Sie sind auf Seite 1von 54

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.

Amended W.P. No. 11328/1999

Abida Parween W/o Ansar Iqbal Caste Chohan R/o Chak No. 96/10-
R Tehsil Jahania District Khanewal.
Petitioner
Versus
1. S.H.O. P/S Jahania District Khanewal.
2. Muhammad Yasin
3. Haji Muhammad Saleem Sons of Nek Muhammad
4. Muhammad Amin
5. Muhammad Munir Sons of Muhammad Saleem.
All Caste Chohan R/o Chak No. 96/10-R Tehsil Jahania District
Khanewal.
Respondents

Writ Petition under Article 199


Of The Constitution of Islamic
Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That the names and address of the parties are given correct for
the purpose of service and citations.

2. That the petitioner was engaged with one Ansar Iqbal S/o
Sanauallah, a resident of the same Village 5/6 years before by the
respondent No. 2 to 5. It was grown up in the mind of the
petitioner that she would finally be married to the said person.
The respondent No. 3 negotiations for the marriage of another
sister of the petitioner, but the other party demanded the hands of
two sisters for their two sons. The petitioner remained taken
aback when the father of the petitioner acknowledged their
demand and offered the hand of the petitioner along with other
sister. Coming to know this fact, the petitioner became mentally
disturbed and also resisted and agitated upon the settlement of the
respondent No. 3. This agitation and resistance of the petitioner
of course could not bear fruit and being SUI JURIS, exercised
her right and contracted marriage with said Ansar Iqbal, to whom
the petitioner was initially engaged. Copy of “Nikah Nama” is
attached as Annexure “A”.

3. That the respondents No. 2 to 5 along with the other relatives


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

4. That taking the privilege of the absence of the petitioner’s


husband, the respondents No. 2 to 5 started to visit the house of
the petitioner and pressurised the petitioner to obtain divorce
from her husband. Due to the strained relations with the
respondents No. 2 to 5, the petitioner did not allow them, even to
enter in the house but the respondent No. 1, under the colour of
his uniform backing the respondents and threatening the
petitioner to be roped up in the false cases along with her
husband and his relatives. It is pertinent to point out that till now
no criminal case is registered/ pending against the petitioner or
her husband.
5. That the petitioner and her husband have all the protections and
safe guards under the Article 9, 14 and 35 of the Constitution. On
the other hand, the respondent No. 1 has no authority to put his
nose in the matrimonial life and affairs of the petitioner. The
petitioner repeatedly requested the respondent No. 1 to perform
his duties within the Four Corners of law but always given a deaf
ear towards the petitioner.

6. That the petitioner is left with no other efficacious, adequate as


well as speedy remedy, except to invoke the extra ordinary
constitutional jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court, because the
respondent No. 1 miserably failed to perform his legal and
constitutional duties and obligations. Hence, this Petition.

It is therefore, humbly prayed that the respondent No. 1


may please be directed not to call any type of illegal and
unlawful harassment/humiliation to the petitioner and her
husband. He further be directed to act strictly in accordance
with law.

Any other relief, order, direction or remedy which this


Hon’ble Court deems fit, may please be granted.
Humble Petitioner

Dated: -6.12.99.
Abida Parween

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

Certificate: -
As per instructions of my client,
no identical Writ Petition has
already been filed in this
Hon’ble Court.
Advocate.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

W.P. No.____________/1999

Abida Parween Vs. S.H.O. etc.

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

I, the above named deponent do hereby


solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the
Petition are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept
concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this 6th day of
December, 1999 that the contents of this affidavit are
true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

C.M. No. _____________/1999


In
W.P. No._____________/1999

Abida Parween Vs. S.H.O. etc.

Dispensation Application.

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

I, the above named deponent do hereby


solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the
application are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept
concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this 6th day of
December, 1999 that the contents of this affidavit are
true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

C.M. No. _____________/1999


In
W.P. No._____________/1999

