprits. Though the occurrence stated in the FIR is true yet I am
satisfied that the same occurrence was not taken place by accused persons present before
the court. Due to some misunderstanding I nominated present accused persons out of
suspicion.
Record perused. Arguments by learned ADPP heard.
Bare perusal of the record transpires that an F.I.R no. 264/14 u/s 420/468/
471 PPC was lodged by the complainant Asif Javed; investigation was conducted and
cancellation report was submitted in the court on the ground that a compromise has been
effected between the parties. In this regard it is pertinent to mention here that offences u/s
468/471 is/are not compoundable but at the same time statement by the complainant that
present accused persons are/is not his/her culprits indicates that the allegations narrated
in the F.I.R are false and baseless which is a strong ground to agree the present
cancellation report. So, being Area Magistrate I agree with the cancellation report. For
the time being file be consigned to the record room after its due completion and
compilation.

Sahiwal.
11.2 Notice to complainant
Present: Learned ADPP Muhammad Kamran for the state.

Cancellation is fresh, let it be filed. Notice be issued to complainant for
18.11.2016. Concerned S.H.O is also directed to produce record on next date of hearing.
11.3 Not returned, Notice again
Dated: 09.11.2016
Present: Learned A.D.P.P Muhammad Kamran for state
Complainant is absent. Process has not returned. Complainant be noticed

again for 08.12.2016. In case of non-service, process server and parvi officer be appeared
in person.

Sahiwal.
11.4 Complainant appeared
Dated: 19.11.2016
Present: Complainant present
Complainant Nazir Ahmad is present. His attendance has been barked on

the margin of the order sheet. Let the case be fixed for arguments on cancellation report
for 09.12.2016.
Sahiwal.
11.5 returned, valid reason, Notice again
Dated: 09.11.2016
Complainant is absent. Process has returned according to which

complainant could not be summoned due to certain reasons. Let complainant be noticed
again for 08.12.2016. Notice also to S.H.O to produce record on next date of hearing. In
Sahiwal.
11.6 Served but not appeared
Dated: 09.11.2016
Today case was fixed for summoning of complainant to argue on the

cancellation report. Process has returned according to which complainant was served in
person but no one has appeared on behalf of the complainant. Let the case be fixed for
arguments by learned ADPP for 24.11.2016.

Sahiwal.
11.7 Returned, It is unsatisfactory, Notice again
Dated: 09.11.2016
Complainant is absent. Process has returned but it is ambgiguous. Let

complainant be noticed again for 14.12.2016. In case of non-service, process server and

Sahiwal.
11.8 Agree in absence of complainant

25.07.2011
Present:- None.
Learned A.D.P.P for the State
Repeated notices have been issued to the complainant but no body has
turned up on behalf of the complainant. Perusal of the record reveals that the instant
cancellation report has been submitted by the local police. Record has been perused. No
incriminating material is available on the record. The accused was discharged by the area
magistrate on the compromising statement by the complainant. The opinion of the police
is well founded and the same is agreed. Hence, case FIR No.371 of 2010 is hereby
cancelled. Police file be returned to the police station with the direction to the SHO
concerned to make the fact of the same entered in the relevant register. File be consigned
to the record room after its due completion.
Announced:-
Dated:-25.07.2011. Shafqat Saeed Gondal
Magistrate Section-30
Sahiwal
11.9 Disagree
Proforma one 01
Learned counsel placed attested copy of pre-arrest bail order dated
08.08.2014. Perusal of record transpires no scrutiny in terms of section 9(7) Punjab
Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Function & Powers) Act, 2006. However,
perusal of record and case diaries available with police file transpires implicating
statement of alleged abductee under section161 Cr.P.C against both Irfan and Rabia
accused. He raised allegation of Zina against Muhammad Irfan and also raised stealth
misappropriation of cash and two tolas gold ornaments against Rabia. During bail
proceedings Muhammad Qasim son of Noor Muhammad the complainant of case FIR
No.140/14 made stance of no contest against present accused person. Attending
circumstances shows the edifice of prosecution case rest upon abductee statement and
abductee’s exoneration no where available with instant record hence copies in terms of
section 241-A Cr.P.C against both the accused is hereby delivered for framing of charge
and for ascertaining the attracted provision. Instant trial file be put up on 16.05.2016.
Proforma no. 02
22-10.2015.
Present: Complainant Mr. Muhammad Sajjad in persons
Victim Sadia Bibi in person
Learned counsel for the complainant as well as victim Mr. Ch.
Muhammad Ajmal Dogar Advocate
Brief facts of the present case are that on 04.11.2015 police

report under section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in the form
of cancellation report in F.I.R no. 203/15 under section 496-A, 376
Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was received. The crux of the cancellation
report is that initially the above said F.I.R was lodged under section 496-
A of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 but after medical examination of the
victim Sadia Biba at the direction of concerned Area Magistrate, section
376 was also added to the F.I.R. After lodging of F.I.R victim Mst. Sadia
Bibi appeared before concerned Area Magistrate and recorded her
statement under section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 that no
one has kidnapped her and no one has committed rape with her, hence,
present cancellation report.
2. After registering the above mentioned cancellation report, a
notice was issued and victim Sadia Bibi once again appeared before this
court and recorded her statement that accused persons specifically
nominated in the F.I.R kidnapped her and each of them committed rape
with her. She also alleged that accused persons also took her thumb
impression on certain blank papers. She also deposed that she don’t
know that in past she was produced before some Area Magistrate where
she recorded her statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure 1898.
3. Arguments heard; record perused.
4. Perusal of the record transpires that there is no iota of
doubt that abductee/ victim Mst. Sadia Bibi has already recorded her
exonerating statement under section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure
1898 in favour of the accused persons; even pre-arrest bails of the
accused persons were confirmed on the statement of present abductee/
victim but still there are certain points which need consideration; first
one is that accused persons are specifically nominated in the F.I.R;
specific role has been attributed to them; secondly MLC is also available
on the record according to which Injuries on various parts of the body
like the neck were caused to the victim/ abductee, so the probability that
some force was also used at the time of intercourse cannot be ruled out.
In respect of previous exonerating statements in favour of the accused
persons it is stated that present statement and affidavit of the
victim/abductee has made all those previous statements a question of
evidence and authenticity and genuineness of those statements cannot
be determined without conclusion of the trial. Lastly the demeanour of
the victim/ abductee before present court is also of much importance.
She seems to be a simple and villager having no power to make a rational
statement before some authority. So, under foregoing circumstances, in
my view matter under adjudication requires detail evidence for its just
decision, therefore, I disagree with the instant cancellation report.
Offences under section 496-A, 376 PPC are exclusively triable by the
Court of Sessions, therefore, Ahlmad of this court is directed to transmit
the file immediately to the Worthy Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, for
06.01.2016 for appropriate orders. Prosecution is directed to submit list
of witnesses on said date before the said worthy Court.
Announced: Babar Nadeem,

Chichawatni.
12-Discharge Report
12.1 Agree
13- Application to Addd Offence

13.1 Offence already added by police
05.10.2016.
Present:- Learned counsel for the petitioner.
ADPP for the State.
The petitioner has moved present application in case FIR No. 279/15 u/s 337F(v),
337L(2), 342, 148/ 149 PPC, Police Station Ghaziabad, Chichawatni in which petitioner
has alleged that police has not added the offence according to the contents of petition as
offence u/s 452 PPC is fully attracted, hence, S.H.O/I.O be directed to add offence u/s
452 PPC. At the end it was prayed to accept the present application.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. Bare perusal of record transpires that through its zimni number 12 dated
05.10.2016, police has already added offence u/s 452 Cr.p.C. Hence present application
has been infructuous, hence dismissed. Record be consigned to record room.

Chichawatni.
13.2 Application will remain pending
05.10.2016.
Present:- Learned counsel for the petitioner.
ADPP for the State.
The petitioner has moved present application in case FIR No. 279/15 u/s 337F(v),
337L(2), 342, 148/ 149 PPC, Police Station Ghaziabad, Chichawatni in which petitioner
has alleged that police has not added the offence according to the contents of petition as
offence u/s 365 PPC is fully attracted, hence, S.H.O/I.O be directed to add offence u/s
365 PPC. At the end it was prayed to accept the present application.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. There is no iota of doubt about the fact that the court has ample power to
delete or add an offence however, this is not proper stage for the addition or deletion of
the offence and any direction to the police for the addition of the offence at this stage will
amount interfere in the investigation which is not warranted by law. This can be done at
the time of taking cognizance and framing of charge. It is also pertinent to mention here
present court is not bound by the sections with which accused is charged by the police as
the ipsi dixit of the police is not binding on the court. Infact it is the evidence collected
through investigation from where court can determine what the proper offence is made
out and with which offence, accused is to be charged. Even the court can amend the
charge at any stage of the trial.
5. In the light of what has been discussed above, the application will remain
pending and will be decided after submission of any report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. This order
will have no effect upon the pending investigation from any aspect. Let this order and the
application be made the part of challan.

Chichawatni.
14- Probation Orders
14.1 9-A of CNSA
IN THE COURT OF BABAR NADEEM,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS,
CHICHAWATNI.
The State versus Ishtiaq
CASE FIR NO.46/15 DATED 03.02.2016 OFFENCE

UNDER 9-A OF CNSA POLICE STATION
GHAZIABAD CHICHWATNI, SAHIWAL.
CHARGE SHEET
I , Babar Nadeem, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chichawatni do hereby

charge you accused namely Ishtiaq son of Irshad, caste Jut, resident of 58/12-L,
Chichawatni, Sahiwal as under:-
That on 03.02.2016 at about 6:50 pm you accused was arrested by the local
police on suspicion from 68 Mor within territorial limits of Police station Ghaziabad and
on personal search 80 grams Charas was recovered from your possession thus you
accused have committed offence under section 6 CNSA punishable under section 9-A of
CNSA of 1997 which is within the cognizance of this court.
And I hereby direct you accused to be tried by this Court on the aforesaid
charge.
29.10.2016. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS

CHICHAWATNI
The above charge has been read over and explained to the accused to which he
pleaded guilty.

CHICHAWATNI
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED ISHTIAQ
Q.No.1. Have you heard and understood the charge framed against you
Ans. Yes.
Q.No.2. Do you plead guilty to the charge?
Ans. Yes.
Chichawatni.
Dated: 29.10.2016.
Present. Accused Ishtiaq on bail
Learned ADPP on behalf of state.
The accused replied in affirmative to the allegations and wants to record his
confessional statement. He is hereby informed about the consequences of confessional
statement. Court inquired regarding volunteer nature of the whim to record confessional
statement. On inquiry the accused shows his repentance and bow before Court of law for
leniency due to his destituted status and sole bread winner of the family. He was given
time for re-thinking over his intentions and after thinking he came and insisted for
recording his statement. Court considers present accused as well aware and volunteer to
record confessional statement Let statement be recorded as under:-
STATEMENT ISHTIAQ SON OF IRSHAD, CASTE

JUT, RESIDENT OF 58/12-L, CHICHAWATNI,
SAHIWAL
I am a poor man. I confess my guilt that local police recovered 80 grams

Charas from my possession. I have made a mistake to win bread for my
family through easy course and I undertake to abstain from such like
offences in future, lenient view may kindly be taken.

Chichawatni.
Certified that supra statement on voluntary stance of the accused recorded

by the Court.
29.10.2016. Babar Nadeem,

Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Chichwatni.
ORDER.
In view of the above statement guilt is proved under section 9-A of CNSA
of 1997 hence accused is hereby convicted for one year S.I but instead of sentencing him
for imprisonment Court inclines to pass a probation order being sole bread winner of the
family and shows repentance on his actus rea. As per spirit of section 5 of Pakistan
Probation of Offenders Ordinance 1960, placed him on probation for the period of one
year subject to furnishing personal surety in the tune of Rs.50,000/-. He be kept in peace
and be of good behavior during the period of bond. Transgression if found he shall have
to bear sentence accordingly. He shall reside within the limits as specified in the bond,
and be not left such limits without the permission of the Probation Officer. Surety in the
present case is hereby discharged. File be consigned to the record room after its due
completion.

Chichwatni.
14.2 13.20.65 A.O

CHICHWATNI.
The State versus Muhammad Bakhsh
CASE FIR NO.255/14 DATED 13.09.2014 OFFENCE

UNDER SECTION 13 OF ARMS ORDINANCE NO.20
OF 1965 POLICE STATION BUDHLA SANNT
DISTRICT, MULTAN.
CHARGE SHEET
I , Babar Nadeem, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chichwatni do hereby

charge you accused namely Muhammad Bakhsh alias Mummy son of Bashir Ahmad,
caste Ansari, resident of Bohar Adda Chak No.1/KMR Tehsil & District Multan as
under:-
That on 13.09.2014 at about 10.00 am you accused were arrested from
Bohar Adda on suspicion and on your personal search from pocket of your Shalwar pistol
30-bore alongwith three live bullets were recovered which you could not produce any
license or permit, thus you have committed the offence punishable under section 13 of
Arms Ordinance No.20 of 1965 which is within the cognizance of this court.
And I hereby direct you accused to be tried by this Court on the aforesaid
charge.

CHICHAWATNI
The above charge has been read over and explained to the accused to which he
pleaded guilty.

CHICHWATNI
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED MUHAMMAD BAKHSH ALIAS

MUMMY
Q.No.1. Have you heard and understood the charge framed against you
Ans. Yes.
Q.No.2. Do you plead guilty to the charge?
Ans. Yes.
07.02.2016 Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Chichawatni
Dated: 07.02.2016.
Present. Accused Muhammad Bakhsh alias Mummy son of Bashir Ahmad on bail.
Learned ADPP Muhammad Kamran on behalf of state.
The accused replied in affirmative to the allegations and wants to record his
confessional statement. He is hereby informed about the consequences of confessional
statement. Court inquired regarding volunteer nature of the whim to record confessional
statement. On inquiry the accused shows his repentance and bow before Court of law for
leniency due to his destitute status and sole bread winner of the family. He was given
time for re-thinking over his intentions and after thinking he came and insisted for
recording his statement. Court considers present accused as well aware and volunteer to
record confessional statement Let statement be recorded as under:-
STATEMENT OF MUHAMMAD BAKHSH ALIAS

MUMMY SON OF BASHIR AHMAD, CASTE ANSARI,
RESIDENT OF BOHAR ADDA CHAK NO.1/KMR
TEHSIL & DISTRICT MULTAN.
I am a poor man. I confess my guilt that local police recovered

30-bore alongwith three live bullets from my possession. I have made a
mistake to win bread for my family through easy course and I undertake to
abstain from such like offences in future, lenient view may kindly be taken.

Chichawatni
Certified that supra statement on voluntary stance of the accused recorded

by the Court.
07.02.2016. Babar Nadeem,

Chichawatni.
The State versus Muhammad Bakhsh
ORDER.
In view of the above statement guilt is proved under section 13 of Arms
Ordinance No.20 of 1965 hence accused is hereby convicted for one year S.I but instead
of sentencing him for imprisonment Court inclines to pass a probation order being sole
bread winner of the family and shows repentance on his actus rea. As per spirit of section
5 of Pakistan Probation of Offenders Ordinance 1960, placed him on probation for the
period of one year subject to furnishing personal surety in the tune of Rs.30,000/-. He be
kept in peace and be of good behavior during the period of bond. Transgression if found
he shall have to bear sentence accordingly. He shall reside within the limits as specified
in the bond, and be not left such limits without the permission of the Probation Officer.
Surety in the present case is hereby discharged. File be consigned to the record room after
its due completion.
Announced. Babar Nadeem

Chichawatni.
14.3 Interim Orders
Dated: 20.10.2016.
Present: Complainant Muhammad Shafi in person
Mr. Chaudhary Muhammad Sharif Gujjar Advocate on behalf complainant
Accused Muhammad Tahir in person
Mr. Chaudhary Imran Amjad Sindhu Advocate on behalf of accused
Accused is present. Copies delivered in terms of section 241-A Cr.P.C to

the accused. The accused present before the Court in presence of his counsel requested
for dispensing with 7 days time to frame charge against him/her, the same is hereby
dispensed with and on a separate page charge against the accused has been framed.
Babar Nadeem,
Chichawatni.
Dated: 22.10.2016
Present: As before
The accused has pleaded guilty. His/Her confessional statement has been
recorded. Vide by my separate order of even date in English, the accused is hereby
convicted. However, instead of sentencing him/her, he/she be sent on probation for a
period of one year. File be consigned to record room after due compilation.
Babar Nadeem,
Chichawatni.
15- Complaint Case

15.1 Issuance of process
Dated: 14.10.2016.
Present: Learned A.D.P.P Mr. Muhammad Kamran
Complainant in person.
Learned counsel for the complainant Mr. Ch. Umar Farooq Gujjar
Advocate
Arguments heard. The complainant has filed the complaint in hand against
the respondents namely Babar Masih, Manga Masih, Malik Anwar, William Masih,
Samson Masih and Irfan under sections 452/354, 337-F(i), 148/149 PPC within the
jurisdiction of police station Ghaziabad, Chichawatni. Firstly Mst. Razia Bibi
complainant appeared before the court and recorded his/her cursory evidence. Later on
Muhammad Younis and Zakar also appeared in the court, recorded his/her/their cursory
evidence and supported the version of complainant and contents of the complaint.
Learned counsel for the complainant produced attested copy of Medical Legal Certificate
No. 65/AS/15 of complainant as exhibit PB and closed the cursory evidence.
As discussed above, through oral as well as documentary cursory evidence,
prima facie, the offences are made out against the respondents so, it would be in the
interest of Justice to summon the respondents namely Babar Masih, Manga Masih, Malik
Anwar, William Masih, Samson Masih and Irfan to appear in the court to face the
proceedings of trial. So, the respondents be summoned through issuance of summons for
26.10.2016.

Sahiwal.
15.2 Surety Bond (All present)
Dated: 14.10.2016.
Present: Complainant in person.
Advocate
Accused Muhammad Naveed present
Learned counsel for the accused Mr. Ch. Umar Farooq Gujjar
Learned A.D.P.P Mr. Muhammad Kamran
Perusal of record shows that the petitioners have been summoned being
accused in above titled private complaint, therefore, to ensure the attendance of petitioner
in private complaint, the application is accepted and the petitioners are directed to file
bail bonds in the sun of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of this court. Order be annexed with main file.
Sahiwal.
15.3 Adjournment for remaining cursory evidence
Dated: 14.10.2016.
Advocate
Today case was fixed for recording of remaining cursory evidence but
learned counsel for the complainant has requested for an adjournment on the ground that
……………….. As per request and for the sake of justice an adjournment is granted Now
come up for remaining cursory evidence for 20.10.2016.
15.4 Adjournment for preliminary arguments
Dated: 14.10.2016.
Advocate
Today case was fixed for preliminary arguments but learned counsel for the
complainant has requested for an adjournment. As per request and for the sake of justice
an adjournment is granted Now come up for remaining cursory evidence for 20.102.2016.
Sahiwal.
15.5 Order (Noor Elahi Case)
State vs. Muhammad Sheraz etc.
Present: Accused are on bail.

ADPP on behalf of the state.
Perusal of record shows that regarding the same occurrence the
complainant has preferred a separate private complaint which is pending adjudication
before this court. Therefore, keeping in view the dictum laid down by the August
Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled Noor Elahi versus state, PLD 1966 Supreme
Court 708, proceedings shall be conducted in private complaint. Now to come up along
with private complaint on 04.03.2016.

Sahiwal.
15.6 Adjournment for documentary evidence
Dated: 14.10.2016.
Advocate
Today oral cursory evidence completed and for documentary evidence,

learned counsel for the complainant has requested for an adjournment. Let the case be
fixed for documentary evidence for 20.10.2016.
15.7 Fresh Complaint, cursory evidence not recorded
Dated: 14.10.2016.
Advocate
Complaint is fresh, let it be registered. Learned counsel for the complainant
has requested for an adjournment to record cursory evidence on next day of hearing. Let
the case be adjourned for recording of cursory evidence for 19.12.2016.
15.8 Fresh Complaint, cursory evidence recorded
Dated: 14.10.2016.
Advocate
Complaint is fresh, let it be registered. Cursory evidence of one witness has

been recorded. Learned counsel for the complainant has requested for an adjournment to
record remaining cursory evidence on next day of hearing. Let the case be adjourned for
recording of cursory evidence for 19.12.2016.
15.9 Not Fresh Complaint, cursory evidence recorded
Dated: 14.10.2016.
Advocate
Cursory evidence of one witness has been recorded. Learned counsel for
the complainant has requested for an adjournment to record remaining cursory evidence
on next day of hearing. Let the case be adjourned for recording of cursory evidence for
19.12.2016.
15.10 Surety Bonds (Few present)

Dated: 14.10.2016.
Advocate
Accused Muhammad Naveed present
Learned counsel for the accused Mr. Ch. Umar Farooq Gujjar
Accused Abdul Majeed is present. He is directed to submit his bail bond to

the tune of Rs. 50000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the court till
next date of hearing.
Other accused persons namely Abdul Razaq, Maqbool Ahmad, Manzoor
Ahmad, Shad, Behzad, Mubarik Allah, Muhammad Asghar, Muhammad Rafique, Sardar,
Maqbool and Muhammad Ismail are absent. Let they be summoned now through NBWs
for 22.01.2016.
Announced. `Babar Nadeem,
Sahiwal.
15.11 Send to court of session

Safia Bibi versus Rashid Etc
Dated:- 15.10.2015.
Fresh complaisant, be registered accordingly.
Complainant Safia Bibi Wife Of Muhammad Mumtaz in person turned up

alongwith her counsel namely Mr. Rana Farzand Ali Khan advocate. Complaint pertains
to offence under section 376/511 PPC which as per schedule-II attached with Cr.P.C
exclusively triable by Court of Sessions hence in terms of section 190(2) Cr.P.C instant
file is hereby humbly submitted before worthy District & Sessions Judge, Sahiwal for an
appropriate order for 19.10.2015. Ahlmad concerned is hereby directed to forthwith
submit instant file before worthy Court after its due arrangement.

14.10.2015 Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Sahiwal.
16- Applications
16.1 Request for adjournment
Dated: 14.10.2016.
Present:
Advocate
Accused Mr. Ali in person
Learned counsel for the accused Mr. Ch. Umar Farooq Gujjar Advocate
Today case was fixed for arguments on the application under section 249-A
but learned counsel for the accused has requested for an adjournment. As per request and
for the sake of justice an adjournment is granted. Now come up for arguments on the
application under section 249-A for 16.11.2016.

Sahiwal.
16.2 Application filed
Dated: 14.10.2016.
Present:
Advocate
Fresh application under section 249-A Cr.P.C has been filed, let it be
registered. Notice be issued to the respondent/ complainant for arguments on 26.11.2016.
16.3 Application decided
Dated: 14.10.2016.
Present:
Advocate
Vide my separate order of even date application to dispense with attendance

to the extent of accused namely Muhammad Ali is hereby accepted. Let the case be fixed
for summoning of prosecution witnesses through summons for 02.12.2016.
16.4 Order for dispensing with attendance

MAGISTRATE IST CLASS,
CHICHAWATNI
The State Vs Muhammad Anwar etc
Case FIR No. 338/14

Offence u/s 452, 354,148/149 PPC
P.S Ghaziabad, Chichawatni
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 540-A CR.P.C TO DISPENSE WITH

THE ATTENDENCE OF FEMALE ACCUSED PERSONS
ORDER
Petitioner/accused Mst. Shahnaz Kousar and Rasheeda Bibi has moved the above
said application by maintaining therein that she is a Parda Nashin and domestic lady and
cannot appear before the court on every date of hearing; that her attendance be dispensed
with till final decision of the case. At the end it is prayed for acceptance of instant
application.
Learned ADPP for the state has vehemently opposed the instant application.
Arguments heard, record perused.
It transpires from the record that reason stated by the petitioners for dispensation
of their attendance is plausible. Under these circumstances attendance of Mst. Rashidan
Bibi is hereby dispense with and she is hereby allowed to appear through her pleader
Mudassar Muroof Virik Advocate. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to attend
the court on each and every date of hearing. It is also pertinent to mention here that if at
any stage of the case court thinks it appropriate, may direct the personal attendance of the
accused if the court deems it necessary. With these reasons application in hand is hereby
accepted to the extent to of Mst. Rasheedan Bibi.
Announced.17.10.2016
Magistrate Ist Class,
Chichawatni
16.5 Order (Application to amend charge)

CHICHAWATNI
The State Vs Muhammad Asif etc
Case FIR No. 338/14

Offence u/s 452, 354, 337-L(2), 148/149 PPC
P.S Ghaziabad, Chichawatni
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 227 CR.P.C TO AMEND THE

CHARGE BY DELETING CHARGE UNDER SECTION 452 PPC
ORDER
Petitioner/accused Mst. Shahnaz Kousar and Rasheeda Bibi have moved the above
said application by maintaining therein that there is nothing on the record to charge the
present accused persons under section 452 PPC, hence, instant application for amending
the charge by deleting charge under section 452 PPC.
Learned ADPP for the state has vehemently opposed the instant application.
Before I decide this application it is proper to reproduce section 452 PPC as under:
“452. House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or
wrongful restraint:
Whoever commits house-trespass having made preparation for
causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for
wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in
fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to
tine.”
Now here is the relevant portion of the F.I.R which constitute that all ingredients
of section 452 are present in the F.I.R:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What has been said above, it becomes crystal clear that there is sufficient material
on the record to charge the present petitioners/ accused under section 452, PPC. Hence
present application is hereby dismissed. Present order be annexed to main file.
Babar Nadeem,
Chichawatni.
16.6 Arguments of one party heard
Dated: 14.10.2016.
Present:
Advocate
Today case was fixed for arguments on the application under section 249-
A. Learned counsel for the petitioner has completed his arguments. Let the case be fixed
for arguments by respondent counsel for 16.11.2016.
Sahiwal.
16.7 Summoning evidence by pending application
Dated: 14.10.2016.
Present:
Complainant Mr. Ali in person.
Advocate
Today arguments on the application under section 540-A for dispensation

of attendance of the accused Mst. Nasreen Bibi has been has been heard. Record perused
from where it transpires that another connected case titled “State vs Surya Bibi” is also
fixed for today for which presence of present accused is necessary unless prosecution
evidence is recorded. Hence, present application for dispensation of attendance of
accused Mst. Nasreen Bibi will remain pending until evidence is recorded in case titled
“State vs Surya Bibi”. Let the case be fixed for summoning of prosecution witnesses
through summons for 02.12.2016.

Sahiwal.
16.8 Order (Summoning Column.02 Accused)

CHICHAWATNI
The State Vs Bilal etc
Case FIR No. 133/08

Offence u/s 337A1,A2,F2 PPC
Police station Harappa, Sahiwal
APPLICATION FOR SUMMONING OF ACCUSED PERSONS MENTIONED IN

COLUMN NO.2 OF REPORT U/S 173 CR.P.C
ORDER
Petitioner moved the above said application by maintaining therein that accused
persons mentioned in column No.2 namely Muhammad Ameen son of Muhammad
Hassan Caste Bhatti R/O 172/9-L Chichawatni, Sahiwal has/have been declared innocent
in the police investigation and he/she/they have been placed at column No.2 of the report
under Section 173 Cr.P.C, therefore, sufficient incriminating material is available against
the accused persons, so, she/he/they be summoned for trial to meet the ends of justice.
Perusal of record reveals that the accused is/are has been specifically nominated in
the F.I.R. All the calendar witnesses have specifically nominated the accused persons in
their statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Hence,
sufficient incriminating material is available on record to summon the accused persons in
order to face the trial. Let the accused Muhammad Ameen son of Muhammad Hassan
Caste Bhatti R/O 172/9-L Chichawatni, Sahiwal be summoned in order to face the trial
for 02.12.2016.
Sahiwal.
17-Compromise Non-Compoundable Offence

17.1 one accused, one witness
Dated: 20.10.2016.
Present: Complainant Muhammad Shafi in person
Mr. Chaudhary Muhammad Sharif Gujjar Advocate on behalf complainant
Accused Muhammad Tahir in person
Mr. Chaudhary Imran Amjad Sindhu Advocate on behalf of accused
Complainant Ali Ahmad son of Ghulam Nabi in person turned up. Copies
delivered in terms of section 241-A Cr.P.C to the accused. The accused present before the
Court in presence of his counsel requested for dispensing with 7 days time to frame
charge against them, the same is hereby dispensed with and on a separate page charge
against accused has been framed.
Muhammad Mustafa,
Chichawatni.
Dated: 22.10.2016
Present: As before
The evidence of complainant as PW-1 has been recorded. An application
under section 249-A has been filed by the accused. Let it be decided.
Babar Nadeem,
Chichawatni.
Dated: 22.10.2016.
Present: As before
Vide by my separate order of even date in English, accused Muhammad

Tahir is hereby acquitted. File be consigned to record room after due compilation.
Babar Nadeem,
Chichawatni.
The State versus Tahir
PW-1. STATEMENT OF MUHAMMAD SHAFI,

COMPLAIANTN IN CASE FIR NO.387/14 DATED
18.11.2014 UNDER SECTIONS 380, 447, 427, 380, 148,
149 PPC POLICE STATION GHAZIABAD,
On Oath stated that present accused is not my culprit. Though the

occurrence stated in the FIR is true yet I am satisfied that the same occurrence was not
taken place by accused present before the court. Due to some misunderstanding I
nominated present accused out of suspicion. At this stage learned ADPP requested to
declare the witness hostile on the ground that he is not willing to tell the truth. The
request of learned ADPP is genuine, so, witness is hereby declared hostile, let witness be
cross-examined by the learned ADPP.
XXXXX On behalf of learned ADPP for the State.
It is correct that I lodged Exh.P-A for FIR with P/S Ghaziabad which bears
my signature Exh.P-A/1. Volunteered that due to some misunderstanding I lodged instant
FIR against present accused persons. It is incorrect to suggest that after greasing my palm
through present accused I made exonerating statement in his favour.
XXXXX Accused was given an opportunity to cross-examine the PW-1 but he

waived the right of cross-examination.

Sahiwal.
The State versus Tahir
CASE FIR NO.387/14 DATED 18.11.2014

UNDER SECTIONS 380, 447, 427, 380, 148, 149
PPC POLICE STATION GHAZIABAD,
APPLICATION U.S 249-A Cr.P.C.

O R D E R.
1. The petitioner namely Muhammad Tahir son of Latif caste Rajpoot resident
of Chak no. 57/12-L, Chichwatni has filed above captioned application with the version
that the witness PW-1 (Complainant) namely Muhammad Shafi son of Allah Baksh has
recorded his exonerating statement in favour of the accused /petitioner, so, there is no
probability of conviction of the present accused in the light of recorded evidence, and
summoning of further prosecution evidence would only be a futile exercise, charge has
become groundless. There is no probability of conviction of the accused, so accused be
acquitted in this case.
2. As per story narrated in the complaint Ex.PA is that on 01.11.2014 at about 02:00
p.m in the area of 57/12.L, within the territorial limits of P.S Ghaziabad he firstly along
with his co-accused committed rioting with deadly weapons for the purpose of theft in the
house of complainant; secondly he along with his co-accused in prosecution of common
object of all committed theft in the house of complainant; thirdly on the same date, time
and place he along with his co-accused in prosecution of common object of all committed
mischief by destroying pots, doors and wall of the house of the complainant; and fourthly
on the same date, time and place he along with his co-accused in prosecution of common
object of all committed criminal trespass by entering upon the property in possession of
the complainant with the intention to take possession of that property unlawfully.
3. After submission of challan the accused/petitioner was charge sheeted and
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial, hence prosecution evidence was
summoned. Muhammad Shaif, who is the complainant of this case, appeared as PW-1 on
22.10.2016 and deposed that petitioners/ accused present in the court is not his culprit;
that though the occurrence stated in the FIR is true yet he is satisfied that the same
occurrence was not taken place by this accused present before the court; that due to some
misunderstanding he nominated the present accused out of suspicion. During cross-
examination by the Learned ADPP, he denied the suggestion that after greasing his palm
through present accused he made exonerating statement in his favour.
4. As discussed above, PW1 has recorded his exonerating statements in favour
of accused. He stated that present accused is not his culprit; that he satisfied himself that
the occurrence was not taken place by the present accused; that due to some
misunderstanding he nominated the accused. During cross-examination, he denied the
suggestion put by the learned ADPP that after greasing his palm through present accused
he made exonerating statement in his favour. The prosecution story is based on statement
of complainant but after recording of the said vital witnesses of this case, the whole
building of the prosecution story has been collapsed and there is no probability of
conviction of the accused persons present in the court. Charge has become groundless. It
is well settled principle of law that if the direct evidence does not support the prosecution
case, the remaining corroborating evidence loses its evidentiary value if any. With these
observations the accused namely Muhammad Tahir son Muhammad Bashir present in the
court is hereby acquitted of the charge U.S 249-A of Cr.P.C. Sureties of the accused who
is on bail, is hereby discharged of his bail bond obligations. Case property if any shall
remain with its lawful owner. File be consigned to the record room after its due
completion.
Babar Nadeem,
Chichawatni.
17.2 More accused, one witness

Dated: 20.10.2016
Present: Complainant Sakina Bibi in person
Mr. Rana Nadeem Asghar Advocate on behalf complainant
Accused Nadeem, Aslam, Muhammad Asif and Faqir Muhammad in
person
Mr. Rana Mohsin Rashid Advocate on behalf of accused persons
Complainant Sakina Bibi Wife of Muhammad Mansha in person turned up.
Copies delivered in terms of section 241-A Cr.P.C to the accused persons. All the
accused persons present before the Court in presence of their counsel request for
dispensing with time of 7 days to frame charge against them, the same is hereby
dispensed with and on a separate page charge against accused persons has been framed.
Babar Nadeem,
Chichawatni.
Dated: 20.10.2016.
Present: As Before
The evidence of complainant as PW-1 has been recorded. An application

under section 249-A has been filed by the accused persons. Let it be decided.
Babar Nadeem,
Chichawatni.
Dated: 20.10.2016.
Present: As before
Vide by my separate order of even date in English, all accused persons are
hereby acquitted. File be consigned to record room after due compilation.
Babar Nadeem,
Chichawatni.
The State versus Nadeem etc
PW-1. STATEMENT OF SAKINA BIBI WIFE OF

MUHAMMAD MANSHA, COMPLAIANTN OF CASE
FIR NO.392/14 OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 452, 354,
148/149 PPC LODGED WITH P/S GHAZIABAD.
On Oath stated that present accused all present accused persons are not my
culprit. Though the occurrence stated in the FIR is true yet I am satisfied that the same
occurrence was not taken place by these accused persons present before the court. Due to
some misunderstanding I nominated these accused persons out of suspicion. At this stage
learned ADPP has requested to declare the witness hostile because of being won over
with the accused. Request is genuine, so witness is hereby declared hostile, let him/her be
cross-examined by the state.
XXXXX Learned ADPP on behalf of state


20.10.2016 MIC, Chichawatni
Sahiwal.
The State versus Nadeem etc
CASE FIR NO.392/14 DATED 20.11.2014

UNDER SECTIONS 354, 452, 148/ 149 PPC
POLICE STATION GHAZIABAD,
O R D E R.
1. The petitioners namely Nadeem, Aslam, Muhammad Asif and Faqir

Muhammad have filed above captioned application with the version that PW-1
(Complainant) namely Sakina Bibi Wife Of Muhammad Mansha has recorded her
exonerating statement in favour of the accused /petitioners, so, there is no probability of
conviction of the accused persons in the light of recorded evidence, and summoning of
further prosecution evidence would only be a futile exercise, charge has become
groundless. There is no probability of conviction of the accused, so accused persons be
2. As per story narrated in the complaint Ex.PA is that they on 08.07.2014, at about
11:00 PM, by entering the house of complainant Sakina Bibi armed with fire arms by
making un-lawful assembly in prosecution of common object of said unlawful assembly
and committed rioting; that on the said time and place and while armed with their
respective weapons in pursuance of their common object arranged unlawful assembly,
trespassed the complainant’s house with intention to make assault on complainant party;
that they on the above said time and place and while armed with their respective weapons
in pursuance of their common object arranged unlawful assembly, outraged the modesty
of complainant by dragging her and torn her clothes.
3. After submission of challan the accused/petitioners were charge sheeted
and accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial, hence prosecution evidence was
summoned. Sakina Bibi wife of Muhammad Mansha, who is the complainant of this case,
appeared as PW-1 on 20.10.2016 and deposed that petitioners/ accused persons present in
the court are not her culprits; that though the occurrence stated in the FIR is true yet I am
satisfied that the same occurrence was not taken place by these accused persons present
before the court; that due to some misunderstanding she nominated these accused persons
out of suspicion. During cross-examination by the Learned ADPP, she denied the
suggestion that after greasing her palm through present accused she made exonerating
statement in his favour.
4. As discussed above, PW1 has recorded her exonerating statements in

favour of accused persons. She stated that present accused persons are not her culprits;
that she has satisfied herself that the occurrence was not taken place by the present
accused persons; that due to some misunderstanding she nominated the accused. During
cross-examination, they denied the suggestion put by the learned ADPP that after
greasing their palm through present accused persons she made exonerating statement in
their favour. The prosecution story is based on statement of PW-1 but after recording of
the said vital witnesses of this case, the whole building of the prosecution story has been
collapsed and there is no probability of conviction of the accused persons present in the
court. Charge has become groundless. It is well settled principle of law that if the direct
evidence does not support the prosecution case, the remaining corroborating evidence
loses its evidentiary value if any. With these observations the accused persons present in
the court are hereby acquitted of the charge U.S 249-A of Cr.P.C. Sureties of the accused
persons who is on bail, is hereby discharged of his bail bond obligations. Case property if
any shall remain with its lawful owner. File be consigned to the record room after its due
completion.
Babar Nadeem,
Chichawatni.
17.3 More accused, more witness
Dated: 30.10.2016.
Present: Learned A.D.P.P Muhammad Kamran for the State.
Complainant Mushtaq Ahmad in person

Mr. Ch. Sajjad Gujjar Advocate on behalf of complainant
Accused Muhammad Arshad, Muhammad Irshad, Muhammad Imran, Mst.
Sumera Bibi and Mst. Nasreen Bibi on bail
Mr. Ghulam Dastageer Gujjar Advocate on behalf accused
Complainant Mushtaq Ahmad son of Muhammad Rafique turned up.

Copies delivered in terms of section 241-A Cr.P.C to the accused persons. All the
accused persons present before the Court in presence of their counsel request for
dispensing with 7 days time to frame charge against them, the same is hereby dispensed
with and on a separate page charge against accused persons has been framed.
Babar Nadeem,
Chichawatni.
Dated: 30.10.2016.
Present: As before
Evidence of prosecution witnesses PWs have been recorded. Accused

persons have moved an application under section 249-A Cr.P.C. Let it be decided.
Babar Nadeem,
Chichawatni.
Dated: 30.10.2016.
Present: As before
Vide by my separate order of even date in English, all accused persons are
hereby acquitted. File be consigned to record room after due compilation.
Babar Nadeem,
Chichawatni.
The State versus Muhammad Arshad etc
PW-1. STATEMENT OF MUSHTAQ AHMAD,

COMPLAIANTN OF CASE FIR NO.141/15 OFFENCE
UNDER SECTION 379, 337A(i), 148, 149 PPC LODGED
WITH P/S GHAZIABAD, CHICHAWATNI
On Oath stated that present accused are not the culprit of the case; I am
satisfied that the same occurrence was not taken place by accused present before the
court. Due to some misunderstanding I nominated present accused out of suspicion. At
this stage learned ADPP has requested to declare the witness hostile because of being
won over with the accused. Request is genuine, so witness is hereby declared hostile, let
him/her be cross-examined by the state.


Sahiwal.
The State versus Muhammad Arshad etc
PW-2. STATEMENT OF ABU SUFIAN SON OF AKRAM OF

CASE FIR NO.141/15 OFFENCE UNDER SECTION
379, 337A(i), 148, 149 PPC LODGED WITH P/S
GHAZIABAD, CHICHAWATNI
On Oath stated that present accused are not the culprit of the case; I am
satisfied that the same occurrence was not taken place by accused present before the
court. Due to some misunderstanding I nominated present accused out of suspicion. At
this stage learned ADPP has requested to declare the witness hostile because of being
won over with the accused. Request is genuine, so witness is hereby declared hostile, let
him/her be cross-examined by the state.
It is incorrect to suggest that I am giving false testimony on the instance of

accused persons as I have been bribed by the same.


Sahiwal.
CHICHAWATNI.
The State. Vs. Muhammad Arshad etc.

FIR. No.141/15
Offence u/s 337A1/ 379/ 148/ 149 PPC
Police Station. Ghaziabad.
O R D E R.
1. The petitioners namely Muhammad Arshad s/o Muhammad Irshad,

Muhammad Irshad s/o Muhammad Ali, Muhammad Imran s/o Muhammad Irshad,
Mst.Sumera Bibi W/o Muhammad Arshad and Mst. Nasreen Bibi W/o Muhammad
Irshad have filed above captioned application with the version that all PWs have recorded
their exonerating statement in favour of the accused /petitioners, so, there is no
probability of conviction of the accused persons in the light of recorded evidence, and
summoning of further prosecution evidence would only be a futile exercise, charge has
become groundless. There is no probability of conviction of the accused, so accused be
2. As per story narrated in the complaint Ex.PA is that on the evening of 22.04.2016,
within the area of 60/12.L, they firstly in prosecution of their common object commited
rioting armed with deadly weapons being member of an unlawful assembly; Secondly, on
the same date, time and place they in prosecution of common object of all caused injuries
at the person of Abu Sufian and Waseem Akram; and thirdly, on the same date, time and
place they in prosecution of common object of all committed theft of Rs. 3500/- and Cell
Phone belonging to Waseem Akram valuing Rs. 4500/-.
3. After submission of challan the accused/petitioners were charge sheeted
and accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial, hence prosecution evidence was
summoned. Muhammad Irshad, who is the complainant of this case, appeared as PW-1
and deposed that present petitioners/ accused persons are not his culprits and he has no
objection if the present petitioners/ accused persons be acquitted. After complainant,
injured witnesses PW-2 to PW-3 appeared before the court and deposed that present
petitioners/ accused persons are not the culprits who injured them and they has no
objection if the present petitioners/ accused persons be acquitted. All PWs also stated that
they have satisfied themselves that the occurrence was not taken place by the accused
persons; that due to some misunderstanding they nominated the accused persons. During
greasing their palm through present accused persons they made exonerating statement in
their favour.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. As discussed above, all PWs recorded their exonerating statements in
favour of accused persons. They stated that present accused persons are not their culprits;
that they have satisfied themselves that the occurrence was not taken place by the present
accused persons; that due to some misunderstanding they nominated the accused. During
greasing their palm through present accused persons they made exonerating statement in
their favour. The prosecution story is based on statement of complainant and injured
witness but after recording of the said vital witnesses of this case, the whole building of
the prosecution story has been collapsed and there is no probability of conviction of the
accused persons present in the court. Charge has become groundless. It is well settled
principle of law that if the direct evidence does not support the prosecution case, the
remaining corroborating evidence loses its evidentiary value if any. With these
observations the accused persons present in the court are hereby acquitted of the charge
U.S 249-A of Cr.P.C. Sureties of the accused persons who is on bail, is hereby discharged
of his bail bond obligations. Case property if any shall remain with its lawful owner. File
be consigned to the record room after its due completion.
Babar Nadeem,
Chichawatni.
17.4 One accused, more witness
18-Compromise Compoundable Offence

18.1 one accused, one witness
18.2 more accused, one witness
Dated: 04.11.2016.
Present: Complainant Maqbool Hassan in person
Learned Counsel for the complainant Mr. Muhammad Naeem
Accused Muhammad Amjad, Muhammad Majid, Muhammad Waqas, Tahir
Hussain on bail
Learned defense counsel Mr. Muhammad Naeem
Learned A.D.P.P Muhammad Kamran for the State.
Today the case was fixed for prosecution evidence in F.I.R no. 167/14 u/s
337-F(v), 337-F(i), 337-A(i) and 34 PPC pertaining to police station Ghaziabad,
Chichwatni in which complainant Maqbool Hassan appeared as PW-1 whereas injured
witness appeared as PW-2 and stated that we have forgiven all the accused present in the
court in the name of Allah. They do not want to proceed with the case. They have no
objection if all the accused be acquitted. Sections 337-F(v), 337-F(i), 337-A(i) and 34
PPC are all compoundable in nature and injured categorically made composition in
favour of present accused charge under supra sections. Requisite permission in terms of
section 345(2) Cr.P.C keeping in view the volunteer deposition of PWs is hereby granted
and consequential benefit available in section 345(6) Cr.P.C in favour of present accused
persons is hereby extended and all accused Muhammad Amjad son of Bashir Ahmad,
Muhammad Majid son of Bashir Ahmad, Muhammad Waqas son of Bashir Ahmad and
Tahir Hussain son of Shaheen are hereby acquitted from the charges in terms of section
345(6) Cr.P.C. There sureties are hereby relieved from bonds’ liability. Nothing was
recovered from present accused during physical custody hence there is no need for any
order in terms of section 517 Cr.P.C. File be consigned to the record-room after its due
completion.

Sahiwal.
18.3 More accused, more witness

18.4 One accused, more witness
Dated: 04.11.2016.
Present: Complainant Maqbool Hassan in person
Learned Counsel for the complainant Mr. Muhammad Naeem
Accused Muhammad Amjad, Muhammad Majid, Muhammad Waqas, Tahir
Hussain on bail
Learned defense counsel Mr. Muhammad Naeem
Learned A.D.P.P Muhammad Kamran for the State.
Today the case was fixed for prosecution evidence in F.I.R no. 167/14 u/s
337-F(v), 337-F(i), 337-A(i) and 34 PPC pertaining to police station Ghaziabad,
Chichwatni in which complainant Maqbool Hassan appeared as PW-1 whereas injured
witness appeared as PW-2 and stated that we have forgiven the accused present in the
court in the name of Allah. They do not want to proceed with the case. They have no
objection if the accused be acquitted. Sections 337-F(v), 337-F(i), 337-A(i) and 34 PPC
are all compoundable in nature and injured categorically made composition in favour of
present accused charge under supra sections. Requisite permission in terms of section
345(2) Cr.P.C keeping in view the volunteer deposition of PWs is hereby granted and
consequential benefit available in section 345(6) Cr.P.C in favour of present accused is
hereby extended and the accused Muhammad Amjad son of Bashir Ahmad is hereby
acquitted from the charges in terms of section 345(6) Cr.P.C. There sureties are hereby
relieved from bonds’ liability. Nothing was recovered from present accused during
physical custody hence there is no need for any order in terms of section 517 Cr.P.C. File
be consigned to the record-room after its due completion.

Sahiwal.
18.5 Acquittal (489-F, 249-A)
Dated: 23.11.2016.
Present: Complainant Khizar Hayat through counsel Mr. Ch. Ghulam Dastgeer
Gujar Advocate
Accused Zeehsan P.O
Accused Irfan Aslam on bail present
Learned counsel for the accused Irfan Aslam Mr. Ch. Nadeem Shahzad
Advocate
Today arguments by complainant/ respondent’s counsel on application

under section 249-A Cr.P.C filed by accused Irfan Aslam also heard. Vide by my
separate order of even date in English, accused Irfan Aslam is hereby acquitted. Let the
file be consigned to record-room after due compilation.
Babar Nadeem,
Chichawatni.
The State versus Irfan Aslam
CASE FIR NO. 02/14 DATED 02.01.2014

UNDER SECTIONS 489-F, 506 PPC POLICE
STATION CITY, CHICHAWATNI, SAHIWAL.

O R D E R.
1. The petitioner namely Irfan Aslam son of Muhammad Aslam has filed
above captioned application with the version that petitioner/ accused is innocent; that
charge again present accused is groundless and there is no probability of ultimate
conviction of present accused in the present case; that present accuse is innocent and is
facing the agony of trial since last two years; that present accused cannot be convicted
under section 489-F PPC; that present petitioner/ accused is not previously convicted or
record holder, so accused be acquitted in this case.
2. Perusal of record reveals that there are two accused persons in the present case,
one is Zeeshan Aslam and other is present petitioner Irfan Aslam. Zeehsan Aslam has
already been declared proclaimed offender by my predecessor on 04.12.2014. The
allegations against the present petitioner/accused is that he along-with other accused took
loan of 8,92000 rupee from the complainant with a promise to repay on 03.12.2013. On
03.12.2013 present petitioner/ accused along-with other co-accused issued a check
number 3983592 bearing account number U.B.L 0206887876 branch Buraywala Road,
Chichawatni in repayment of the loan. When complainant presented the check in the
bank, same was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. After that, complainant contacted
accused persons for repayment of loan but he refused to pay the same, hence, present
F.I.R under section 489-F of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860.
3. After submission of challan the accused persons were summoned. Accused
Zeeshan Aslam absconded and was declared proclaimed offender on 04.12.2014 whereas
present petitioner/ accused appeared through his counsel and filed an application under
section 249-A of Cr.P.C for this acquittal. Notice was served upon the complainant.
Complainant also appeared before the court through his counsel.
4. Arguments by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned ADPP
duly assisted by complainant counsel was heard at a length; record perused.
5. There are two offences with which present petitioner/ accused has been
charged. First one is section 489-F of P.P.C and other is section 506 of P.P.C.
In respect of section 489-F it his stated that bare perusal of the F.I.R manifests that
dishonoured check was issued by both accused persons namely Zeeshan Aslam and Irfan
Aslam whereas copy of check described in the F.I.R transpires that check was issued by
accused Zeeshan Aslam only and it is a settled principle of law that section 489-F is only
applicable against a person issuing a check dishonestly and not against any other person
even handing over the check to the complainant. In this regard reliance may be placed
upon 2014 YLR 2241wherein it was held that:
“The object of the aforementioned penal provision is to
crub the fraudulent or dishonest issuance of cheque and to
punish a person who dishonestly issued the cheque. This
section clearly lays down that whoever dishonestly issues a
cheque towards repayment of a loan or fulfilment of an
obligation is liable to face the consequences on its being
dishonoured. In the absence of mens rea, criminal
proceedings ordinarily cannot proceed. When cheque was
bounced, the prosecution has to establish that who has
issued the cheque and whether such issuance was with
dishonest intention.”
In respect of charge under section 506 PPC it is stated that when

prosecution has failed that present petitioner/ accused has dishonestly issued a cheque to
constitute an offence under section 489-F, there is no question of threat to complainant by
the present petitioner for murderous threat.
The crux of above discussion is that there is no probability of conviction of
the accused present in the court. Charge against present petitioner/ accused is groundless.
With these observations the accused namely Irfan Aslam son of Muhammad Aslam
present in the court is hereby acquitted of the charge U.S 249-A of Cr.P.C. Sureties of the
accused who is on bail, is hereby discharged of his bail bond obligations. Case property if
any shall remain with its lawful owner. It is pertinent to mention here present order shall
not effect prosecution case against co-accused Zeeshan Aslam who is presently a
proclaimed offender. File be consigned to the record room after its due completion.
Babar Nadeem,
Chichawatni.
19- Dar-ul-Eman
19.1 Sending Statement
Mst. Ashraf Bibi vs. Azhar Abbas
STATEMENT OF SHAISTA WIFE OF MUHAMMAD SHAHID

CASTE JOIYA R/O ORANG ABAD, SAHIWAL.
Stated that I had contacted marriage with the respondent five years ago but
the respondent was not agreed for the same. After sometime the relations between the
parties became bad. Now 15 days ago the respondent kicked out me from his house and
also threatened me to kill. The respondent is not ready to keep me in his house. I have
also danger to my life from the respondent. My parents are also against my will. So I
want to go to shelter home for safe custody. I may please be sent to shelter home.
Sahiwal.
Sahiwal.
19.2 Sending Order
Shagufta Bano vs. State.
Aplication for permission to send “Dar-ul-Aman”
Present: Petitioner in person along with counsel Muhamamd Fiaz Ch Advocate
The petitioner has filed the instant petition for sending her to Shelter Home,
on the grounds that she has danger to her life from her husband Shahid Imran.
Petitioner heard. Record perused.
The petitioner is major who wants to go to Darul-Aman as her life in
danger. Therefore, for the interest of justice, the petitioner is sent to Shelter Home
(Darul-Aman) till further order under police custody. Incharge Shelter Home be informed
accordingly. File be consigned to the record room after its due compilation.

Sahiwal.
19.3 Summoning Order
Maria vs. State

Petition is fresh. Be registered.
Petitioner be summoned in person for recording his statement for
30.04.2016.

Sahiwal.
19.4 Releasing Statement

Tahira Bibi vs. State.
STATEMENT OF TAHIRA BIBI D/O BASHIR AHMAD CASTE

BLOCH R/O 25/WB, DISTRICT VEHARI:
Stated that I moved the application to be released from the Shelter Home.
But once again I have a threat of life from Mukhtar husband, Javed elder brother of
Mukhtar, Maqbool, Liaqat and my mother Irshad Bibi, so, I want to go back to the
Shelter Home.

04.02.2016. Judicial Magistrate First Class
Chichawatni
Tahira Bibi vs. State
Present: Petitioner Tahira Bibi in person under custody of Najma 161/LC along with
Javed Tariq 869/HC
Petitioner has once again requested to send her back to Shelter home on the
round of threat from her relatives.
Statement of petitioner/Shaista Bibi has been recorded separately.
Therefore, according to her willingness and for the interest of justice, the petitioner is
allowed to be released from the court room. Let she be released. File be consigned to the
record room after its due compilation.

Chichawatni.
19.5 Releasing Order
Nazran Bibi vs. State
Present: Petitioner Nazran Bibi in person.

Rukhsana Asmat Ullah 1310/LC.
Muhammad Ibrahim 467/HC.
The petitioner has filed the instant petition for releasing her from Shelter
Home, on the grounds that she wants to be released.
The petitioner is major who wants to go to Darul-Aman as her life in
danger. Therefore, once again, for the interest of justice, the petitioner is sent to Shelter
Home (Darul-Aman) till further order under police custody. Incharge Shelter Home be
informed accordingly. File be consigned to the record room after its due compilation.

Sahiwal.
19.6 Meeting Order
Munawar Bibi etc. vs. State
Dated:10.06.2014.
Present:- Petitioners Khalil-Ur-Rehman son of Manzoor Hussain, Imran son of
Ghulam Hussain alongwith their learned counsel.
Both the petitioners prayed for visitation right to Naheed Akhtar wife of
Muhammad Fayyaz sheltered in Dar-Ul-Aman from 07.06.2014 being close relatives
they request for visitation right. Relationship with Naheed Akhtar wife of Muhammad
Fayyaz not available, however, application in original alongwith instant order is hereby
forwarded to the Incharge Dar-Ul-Aman to look into the matter and be inquired about the
same from Naheed Akhtar wife of Muhammad Fayyaz, if she acknowledges her close
relationship with petitioners and also allows visitation right the same be assented within
Dar-Ul-Aman according to prescribed rules.
Chichwatni.
Present: Petitioners Munawar Bibi and Safia bibi in person.

The petitioners have filed the instant petition for conducting meeting with
Maria Bibi who has been sent to Shelter Home.
2. Petitioner heard. Record perused.
3. The petitioner Munwar Bibi is the real mother and petitioner Safia Bibi is
close relative of Maria Bibi. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the petitioner is allowed
to meet with the Maria Bibi in Shelter Home (Darul-Aman). Incharge Shelter Home is
directed to arrange the meeting after getting the consent of Maria Bibi. File be consigned
to the record room after its due compilation.

Sahiwal.
From
Babar Nadeem,
Chichawatni.
To
The District Police Officer,

Sahiwal.
No._______________ Dated._______2016.
Subject: SUMMONING OF WITNESSES IN CASE NO. 31/12 U/S 337-G

TITLED “STATE VS MUHAMMAD ISHTIAQ”
Memorandum:
It is brought into your kind notice that above titled criminal case was
registered in 2012 in which despite of summoning prosecution witnesses again and again
even through non-bailable warrants of arrest and through SHO concerned police station
but with no positive result. This is an old case in which accused persons are appearing on
each and every date of hearing but with no evidence on the part of the prosecution. Under
the National Judicial Policy, Chief Justices of the August Supreme Court of Pakistan as
well as the Hon’ble Lahore High Court, Lahore, has directed to decide the old cases
without any delay. The instant case is being lingered on and hindrance in the expeditious
disposal of the instant case is being created just for non-production of the prosecution
witnesses. Therefore, you are required to take personal interest in order to lesson the
agony of party and for disposal of the case and assured the presence of prosecution
witnesses on 10.11.2016 positively and no more opportunity and no more opportunity
will be provided for evidence.
Babar Nadeem,
Chichawatni.
20- Letters
20.1 Letter to D.P.O to produce witnesses
From
Babar Nadeem,
Chichawatni.
To
The District Police Officer,

Sahiwal.
No._______________ Dated._______2016.
Subject: SUMMONING OF WITNESSES IN CASE NO. 31/12 U/S 337-G

TITLED “STATE VS MUHAMMAD ISHTIAQ”
Memorandum:
It is brought into your kind notice that above titled criminal case was
registered in 2012 in which despite of summoning prosecution witnesses again and again
even through non-bailable warrants of arrest and through SHO concerned police station
but with no positive result. This is an old case in which accused persons are appearing on
each and every date of hearing but with no evidence on the part of the prosecution. Under
the National Judicial Policy, Chief Justices of the August Supreme Court of Pakistan as
well as the Hon’ble Lahore High Court, Lahore, has directed to decide the old cases
without any delay. The instant case is being lingered on and hindrance in the expeditious
disposal of the instant case is being created just for non-production of the prosecution
witnesses. Therefore, you are required to take personal interest in order to lesson the
agony of party and for disposal of the case and assured the presence of prosecution
witnesses on 10.11.2016 positively and no more opportunity and no more opportunity
will be provided for evidence.
Babar Nadeem,
Chichawatni.
21- Consignment
21.1 Consign to record-room (Section 512) without recording evidence
O R D E R.
30.10.2013.
Present:- Learned ADPP Muhammad Kamran for the state.
Accused namely ………….still P.O
Accused have been declared as proclaimed offenders. Prosecution
evidence was summoned but despite availing several opportunities and adopting modes
for the attendance of prosecution witnesses, no witness has been produced by
prosecution. Today the case was fixed for prosecution evidence but same is not present.
Record reveals that several opportunities were granted to the prosecution to lead its
evidence but so far prosecution failed to produce its evidence despite the fact that
prosecution witnesses were repeatedly summoned. Case is lingering on without any
proceedings on behalf of prosecution. It would be mere wastage of time and energy of
the court and futile exercise to proceed further with the case and keep the same on cause
list without any proceedings. Attitude of the prosecution shows that it has no interest to
pursue the case being proceeded in absentia against the accused. Available
circumstances shows that presently prosecution is not intended to produce witnesses and
there is no chance of early appearance of PWs, therefore, proceedings of the instant case
are stopped U/s 249 Cr.PC. SHO concerned is directed to gear up on the arrest of the
accused. When the accused shall be arrested in this case, lawful proceedings against them
shall be conducted again. For the time being, instant file be consigned to record room
under Section 512 of Cr.P.C after due completion and compilation.

Sahiwal.
21.2 Consign to record-room (Section 249)
The State Vs. Asghar Ali etc.
Case FIR.No. 235/14,

Offence u/s: 452 PPC
Police Station: City, Chichawatni
Dated: 02.01.2016
Present: Accused Asghar Ali and Muhammad Yaqub on bail present
Perusal of record reveals that the case FIR.No.448/2008 offence under sections
506, 452, 380,148,149 was registered against the accused on 03.09.2008 . The accused
were formally charge sheeted on 08.010.2009 which they pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial. Since then the case was fixed for prosecution evidence. Prosecution evidence was
summoned through summons, bailable warrants and non bailable warrants of arrest. Non
bailable warrants of arrest were also issued through SHO concerned for the production of
witnesses but inspite of this prosecution has failed to produce the witnesses. Complainant
and witnesses were not appearing before the court, although their service has been
affected. More than 07opportunities have been given to the prosecution for production of
evidence but prosecution has filed to produce its evidence. The accused are facing mental
agony of trial for 2 years, but in such period prosecution has not produce a single witness.
Meaning thereby prosecution has no interest to conclusion the case. The court has
adopted coercive measures for production of prosecution witnesses. In these
circumstances, if case is further proceeded, therefore is no chance of production of the
evidence by the prosecution, therefore, in the interest of justice and keeping in view the
gravity of offence/nature of case, the accused namely Haji Rafaqat Ali, Liaqat Ali,
Waleed, Adnan and Sadaqat Ali are released under section 249 Cr.P.C. the case filed is
consigned to record room under section 249 Cr.P.C. and accused persons be summoned if
the prosecution produce it complete evidence. Sureties of accused are kept intact. Now
the file be consigned to record room after its due completion.
Announced: (Muhammad Naveed),
03.02.2010. Magistrate Ist Class,
Sahiwal
Dated: 02.01.2016
Present: Accused Asghar Ali and Muhammad Yaqub on bail present
Perusal of record reveals that the case FIR.No. 235/14 under section 452 was
registered against the accused persons on 08.05.2014. Initially on 27.09.2014 cancellation
report was submitted in the court on the ground that F.I.R is false and frivolous and no
offence as narrated in the prosecution story has happened but on 26.01.2015 my
predecessor disagreed the cancellation report and summoned the accused persons to face
the trial. The accused were formally charge sheeted on 27.07.2015 which they pleaded
not guilty and claimed trial. Since then the case was fixed for prosecution evidence no
one appeared before the court. On even date i.e. 02.01.2016, Naib Court, under my
direction, contacted the complainant through cell number 03156895307 mentioned on the
complaint for lodging F.I.R and was asked for non-appearance in the present case, at
which complainant replied that she is not interested in proceeding with the following
case. Meaning thereby prosecution has no interest to conclude the case. In these
circumstances, if case is further proceeded, there is no chance of production of the
evidence by the prosecution, therefore, in the interest of justice and keeping in view the
gravity of offence/nature of case, the accused persons namely Muhammad Asghar and
Muhammad Yaqub are released under section 249 Cr.P.C, the case filed is consigned to
record room under section 249 Cr.P.C. and accused persons be summoned if the
prosecution produce it complete evidence. Sureties of accused are kept intact. Now the
file be consigned to record room after its due completion.
21.3 Fresh application to call for record from record room

Dated: 14.10.2016.
Present:
Petitioner Muhammad Ali in person
Learned Counsel for petitioner Muhammad Ali.
Fresh application to call for record in F.I.R no. 484/14 under sections
506/379 PPC has been filed, let it be registered. Robkar be issued to record keeper,
Chichawatni to produce said record on 20.10.2016.
21.4 Record not produced
Dated: 14.10.2016.
Present:
On last date of hearing robkar was issued to record keeper to produce

record in F.I.R no. 484/14 under sections 506/379 PPC but no report has been submitted
in that regard. Let show-cause notice be issued to concerned record keeper to submit his
reply in that record. Again Robkar be issued to record keeper, Chichawatni to produce
said record on 20.10.2016.
21.5 Incomplete particulars
Dated: 14.10.2016.
Present:
Record has been produced. Let the case be fixed for arguments on the
application for On last date of hearing robkar was issued to record keeper to produce
record in F.I.R no. 484/14 under sections 506/379 PPC. Today report has been submitted
by the record keeper that the particulars mentioned in the robekar are incomplete.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is hereby directed to provide complete particulars.
After receiving complete particulars again Robkar be issued to record keeper,
Chichawatni to produce said record on 20.10.2016.
21.6 Record Produced (Fixing for arguments)
Dated: 14.10.2016.
Present:
Record has been produced. Let the case be fixed for arguments on the
application for 20.10.2016.
21.7 Record produced (Dispose of Application)
Arguments heard. Perusal of the record transpires that present file was
consigned to record room on 20.10.2016 after declaring present accused as proclaimed
offender but now accused is before this court along with pre-arrest bail confirmed by the
Learned Arshad ASJ, Chichawatni. So present application is hereby accepted by
admitting the record in F.I.R no. 484/14 under sections 506/379 PPC for regular hearing.
Now further order shall be made in the main file. This application along with other papers
be annexed to main file.
21.8 Record produced (order in main file)
Whole record has been perused from where it transpires that present file
was consigned to record room on 20.10.2016 after declaring present accused as
proclaimed offender but now accused is before this court with the plead that along with
pre-arrest bail order confirmed by the Learned Arshad ASJ, Chichawatni/ accused was
behind the bard so he was declared proclaimed offender. So proclamation proceeding is
hereby set aside and file be admitted for regular hearing by marking accused attendance
on the margin of the order sheet.
Documents required under section 241-A of Code of Criminal Procedure,
1891 have been supplied to the accused. Let the case be fixed for framing of charge for
20.10.2016.
21.9 Consign to record room after recording of evidence
Dated: 24.02.2016.
Present: Learned A.D.P.P for the State.

Accused remained proclaimed offender.
Statement in absentia of private witnesses recorded. Preservation of private

witnesses deposition in terms of section 512 Cr.P.C complied hence as dormant file till
arrest of the proclaimed offender is hereby consigned to record-room. Instant file will
revive as and when accused arrested. With these observations order accordingly.

Multan.
22- Final Judgments
22.1 Complaint Case (Acquittal, S.379, 506)
IN THE COURT OF BABAR NADEEM, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
CHICHWATNI
Allah Baksh alias Bakho son of Shahamend caste Mahchi resident of Chak No. 53/12-L,
Tehsil Chichwatni, District Sahiwal.
Versus
1- Noor
2- Ghafoor
3- Zahoor
sons of Hakim
4- Manzoor son of Besaara
All are Mahchi by caste and residents of Chak No. 53/12-L, Tehsil Chichwatni,
District Sahiwal.
Private Complaint No: 222/2014

Offence U/Ss: Section 379, 506 PPC
Police Station: Ghaziabad, Chichawatni.
DATE OF DECISION ON 21.11.2016
Present: All accused persons on bail.

Learned Counsel for all accused persons Mr. Muhammad Sharif Gujjar
Advocate.
Learned Counsel for complainant Mr. Ch. Muhammad Iqbal Kang
Advocate.
Learned ADPP Muhammad Kamran for State.
JUDGMENT:
The succinct facts of the case narrated in the above mentioned private
complaint registered on 07.09.2013 are that complainant is the land-owner of an
agricultural land measuring 06K-0M situated in Chak No. 53/12-L, Chichawatni whereas
accused persons namely Noor, Ghafoor and Zahoor are cultivating the above mentioned
land as tenants; that all accused persons along-with six unknown person, on 20.04.2013,
at 4:00 P.M committed offence of theft by cutting and stealing 20 sheesham trees valuing
Rs. 100000/- from above mentioned land without consent of the complainant; that when
complainant and eye-witnesses namely Tariq and Saddique resisted, all accused persons
gave murderous threat to them, hence, complaint under section 379 and 506 of Pakistan
Penal Code, 1860.
1. On 09.09.2013, complainant (PW-1) along with his witnesses
namely Siddique (Pw-2) and Tariq was examined on oath under section 200 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1898, substance of their examination was reduced into writing and
finally, being sufficient ground to proceed, learned trial court took cognizance and issued
process under section 204 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 by summoning all
accused persons to face the trial.
2. On 24.03.2014, all accused persons were charged under section 379
and 506 of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 for which they pleaded not guilty and demanded
their trial subsequent to that prosecution evidence was summoned.
3. In prosecution evidence both oral as well as documentary evidence
was produced. In oral evidence complainant himself namely Allah Baksh appeared as
Pw-1 and repeated his stance narrated in the body of the complaint as well as cursory
statement. After that Muhammad Saddique appeared as Pw-2 in order to support
complainant’s version. In documentary evidence, complainant produced certified copy
of writ petition under section 22-A & 22-B of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 as
Ex.P1 along-with decision as Ex.P1/1; application to S.H.O dated 20.05.2013 as Mark-
A, certified copy of Register Haqdar Zamin year 2006-2007 pertaining to disputed land
as Ex.P2; application to S.H.O dated 04.07.2012 as Mark-D along-with decision of
learned Safdar Shakir Hussain, ASJ Chichwatni as Mark-D/1, application to Tehsildar,
Chichawatni as Mark-B along-with report revenue staff.
4. After closing of prosecution evidence statement of the accused
persons u/s 342 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was recorded wherein they denied all
the allegations narrated in prosecution story. According to them, they have been falsely
implicated in this private complaint due to civil litigation pending regarding same
disputed land and between same parties. In defence, accused produced documentary
evidence in the shape of certified copy of suit for declaration & permanent injunction
titled Noor Ahmad vs Province of Punjab as Ex.DA, certified copy of written statement
by defendant no.4 (present complainant) as Ex.DB, certified copy of written statement by
defendants no.02 and 03 as Ex.DC, photocopy of agreement to sell as Mark-A, certified
copy of register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 2010-2011 as Mark-B, certified copy of
writ petition u/s 22-A & 22-B of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 as Ex.DD, certified
copy of report of S.H.O Ghaziabad as Ex.DE, certified copy of order passed by learned
Sardar Muhammad Iqbal Dogar ASJ Chichawatni dated 15.07.2013 as Ex.DF, certified
copy of suit for permanent injunction titled Allah Baksh vs Noor Ahmad pending in the
court of learned Shehzad Ali, Civil Judge Class III as Ex.DG, certified copies of interim
orders from 19.08.2016 to 22.10.2016 as Ex.PH, certified copies of interim orders passed
by learned Abdul Jabbar Senior Civil Judge, Sahiwal from 27.04.2013 to 14.10.2016 as
Ex.DJ. Accused persons opted not to appear under section 340(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1898.
5. Arguments heard at a length.
6. Learned defence counsel contended that statements of prosecution
witnesses Pw-1 and Pw-2 are fully contradictory with each other as well as to prosecution
story narrated in the complaint as PW-1 stated that stolen property was loaded in a Tarala
where as PW-2 stated that stolen property was loaded in a truck; that in the complaint,
complainant has stated that eye-witness of the occurrence are Tariq and Saddique
whereas in his evidence he deposed that Nadeem and Saddique are the witnesses of the
occurrence; Pw-1 has stated that when I reached at the occurrence accused persons had
cut all the trees and were going away by loading these trees in a tarala whereas Pw-2
stated that when I reached at the occurrence 2 or 3 trees left to be cut, after loading them,
accused persons started the truck. It was also argued by the learned defence counsel that
present accused persons are owner of the suit property under an agreement to sell and a
civil litigation is still pending for specific performance of that agreement to sell because
of which present false and frivolous complaint has been lodged.

7. On the other hand, learned ADPP duly assisted by complainant
counsel argued that prosecution has fully proved it case as the time, date and place
narrated in the complaint, cursory evidence and prosecution evidence is the same; that
learned counsel for the defence has not put any suggestion to any prosecution witness that
accused persons have not cut any tree and according to law any fact narrated in the
examination in chief if not cross examined shall be deemed to be admitted; that
complainant is the owner of the disputed land and no agreement to sell exists between the
parties; even an agreement to sell does not create any right or title in favour of the
accused persons. At the end it was prayed by the prosecution to convict the accused
persons as the prosecution has proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt.
8. I have heard the arguments and perused the record from where it
transpires that land from where trees have been allegedly stolen are in possession of
accused persons rather than complainant as complainant (Pw-1) has himself stated in his
examination-in-chief that:
“--------------------------------------------------------”
During cross-examination complaint (Pw-1) stated that:
“--------------------------------------------------------”
During cross-examination Pw-2 stated that:
“--------------------------------------------------------”
Complainant (Pw-1) submitted a written statement (Ex.DB) in a civil court wherein it is
stated that:
“--------------------------------------------------------”
From these facts it becomes crystal clear that not only present accused persons are in
possession of the land but ownership of that land is also disputed between the parties.
Documentary evidence (Ex.DA to Ex. DJ) also manifests that ownership as well as
possession of the land from where tress have been stolen is disputed between the parties.
9. Now it is crystal clear from the wording of section 378 that in order
to constitute offence of theft, it is essential that property must be dishonestly removed

from the possession of some other person without consent of that person which is
missing in the present case. Section 378 is reproduced as under:
“378. Theft: Whoever, intending to take dishonestly

any movable property out of the possession of any
person without that person's consent, moves that
property in order to such taking, is said to commit
theft.”
As it is already established in paragraph no. 08 that possession of the disputed land is
with accused persons and not with the complainant, hence, circumstances of present case
neither fulfil the essential of section 378 nor section 379 of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 is
attracted in present case.
10. In respect of what has been stated in above paragraph, guidance may
be taken by principle laid down by superior courts in 1989 P.Cr.L.J 1660 that:
“I have no hesitation in holding that when it is not

proved by the prosecution that the land belongs to, or
is in possession of the complainant and rather the
ownership thereof is subject of disputed and that the
trees are removed there from by the accused is found
to be in the assertion of a contested claim of right,
however unjustified it may be, the act of the accused
shall not be deemed to have constitute an offence of
theft”
11. Otherwise there are circumstances from where it transpires that no
tree has been cut or stolen. Present complaint wherein complainant has alleged that
present accused persons have cut trees of Sheesham was lodged on 07.09.2013. On
19.08.2016, present complainant filed a suit for permanent injunction (Ex.DG) in the
court of learned Usman Ali, Civil Judge Class III wherein it was stated that:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
It was also stated in the above stated suit that:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
Even in the prayer clause of the above suit it was prayed that:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
It makes it clear that no tree was cut by the present accused persons on the alleged time,
date and place.
12. Another offence with which present accused persons have been
charge is section 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. Complainant has alleged in his
complainant as well as evidence that when complainant along-with witnesses resisted the
cutting and stealing of the trees, accused persons gave him murderous threat. As offence
of cutting and stealing the trees under section 379 is not proved by the prosecution, there
is no question of any threat to the complainant. Hence, charge under section 506 is also
disproved.
13. In view of above what has been discussed above, complainant has
failed to prove his version beyond any shadow of doubt against the accused persons,
therefore, the accused persons namely Noor, Ghafoor, Zahoor sons of Hakim and
Manzoor son of Besaara are hereby acquitted under section 245 of Code of Criminal
Code, 1898 in this private complaint. Sureties of the accused persons who is on bail, is
hereby discharged of his bail bond obligations. Case property if any shall remain with its
lawful owner. File be consigned to the record room after its due completion. File be
consigned to record room after its due completion and compilation.
Announced: 21.11.2016
Babar Nadeem
Magistrate First Class
Chichawatni
It is certified that this judgment consist of 07 pages, each of which has been
dictated, read, corrected and signed by me.
Dated: 21.11.2016.
Babar Nadeem
Magistrate First Class
Chichawatni
23-Bail
23.1 Fresh bail application
Date:- 19.10.2016
Present:- Learned Counsel Mr. Abdul Majeed Advocate on behalf of
petitioner/ accused Muhammad Khalid.
Present bail application is fresh, let it be registered.
23.2 Notice and calling Record
Date:- 19.10.2016
Let notice be issued to complainant through S.H.O. A robkar also be
issued in the name of concerned S.H.O to produce record in F.I.R no. 12/15 on
05.12.2016.
Chichawatni.
23.3 Process not returned
Date:- 19.10.2016
On last date of hearing notice was served upon the complainant/ respondent
but no process has returned. Let show-cause notice be issued to concerned S.H.O for is
reply in that regard. Once again notice be served upon complainant through S.H.O. Naib
court is also directed to trace out cell number of the complainant, if possible, from the
police file and notice the complainant about pendency of the bail application.
Chichawatni.
23.4 Record not produced
On last date of hearing robkar was issued in the name of concerned S.H.O
to produce record in F.I.R no. 12/15 but no such record has been produced. Let show-
cause notice be issued to the S.H.O to submit his reply in that regard. Once again robkar
be issued in the name of S.H.O to produce record in F.I.R no. 12/15 on 20.10.2016.
23.5 Neither Process nor Record
On last date of hearing concerned S.H.O was directed to serve notice upon
the complainant/ respondent as well as to produce the record in F.I.R no. 12/15 but
neither process has returned nor record has been produced. Let show-cause notice be
issued in the name of concerned S.H.O to submit his reply. Once again notice be served
upon complainant through S.H.O as well as robkar be issued in the name of S.H.O to
produce record in F.I.R no. 12/15 on 20.10.2016.
23.6 Complainant served but not appeared
Date:- 19.10.2016
Process has returned according to which complainant was duly noticed
about the present bail application but he has not appeared before the court.
Chichawatni.
23.7 Complainant served and appeared
Date:- 19.10.2016
Complainant Muhammad Naeem along-with his counsel Mr.
Muhammad Bashir Advocate.

Complainant is present before the court.
Chichawatni.
23.8 Compromising Statement

Date:- 19.10.2016

Complainant is present before the court and want to record his statement,
let it be recorded.
Chichawatni.
23.9 Statement Recorded, Fixing for argumetns
Date:- 19.10.2016

Compromising statement has been recorded. Let the arguments be heard by
petitioner as well as state.
Chichawatni.
23.10 Record produced

Date:- 19.10.2016
Record in F.I.R no. 12/15 is before this court.
Chichawatni.
23.11 Fixing Case for arguments

Date:- 19.10.2016
Let the case be fixed for arguments for 20.12.2016.
Chichawatni.
23.12 Request for adjournment

Date:- 19.10.2016
Today case was fixed for arguments on the bail application but learned
counsel for the accused/ complainant has requested for an adjournment on the ground that
today is strike day. As per request and for the sake of justice let the bail applicable be
adjournment for arguments for 20.10.2016.
Chichawatni.
23.13 Final interim order

Date:- 19.10.2016
Arguments heard. Vide by my separate order of even date in English,
present bail application is hereby accepted/ dismissed.
Chichawatni.
23.14 Dismissal in Default

Zia-Ur-Rehman versus The State
Dated:-18.04.2016.
No one on behalf of petitioner turned up, petition be again called

at 3.25 pm.
18.04.2016. Ehsan Sabir,

Judicial Magistrate Sec-30,
Multan.
It is 3.25 pm.
Nemo on behalf of petitioner.
Since morning till efflux of Court hours, no one from petitioner’s side on repeated Court’s call
appeared to show contest in instant bail petition. Hence, instant petition is hereby dismissed due to want of
prosecution. File be consigned to the record-room after its necessary completion.

Multan.
Order (Compromise)

MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS,
CHICHAWATNI.
Muhammad Amjad vs. State.
FIR No. 382/15

U.S 379/ 411PPC.
P.S City, Chichawatni.
POST ARREST BAIL PETITION.
O R D E R:
1. That accused persons namely Mr. Muhammad Amjad has/have
filed his/her/their first post arrest bail as per certificate annexed
with the petition in case FIR No.382/15 for the offence U.S 379,
411 PPC registered at Police Station City, Chichawatni.
2. Arguments heard and record perused.
3. Perusal of the record reveals that the complainant
namely, Abdul Jabbar as well as injured namely, Tariq Javed of
this case appeared before the court, submitted his/her/their duly
sworn affidavits and got recorded his/her/their statements that to
the extent of bail as well as trail, settlement has been made inter-se
the parties and he/she/they have no objection if the bail of present
petitioners/ accused persons is accepted. In the circumstances,
when the complainant as well as injured of instant case himself/
herself/themselves filed affidavits in favour of the petitioners/
accused persons, fact of involvement of the petitioners/ accused
persons requires further probe and inquiry, resultantly, the bail
petition in hand is hereby accepted subject to furnishing surety
bond by each accused in the sum of Rs.50, 000/- with one local
surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of this court. Ahlmad
is directed to retain the instant file and attach with the report
under Section 173 Cr.P.C. on its submission.

Chichawatni.
Order (Default, Accepted)

CHICHAWATNI.
Dildar Ahmad vs. State.
FIR No. 279/15

U.S 337F(v), 337L(2), 342, 452, 148, 149 PPC.
P.S Ghaziabad, Chichawatni.

O R D E R:
1. That accused persons namely Mr. Muhammad Amjad has/have
filed his/her/their first post arrest bail as per certificate annexed
with the petition in case FIR No.382/15 for the offence U.S 379,
411 PPC registered at Police Station City, Chichawatni. The
allegation against the accused persons is that he/she/ they has/
have stolen movable property of the complainant of worth Rs.
7,48000/-.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused persons argues
that there is an unexplainable delay of 9 days in lodging the F.I.R;
that cross version about the same case has been registered by the
police; that injury is on non-vital party; that prosecution story is
contradictor to the medical version; that offence does not fall within
prohibitory clause; that there is no repeated injury; that
investigation has been completed, accused has been sent to judicial
lock-up and no more required by the police.
3. On the other hand, learned ADPP for the state duly assisted by
learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail petition and
argued that present accused is nominated in the F.I.R; specific role
has been attributed to him; that recovery has been affected on the
pointation of the petitioner/ accused;
3. Notice was served upon the complainant but he did not appear.
However, learned ADPP for the state opposed the bail petition and
argued that accused is nominated in the F.I.R with specific role;
that complainant has no grudge against petitioner/ accused as to
why he has implicated him falsely.
5. The court has to make tentative assessment only while deeper
appreciation of evidence is neither permissible nor admissible at
this stage. So it transpires from bare perusal of the record that:
i. That there is unexplainable delay of 9 days in lodging the
F.I.R which creates dent in truthfulness of prosecution story;
ii. Accused is not nominated in the F.I.R rather he has been
nominated through supplementary statement of the complainant
and the complainant has nowhere in the supplementary statement
mentioned that as to how he come to know about present
petitioner/accused is his culprit.
iii. That no recovery has not been affected from the present
accused;
iv. That recovery has not been affected from the possession
of the present petitioner/ accused rather it has been affected at the
pointation of the present petitioner.
v. That recovery has not been affected from the possession
of the present petitioner/ accused rather it has been affected from
the premises of another co-accused at the pointation of present

petitioner/ accused to whom post-arrest bail has already been
granted.
vi. There is no eye-witness of the prosecution story narrated
in the FIR.
vii. Investigation has been completed; accused is behind the
bar and no more required by the police for further investigation.
viii. That the offence U.S 337F(v), 337L(2), 342, 148, 149
PPC does not fall within prohibitory clause and it was held in PLD
1995 SC 34 that where an offence does not fall within prohibitory
clause grant is a rule and refusal is an exception. Even the case of
present petitioner does not fall within exception as he is not
previously convicted;
ix. That prosecution story, ocular testimony is contradictory
to the medical version; It is stated in the F.I.R that present
petitioner/ accused caused injury to victim on the left leg whereas
it is written in the MLC that injury was caused on right leg;
x. That cross-version by present petitioner/ accused has
also been recorded by the police which makes it difficult in the
present situation to determine who was the aggressive party;
xi. That present petitioner and another co-accused namely
Malik Zakir have identical role of committing the theft from the
shop of the complainant and post-arrest bail on the basis of
compromise has already been granted to the co-accused Mr. Malik
Zakir on 23.03.2016 from the court of Mr. Tauseef Adeel Hassan,
Magistrate Section 30. Hence the present petitioner is also entitled
to concession of bail by applying the rule of consistency. It is also
pertinent to mention here that it was held in 2014 YLR 2283 that if
the complainant had entered into a compromise with co-accused to
whom a similar role had been attributed, then accused would also
be entitled to the benefit of grant of bail.
Resultantly the bail petition in hand is hereby accepted
subject to furnishing surety bond in the sum of Rs.100,000/- with one
local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of this court. Above
stated observations are tentative in nature which shall not affect the case
on merit at later stage. Ahlmad is directed to retain the instant file and
attach with the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. on its submission.

Chichawatni.
Order (One Accepted, One rejected)

CHICHAWATNI.
Abdul Majeed etc vs. State.
FIR No. 329/15

U.S 337F(iv), 337L(2), 34

O R D E R:
1. That accused persons namely Mr. Abdul Majeed and
Muhammad Naseeb sons of Hafeez have filed their first post arrest bail
as per certificate annexed with the petition in case FIR No.329/15 for the
offence U.S 337F(iv), 337L(2) and 34 PPC registered at Police Station

Ghaziabad, Chichawatni. The allegation against the accused persons is
that they have caused several injuries to the victim by their respective
weapons.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners/ accused persons
argued that there is an unreasonable delay of 2/3 days in lodging the
F.I.R; that no specific role has been attributed to the accused persons;
that the offences with which the present petitioners/ accused persons
have been charged do not fall within prohibitory clause; that
investigation has been completed, petitioners have been sent to judicial
lockup and their corpus is no more required by the police for further
investigation; that motive alleged by the complainant in the F.I.R is false
and frivolous; that real motive is that an F.I.R no. 06/13 under section
322 PPC has been lodged by Muhammad Hafeez co-accused in the
present F.I.R 329 and in counter blast of that present F.I.R has been
lodged.
3. On the other hand, learned ADPP for the state duly
assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail
petition and argued that present petitioners/ accused persons have been
specifically nominated in the F.I.R, specific role has been attributed to
them; that recovery from the both petitioners/ accused persons have
been effected; that prosecution story narrated in the F.I.R is in line with
ocular testimony as well medical evidence; that though present offences
fall within in non-prohibitory clause but it does not mean that where an
offence fall within non-prohibitory clause, bail should be granted as a
matter of right. In this regard learned counsel for the complainant relied
upon 1997 SCMR 278.

5. Through this paragraph I intend to decided bail petition to
the extent of petitioner/accused Naseeb. Bare perusal of the record
transpires that MLC is available on record which is prompt one as the
occurrence was taken place on 06.10.2015 at 6:00 P.M whereas victim
was medically examined on 06.10.2015 at 11:00 P.M. Though there is a
delay of 2 days in lodging the F.I.R but the same was explained by the
learned counsel for the complainant as firstly time spent in taking the
victim to the hospital for treatment and in taking care of him and
secondly in approaching the police authorities for lodging the F.I.R.
Specific role has been attributed him of causing injury on the left leg of
the victim with his hatchet and this role has been duly corroborated by
ocular testimony in the form of statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C of the eye-
witness and also by the medical evidence in the shape of MLC. Recovery
in the shape of hatchet has also been effected from the petitioner/
accused naseeb. In respect of the argument by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that present offence does not fall within prohibitory clause,
this court is fully agreed with the judgment 1997 SCMR 278 produced by
the learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant that mere fact that
offence does not fall within prohibitory clause does not mean the accused
in entitled to be released on bail as matter of course. So in the presence
of prompt F.I.R, MLC, statements u/s 161 and recoveries, this court is
not inclined to grant the bail to the petitioner Naseeb.
6. To the extent of bail of the petitioner/ accused Majeed it is
stated that no doubt present F.I.R, MLC is prompt one, recovery in the
shape of club (sotta) has also been effected from petitioner/ accused but
still there are certain points which need consideration. Firstly no specific
role has been attributed to him. At the most role of causing joint injury
has been attributed to him which fall under section 337L(2) which is
bailable in nature and it is settled principle of law that where an offence
is bailable, bail shall be granted as matter of right.
Resultantly, present bail petitioner to the extent of petitioner/
accused Naseeb is hereby rejected and to the extent of petitioner Majeed
is hereby accepted subject to furnishing surety bond in the sum of Rs.
50000/- with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of
this court. Above stated observations are tentative in nature which shall
not affect the case on merit at later stage. Ahlmad is directed to retain
the instant file and attach with the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. on
its submission.

Chichawatni.
Order (S.457, 380, Accepted)

CHICHAWATNI.
Ghulam Qadir etc vs. State.
FIR No. 303/14

U.S 457/ 380 PPC.

O R D E R:
4. That accused persons namely Mr. Ghulam Qadir, Muhammad
Shehzad alias Pervaiz and Muhammad Jameel have filed their first
post arrest bail as per certificate annexed with the petition in case
FIR No.303/14 for the offence U.S 457/ 380 PPC registered at
Police Station Ghaziabad, Chichawatni. The allegation against the
accused persons is that they have stolen movable property
belonging to complainant of worth Rs. 7,48000/-.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners/ accused persons argued
that present accused persons have been nominated through
supplementary statement after a delay of one year; that remand
was given at a length but nothing was recovered from the present
accused persons; that there is a delay of 06 days in lodging in
F.I.R; that present accused persons are behind the bar since last
10 days; that offences with which present accused persons are
alleged do not fall within prohibitory clause.

However, learned ADPP for the state opposed the bail on legal as
well factual points.
i. Accused persons are not nominated in the F.I.R rather they
have been nominated through supplementary statement of the
complainant after a delay of one year and the complainant has
nowhere in the supplementary statement mentioned that as to how
he come to know about present petitioner/accused persons are his
culprit.
ii. That there is unexplainable delay of 6 days in lodging the
accused;
iv. That F.I.R was lodged against unknown persons and after
nominating present accused persons through supplementary
statement, no identification parade was conducted.
v. Investigation has been completed; accused is behind the
vi. That the offences U.S 380/ 457 PPC do not fall within
prohibitory clause and it was held in PLD 1995 SC 34 that where
an offence does not fall within prohibitory clause grant is a rule
and refusal is an exception. Even the case of present petitioner
does not fall within exception as he is not previously convicted;

subject to furnishing surety bond by each accusedin the sum of
Rs.50,000/- with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction
of this court. Above stated observations are tentative in nature which
shall not affect the case on merit at later stage. Ahlmad is directed to
retain the instant file and attach with the report under Section 173
Cr.P.C. on its submission.

Chichawatni.
Order (S. 419, 420, 468, 471, Accepted)

CHICHAWATNI.
Umer Hayat vs. State.
FIR No.283/15
U.S 419, 420, 468, 471 PPC.
O R D E R:
1. Mr. Umer Hayat petitioner/accused has filed his first post
arrest bail as per certificate annexed with the petition in case FIR
No.283/15 for the offence U.S 419, 420, 468, 471 PPC registered at
Police Station City, Chichawatni. The allegation against the petitioner /
accused is on 04.12.2014, he prepared a fake and fictitious registered
sale deed on behalf of Abdul Sattar s/o Ali Muhammad regarding his
land measuring 27K-02M who had already died on 04.06.2006.
2. The learned counsel for the accused/ petitioner argued that
there is an unexplainable delay of 8/9 months in lodging the F.I.R; that
the accused is not previously convicted; that there is no apprehension of
abscondance or tempering with prosecution evidence; that civil litigation
on the same subject matter is already pending between the parties; that
the petitioner/ accused is not the beneficiary of the alleged transaction;
that the bail to a co-accused having the same role has already been
granted; hence, present bail petition may kindly be accepted and the
petitioner/ accused be released on bail.
3. On the other hand, learned ADPP for the state duly assisted
by learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail petition and
argued that the petitioner is nominated in the FIR and specific role that
he had prepared a false and factitious sale deed on behalf of real owner
Abdul Sattar on 04.12.2016 although he died long before registration of
sale deed on 04.06.2006 has been attributed to him. That the offence
u/s 419 falls within prohibitory clause, hence, present bail petition in
hand may kindly be dismissed;
6. Perusal of the record transpires that the alleged role of the
present petitioner/ accused in commission of the offence of preparing a
forged document is that he being Namdardar of the estate identified a
fictitious person as real owner of the property and in that way he has
facilitated the commission of the offence of preparing forged document.
In this regard it is stated that a bare reading of the backside of the
alleged forged document i.e. registered sale deed dated 04.12.2014
transpires that the allegedly fictitious person Abdul Sattar has been
identified as real owner by two accused persons. One is present
petitioner/ accused i.e. Umer Hayat Namberdar of the estate and the
other is Dur Muhammad Patti Dar in the estate and post-arrst bail to
Dur Muhammad has already been granted on 06.10.2016 by the learned
court of Mr. Nasir Hussain Additional Sessions Judge, Chichawatni.
Hence, rule of consistency is fully applicable in the present case.
Otherwise, admittedly civil litigation on the same subject matter is
already pending between the same parties; that the petitioner/ accused
is not the beneficiary of the forged transaction; Investigation has been
completed; Accused is behind the bar and no more required by the police
for further investigation, therefore, the case against the present
petitioner has become that of further inquiry. In such like cases grant is
rule and refusal is an exception. So the bail petition in hand is hereby
accepted subject to furnishing surety bond in the sum of Rs.100,000/-
with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of this court.
Order be annexed with report u/s 173 Cr.P.C whenever submitted.

Chichawatni.
Order (S. 380, 457, 411, Accepted)

CHICHAWATNI.
Nadeem vs. State.
FIR No. 84/15

U.S 380, 457, 411 PPC.

O R D E R:
9. Mr. Nadeem son of Shamshair petitioner/accused has filed his first
FIR No.84/15 for the offence U.S 380, 457, 411 PPC registered at
Police Station City, Chichawatni. The allegation against the

petitioner / accused is that he along with other co-accused on
24/25.02.2016 at midnight entered in the shop of the complainant
and committed theft of various articles like weapons, bullets and
generator valuing about RS 13 lac.
10. The learned counsel for the accused/ petitioner argues that he is
not nominated in the FIR rather he has been nominated through
supplementary statement; that recovery has not been affected from
the possession of the present petitioner/ accused; that recovery
memos are tempered one; that bail to another co-accused Mr. Malik
Zakir has already been granted, so present petitioner/ accused is
also entitled to concession of bail on the principle of rule of
consistency.
argued that recovery has been affected on the pointation of the
petitioner/ accused; that the present accused/ petitioner is record
holder as he is involved in another case.
Chichawatni.
Order (S. 419, 420, 468, 471, Rejected)

CHICHAWATNI.
Nazir Ahmad vs. State.
FIR No.283/15
U.S 419, 420, 468, 471 PPC.
O R D E R:
1. Mr. Nazir Ahmad petitioner/accused has filed his first post
No.283/15 for the offence U.S 419, 420, 468, 471 PPC registered at
Police Station City, Chichawatni. The allegation against the petitioner /
accused is that he is the beneficiary of a bogus registered sale deed
prepared on 04.12.2014 by producing a fictitious persons namely Abdul
Star as real owner of the property measuring 27K-0M.
2. The learned counsel for the accused/ petitioner argued that
there is an unexplainable delay of 8/9 months in lodging the F.I.R; that
present petitioner/ accused is the bonafide purchaser of the property;
that present petitioner/ accused is a silent purchaser; that section 419 is
not attracted in the present case; that matter disputed between the
petitioner/ accused and complainant of the case is of civil nature and not
that of criminal; that the accused is behind the bar since one month,
investigation has been completed and his corpus is no more required by
the police; that rule of consistency is fully applicable in the present case
as bail has already been granted to two co-accused persons; that alleged
document is a registered document to which presumption of truth is
attached;
3. On the other hand, learned ADPP for the state duly assisted
by learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail petition and
argued that the petitioner is nominated in the FIR and specific role has
been attributed to him i.e. he is the beneficiary of a false and factitious
sale deed; that rule of consistency is not applicable in the present case as
the role of the accused persons to whom bail has been already granted is
different from that of present petitioner/ accused; that present
petitioner/ accused has played a pivotal role in present case as he is the
beneficiary of the forged document; that huge amount in involve in the
present case, hence, present bail petition in hand may kindly be
dismissed;
5. Both the learned counsel have argued in detail and at a
length but this court has to make tentative assessment only while deeper
appreciation of evidence is neither permissible nor admissible at this
stage. So it transpires from arguments heard and bare perusal of the
record that main contention between the parties is that whether, being
beneficiary of the alleged forged document, present petitioner/
accused is a bondafide purchase or not? In this regard it is submitted
that on the one hand it is categorically stated in the alleged forged
registered sale deed that the possession has been transferred to the
purchasers i.e. present petitioner/ accused and one other co-accused
namely Ghulam Abbas, the relevant part of the allegedly forged registered
sale deed is hereby reproduced:

“------------------------------------”
On the other hand, after execution of the above mentioned registered sale
deed allegedly forged one, present petitioner/ accused filed a suit for
declaration with possession of the disputed property with the following
relief
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
which transpires that present petitioner is a malafide purchase rather
than a bonafide one as at the time of execution of allegedly forged sale
deed present petitioner/ accused was not delivered the possession of the
disputed property. It also manifests that present petitioner/accused was
collusive with the fictitious owner of the property namely Abdul Settar in
order to get benefit of the forged document. Property of huge amount in
involved in the present case. Otherwise the accused/petitioner is
nominated in the FIR; during the course of investigation accused was
found involved in the commission of alleged offence prima-facie. It is also
pertinent to mention here that rule of consistency is not applicable in the
present case as the role of the accused to whom bail has already been
granted is that of identifier while present petitioner/accused is the
beneficiary of the forged document who played a pivotal role in managing
to get a forged registered document in his favour.
Resultantly, accused is not entitled to any discretionary relief
like bail. Petition in hand has no merits, same is rejected accordingly.
Above stated observations are tentative in nature which shall not affect
the case on merit at later stage. Ahlmad is directed to retain the instant
file and attach with the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. on its
submission.

Chichawatni.
Order (S. 379, 411, Accepted)

CHICHAWATNI.
Ghulzar Ahmad vs. State.
FIR No. 340/15

U.S 379/ 411PPC.
O R D E R:
14. Mr. Ghulzar Ahmad petitioner/accused son of Muhammad Mansha
Caste Khokhar R/O 6/4L, Okara has filed his first post arrest bail
as per certificate annexed with the petition in case FIR No.340/15
for the offence U.S 379, 411 PPC registered at Police Station
Ghaziabad, Chichawatni. The allegation against the petitioner /
accused is that he along with other co-accused committed theft of
two cattle.
15. The learned counsel for the accused/ petitioner argues that F.I.R
has been lodged after unexplainable delay of 28 days; that offence
does not fall within prohibitory clause; that planted recovery has
been made; that investigation is completed and corpus is no more
required by the police;

Chichawatni.
Order (S. 379, 411, Accepted)

CHICHAWATNI.
Muhammad Amjad vs. State.

FIR No. 382/15
U.S 379/ 411PPC.
O R D E R:
19. Mr. Muhammad Amjad petitioner/accused son of Muhammad
Shafi Caste Arain R/O Chak No. 81/5-$ has filed his first post
No.382/15 for the offence U.S 379, 411 PPC registered at Police
Station City, Chichawatni. The allegation against the petitioner /
accused is that he assisted other co-accused in the commission of
theft.
20. The learned counsel for the accused/ petitioner argues that F.I.R
has been lodged after unexplainable delay of 2 days; that no
recovery has been effected from the petitioner/ accused; that
offences does not fall within prohibitory clause; that present accuse
is not previously convicted; that no specific role has been attributed
to the accused in F.I.R, so present petitioner/ accused is entitled to
concession of bail.

Chichawatni.
Order (S. 3/4/479 Rejected)

CHICHAWATNI.
Shahid Masih vs. The State.
FIR No.400/15
U.S 3/4 /4/79 PEHO.
O R D E R:
1. The petitioners namely Shahid Masih son Bashir Masih caste
Cristian resident of Disposal Colony, Chichawatni has moved his
first post arrest bail petition as per certificate annexed with this
petition, for his release on bail in criminal case FIR No.400/15 for
the offence U.S 3/4 4/79 PEHO registered at Police Station City,
Chichawatni with the allegations that the petitioner/accused was
arrested by the police red-handed having 30 liter of desi liquor for
the purpose of selling, hence, present F.I.R.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused has argued that the
petitioners/accused have falsely been implicated in the instant
case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also further argued
that police has raided illegally at the spot without permission of the
concerned Area Magistrate and the offence does not fall within the
ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497 CRPC. Therefore, the
case against present petitioners has become one of further inquiry.
Petitioners have been sent to judicial lockup and no more required
for the purpose of investigation. Hence, present petitioner is
entitled for grant of bail.
3. Learned ADPP has opposed the instant bail application on multiple
legal and factual grounds and prayed for its dismissal.

i. It is evident from the record that the accused/petitioner is
nominated in the FIR.
ii. The alleged eye witnesses of occurrence also fully supported the
version of FIR in their statements u/s 161 Cr.Pc;
iii. During the course of investigation accused was found involved in
the commission of alleged offence prima-facie;
iv. It cannot be presumed that such huge quantity of intoxicating
liquor measuring 30 liters was possessed by the
petitioner/accused for consumption rather than the same was
possessed for the purpose of sale.
v. Sufficient incriminating material is available on record against
the present accused/petitioner which prima facie connect him
with the commission of offence as he was red handed caught
from the spot. In such like cases the bail cannot be granted as a
matter of right.
vi. That consuming and selling illicit liquor is a heinous offence as
it is nothing but only poison and the person dealing in such
kind of illegal business are playing havoc with the health and
mind of innocent people of our society and they should be
discouraged. It is aslo pertinent to mention here that these kinds
of offences create unrest in the society and should be dealt with
iron hands.

submission.

Chichawatni.
Order (S. 379, 411, Rejected)

CHICHAWATNI.
Shamim Bibi vs. The State.
FIR No.340/15
U.S 379/411 PPC.
O R D E R:
6. Present petitioner namely Shamim Bibi wife of Alam Shair caste
aod resident of Bhattah Qabalian Wala, Depalpur has filed this
post arrest bail in case FIR No.340/15 u/s 379/411 PPC registered
at Police Station Ghaziabad, Chichawatni with the allegations that

the petitioner/accused has committed theft of cattle, hence,
present F.I.R.
7. Present bail petition has been received by worthy District and
Session Judge Sahiwal wherein it has been stated that petitioner is
a poor person; she is not able to engage a counsel; that she has not
committed any theft that petitioner is innocent; that complainant
has registered present case by joining hand with the police.
8. Notice was served upon the complainant but no one appeared.
However, Learned ADPP has opposed the instant bail application
on multiple legal and factual grounds and prayed for its dismissal.
this stage. It transpires from the bare perusal of the record that
recovery in the above titled case i.e. F.I.R no. 340/13 in the shape
of two buffalo has been effected form the present accused. It is also
pertinent to mention here that presently another bail in case F.I.R
no. 330/15 u/s 379, 411 PPC is pending before this court wherein
another recovery in the shape of one buffalos has also been effected
from the present accused. What has been said in the present
paragraph, it has become crystal clear that present accused/
petitioner is a habitual offender and if be release on bail, there will
be an apprehension of repetition of same offence. It is also
pertinent to mention here that it was held in PLD 1995 SC 34 that
where an offence does not fall in the prohibitory clause grant is a
rule and refusal is an exception. Exception has also been
mentioned in the above cited land mark judgment. One of those

exceptions is “Apprehension of repetition of offence”, hence,
present petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.
Otherwise, ocular testimony recorded u/s 161 by police is in line
with prosecution story narrated in the F.I.R; petitioner/ accused
has been declared guilty by the police; No ulterior motive exist on
the part of complainant to trap present petitioner/ accused in false
and frivolous cases.
Resultantly, accused is not entitled to any discretionary
relief like bail. Petition in hand has no merits, same is rejected
accordingly. Above stated observations are tentative in nature
which shall not affect the case on merit at later stage. Ahlmad is
directed to retain the instant file and attach with the report under
Section 173 Cr.P.C on its submission.

Chichawatni.
Order (S.382, Accepted)

CHICHAWATNI.
Parveen vs. State.
FIR No. 445/15

U.S 382 PPC.

O R D E R:
That accused namely Parveen filed her first post arrest
bail as per certificate annexed with the petition in case FIR No.
445/15 for the offence U.S 382 PPC registered at Police Station
City, Chichawatni. The allegation against the accused is that she
has committed theft of jewelry valuing Rs.125000/- after
preparation made for causing hurt.
1. The learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused argues that there is
an unexplainable delay of 24 hours in lodging the F.I.R; that
section 382 PPC is not applicable in the present case; that no
recovery has been effected from the accused; that injured persons
have not been medically examined; that investigation has been
completed, accused has been sent to judicial lock-up and no more
required by the police.
has been attributed to her; that offence S.382 fall within

prohibitory clause; that complainant has no grudge against
petitioner/ accused as to why he has implicated him falsely.
i. That present accused is a female who has been alleged with
the offence under section 382 of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. Before
I discuss the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that section 382 PPC is not applicable in the present case
it is essential to reproduce section 382 of Pakistan Penal Code,
1860 which is as under:
382. Theft after preparation made for causing death,

hurt or restraint in order to the committing of the theft:
Whoever, commits theft, having made preparation for causing death,
or hurt, or restraint, or fear of death, or of hurt, or of restraint, to any
person, in order to the committing of such theft, or in order to the
effecting of his escape after the committing of such theft, or in order
to the retaining of property' taken by such theft, shall be punished
with rigorous imprisonment for a term, which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Now the whole body of the F.I.R is silent about the facts in respects
of preparation for causing death, hurt or restraint. Similarly it is
mentioned in the F.I.R that hurt was caused to the victims but no
MLC is available on the record. At the most present case fall under
section 379 of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 which does not fall within
prohibitory clause and it is a settled principle of law that where an
offence does not fall within prohibitory clause, grant is a rule and
refusal is an exception. Even the case of the petitioner does not fall
within prohibitory clause as she is not previously convicted.

ii. That there is unexplainable delay of 22 hours in lodging
the F.I.R which creates dent in truthfulness of prosecution story;
accused;
vii. Investigation has been completed; accused is behind the

Chichawatni.
Order (S.337, Accepted)

CHICHAWATNI.
Arslan vs. State.
FIR No. 379/15

U.S 337A(i), 337F(i), 337F(ii), 337F(iv) PPC.

O R D E R:
That accused namely Mr. Arslan son of Muhammad

Akbar has filed his first post arrest bail as per certificate annexed
with the petition in case FIR No.379/15 for the offence U.S 337A(i),
337F(i), 337F(ii), 337F(iv) PPC registered at Police Station City,
Chichawatni. The allegation against the accused is that he has
caused several injuries to the victim with his weapon i.e. “Dater”.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused argues that there is
delayed F.I.R; that accused is behind the bar since last 3 months;
that offences do not fall within prohibitory clause; that MLC is
bogus one; that investigation has been completed, accused has
been sent to judicial lock-up and no more required by the police;
that previous enmity exist between the parties.
has been attributed to him; that recovery has been affected on the
pointation of the petitioner/ accused; that section 324 is fully
applicable in the present case; that MLC is prompt one.

this stage. No doubt that MLC is prompt one; delay of 2/3 days in
lodging F.I.R is also explainable to some extent; petitioner/ accused
is specifically nominated in the F.I.R; specific role has been
attributed to him and recovery has also been affected from him but
still there are certain points which need consideration. First one is
that according to prosecution story narrated in the F.I.R two
injuries have been caused by the petitioner/ accused to the victim,
one on the left arm and other on the left side of the neck. Now to
the extent of injury on the left arm, prosecution story and ocular
testimony under section 161 Cr.P.C is contradictory to the MLC as
according to MLC no injury has been caused on the left arm of the
victim; other injury on the neck has been declared as Shajjah-i-
Khafifah under section 337A(i). Now offence under section 337A(i),
even all other offences do not fall within prohibitory clause and it
was held by Supreme Court in PLD 1995 SC 34 that where an
offence does not fall within prohibitory clause grant is a rule and
refusal is an exception. Even present case does not fall within
prohibitory clause as present petitioner is not previously convicted.
Second point which needs consideration is that investigation has
been completed and accused is behind the bar since last 3 months
and it is a settled principle of law that bail cannot be withheld as
punishment. I am disagree to the argument advanced by the
learned counsel for the respondent that section 324 is fully
applicable in the present case as uptil now no application has been
moved by the respondent at proper forum for addition of offence

under section 324 of PPC. Otherwise question that present case fall
under section 324 PPC is a question of fact which makes the
present case fit for further inquiry.

Chichawatni.
Order (337F(iv), Accepted)
CHICHAWATNI.
Hafeez vs. State.
FIR No. 329/15

U.S 337F(iv), 337L(2), 34 PPC.

O R D E R:
That accused namely Mr. Hafiz son of Laal caste Muslim
Sheikh, resident of Chak No. 8/11-L, Chichawatni has filed his first
FIR No.329/15 for the offence U.S 337F(iv), 337L(2) PPC registered
at Police Station Ghaziabad, Chichawatni. The allegation against
the accused is that he has assisted other co-accused in causing
injuries to the victim.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused argued that there
is an unexplainable delay of 2 days in lodging the F.I.R; that no
specific role has been attributed to the present accused; that
offence does not fall within prohibitory clause; that investigation
has been completed, accused has been sent to judicial lock-up and
no more required by the police.
has been attributed to him; that MLC is prompt one; that offences
have been committed in furtherance of common intention of
present accused; that according to Zimin no. 6, para 04 accused
has confessed before police; that recovery is still to be affected from
the accused.
this stage. So it transpires from bare perusal of the record that
there is no iota of doubt about the fact that MLC is prompt one,
delay in lodging F.I.R is also explainable to some extent but still
there are certain points which need consideration. First one is that
no specific role has been attributed to the present petitioner. At the
most his role is that offences have been committed in the
furtherance of common intention of all accused persons. In this
regard it is stated that to establish constructive liability under
section 34 PPC is a question of evidence and cannot be decided at
bail stage and without recording evidence, hence, present case is fit
case for further inquiry. Secondly no recovery has been affected
from the present accused. Thirdly investigation has been
completed; accused is behind the bar and no more required by the
police for further investigation and lastly the offences U.S 337F(iv),
337L(2), 34 PPC do not fall within prohibitory clause and it was
held in PLD 1995 SC 34 that where an offence does not fall within
prohibitory clause grant is a rule and refusal is an exception. Even
the case of present petitioner does not fall within exception as he is
not previously convicted;


Chichawatni.
Order (S.381-A, 411, Accepted)
CHICHAWATNI.
Muhammad Ramzan vs. State.
FIR No. 249/15

U.S 381-A, 411 PPC.

O R D E R:
1. That accused namely Mr. Muhammad Ramzan has filed his first
FIR No.249/15 for the offence U.S 381-A, 411 PPC registered at
Police Station City, Chichawatni. The allegation against the
accused persons is that he has stolen motor bike of the
complainant of worth Rs. 35000/-.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused persons argues
that there is an unexplainable delay of 9 days in lodging the F.I.R;
that the petitioner was nominated through supplementary
statement after a delay of almost 4 months from the date of F.I.R;
that present accused was nominated through supplementary
statement yet no source of information as to how complainant
came to know that present petitioner is his accused has been
mentioned in the supplementary statement; that though accused
has been nominated in the F.I.R yet no identification parade has
been conducted; even no description or feature of the accused
person has been mentioned in the F.I.R; that no description of the

bike recovered from the present petitioner has been mentioned in
the recovery memo; that offence does not fall within in prohibitory
clause; that investigation is completed, accused is sent to judicial
lock-up and no more required for any other purpose. At the end
learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon 2009 YLR 106,
2011 MLD 865, 2012 MLD 1971 wherein post arrest bail in an
F.I.R under section 381-A, 411 PPC was granted to the accused.
argued that recovery in the form of motor bike has been affected
from the petitioenr; that complainant has no grudge against
petitioner/ accused as to why he has implicated him falsely.
i. That there is unexplainable delay of 9 days in lodging the
ii. Accused is not nominated in the F.I.R rather he has been
nominated through supplementary statement of the complainant
and the complainant has nowhere in the supplementary statement
mentioned that as to how he come to know about present
petitioner/accused is his culprit.
iii. That though accused has been nominated through
supplementary statement yet no identification parade has been
conducted.
iv. Investigation has been completed; accused is behind the
v. That the offence U.S 381-A, 411 PPC does not fall within
prohibitory clause and it was held in PLD 1995 SC 34 that where
an offence does not fall within prohibitory clause grant is a rule
and refusal is an exception. Even the case of present petitioner
does not fall within exception as he is not previously convicted;

Chichawatni.
Order (S.337, 452, 354 Accepted)
CHICHAWATNI.
Zeeshan Yousaf vs. State.
FIR No. 366/15

U.S 337A(i), 337F(i), 337L(2), 337H(2), 354, 452,
148, 149 PPC.

O R D E R:
That accused namely Mr. Muhammad Zeeshan Yousaf
has filed his first post arrest bail as per certificate annexed with the
petition in case FIR No.366/15 for the offence U.S 337A(i), 337F(i),
337L(2), 337H(2), 354, 452, 148, 149 PPC registered at Police Station
Ghaziabad, Chichawatni. The allegation against the accused is that he
has entered the house of complainant, caused various injuries to the
victim by his respective weapon and also derogate the modesty of
woman.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused
argued that except section 452 PPC, all offences with which present
petitioner has been charged sheeted is bailable in nature; that no
recovery has been effected from the present petitioner/ accused; that
present petitioner is a student of 1st year so a lenient view should be
taken.
3. On the other hand, learned ADPP duly assisted by
complainant counsel opposed the bail petition and argued that present
accused is nominated in the F.I.R; specific role has been attributed to
him; that offence under section 452 PPC is not only an offence but also
against ethics; that there are 8 repeated injuries; that petitioner/
accused is of 23 years age; that F.I.R is prompt one; that another F.I.R
number 407 under section 392/397 has been lodged again other co-
accused namely Rana Muzamal who is uncle of present petitioner; that
motive is that complaint as well as victim voted and supported a political
party rival of the present petitioner.
5. The court has to make tentative assessment only
while deeper appreciation of evidence is neither permissible nor
admissible at this stage. So it transpires from bare perusal of the record
that MLC as well as F.I.R is prompt one, accused has been specifically
nominated in the F.I.R but there are certain points which need
consideration. First one is that no specific role has been attributed. At
the most he has been attributed with the role of joint injury and it is
matter of further inquiry that what injury out of various injuries have
been caused by the petitioner/ accused Zeeshan Yousaf. Otherwise all
offences except offence under section 454 are bailable in nature and it is
a settled principle of law where an offence is bailable, the bail shall be
granted as a matter of right. It is also pertinent to mention here that
offence 452 PPC though non-bailable but the same does not fall within
prohibitory clause and it was held in PLD 1995 SC 34 that where an
offence does not fall within prohibitory clause grant is a rule and refusal
is an exception. Even the case of present petitioner does not fall within
exception as he is not previously convicted; Through remand of two days
was granted yet nothing was recovered from the present petitioner/
accused. Investigation has been completed; accused is behind the bar
and no more required by the police for further investigation.

Chichawatni.
Order (S. 458, Rejected)

CHICHAWATNI.
Muhammad Nawaz vs. The State.
FIR No.16/16
U.S 458 PPC.
O R D E R:
1. The petitioners namely Ahmad Nawaz son of
Muhammad Tayyab caste Malik Awan resident of 25/W Housing Colony,
Chichawatni has moved his first post arrest bail petition as per certificate
annexed with this petition, for his release on bail in criminal case FIR
No.16/16 for the offence U.S 458 PPC registered at Police Station City,
Chichawatni with the allegations that he committed lurking house-
trespass by night having made preparation for causing hurt to the
daughter of the complainant.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that
Section 458 does not attract the present case, at the most present case
fall under section 447 PPC for which punishment is just 3 months; that
No recovery has been effected from the present petitioner; that present
petitioner is a student; that no statement of daughter of the complainant

as well as servant available on the record; that the investigation has been
completed and the corpus of the petitioner is no more required by the
police. Hence, present petitioner is entitled for grant of bail.
3. The learned ADPP duly assisted by learned
counsel for the complainant opposed the instant bail application on the
ground that F.I.R is prompt one; that petitioner is specifically nominated
in the F.I.R; that specific role has been attributed to him; that
prosecution story is in line with ocular testimony; that no motive exists
as to why complaint has falsely trapped the petitioner in the present
case; that present offence under section 458 fall within prohibitory
clause as its punishment is upto forteen years; that it is an early stage to
grant bail; that petitioner has been declared guilty by the police; that
recovery in the form of pistol has been recovered from the petitioner/
accused; that section 458 PPC is fully applicable in the present case.
admissible at this stage. So it transpires from bare perusal of the record
that accused is specifically nominated in the F.I.R; specific role of
assaulting complainant’s daughter after preparation with his pistol has
been attributed to him; recovery in the form of pistol has also been
effected from the petitioner; that offence under section 458 PPC is
heinous one and fall within in prohibitory clause as punishment under
the said section is upto 14 years. I also rely upon 2006 YLR 3005 and
2007 YLR 901 where the superior court also refused the bail the like
circumstances.
submission.

Chichawatni.
Order (S. 458, Accepted)

CHICHAWATNI.
Muhammad Nawaz vs. The State.
FIR No.16/16
U.S 458 PPC.
O R D E R:
1. The petitioners namely Muhammad Umer Adnan
son of Adnan Arshad Caste Arain resident of Street No. 04, Block no. 03,
Chichawatni, Sahiwal has moved his first post arrest bail petition as per
certificate annexed with this petition, for his release on bail in criminal
case FIR No.16/16 for the offence U.S 458 PPC registered at Police
Station City, Chichawatni with the allegations that he committed lurking
house-trespass by night having made preparation for causing hurt to the
daughter of the complainant.
present petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R rather he has been
nominated through supplementary statement. Though he has been
nominated through supplementary statement yet no identification parade
has been conducted; that no recovery has been effected from the present
accused; that present accused is not previously convicted person.
3. The learned ADPP duly assisted by learned
counsel for the complainant opposed the instant bail application on the
ground that F.I.R is prompt one; that specific role has been attributed to
him; that prosecution story is in line with ocular testimony; that no
motive exists as to why complaint has falsely trapped the petitioner in
the present case; that present offence under section 458 fall within
prohibitory clause as its punishment is upto forteen years; that it is an
early stage to grant bail; that petitioner has been declared guilty by the
police; that recovery in the form of pistol has been recovered from the
petitioner/ accused; that section 458 PPC is fully applicable in the
present case.
admissible at this stage. There is no iota of doubt that F.I.R is prompt
one; recovery in the form of pistol has been effected from the present
petitioner; that present offence under section 458 fall under prohibitory
clause but still there are certain points which need consideration. First
one is that present petitioner/ accused is not nominated in the F.I.R. He
has been nominated through supplementary statement after an
unexplainable delay of four days; though he has been nominated
through supplementary statement yet no identification parade has been
conducted; even complainant failed to mention in the supplementary
statement about the source from where he came to know about the
involvement of the present petitioner/ accused in the case; even he has
not mentioned the description of the petitioner/ accused in the F.I.R. So
these circumstances makes the present case a matter of further inquiry
and it is a settled principle of law that where matter of further inquiry is
established, bail shall be granted as a matter of right.
6. Resultantly the bail petition in hand is hereby
accepted subject to furnishing surety bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-
with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of this court.
submission.

Chichawatni.
Order (S. 381-A, Rejected)

CHICHAWATNI.
Muhammad Ameer vs. The State (F.I.R No. 02/15)


FIR No. 02/15, 69/15, 80/15, 105/15, 111/15,

117/15, 284/15
U.S 381-A PPC.
O R D E R:
1. The petitioners namely Muhammad Ameer son of
Mamind has moved his first post arrest bail petitions as per certificates
annexed with the petitions, for his release on bail in criminal case FIR
No.02/15, 69/15, 80/15, 105/15, 111/15/ 117/15 and 284/15 for the
offence U.S 381-A PPC registered at Police Station City, Chichawatni with
the allegations that he committed the offence of theft under section 381-
A PPC.
all the said F.I.Rs are delayed one. In All the F.I.Rs petitioner
Muhammad Ameer has been nominated through supplementary
statements. Though he has been nominated through supplementary
statements yet no identification parade has been conducted; that only
recovery in the form of tire has been effected from the petitioner; that
when the F.I.R 284/15 was lodged, the petitioner/ accused was behind
the bar; that in F.I.R 02/15 complainant has appeared before the court
and recorded his statement that present petitioner is not his culprit,
hence, bail should be granted in all the above mentioned cases.
3. Notice was served upon the all complainants in
the above mentioned F.I.Rs but no one appeared before the court.
However, learned ADPP argued that petitioner is a habitual offender,
hence, bail should not be granted.
5. First of all I will take up bail petition in F.I.R no.
02/ 15 under section 381-A. In this F.I.R, learned counsel for the
petitioner/accused produced the complainant who recorded his
statement that present petitioner is not his culprit. In this regard it is
stated that though recovery in the form of Motor Bike has been effected
from the petitioner and same has been taken on superdari by the
complainant yet complainant has recorded his statement that present
petitioner is not his culprit, so, bail in the F.I.R no. 02/15 is hereby
granted to the petitioner.
6. No I will discuss bail petition in F.I.R no. 284/15
under section 381-A. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioner/
accused has produced certified copy of judicial remand order as well as
bail order in F.I.R 87/15, police station Sahoka Burewala from where it
transpires that when the occurrence narrated in F.I.R no. 284/ 15 took
place, petitioner/ accused was behind the bar. Hence present petitioner
is also entitled to bail in the F.I.R no. 284/15.
7. Now I will discuss the bail petitions in F.I.R No.
69/15, 80/15, 105/15, 111/15/ 117/15 under section 381-A PPC. In
this regard it is stated that no doubt accused has been nominated
through supplementary statement. No iota of doubt about the fact that
though accused has been nominated through supplementary statement
and no identification parade has been conducted yet there are certain
points which need consideration. First one is that present petitioner is
involved in various offence registered in various police station in different
districts. Some of the previous record as collected by my Naib court is as
under:
Sr. F.I.R Police Station Offence

01 02/15 City 381-A/411
02 117/15 City 381-A/ 411
03 284/15 City 381-A/ 411
04 80/15 City 381-A/ 411
05 105/15 City 381-A/ 411
06 69/15 City 381-A/ 411
07 111/15 City 381-A/ 411
08 389/15 City 381-A/ 411
09 353/25 City 381-A/ 411
10 29/15 City 381-A/ 411
11 271/12 Farid Nagar 381-A
12 274/12 Farid Nagar 13/20/65

13 238/13 Buhadar Sha 13/20/65
14 208/13 Buhadar Shah 381-A
16 246/15 Buhadar Shah 13/20/65
17 196/15 Buhadar Shah 457/380/411
22 70/15 Sahoka, Burewala 381-A/ 411
23 87/15 Sahoka, Burewala, 381-A/ 411
Vehari
24 113/15 Sahoka, Burewala 381-A, 411
8. Another point which need consideration is that in
most of the above cases recovery has been effected from the present
petitioner as section 411 has been added in most cases. Tough record in
the all above said cases registered in different police stations could not
be produced before this court, but from the police record present before
the court, it transpires that in the following cases recovery in the form of
motor bike has been effected from the said accused person:
Sr. F.I.R Police Station Offence

01 02/15 City 381-A/411
02 69/15 City 381-A/ 411
03 353/25 City 381-A/ 411
04 29/15 City 381-A/ 411
05 70/15 Sahoka, Burewala 381-A/ 411
06 87/15 Sahoka, 381-A/ 411
Burewala, Vehari
07 113/15 Sahoka, Burewala 381-A, 411
9. The crux of the above discussion is that tentatively
petitioner/accused is a habitual offender and if bail is granted to him in
the said F.I.Rs, there will be an apprehension of repetition an offence and
this principle has been laid down in landmark judgment PLD 1995 SC 34
that where an offence does not fall within prohibitory clause grant is a
rule and refusal is an exception and one of the exceptions for refusal of
bail stated in that judgment is apprehension of repetition of offence. It is
also pertinent to mention here that argument advanced by the learned
counsel for the petitioner/ accused that on the facts and circumstances
of the F.I.R no. 02/15 and 284/15, petitioner/ accused is also entitled
for bail in all other cases is without force as it cannot be said that all the
above mentioned cases are false and frivolous and have been registered
only because of mala fide of the police especially when these cases under
different sections have been registered on different dates and in different
police stations by different complainants and when recovery in the form
of Motor Bike has also been effected in most of the said cases.
10. Resultantly, bail petitions in F.I.R No. 02/ 15 and
284/ 15 are hereby accepted subject to furnishing surety bond in the
sum of Rs. 50000/- with one local surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court in each case and bail petitions in F.I.R no.
69/15, 80/15, 105/15, 111/15/ 117/15 being without merit are hereby
rejected. However, above stated observations are tentative in nature
which shall not affect the cases on merit at later stage. Ahlmad is
directed to retain the instant file and attach with the report under
Section 173 Cr.P.C. on its submission.

Chichawatni.
24-Fine
24.1-Case under 13/12/65 A.O
24.1.1 Confession at the time of framing of charge

Present: Accused Sarfraz on bail.
Today the case was fixed for framing of charge. The charge
under Section 13 of Arms Ordinance, 1965 has been framed, read over
and explained to the accused in the language of accused to which he
pleaded guilty and opted to make confession. The accused was given
time to think about his decision regarding confession and after lapse of
ample time he again insisted the court to get record his confession
statement.
Before recording the statement I have given the accused more
than thirty minutes time to reconsider his decision. File be put up before
me at 10:30 A.M.
Raheela Omer,
Announced: Magistrate Section-30,
08.04.2016 Sahiwal.
10:30 A.M
File has been put up again. The accused appeared before the court. Once
again, he requested for recording his confessional statement. His
decision is final and wants to confess. In view of above, I am not left with
any option except to record the statement of accused. Let the statement
be recorded as I am satisfied that statement is without any pressure and
voluntarily.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED SARFRAZ SON OF HASHIM, KITCHI BY
CASTE R/O CAHK BASHERA WITHOUT OATH.
“Stated that on 15.03.2014, a Carbine 12-bore alongwith

01-alive bullet was recovered from my possession by the police. Said
weapon was unlicensed. I am poor and illiterate person and had no
knowledge that keeping illicit unlicensed weapon is an offence. Thus, I
confess my guilt and request you to take lenient view.”
Raheela Omer,
R.O.A.C Magistrate Section-30,
08.04.2016. Sahiwal.
CERTIFICATE
I have explained to the accused that he is not bound to

make a confession, if he does so, his confession may be used as evidence
against him, I believe that his confession was made voluntarily. It was
taken in my presence and hearing and it was read over to the accused. It
was admitted by the accused to be correct, containing full account of the
statement give by the accused.
Raheela Omer,
Dated: Magistrate Section-30,
08.04.2016 Sahiwal.
Presence as before:-
After recording confessional statement of accused, show
cause notice is given to accused to the effect that why he may not be
convicted.
SHOW CAUSE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 243 CR.P.C
Q. No.1 You accused Sarfraz has confessed the offence before me. You
are therefore, called upon the show cause as to why you may not be
convicted.
Ans: I am poor person, I shall not repeat the offence again, be pity on
me, I place him at the mercy of this court.
Raheela Omer,
08.04.2016. Sahiwal.
Presence as before:-
Vide my separate detailed judgment in English of even date,

accused Sarfraz is sentenced u/a 13 of Arms Ordinance, 1965 till rising
of the court with fine of Rs.1000/-. His custody is given to police. In
case of default of payment of fine Rs.1000/-, the convict shall undergo
simple imprisonment for one month. As such fine has been paid by the
accused person and receipt of payment also attached herewith, he be
released after court hours. His be discharged from his liability. Case
property be disposed of in accordance with law after the period of appeal
or revision, if any. File is consigned to record room after its necessary
completion.
Raheela Omer,
08.04.2016. Sahiwal.
IN THE COURT OF RAHEELA OMER,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SECTION-30, SAHIWAL.
The State Vs. Sarfraz
CASE FIR NO.72/2014

OFFENCE U/S 13 of ARMS ORDINANCE,1965
P/S BAHADUR SHAH, SAHIWAL.
JUDGMENT
08.04.2016
Present:- Accused on bail.

Brief facts of the case are that case FIR No.72/2014 was
registered u/a 13 of Arms Ordinance, 1965 at P.S Bahadur Shah,
Sahiwal. After investigation the challan was submitted in the court.
Formal charge u/a 13 of Arms Ordinance, 1965 was framed against the
accused in which he pleaded guilty and opted to make confessional
statement. He was granted an opportunity to think over his confessional
statement. An ample time was given to him. The accused re-appeared in
the court and made the same statement in court. Hence, the statement
of accused was recorded separately.
2. In light of confessional statement of the accused recorded and
in reply to show cause u/a 13 of Arms Ordinance, 1965, the accused is
convicted for the offence u/a 13 of Arms Ordinance, 1965. Accused is
first offender and sole earning member of his family and he has also
assured that he shall not repeat the crime again. He is sentenced up till
rising of the court time and fine Rs.1000/-. In case of default of payment
of fine Rs.1000/-, the convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for one
month. Accused be taken into custody and released if paid fine after
court hours otherwise sent to jail to serve out the sentence. Case
property be disposed of in accordance with law after the period of appeal
or revision, if any. File is consigned to record room after its necessary
completion.
Announced.
08.04.2016 (Raheela Omer)
Judicial Magistrate Section-30,
Sahiwal.
Certified that this judgment consists upon two pages, each of
which has been dictated, read over, corrected and signed by me.
Dated.08.04.2016 (Raheela Omer)
Judicial Magistrate Section-30, Sahiwal.
IN THE COURT OF RAHEELA OMER, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SECTION-
30, SAHIWAL.
The State Vs. Sarfraz
Case FIR No. 72/2014

Offence U/S. 13/20/65 A.O
Police Station Bahadur Shah, Sahiwal.
CHARGE SHEET
I, Raheela Omer, Magistrate 1st Class with enhance powers

Under Section 30, Sahiwal hereby charge you:
Sarfraz son of Hashim
FIRSTLY; That on 15.03.2014 at about 4:10PM in the area of Chak No.

58/GD within the jurisdiction of P. S Bahadur Shah, Sahiwal during
patrolling duty, police on suspicion caught hold you accused and on your
personal search, Carbine 12-Bore alongwith 01 alive bullet were
recovered from your possession for which you could not produce any
arms license or permit. Thus, you have committed the offence punishable
U/s 13/20/65 of Arms Ordinance which is within the cognizance of this
court.
And I hereby direct you the above named accused that you be tried
in this Court on the said charge.
Dated: 08.04.2016.
Raheela Omer,
Magistrate Section-30,
Sahiwal.
Certified that the charge has been read over and explained to
the accused in the language of accused to which accused pleaded guilty
and opted to make confession. The accused was given time to think
about his decision regarding confession and after lapse of ample time he
again insisted the court to get record his confessional statement. Let
confessional statement of accused be recorded.
Dated: 08.04.2016
Sahiwal.
Statement of accused Ahmad Ali without oath
Q.No.1. Have you heard and understood the charge?
Ans. Yes.
Q.No.2. Do you plead guilty?
Ans. Yes.
RO & AC
Dated: 08.04.2016:
Raheela Omer,
Sahiwal.
25- Surety (Orders)

Dated: 11.02.2016.
Instant file received after transfer by the order of worthy District &
Sessions Judge, Multan. Be registered accordingly.
Present: Learned A.D.P.P for the State.
Surety since long in instant complaint under section 514 Cr.P.C been
remained unattended. His perpetual non-bailable warrants of arrest are hereby issued via
SHO P/S concerned. Till his arrest instant proceedings is hereby stopped and instant file
is hereby consigned to the record-room as dormant file till arrest of the surety and till
receipt of report of attachment earlier issued.

Multan.
26-Rent Registration
26.1 Final Order

13.06.2011.
ORDER:
Present: Petitioner/ Tenant Mr. _________ along-with counsel _________
Respondent/ Landlord Mr. _________ along-with counsel _________
Petitioner/ Landlord Mr. _________ along-with counsel _________
Respondent/ Tenant Mr. _________ along-with counsel _________
Petitioner/ Tenant Mr. ____ through attorney Mr. __ along-with counsel __
Respondent/ Land Lord Mr. __ through attorney Mr. _along-with counsel _
Petitioner/ Landlord Mr. __ through attorney Mr. ___along-with counsel __
Respondent/ Tenant Mr. __ through attorney Mr. __along-with counsel __
The petitioner has moved instant application for registration of rend deed
dated date of agreement with the respondent. Separate Statements of both the parties have
also been recorded. Instant application, rent agreement, separate statements of the parties
and documents produced by the parties in their favour have perused from where it
transpires that petitioner/ respondent is owner of the property detail of the property. In
this regard he/she has produced Mark-A as proof of his/her ownership. The rent
agreement is for tenure of the agreement commencing from date of starting of agreement
to date of ending agreement. The possession has also been handed over to the respondent/
petitioner/ tenant. Both the parties are unanimous for the registration of rent agreement.
Hence the application is allowed and the said rent deed be registered in accordance with
law subject to provisions of Section 5(4) of the PRPA 2009. Original registered
agreement has been handed over to the respondent/ petitioner/ tenant. One attested copy
has been handed over to the petitioner/ respondent /landlord and other copy has been
retained in the record. File be consigned to the record room after its due completion.

02.01.2016 Rent Controller,
Chichawatni.
25.2 Statement of attorney of Tenant
________________________________Versus___________________________
(Registration of Rend Deed)
Statement of ---------------------- as attorney of tenant namely-----------
Stated that I have been by the authorized by the tenant namely ……………
to give statement on his/her behalf regarding registration of present agreement. My power
of attorney is Mark-B. The petitioner/ respondent is the owner of detail of property. I
have entered into a rent agreement Mark-R with the petitioner/ respondent/ landlord in
respect of the same property. The rent agreement dated …………..is for tenure of
tenancy. Monthly rent agreed upon is Rs………….per month. I shall be bound to abide
by all the terms and conditions incorporated in the lease agreement and I have no
objection if the same be registered.

Chichawatni.
25.3 Statement of landlord
________________________________Versus___________________________
(Registration of Rend Deed)
Statement of landlord namely-----------
Stated that I am the owner of detail of property. I have entered into a rent
agreement Mark-R with the petitioner/ respondent/ landlord in respect of the same
property. The rent agreement dated …………..is for tenure of tenancy. Monthly rent
agreed upon is Rs………….per month. I shall be bound to abide by all the terms and
conditions incorporated in the lease agreement and I have no objection if the same be
registered.

Chichawatni.
Present: Counsel for the petitioner.
Petitioner and respondent in person.
The (detail of the petitioner as given above) has filed this application for
registration of rent agreement dated ___________.
Mr. Shahzad Amin Advocate is hereby appointed as local commission for recording of
statement. Mohammad Nawaz appeared as AW-1 and recorded his statement that he
entered into an agreement of rent dated 01.07.2011 and he submitted the same as Exh:A-
2, whereas he submitted the original sale deed as Exh:A-1. The respondent appeared as
RW-1 and recorded his statement that he entered into an agreement of rent and he is
bound by terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement. So, the petition is hereby
accepted and the said rent deed be registered in accordance with law subject to provisions
of Section 5(4) of the PRPA 2009. One copy of registered rent agreement be handed over
to the respondent/tenant. Original rent agreement be returned to the petitioner after its
registration and copy of the same be retained in the record. File be consigned to the
record room after its due completion.
Announced Rana Khalid Mehmood Khan
04.07.2011. Special Judge Rent,
Lahore.
ORDER:
The petitioner has filed this application for registration of tenancy
agreement. Mr. Shahzad Amin Advocate is hereby appointed as local commission for
recording of statements of the parties. Mian Tariq Munir appeared as AW-1 and recorded
his statement that he entered into tenancy agreement dated 29.06.2011 and he submitted
the same as Exh:P-2, whereas he submitted the record of right as Exh:P-2. The
respondent appeared as RW-1 and recorded his statement that he entered into tenancy
agreement and he is bound by terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement. So, the
petition is hereby accepted and the said rent deed be registered in accordance with law
subject to provisions of Section 5(4) of the PRPA 2009. One copy of registered rent
agreement be handed over to the respondent/tenant. Original rent agreement be returned
to the petitioner after its registration and copy of the same be retained in the record. File
Lahore.
ORDER:
Petitioner and respondent intended to record the statements. Mr. Asghar
Abbas Advocate is hereby appointed as local commission for recording of statements of
the parties. Mohammad Yousaf appeared as AW-1 and recorded his statement that he
entered into an agreement of rent dated 02.06.2011 for a period of one year, rent
agreement is submitted as Exh: P-1, general power of attorney as Exh: P-2 and original
sale deed as Exh: P-3, whereas, respondent Mohammad Ashraf appeared as RW-1 and
recorded his statement that he obtained the shop/demised property on rent and paid
Rs.1/lakh as security and conceded the contents of the rent agreement. So, in the light of
the statements and documents tendered by the parties, the petition is hereby accepted and
the said rent deed be registered in accordance with law subject to provisions of Section
5(4) of the PRPA 2009. One copy of registered rent agreement be handed over to the
respondent/tenant. Original rent agreement be returned to the petitioner after its
Announced Rana Khalid Mahmood Khan
Lahore.
ORDER:
Learned counsel for the petitioner in his statement submitted the copy of
Registered Haqdaran Zameen as Exh:P-2.
2 I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
3. In the light of the statements of the parties and the documents has been
submitted as Exh:P-1 and Exh:P-2, the petition is hereby accepted and the said rent deed
be registered in accordance with law subject to provisions of Section 5(4) of the PRPA
2009. One copy of registered rent agreement be handed over to the respondent/tenant.
Original rent agreement be returned to the petitioner after its registration and copy of the
same be retained in the record. File be consigned to the record room after its due
completion.
12.07.2011. Special Judge Rent/Rent Registrar,
Lahore.
Petitioner and respondent intended to record their statements. Let their

statements be recorded.
2 Mohammad Tariq Farooqi appeared as AW-1 and recorded his statement
that he entered into a tenancy agreement with the respondent and submitted original lease
agreement as Exh:A-1 and photo copy of mark-A. Respondent Mohammad Zahid
appeared and recorded his statement as AW-1 and stated that he entered into a rent
agreement with the petitioner at the rate of Rs.30000/-and he admitted the contents of
rent agreement.
4. In the light of the statements of the petitioner and respondent and the lease
agreement submitted by the landlord. This petition is hereby accepted and the said rent
deed be registered in accordance with law subject to provisions of Section 5(4) of the
PRPA 2009. One copy of registered rent agreement be handed over to the
13.07.2011. Special Judge Rent/Rent Registrar, Lahore.
Petitioner and respondent intended to record their statements. Let their

statements be recorded.
2 Ali Saeed Asghar appeared as AW-1 and recorded his statement that he
entered into a tenancy agreement with the respondent and submitted co-ownership
agreement as Exh:A-1, original lease agreement as Exh:A-2 and photo copy of authority
letter as Mark-A. Respondent Sheikh Qamar-uz-Zaman appeared through authority letter,
recorded his statement as RW-1, submitted the same as Exh:R-1 and stated that he
entered into a rent agreement with the petitioner and he admitted the contents of rent
agreement.
4. In the light of the statements of the petitioner and respondent and the lease
agreement submitted by the landlord. This petition is hereby accepted and the said rent
Lahore.
The petitoner has submitted general power of attorney of Wazila Zahira

Mohy-ud-Din daughter of Syed Ikram Mohy-ud-Din executed in favour of Syed Ikram
Mohy-ud-Din Qadri son of Syed Badar Mohy-ud-Din.
2. In the light of the statements of the petitioner and respondent and the other
documents available on record, the application is hereby accepted and the said rent deed
completion.
Fresh petition, let it be registered.
2 Mst. Zaib-un-Nisa appeared as AW-2 and recorded her statement that she
entered into a tenancy agreement with the respondent and submitted rent deed as Mar-A,
copy of sale deed as Mark-B. Respondent Ch. Naeem Ahmad appeared and recorded his
statement as AW-1 and stated that he entered into a rent agreement with the petitioner
dated 05.07.2011 and he admitted the contents of rent agreement.
4. In the light of the statements of the petitioner and respondent and the
documents available on record. This petition is hereby accepted and the said rent deed be
registered in accordance with law subject to provisions of Section 5(4) of the PRPA
completion.
Lahore.
Fresh petition, let it be registered.
2 Mst. Aaqida Begum appeared as AW-1 and recorded her statement that she
entered into a tenancy agreement with the respondent and submitted rent agreement as
Exh:A-1, proof of possession as Exh:A-2. Respondent Ahmad Kamran appeared and
recorded his statement as RW-2 and stated that he entered into a rent agreement with the
petitioner and he admitted the contents of rent agreement.
4. In the light of the statements of the petitioner and respondent and the
documents available on record. This petition is hereby accepted and the said rent deed be
completion.
Lahore.
Petitioner has filed this application for early hearing of the case which is
fixed for 27.07.2011 with the contention that parties are present to day in the court and
the case may be fixed for today for recording of statements.
2 Arguments heard. Record perused.
3 The reason stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner is cogent one and
only statements are to be recorded by the parties. So, application is hereby accepted and
the case is fixed for today i.e. 19.07.2011.
19.07.2011. Special Judge Rent, Lahore.
Present: Counsel for the parties.
Petitioner and respondent.
Parties are intended to record their statements. Let their statements be

recorded.
3 Mr. Asghar Abbas Bhatti Advocate is hereby appointed as local
commission for recording of statements of parties. Dr. Hassan Ameer Shah appeared as
AW-1 and recorded his statement that he entered into an agreement of rent dated
01.07.2011 and he submitted the same as Exh:A-1, whereas she submitted the proof of
ownership (original returned after seen) as Exh:A-2 and special power of attorney as Exh:
A-3. Mohammad Tariq Saeed appeared as RW-1 and submitted authority letter as RW-1,
recorded his statement that he entered into an agreement of rent and he is bound by terms
and conditions of the tenancy agreement. So, the petition is hereby accepted and the said
rent deed be registered in accordance with law subject to provisions of Section 5(4) of the
Lahore.
ORDER:
The petitioner has produced photo copy of special power of attorney as well
as possession letter (original seen and returned). Statement of parties has already been
recorded. Both the parties are unanimous for the registration of rent agreement. Hence the
application is allowed and the said rent deed be registered in accordance with law subject
to provisions of Section 5(4) of the PRPA 2009. One copy of registered rent agreement
be handed over to the respondent/tenant. Original rent agreement be returned to the
petitioner after its registration and copy of the same be retained in the record. File be
consigned to the record room after its due completion.

Lahore.
ORDER
An authority letter of Mr.Arshad Mahmood officer UBL RHQ Lahore is
submitted. Let statement be recorded.
2 Statement of Arshad Mehmood Officer UBL as authority has recorded,
whereas, statement of Agha Sajid Naseer Manager Accounts Export is also recorded.
Whereas an authority letter of Agha Sajid Naseer is not submitted as well the title
document is not submitted. To come up for submission of title document and authority
letter of respondent, case is fixed for 28.07.2011.
27.07.2011. Special Judge Rent, Lahore.
ORDER:
recorded.
2 Sadiq Masih appeared as AW-1 and recorded his statement that he entered
into an agreement of rent dated 06.05.2011 and he submitted the same as Exh:A-1,where
respondent Aqeel Anwar appeared as RW-1 and recorded his statement that he entered
into an agreement of rent and he is bound by terms and conditions of the tenancy
agreement. So, the petition is hereby accepted and the said rent deed be registered in
accordance with law subject to provisions of Section 5(4) of the PRPA 2009. One copy of
registered rent agreement be handed over to the respondent/tenant. Original rent
agreement be returned to the petitioner after its registration and copy of the same be
Lahore.
ORDER:
The counsel in his statement submitted photo copy of special power of
attorney (original returned after seen) as Mark-A and copy of sale deed (original returned
after seen) as Mark-B and closed his statement.
2 Statements of parties have already been recorded. Both the parties are
unanimous for the registration of rent agreement. Hence the application is allowed and
Lahore.

recorded.
3 Ms. Hamaira Latif Advocate is hereby appointed as local commission for
recording of statements of parties. Mr. Tallat Sohail appeared as PW-1 and recorded his
statement that he entered into an agreement of rent dated 30.07.2011 and he submitted the
same as Exh:P-1. Mohammad Tahir Uqab appeared as RW-1, Mohammad Bilal Ahmad
and recorded his statement that he entered into an agreement of rent and he is bound by
terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement. So, the petition is hereby accepted and
Lahore.
ORDER
Petitioner and respondent intended to record the statements. Let their
statements be recorded. Mr. Mohammad Kashif Anwaar Advocate is hereby appointed as
local commission for recording of statements of the parties. Mohammad Attique appeared
as AW-1, Mohammad Rafique through special power of attorney appeared as AW-2 and
recorded their statements that they entered into lease agreement dated 11.03.2011 to
07.08.2012 for a period of one year and 05 months, lease agreement is submitted as Exh:
P-1, whereas, on behalf of respondent Mohammad Arshad through power of attorney
appeared as RW-1 and recorded his statement that he is manager as well as attorney of
the bank and the bank obtained the demised property on rent at monthly rent of
Rs.20000/- per month and conceded the contents of the rent agreement. So, the petition is
hereby accepted and the said rent deed be registered in accordance with law subject to
provisions of Section 5(4) of the PRPA 2009. One copy of registered rent agreement be
handed over to the respondent/tenant. Original rent agreement be returned to the
Lahore.
Petitioner in person.
Respondent exparte.
ORDER
statements be recorded. Zil-e-Atif appeared as AW-1 and recorded his statements that he
entered into rent agreement for a period of eleven months, rent agreement is submitted as
Exh: A-1. Whereas, respondent Mohammad Javed Sheikh appeared as RW-1 and
and conditions of the tenancy agreement. So, the petition is hereby accepted and the said
Lahore.

recorded.
3 Seemee Gul Advocate is hereby appointed as local commission for
recording of statements of parties. Zil-e- appeared as AW-1 and recorded his statement
that he entered into an agreement of rent dated 01.07.2011 and he submitted the same as
Exh:A-1, whereas she submitted the proof of ownership (original returned after seen) as
Exh:A-2 and special power of attorney as Exh: A-3. Mohammad Tariq Saeed appeared as
RW-1 and submitted authority letter as RW-1, recorded his statement that he entered into
an agreement of rent and he is bound by terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement.
So, the petition is hereby accepted and the said rent deed be registered in accordance with
law subject to provisions of Section 5(4) of the PRPA 2009. One copy of registered rent
Lahore.
16.09.2011.
ORDER:
The petitioner has produced photo copy of sale deed as Mark-A and rent
agreement as Exh:P-1. Statement of parties has already been recorded. Both the parties
are unanimous for the registration of rent agreement. Hence the application is allowed
and the said rent deed be registered in accordance with law subject to provisions of
Section 5(4) of the PRPA 2009. One copy of registered rent agreement be handed over to
the respondent/tenant. Original rent agreement be returned to the petitioner after its
Lahore.
Respondent exparte.
ORDER:
The petitioner has filed this application for registration of rent agreement.
Mian Abdul Qaddus (through special power of attorney) appeared as PW-1 and recorded
his statement that he entered into an agreement of rent dated 01.12.2008 and he submitted
the same as Exh:P-1, whereas he submitted photo copy of special power of attorney as
Mark-A (original returned after seen) and letter regarding plot No.22 issued by LDA as
Mark-B, whereas, the respondent was proceeded exparte. So, the petition is hereby
Lahore.
ORDER:
Learned counsel for the petitioner requested that parties intended to record
their statements, the same is allowed. Statements are recorded. Tariq Aziz Malik
appeared as PW-1 and recorded his statement that he entered into an agreement of rent
dated 01.01.2011 and he submitted the same as Exh:P-1, whereas he submitted original
PT-I as Exh:P-2. Nasar Kibria appeared as RW-2 and recorded his statement that he
entered into an agreement of rent and he is bound by terms and conditions of the tenancy
Lahore.
17.10.2011.
ORDER:
Petitioner has presented receipt of PT-I form, perusal of which reveals that
is in the name of Mst. Yasmin Mustansar widow of Mustansar through Ahsan Billah, the
same is regarding rented premises. Statement of parties has already been recorded. Both
the parties are unanimous for the registration of rent agreement. Hence the application is
allowed and the said rent deed be registered in accordance with law subject to provisions
Lahore.
ORDER
statements be recorded. Zil-e-Atif appeared as AW-1 and recorded his statement that he
entered into rent agreement for a period of eleven months, rent agreement is submitted as
Exh: A-1. Whereas, respondent Mushtaq Tanveer Butt appeared as RW-1 and recorded
his statement that he entered into an agreement of rent and he is bound by terms and
conditions of the tenancy agreement. So, the petition is hereby accepted and the said rent
Lahore.
ORDER
statements be recorded. Khalid Maqbool appeared as AW-1 and recorded his statement
that he entered into rent agreement for a period of eleven months and he submitted the
same as Exh: A-1. Whereas, photo copy of transfer letter as Mark-A. Whereas,
respondent Mohammad Mumtaz Butt appeared as RW-1 and recorded his statement that
he entered into an agreement of rent and he is bound by terms and conditions of the
tenancy agreement. So, the petition is hereby accepted and the said rent deed be
completion.
Lahore.
19.11.2011.
ORDER:
their statements, the same is allowed. Statements are recorded. Tariq Aziz appeared as
PW-1 and recorded his statement that he entered into an agreement of rent and he
submitted the same as Ex:P-1, whereas he submitted certified copy of PT-I as Ex:P-2.
Waqas Ahmed Butt appeared as RW-1 and he recorded his statement that he entered into
an agreement of rent and he is bound by terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement.
Lahore.
Parties in person.
Parties are intended to record their statements, the same is allowed.

Statements of the parties have been recorded. The petitioner has submitted agreement to
sell dated 13.06.2011 and rent agreement as Ex:A-2 for registration, whereas, clause-6 of
the agreement to sell clearly described that purchaser shall have no right of title in the
property till such time. That the sale deed is executed and registered in favour of
purchaser by the seller. So, in these circumstances, petitioner is directed to submit no
objection certificate from the pace Pakistan limited or title deed on next date of hearing
i.e. 11.11.2011.

Lahore.
Statement of the petitioner is available on record, tenancy agreement as

Ex:A-1, whereas, copy of registered sale deed is also available on record. Whereas, no
one turned up on behalf of respondent despite proclamation in the newspaper, resultantly,
application is hereby accepted and the said rent deed be registered in accordance with law
Lahore.
17.11.2011.
ORDER:
File is presented before me today due to acceptance of application for early
hearing.
2 The petitioner has produced photo copy of sale deed (original returned after
seen). Statement of parties has already been recorded. Both the parties are unanimous for
the registration of rent agreement. Hence the application is allowed and the said rent deed
completion.
Lahore.
17.12.2011.
ORDER:
their statements, the same is allowed. Statements are recorded. Shahnaz Akhtar appeared
as AW-1 and recorded her statement that she entered into an agreement of rent and she
submitted the same as Ex:A-1, whereas she submitted photo copy of transfer letter
(original returned after seen) as mark-A. Nauman Ali appeared as RW-1, he recorded his
statement submitted that he entered into an agreement of rent, he submitted special power
of attorney as Ex:R-1 and he is bound by terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement.
Lahore.
ORDER
Statement of Farhan Shahzad special power of attorney has recorded, he
submitted the same as Ex:A-1 and lease agreement as Ex:A2. An authority letter of Mr.
Mohammad Imran Manager Allied Bank Limited Lahore is submitted. Let statement be
recorded.
2 Statement of Mr. Mohammad Imran Manager Allied Bank Limited as
authority has recorded and he submitted his authority letter as Ex:A-3. Both the parties
are unanimous for the registration of rent agreement. Hence the application is allowed
and the said rent deed be registered in accordance with law subject to provisions of
Section 5(4) of the PRPA 2009. One copy of registered rent agreement be handed over to
the respondent/tenant. Original rent agreement be returned to the petitioner after its
Lahore.
15.12.2011.
Petitioner has sought extension in lease agreement. The first lease
agreement was registered with the court of rent registrar, the same has expired on
30.11.2011 and now parties have extended the lease agreement with mutual consent. On
behalf of respondent vakalatnama filed by Malik Waqar Ahmad advocate and he
submitted written reply, the same is conceding one. Statement of the court is also
available on record, they have no objection, if the lease agreement is registered. Keeping
in view the previous registered lease agreement this extension of lease agreement is also
registered subject to section 5 (4) of PRPA 2009. Hence the application is allowed and
Lahore.
17.12.2011.
Respondent exparte.
ORDER
Petitioner intended to record the statement. Let his statement be recorded.
Zil-e-Atif appeared as AW-1 and recorded his statement that he entered into rent
agreement for a period of eleven months and he submitted the same as Ex: A-1. Whereas,
the respondent was proceeded exparte. So, the petition is hereby accepted and the said
06.01.2012.
ORDER:
Learned counsel for the petitioner in his separate statement has submitted
photo copy of sale deed as Ex:A-2(original returned after seen). Statement of parties has
already been recorded. Both the parties are unanimous for the registration of rent
agreement. Hence the application is allowed and the said rent deed be registered in
06.01.2012.
Respondent exparte.
ORDER:
Abdul Hameed Sheikh appeared as AW-1 and recorded his statement that he entered into
an agreement of rent dated 10.02.2010 and he submitted the same as Exh:A-1, whereas
he submitted photo copy of sale deed as Mark-A, whereas, the respondent was proceeded
exparte. So, the petition is hereby accepted and the said rent deed be registered in
Lahore.
30.01.2012.
ORDER:
Imrana Maqsood appeared as AW-1 and recorded her statement that she entered into rent
agreement and she submitted the same as Exh:A-1, whereas she submitted photo copy of
ownership letter issued by LDA (original returned after seen). Mohammad Faisal-ur-
Rehman appeared as RW-1, he recorded his statement submitted that he entered into an
agreement of rent and he is bound by terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement. So,
the petition is hereby accepted and the said rent deed be registered in accordance with
Lahore.
10.12.2012:
ORDER:
The petitioner has produced photo copies of sale deeds (original seen and
returned). The statements of parties have already been recorded. Both the parties are
unanimous for the registration of rent agreement. Hence the application is allowed and

Lahore.
02.04.2012.
Parties in person.
ORDER:
Nusrat Majeed appeared as AW-1 and recorded her statement that she entered into rent
agreement and she submitted the same as Exh:A-1, whereas, she submitted photo copy of
gift deed (original returned after seen). Riaz Shahzad appeared as RW-1 and Mohammad
Yaqoob appeared as RW-2, they recorded their statement separately that they entered into
an agreement of rent and they are bound by terms and conditions of the tenancy
Lahore.
15.03.2012.
Respondent in person.
ORDER:
Majid Javed appeared as RW-1, recorded his statement that he entered into an agreement
of rent and he is bound by terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement. Whereas,
learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted photo copy of sale deed as Mark-A. So,
the petition is hereby accepted and the said rent deed be registered in accordance with
Lahore.
15.12.2012.
Present: Counsels for the petitioner.
Parties in person.
ORDER:
Mohammad Ashraf through special power of attorney appeared as AW-1 and recorded
his statement that he entered into rent agreement and he submitted the same as Ex:A-1,
whereas, he submitted photocopy of sale deed and copy of special power of attorney
(original seen and returned). Syed Laeq Shah appeared as RW-1 and recorded his
statement that he entered into an agreement of rent and he is bound by terms and
14.07.2012.
Parties in person.
ORDER:
Mohammad Shahzad through special power of attorney appeared as AW-1 and recorded
his statement that he entered into rent agreement and he submitted the same as Ex:A-2,
original special power of attorney as Ex:A-1. Whereas, he submitted possession letter
(original seen and returned). Mian Shahbaz Hanif appeared as RW-1 and recorded his
statement that he entered into a rent agreement and he admitted the contents of rent
Lahore.
Present: Counsel for the applicants.
Today, case was fixed for production of title document, whereas, applicants
have produced copy of PT-1 form as well as copy of PT-10 form, receipts of payment of
tax paid on 27th July 2010 and 21st July 2011. All the documents are in favour of father of
the applicants. The respondent admitted the execution of rent agreement and he has no
objection on the registration of the same, resultantly, the petition is hereby accepted and

Lahore.
19.06.2012.
ORDER:
Statements of the parties are recorded by local commission. On behalf of
Al-Majeed Ghee Mill Usman Amjad appeared as AW-1 and recorded his statement, he
exhibited lease deed as Ex:A-1, rent agreement as Ex:A-2, map of the property as Ex:A-
3, whereas, Mohammad Haider Ameen recorded his statement as AW-1 conceeded the
execution of rent agreement. Both the parties are unanimous for the registration of rent
04.07.2012.
Parties in person.
ORDER:
Ghulam Haider appeared as AW-1 and recorded his statement that he entered into rent
agreement and he submitted the same as Ex:A-1, whereas, he submitted photo copy of
sale deed, the same is regarding agricultural land (original seen and returned). In this
regard, petitioner has filed an affidavit that at the time of sale deed, property was an
agricultural land and now the same is residential, on which they have constructed ten
rooms and now the property is not an agricultural land. Ghulam Farid appeared as RW-1
and recorded his statement that he entered into an agreement of rent and he is bound by
terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement. So, the petition is hereby accepted and
11.07.2012.
Present: Counsel for the applicant.
Parties in person.
ORDER:
Statements of both the parties are recorded separately. Sheikh Nauman
Hafeez appeared and submitted rent agreement as Ex.A1 and also produced sale deed in
his favour (original seen and returned), copy retained. Nadeem Ahmad Khan appeared
and recorded his statement. Regarding property the petitioner has filed an affidavit that
sale deed producing regarding the same property is known as Hafeez Chamber. Both the
parties are unanimous for the registration of rent agreement. So, the petition is hereby
Respondent exparte.
ORDER:
Fahad Tauheed Baig as AW-1 and recorded his statement that he entered into an
agreement of rent and he submitted the same as Exh:A-1, whereas he submitted photo
copy of sale deed(original seen and returned). On the other hand, no one turned up on
behalf of respondent and matter was proceeded exparte against him. So, the petition is
hereby accepted and the said rent deed be registered in accordance with law subject to
Lahore.
16.10.2012.
Parties in person.
Petitioner intended to record his statement. Let his statement be recorded.
Mohammad Naeem Sheikh appeared through special attorney and recorded his statement
that he entered into a tenancy agreement with the respondent and he submitted the same
as Ex:A-1, whereas he submitted copy of special attorney sale deed (original seen and
returned). Akhtar Mohammad appeared and recorded his statement that he entered into
rent agreement and he is bound by the terms and conditions of the rent agreement. Both
the parties are unanimous for the registration of rent agreement. Hence the application is
Lahore.
08.12.2012.
Parties in person.
ORDER:
Malik Mohammad appeared through general power of attorney and recorded his
statement that he entered into an agreement and he submitted the same as Ex:A-1,
whereas, he submitted copy of general power of attorney as well as possession letter
(original seen and returned). Ashfaq Shahid Gondal appeared and recorded his statement
that he entered into an agreement of rent and he is bound by terms and conditions of the
tenancy agreement. Hence the application is allowed and the said rent deed be registered
in accordance with law subject to provisions of Section 5(4) of the PRPA 2009. One copy
of registered rent agreement be handed over to the respondent/tenant. Original rent
Lahore.
LDA etc vs. M/S Sadiq Brothers

Representative of petitioner in person.
Representative of petitioner Ali Saeed Asghar appeared and recorded his

statement that he entered into a tenancy agreement with the respondent and copy of
submitted co-ownership agreement, original lease agreement as Exh:A-1 and photo copy
of authority letter. Amjad Saohail representative of respondent appeared and recorded his
statement that he entered into a rent agreement with the petitioner and he admitted the
contents of rent agreement. So, petition is accepted and the said rent deed be registered in
Lahore.
Representatives of petitioner and respondent in person.
Representative of petitioner Mohammad Akram Javed appeared through

authority letter and recorded his statement that he entered into a lease agreement with the
respondent, he submitted the same as Ex:A-2 and photo copy of authority letter. Bilal
Ahmad representative of respondent appeared through authority letter and recorded his
statement that he entered into a lease agreement with the petitioner and he admitted the
contents of rent agreement. Whereas, he submitted copy of authority letter. So, petition is
Lahore.
09.04.2013.
ORDER:
Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced photo copy of sale deed
(original seen and returned). Statements of parties have already been recorded. Both the
parties are unanimous for the registration of rent agreement. Hence the application is
Announced Farooq Ahmed

Lahore.
06.12.2012.
Parties in person.
ORDER:
Mohammad Yousaf appeared and recorded his statement that he entered into an
agreement and he submitted the same as Ex:A-1. Whereas, he submitted photo copy of
transfer order as well as copy of PT-I. On the other hand, Asif Ishtiaq appeared and
and conditions of the tenancy agreement. Hence the application is allowed and the said
Lahore.
Present: Counsels for the parties.
ORDER:
Report of local commission is submitted. Local commissioner has recorded
the statement of Kashaf Zaman Ali son of Akhtar Ali, who is as per resolution of board of
director’s Cardex Diagnostic Centre Jail Road, Lahore authorized person, who stated that
rent agreement dated 15.05.2010 is a registered document in the register of rent registrar
vide registration no.81/6 dated 15.05.2010 in the court of Raja Jehanzaib Akhtar, learned
rent registrar Lahore and as per section 6 of registered rent agreement, applicant has right
to sub let the premises and applicant entered into rent agreement Mid City International
for the period of seven years and five months and it has to sub let the premises against the
rent of Rs.12,50,000/- per months and he submitted sub lease agreement as Ex:A-1 and
admitted that applicant has received three months advanced rent Rs.37,50,000/- through
cheque No.7969281 dated 3rd December 2012 of United Bank Limited Jail Road, Lahore.
Whereas, on behalf of respondent Mid City International, Dr. Saqib Saddique Managing
Partner recorded his statement that he has no objection, if the rent agreement is
registered. Hence the application is allowed and the said rent deed be registered in
Lahore.
06.12.2012.
Parties in person.
ORDER:
Faisal Iftikhar appeared and recorded his statement that he entered into an agreement and
he submitted the same as Ex:A-1. Whereas, he submitted certified copy of sale deed as
well as map of the property. On the other hand, Basharat Ali appeared and recorded his
conditions of the tenancy agreement. Hence the application is allowed and the said rent
Lahore.
10.01.2013.
Parties in person.
ORDER:
Syed Kashif Hassan appeared through special power of attorney and recorded his
statement that he entered into rent agreement and he submitted the same as Ex:A-1.
Whereas, he submitted certified copy of gift deed and copy of special power of attorney
(original seen and returned). On the other hand, Khalid Javed appeared and recorded his
Lahore.
Parties in person.
ORDER:
Petitioner has filed this application for registration of rent agreement.
Mohammad Naeem appeared and recorded his statement that he is owner and he has
entered into rent agreement and he submitted the same as Ex:A-1, whereas, he submitted
photo copy of sale deed (original seen and returned). On the other hand, Wajahat Ullah
appeared and recorded his statement that he entered into an agreement of rent and he is
bound by terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement. Hence the application is
Lahore.
Present : counsel for the applicant.
Shahid Parvez Miraj representative of the petitioner’s association appeared
and recorded his statement that petitioner entered into rent agreement and he submitted
the same as Ex:A-1. Whereas, he submitted certified copy of proof of ownership. Ashraf
Jamal representative of respondent’s company appeared through authority letter and
and conditions of the tenancy agreement. Whereas, he submitted authority letter as Ex:R-
1. Hence the application is allowed and the said rent deed be registered in accordance
with law subject to provisions of Section 5(4) of the PRPA 2009. One copy of registered
rent agreement be handed over to the respondent/tenant. Original rent agreement be
returned to the petitioner after its registration and copy of the same be retained in the
record. File be consigned to the record room after its due completion.
Lahore.
Mohammad Akram Sheikh vs. Al-Shaukat Foundation
Present : Counsel for the applicant.
Applicant has filed this application for registration of rent agreement. Mst.
Haroona Gulzar special attorney of applicant appeared and recorded her statement that
applicant entered into rent agreement and she submitted the same as Ex:A-1. Whereas,
she submitted original special power of attorney, copy of letter issued by co-operative
Model Town Society, copy of share certificate, copy of application and copies of tax
receipts etc. Statement of representative of respondent has already been recorded. Hence
the application is allowed and the said rent deed be registered in accordance with law
Lahore.
16.05.2013.
Parties in person.
Applicant has filed this application for registration of rent agreement.
Tanveer Khokhar appeared and recorded his statement that he is owner of property and
he has entered into lease agreement and he submitted the same as Ex:A-1. Whereas, he
submitted copy of sale deed. On the other hand, Sharafat Ali appeared and recorded his

Lahore.
22.06.2013.
Parties in person.
ORDER:
Petitioner has filed this application for registration of rent agreement. Tariq
Mahmood appeared and recorded is statement that he is landlord and he has entered into
rent agreement and he submitted the same as Ex:A-1/Ex:A-2, whereas, he submitted copy
of sale deed bearing No. 4778 dated 15.05.1994 registered with sub registrar Nishtar
Town, Lahore. On the other hand, Qurban Ali appeared and recorded his statement that
tenancy agreement. Hence the application is allowed and the said rent deed be registered
Lahore.
06.04.2013.
ORDER:
Report of local commission has been submitted. Begum Nahida Almas Ali
got recorded her statement through local commission that she is owner of the property
and she has entered into lease agreement and she submitted the same as Ex:P-1, whereas,
she submitted photo copy of gift deed as well as photo copy of PT-I. Statement of
respondent has already been recorded. Both the parties are unanimous for the registration
of rent agreement. So, the petition is hereby accepted and the said rent deed be registered
Lahore.
ORDER:
Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced copy of sale deed.
Statements of parties have already been recorded. Both the parties are unanimous for the
registration of rent agreement. Hence the application is allowed and the said rent deed be
completion.
Lahore.
08.05.2013.
Parties in person.
ORDER:
Mohammad Aurangzaib Subhani appeared and recorded his statement that he is owner
and he has entered into rent agreement and he submitted the same as Ex:A-1. Whereas,
he submitted copy of Hiba-Nama/gift deed (original seen and returned). Ejaz Ahmed
Sheikh and Fakhar Ayyaz-ul-Hassan appeared through authority letter, recorded his
statement and stated that he entered into a rent agreement with the petitioner and he
admitted the contents of rent agreement. Hence the application is allowed and the said
Lahore.
11.06.2013.
Parties in person.
ORDER:
Imrana Maqsood appeared and recorded her statement that she is landlord and she has
entered into rent agreement and she submitted the same as Ex:A-1. Whereas, she
submitted copy of transfer letter bearing No.DLD-5/2486 dated 27.09.2010 issued by
Lahore Development Authority. Abdul Sattar appeared and recorded his statement that he
Lahore.
ORDER:
Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced photo copy of decree of
legal heirs of deceased Mian Mohammad Hanif and copy of exchange deed. Statements
of parties have already been recorded. Both the parties are unanimous for the registration
of rent agreement. Hence the application is allowed and the said rent deed be registered in
Lahore.
ORDER:
Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced photo copy of sale deed
bearing document No. 4536 dated 08.10.2010. Statements of parties have already been
recorded. Both the parties are unanimous for the registration of rent agreement. Hence the
application is allowed and the said rent deed be registered in accordance with law subject
to provisions of Section 5(4) of the PRPA 2009. One copy of registered rent agreement
be handed over to the respondent/tenant. Original rent agreement be returned to the
petitioner after its registration and copy of the same be retained in the record. This
registration will be valid subject to payment of stamp duty with sub registrar concerned.
File be consigned to the record room after its due completion.
Lahore.
ORDER:
Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced photo copy of form PT-1
and copy of sale deed. Statement of petitioner already been recorded. Whereas,
respondent was proceeded against exparte. Hence the application is allowed and the said
Lahore.
Parties in person.
ORDER:
Shagufta Feroze appeared and recorded her statement that she is landlady and she has
entered into rent agreement and she submitted the same as Ex:A-1. Whereas, she
submitted transfer letter vide No. 746-1004/1013 issued by Hajvery Associates 52-
Shalimar Link Road Chowk Mughalpura Lahore. Mohammad Shamas appeared and
and conditions of the tenancy agreement. Hence the application is allowed and the said
Lahore.
ORDER:
Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced original transfer letter of
House No.4 bearing No. LDA/DEM/12644 dated 01.12.1997 issued by Deputy Director
(Flats & Quarters) Lahore Development Authority, Lahore. Statements of parties have
Lahore.
Parties in person.
ORDER:
Applicant has filed this application for registration of rent agreement.
Sultan Asghar appeared through special power of attorney and recorded his statement that
petitioners No.1 & 2 are landlords and they have entered into rent agreement. Shamsul
Haq and Abdul Haq appeared and recorded their statements that they are also landlords
and they have entered into rent agreement and they submitted the same as Ex:A-1.
Whereas, he submitted photo copy of registered Haqdaran Zameen for the year 2008-
2009 as well as special power of attorney as Mark-A. Whereas, representative of the
respondent’s bank namely Yasir Amin appeared and recorded his statement that he
retained in the record. This registration will be valid subject to payment of stamp duty
with sub registrar concerned. File be consigned to the record room after its due
completion.
Lahore.
ORDER:
Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced photo copy of completion
certificate vide reference No.CE101-D dated 30.06.2010 issued by Cooperative Model
Town, Society, share certificate, vide serial No. 5925 issued by Cooperative Model
Town, Society, membership certificate vide reference No. RK-957/AD/2885/11 dated
13.09.2011, issued by Cooperative Model Town, Society, Lahore and declaration of oral
gift in favour of Mahreen Saadat (landlady). Statements of parties have already been
recorded. Both the parties are unanimous for the registration of rent agreement dated
10.07.2013 affective from 15.07.2013 between Mehreen Saadat wife of Javed Bashir
(landlady and M/s Lala Textiles through its chief proprietor Mr. Mohammad Danish
(tenant). Hence the application is allowed and the said rent deed be registered in
Lahore.
ORDER:
Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced certified copy of
assessment in form PT-I bearing Serial No. 110783 dated 25.07.13 for the year 2001-
2002 and photo copy of registered Haqdaran Zameen for the year 1982-83. Statements of
parties have already been recorded. Both the parties are unanimous for the registration of
rent agreement. Hence the application is allowed and the said rent deed be registered in
completion.
Lahore.
ORDER:
Statements of the parties have been recorded. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has produced photo copies of registered sale deeds bearing Nos. 11707 dated
24.08.2013, 11860 dated 26.08.2013, 11755 dated 24.08.2013 and 11907 dated
27.08.2013 registered with sub registrar Allama Iqbal Town, Lahore respectively
(original seen and returned). Both the parties are unanimous for the registration of rent
completion.
Lahore.
Parties in person.
ORDER:
Petitioners have filed this application for registration of rent agreement.
Mohammad Hafeez, Lal Hussain and Mohammad Sarwar appeared and recorded their
statements that they are landlords and they have entered into rent agreement and they
submitted the same as Ex:A-2. Whereas, they submitted certified copy of declaratory
decree/decree sheet as Ex:A-1, copy of Iqrarnama as Mark-A, copy of record of
permanent transfers as Mark-B & Mark-C. Syed Shahid Yousaf appeared and recorded
his statement that he entered into an agreement of rent and he is bound by terms and
registration and copy of the same be retained in the record. This registration will be valid
subject to payment of stamp duty with sub registrar concerned. File be consigned to the

Lahore.
Parties in person.
ORDER:
Respondent/landlord has filed this application for registration of rent
agreement. Amjad Saeed Mughal appeared through general power of attorney and
recorded his statement that Respondent is landlord and she has entered into rent
agreement and he submitted the same as Ex:A-1. Whereas, he submitted photo copy of
general power of attorney and sale deed bearing No. 713 dated 30.01.1990 registered
with sub registrar City Lahore as Mark-B & Mark-C (original seen and returned).
Whereas, representative of the applicant’s company namely Hamid Latif Chaudhary
appeared and recorded his statement that he entered into an agreement of rent, he is
bound by terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement and he submitted photo copy of
special power of attorney as Mark-A (original seen and returned). Hence the application
is allowed and the said rent deed be registered in accordance with law subject to
petitioner after its registration and copy of the same be retained in the record. This
registration will be valid subject to payment of stamp duty with sub registrar concerned.
File be consigned to the record room after its due completion.
Lahore.
ORDER:
Report of local commission has been submitted. Learned counsel for the
applicant/petitioner has produced photo copy of order dated 14.07.2008 passed by the
learned ASJ, Lahore, in which he is in possession of the demised premises. Statements of
the parties have been recorded. Both the parties are unanimous for the registration of rent
Lahore.
Parties in person.
ORDER:

Representative of applicant’s society Fateh Khan Niazi appeared and recorded his
statement that he entered into a lease agreement with the respondent and he submitted
lease agreement as Ex:A-1. Whereas, he submitted photo copy of sale deed bearing No.
3684 dated 24.03.1964 registered with sub registrar, Lahore (original seen and returned).
Naveed Iqbal appeared and recorded his statement that he entered into a rent agreement
with the petitioner and he admitted the contents of rent agreement. So, petition is
Lahore.
Messer ANM VS. Coca Cola
ORDER:

Representative of applicant’s company namely Noor-ud-Din Ahmad appeared and got
recorded his statement that he entered into a lease agreement with the respondent and he
submitted lease agreement as Ex:P-2. Whereas, he submitted copy of sale deed bearing
No. 2536 dated 01.10.2013 as Ex:P-1 and resolution by ANM Properties (pvt) Ltd. as
Ex:P-3. Representative of respondent’s company Mr. John Michael Seward submitted an
application for appointment of local commission in which he stated that he is a foreigner
and due to security threats he cannot appear before the court, which was accepted and
statement of respondent was recorded through local commission, he stated that he entered
into a rent agreement with the petitioner and he admitted the contents of rent agreement,
he submitted authority letter as Ex:R-1. Status of petitioner as landlord and that of
respondent is prima facie proved. So, petition is accepted and the said rent deed be
same be retained in the record. This registration will be valid subject to payment of stamp
duty with sub registrar concerned. File be consigned to the record room after its due
completion.
Lahore.
Parties in person.
ORDER:
Petitioner has filed this application for registration of rent agreement. Syed
Zaheer Saghir special power of attorney of Syed Saghir Ahmad who is general attorney
of Syed Azhar Saghir appeared and recorded his statement that petitioner is landlord and
he has entered into a rent agreement with the respondent and he submitted rent agreement
as Ex:A-1. Whereas, he submitted copy of sale deed bearing No.4694 dated 05.04.1974
registered with sub registrar City Lahore, original general power of attorney and copy of
special power of attorney. Representative of the Bank namely Javed Iqbal Qureshi
Manager Operations Habib Bank Ltd. Shadman Market Branch Lahore appeared and
recorded his statement that bank has entered into a rent agreement with the petitioner and
he admitted the contents of rent agreement. So, petition is accepted and the said rent deed
same be retained in the record. This registration will be valid subject to payment of stamp
duty with sub registrar concerned. File be consigned to the record room after its due
completion.
Lahore.
Parties in person.
ORDER:
Petitioner has filed this application for registration of rent agreement. Syed
Zaheer Saghir special power of attorney of applicant appeared and recorded his statement
that petitioner is landlord and he has entered into a rent agreement with the respondent
and he submitted rent agreement as Ex:A-1. Whereas, he submitted copy of gift deed
bearing No.1728 dated 30.03.2007 registered with sub registrar Data Gunj Buksh Town,
Lahore and original special power of attorney. Representative of the Bank namely Javed
Iqbal Qureshi Manager Operations Habib Bank Ltd. Shadman Market Branch Lahore
appeared and recorded his statement that bank has entered into a rent agreement with the
petitioner and he admitted the contents of rent agreement. So, petition is accepted and the
said rent deed be registered in accordance with law subject to provisions of Section 5(4)
of the PRPA 2009. One copy of registered rent agreement be handed over to the
Lahore.
Parties in person
ORDER:
Mohammad Umer Iqbal Khan attorney of the petitioner/landlady appeared and got
recorded his statement that he entered into an agreement and he submitted the same as
Ex:A-1. Whereas, he submitted copy of special power of attorney as Mark-A and photo
copy of sale deed as Mark-B. Nabi Buksh appeared and recorded his statement that he
retained in the record. This registration shall not be deemed to be the proof of ownership
in favour of the petitioner viz-a-viz the demised premises. File be consigned to the record
room after its due completion.
Announced Zahid Hussain
15.04.2015 Special Judge Rent/Rent Registrar,
Lahore.
Mehboob Ahmad Sheikh etc Vs NIB Bank Limited.
Present: Counsel for the petitioners.
ORDER:
The petitioners have filed this application for registration of tenancy
agreement. Mr. Shahzad Mahmood Stenographer is hereby appointed as local
commission for recording of statements of the parties. Sheikh Mehboob Ahmad and
Mushtaq Ahmad Sheikh appeared as AW-1 & AW-2 respectively and recorded their
statements that they entered into tenancy agreement and they submitted the same as
Ex:A-1, whereas they submitted photo copy of conveyance deed as Mark-A.
Representative of the respondent’s bank namely Mohammad Ilyas and Iftikhar Hussain
appeared through special attorney as RW-1 & RW-2 respectively and recorded their
statements that they entered into tenancy agreement and they are bound by terms and
registration and copy of the same be retained in the record. This registration shall not be
deemed to be the proof of ownership in favour of the petitioner viz-a-viz the demised
premises. This registration will be valid subject to payment of stamp duty with sub
registrar concerned. File be consigned to the record room after its due completion.
Announced Khalid Iqbal Khan

Lahore.
Parties in person
ORDER:
agreement. Saeed-ur-Rehman appeared and got recorded his statement that he entered
into tenancy agreement and he submitted the same as Ex:A-1, whereas he submitted
photo copy of sale deed (original seen and returned). Whereas, representative of the
respondent’s company namely Umar Farooq appeared through authority letter and
recorded his statement that he entered into tenancy agreement and he is bound by terms
and conditions of the tenancy agreement, whereas he submitted his authority letter as
Ex:R-1. So, the petition is hereby accepted and the said rent deed be registered in
in favour of the petitioner viz-a-viz the demised premises. This registration will be valid
subject to payment of stamp duty with sub registrar concerned. Ahlmad namely Mr.
Faisal Sarfraz is directed to get consign the case file to the record room after its necessary
completion.
ORDER:
agreement. Mr. Mumtaz Ahmad Khan Advocate is hereby appointed as local commission
for recording of statements of the parties. Syed Sarshar Hussain appeared as PW-1 and
recorded his statement that he entered into tenancy agreement and he submitted the same
as Ex:A-1, whereas he submitted photo copy of possession letter. Shahid Shamshir
Bakhshi appeared and recorded his statement that he entered into tenancy agreement and
he is bound by terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement. So, the petition is hereby
Announced Khalid Iqbal Khan

Lahore.
Parties in person.
ORDER:
agreement. Sana Nasim and other petitioners appeared through special/general attorney
and got recorded their statement that they entered into tenancy agreement and they
submitted the same as Ex:A-1, whereas they submitted photo copy of possession letter as
well as photo copies of special/general power of attorney. Statement of respondent has
in favour of the petitioner viz-a-viz the demised premises. This registration will be valid
subject to payment of stamp duty with sub registrar concerned. Ahlmad namely Mr.
Naveed is directed to get consign the case file to the record room after its necessary
completion.
Lahore.
Parties in person
ORDER:
agreement. Mr. Shahzad Mahmood Stenographer is hereby appointed as local
commission for recording of statements of the parties. Sheikh Saquib Bashir appeared as
AW-1 and recorded his statement that he is landlord as well as attorney of other co-sharer
of property and he has entered into tenancy agreement and he submitted the same as
Ex:A-1, whereas he submitted photo copy of mutation as Mark-A (original seen and
returned), certified copy of declaratory decree as Ex:A-2 and original general power of
attorney as Ex:A-3. Representative of the respondent’s company namely Mohammad
Khalid Butt appeared through authority letter as RW-1 and recorded his statement that he
entered into tenancy agreement and he is bound by terms and conditions of the tenancy
agreement. He submitted his authority letter as Ex:R-1. So, the petition is hereby
Lahore.
Parties in person
ORDER:
Ayyaz Mahmood Pasha special attorney of the petitioner/landlady appeared and got
recorded his statement that he entered into an agreement and he submitted the same as
Ex:A-2, original special power of attorney as Ex:A-2 and photo copy of sale deed
(original seen and returned) as Mark-A. Whereas, representative of the respondent’s
company namely Mohammad Umer Iqbal Khan appeared and recorded his statement that
tenancy agreement. He submitted his authority letter as Ex:R-1. Hence the application is
Lahore.
Parties in person
ORDER:
The petitioners have filed this application for registration of rent agreement.
Shahzad Javed (co-landlord) as well as special attorney of the remaining
petitioners/landlords appeared and got recorded his statement that he entered into an
agreement and he submitted the same as Ex:A-1, photo copy of special power of attorney
as Mark-A and photo copy of allotment letter as Mark.B Whereas, Mohammad Munir
Butt appeared and recorded his statement that he entered into an agreement of rent and he
is bound by terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement. Hence the application is
premises. File be consigned to the record room after its due completion.
Lahore.
Present: Plaintiff Ahmad Yaar in person
Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff Syed Amir Raza Advocate

Suit is fresh, let it be registered. Let it is be fixed
for preliminary arguments on the point of maintainability for
31.12.2016.
Along-with suit, an application for ad-interim
injunction has also been filed. Let it also be fixed for
arguments for 31.12.2016.
30.12.2016. D/Civil Judge Class III
Chichawatni.
Present: Plaintiff Muhammad Amjad in person
Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff Syed Amir Raza Advocate
Present application for making the award dated

27.11.2016 as rule of the court is fresh, let it be registered.
Let notice be issued to the respondents for their reply for
02.01.2016.
Along-with above mentioned application, another
application for ad-interim injunction under section 151 CPC
has also been filed. Notice also be issued to respondents for
their reply in that regard for 02.01.2016.
30.12.2016. D/Civil Judge Class III
Chichawatni.
Dated: 16.01.2016.
Advocate
Today case was fixed for production of police file in F.I.R No…… under
section …….., police station…….
recording of remaining cursory evidence but learned counsel for the complainant has
requested for an adjournment on the ground that ……………….. As per request and for
the sake of justice an adjournment is granted Now come up for remaining cursory
evidence for 20.10.2016.
Identification Parade:
IN THE COURT OF BABAR NADEEM, MAGISTRATE IST CLASS, SAHIWAL
REPORT REGARDING IDENTIFICATION PARADE IN CASE FIR NO.86/09 P.S CIVIL

LINE,SAHIWAL.
Under the kind direction of Worthy district & Sessions
Judge,Sahiwal I proceeded to Central Jail,Sahiwal to conduct identification parade
of accused allegedly involved in case FIR NO.86/09 P.S Civil Line.I reached
alongwith Jail officers and investigation officer of the case at Central Jail,Sahiwal
at 12:00-PM where the complainant and other witnesses were also present.The
alleged accused alongwith other prisoners were present and sitting in semi
circle.The age, hight and physical condition of all prisoners including alleged
accused was same.The accused Abid was sitting at serial No.18, Rashed at serial
No.20 and Nasir at serial No.27.The accused persons were asked to change their
position if they want.Upon this, the accused Abid came at serial No.6, Rashed
came at serial No.15 and Nasir at serial No.22.The complainant was summoned to
identify the accused persons.He after seeing all the accused prisoners, identified
the accused Rashed, Nasir and Abid.Statement of the complainant and objection of
the accused persons were written.Thereafter again accused were asked to change
their position if they want.Upon this the accused Nasir changed his position and
came at serial No.25.Then the witness Ghulam Muhi-ud-din was summoned for
identification, who identified the accused Abid and point out other accused Ali
Sher who is not involved in this case whereas he remained unable to identify third
accused.The statement of witnesses and objection of accused were writen and
again they were asked to change their position and then the witness Arfan was
summoned for identificatin, who identified only the accused Abid Hussain and
remaining accused were not identiried by him.
Only the complainant succeeded to identify the accused persons
whereas the witnesses only identified the accused Abid Hussain and other accused
were remained unidentified by the witnesses.
Report is submitted please.
It is certified that the identification parade was conducted in the
premises of Central Jail,Sahiwal in my presence and supervision and the report was
dictated by me.Original report is sent to the Worthy District & Sessions Judge for
information and further neessary action.
BABAR NADEEM,
Magistrate Ist Class,
Sahiwal.
Writ Petition:
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE.
W.P.NO.___________/2008
AMJAD ALI son of Muhammad Ishaq, caste Jat, resident of Chak

No.8-1/A/L, Post Office Akhtar Abad, Tehsil Renala Khurd, Distt.
Okara.
PETITIONER
Versus
1. Station House Officer P.S Sadar Kasur, District Kasur.

2. Manzoor Ahmad son of Munshi Khan, resident of Rukan Pura,
St.No.7, Mohallah Peer Bukhari, Malhari Road, Kasur.
3. Muhammad Afzal son of Muhammad Ishaq, caste Jat, resident
of Chak No.8-1/A/L, Post Office Akhtar Abad, Tehsil Renala
Khurd, Distt. Okara.
4. Mst. Asiya daughter of Muhammad Ishaq, caste Jat, resident of
Chak No.8-1/A/L, Post Office Akhtar Abad, Tehsil Renala
Khurd, Distt. Okara.
RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 199 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ISLAMIC

REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, 1973 FOR QUASHING OF FIR NO.235/2008 DATED
6.5.2008 U/S 496-A/365-B/380 PPC P.S. SADDAR, DISTRICT KASUR.
Respectfully Sheweth: -
That the addresses of the parties are correct, so that the
service upon the parties may be affected.

2. That Mst. Sadia Komal who is aged about 18 ½ years and
thus she is a sui juris, adult, pubert lady, entered into Nikah with the
petitioner with her own free will and volition and according to the
wishes of her mother. Copy of Nikahnama is annexed as Annex “A”.
3. That said Sadia Komal sworn an affidavit before Oath
Commissioner wherein she categorically stated that she entered into
Nikah with the petitioner with her own free will and volition and she
further declared that her marriage is without coercion and neither she
was seduced, enticed away or mislead by any one. Copy of the affidavit
is annexed as Annex “B”.
4. That the respondent No.2 is father of said Sadiya Komal and as
the marriage of the petitioner is against his wishes and consent,
therefore, he frustrated from this marriage and out of his frustration, he
lodged the FIR No.235/2008 dated 6.5.2008 u/s 496-A/365-B/380
PPC at P.S Saddar, Kasur. Copy of FIR is annexed as Annex “C”.
5. That after the registration of FIR the petitioner filed pre arrest bail
and now he is on ad interim pre arrest bail. Copy of bail petition and
order passed therein is annexed herewith as Annex D & E.
6. That the respondent No.3 and 4 are co accused in this case and
they are not cooperating with the petitioner thus they are arrayed as
respondents in this petition.
7. That the petitioner seeks quashing of above said FIR, inter alia on
the following: -
GROUN D S
a) That said Sadia Komal is sui juris, adult, pubert lady of the age
of 18 ½ years and she has contracted a valid marriage with
petitioner in lieu of Rs.75, 000/- as dower amount and after the

marriage, both the spouses are living happily and enjoying their
matrimonial life and the very registration of FIR in question is
the outcome of frustration as the marriage was solemnized by
the petitioner against the wishes of her father.
b) That said Mst. Sadia Komal is the star witness of prosecution
case, who is not supporting the prosecution case and in such
circumstances, the case of the prosecution will certainly collapse
and continuation of FIR in the field, will be abuse of process of
law.
c) That the registration of FIR in question is a malafide on the part
of the complainant and object behind the registration of FIR to
pressurize and blackmail the petitioner and to put a clog in the
peaceful matrimonial life of the petitioner.
d) That the respondent No.2 so many times asked Sadia Komal to
get divorce from petitioner and as a sequel to divorce he will
finish the case; this gesture on the part of respondent No.2
clearly shows that registration of FIR in question is only to
pressurize the petitioner.
e) That even the constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973
has protected the matrimonial lives of the citizens and instant
FIR is a tool to perturb the matrimonial life of the petitioner so
the very registration of FIR is unwarranted by law.
b) That if the FIR in question remains in the field, it will be miscarriage
of justice and abuse of process of law.
c) That both the alleged abductees namely Sadia Komal and Perveen
Bibi appeared before Special Judicial Magistrate and they got
recorded their statements u/s 164 Cr.P.C. wherein they categorically

stated that they left the house of respondent No.2 with their own free
will and volition and Sadia Komal contracted marriage with the
permission of her mother Mst. Perveen Bibi. Copy of the statements
recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. are annexed herewith Annex “ F & G”.
8. That the petitioner has no other efficacious remedy except to invoke
the constitutional jurisdiction of this honourable Court.
9. That respondents No.3 to 4 are the co accused in the FIR and as
they are not cooperating with the petitioner, so they have been arrayed
as a proforma respondents.
PRAYER
Under the circumstances, it is humbly prayed that the FIR No.235 dated
6.5.2008 registered u/s 496-A/365-B/380 PPC at P.S Sadar, District Kasur, may
kindly be quashed in the interest of justice and fair play.
Any other relief, which this Court deems fit, may also, is awarded to the
petitioner.
Petitioners
through
ARSHAD HUSSAIN BHUTTA,

ADVOCATE HIGH COURT.
C.C. No. PKS 12915.
ZULFIQAR ALI BHATTI,

ADVOCATE HIGH COURT.
C.C. No.
from LAWYERS CONSTELLATION,

ADVOCATES, SOLICITORS, CONSULTANTS
30-MCLAGON ROAD, LAHORE.
NOTE: That this is first writ petition on the subject and the petitioner
has availed all other remedies available to him and this petition is
outcome of violation of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic
of Pakistan.
ADVOCATE
Judgment Writing:
CIVIL JUDGE CLASS III, CHICHAWATNI.
Muhammad Ilyas son of Fakeer Muhammad Caste Ansari Resident

of 4/14-L, Chichawatni, Sahiwal
Vs.
NADRA through Assistant Director, NADRA Office, Chichawatni,

Sahiwal
Civil Suit No. 617 /2015.

Date of Institution. 30-07-2015.
Date of Decision. 22-02-2016.
SUIT FOR DECLARATION:
JUDGMENT.
1. Succinct facts as narrated in the plaint are that according
to plaintiff’s Nikahnama dated 24.04.1987 and Appointment letter dated
29.09.1981, correct name of plaintiff’s father is Fakeer Muhammad but
plaintiff’s father name mentioned in the CNIC dated 07.01.2011 is Fakeer
Hussain which is incorrect and is subject to correction; that it was due to
defendant’s mistake as plaintiff provided correct particulars at the timing of
filling form for issuance of CNIC but when plaintiff contacted defendant for
correction of his father’s name, he refused to do so, hence, present suit for
declaration.
2. On the other hand, defendant has contested the suit by
filing written statement, wherein he submitted that CNIC was issued according
to the data provided by the plaintiff at the time of issuance of CNIC; that
present suit is time barred as the CNIC was issued in 2001 where as present
suit has been filed in 2015;
3. After submission of written statement on behalf of
defendant, following issues were framed on 26.10.2015:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for declaration along-
with mandatory injunction to the effect that the correct father’s name
of the plaintiff is Fakeer Muhammad instead of Fakeer Hussain? OPP
2. Whether the suit of plaintiff is time barred? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the instant suit?
OPD
4. Whether plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC?
OPD
5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with special
costs under section 35-A CPC? OPD
6. Relief.
4. After framing of issues, both the parties were invited to
adduce their evidence. In plaintiff’s oral evidence, only plaintiff himself
appeared as PW1 and repeated his stance narrated in the plaint. In
documentary evidence, plaintiff produced copy of his Nikahnama dated
24.04.1987 as EX.P1, Appointment Letter dated 29.09.1981 as Mark-A and
Employment Registration Certificate dated 12.03.1982 as Ex.P2. On the other
hand, representative of the defendant did not produced any oral evidence,
however, in documentary evidence, he produced application form for issuance
of CNIC as Ex.D1 and data form of the plaintiff as Ex.D2.
5. Arguments by both parties heard; record perused.
6. My issue wise findings are as under:
ISSUE NO.1.
7. Onus to prove this issue has been placed upon the
plaintiff. It is the version of the plaintiff that correct name of his father is is
Fakeer Muhammad and not Fakeer Hussain and in order to substantiate the
same, he himself appeared as PW1 and reiterated the same stance as narrated
in the plaint. He also produced his Nikahnama dated 24.04.1987 as EX.P1,

Appointment Letter dated 29.09.1981 as Mark-A and Employment
Registration Certificate dated 12.03.1982 as Ex.P2.
8. In rebuttal to this issue, representative for the defendant
produce no oral evidence, however, he produced application form for issuance
of CNIC as Ex.D1 and data form of the plaintiff as Ex.D2.
9. According to the NADRA record Ex.D1 and Ex.D2, plaintiff
applied for CNIC on 11.09.2001 with the name Muhammad Ilyas son of
Fakeer Hussain, same was issued on 07.11.2001 and finally same was
received by the plaintiff on 28.11.2006. Now according to plaintiff’s
Nikahnama dated 24.04.1987 (Ex.P1), Appointment Letter (Mark-A) dated
29.09.1981, Employment Registration Certificate dated 12.03.1982 (Ex.P2),
the plaintiff’s father name is “Fakeer Muhaamad”. All these documents
produced by the plaintiff are prior to issuance of CNIC from where it become
crystal clear that correct name of plaintiff’s father is “Fakeer Muhammad” and
the name “Fakeer Hussain” mentioned in the CNIC is incorrect regardless of
the fact that it was incorporated in the database due to plaintiff or defendant’s
mistake. It is also pertinent to mention here during final arguments, plaintiff
also produced his Matric Certificate dated 12.07.1980 which also support
plaintiff’s stance narrated in the plaint. Hence, keeping in view entries made in
the Nikahnama (Ex.P1), Appointment Letter (Mark-A), Employment
Registration Certificate (Ex.P2), Matric Certificate as well as the statement of
the plaintiff as PW-1 on oath, this issue is decided in affirmative.
ISSUE NO.2.
defendant. The version of the defendant is that CNIC was issued in 2001 where
as present plaintiff has instituted present suit in 2015, hence, present suit is
time barred. In this regard defendant has produced application form for
issuance of CNIC Ex.D1 and Data Form Ex.D2 from where it transpires that
CNIC was issued in 2001 and same was received by the plaintiff in 2006.
However, the point which need consideration is that plaintiff has stated in his
plaint that cause of action got finality one week before the institution of the
suit when defendant flatly refused to correct his father’s name. He has also
categorically stated in his examination-in-chief that examination-in-chief that
he contacted the defendant’s office several time for correction of his father’s
name but the defendant refused to do so and the same fact was not cross-
examined by the representative of the defendant and it is a settled principle of
law that any fact remained uncross-examined shall be deemed to be true. As
the plaintiff was in contact with the defendant for the correction of his father’s
name and the cause of action got finality one week before the institution of the
suit, I am of the opinion that this suit is not time barred, hence, present issued
is decided in negative.
ISSUE NO.3
defendants. According to findings on issue No.1, this issue is decided in
negative.
ISSUE NO.4
defendants. According to findings on issue No.1 and 02, this issue is decided in
negative.
ISSUE NO.5
defendants. According to findings on issue No.1, this issue is decided in
negative.
RELIEF
14. In view of my findings on above issues, suit of plaintiff is
decreed as prayed for. No order as to costs. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after its due compilation.
Announced: 22-02-2016. Babar Nadeem,

Chichawatni.
Certified that this judgment consists of 04-pages. Each page is

dictated, corrected, read and signed by me.
Dated:22-02-2016. Babar Nadeem,

Sahiwal.
Specimen of Examination-in-chief & Cross-examiantion:
Statement of ____________son of__________cast__________resident of
________.
Stated on oath that…………..(agay ap nay plaint k facts lekhnay

hain)……………………………………………………………………
……………..× ×××××××××××cross examination by learned counsel
for the defendant: …………………(ab ju questions cross-examination
main puchay jainay gay wo lekh jain gay….)

Criminal Orders HC-Rules

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Criminal Orders HC-Rules

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Contents

Kuch Topic end pay add keay hain…

3-Directions to Ahlmad .................................................................................12

The Worthy District & Sessions Judge,

Subject: CASUAL LEAVE.

I have the honour to submit that on 11.01.2016, first birth day of my

Thanking you in anticipation.

The Worthy District & Sessions Judge,

Subject: STATION LEAVE.

I have the honour to submit that on 16.01.2016 I have to go to my native

leave the station after court hours today.

Thanking you in anticipation.

The Worthy District & Sessions Judge,

Subject: INTIMATION REGARDING DUTY ON SUNDAY AS DUTY

Certified that I will perform duty as

Khalid Iqbal, Babar Nadeem,

Record perused from where it transpires that accused Muhammad Ali is

Contents of present judicial file transpires that accused persons namely

Perusal of record transpires that on last date of hearing Ahlmad was

Announced. Babar Nadeem,

Announced. Babar Nadeem,

4.3 Judicial Remand

Present: I.O Muhammad Afzaal alongwith record.

4.8 Judicial Remand to forward Challan

Announced. Babar Nadeem,

By the order of instant Court dated 12.09.2014 medical examination of

Announced. Babar Nadeem,

Subject:- STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 164 CR.P.C.

Announced. Babar Nadeem,

Present: I.O Muhammad Musa alongwith record.

Present: I.O Muhammad Afzaal alongwith record.

4.14 Police request for non-bail warrant

4.15 Remand in PEHO Case

Announced: (Babar Nadeem),

CASE FIR NO.------------ DATED --------------

Instant report is a/an ……………… duly forwarded by prosecution

1- Description of all accused persons

5.4.1 Notice for Arguments

Accused namely Muhammad Ameen son of Muhammad Hassan Caste

5.4.2 Order for summoning

5.4.3 Order for discharge

5.5 Order(Challan u/s 512)

CASE FIR NO.------------ DATED --------------

Report is with regard to absconding accused persons namely Muhammad

Announced. Babar Nadeem,

CASE FIR NO.------------ DATED --------------

Perusal of record transpires that police has submitted instant un-traced

Contents of the present report transpire that is a supplementary challan and

5.8 Send to Court of Sessions

5.8.1 Challan Case

The State versus Abdul Majeed

CASE FIR NO.276/15 DATED 11.08.2016 OFFENCES

Instant incomplete challan with due forwarding by the Muhammad Kamran

Announced. Babar Nadeem,

Safia Bibi versus Rashid Etc

Complainant Safia Bibi Wife Of Muhammad Mumtaz in person turned up

Announced. Babar Nadeem,

The State versus Muhammad Saleem etc

CASE FIR NO.215/14 DATED 12.07.2014 UNDER

Requisitioned report from Punjab Forensic Science Laboratory received

Announced. Babar Nadeem,

Announced. Babar Nadeem,

Announced. Babar Nadeem,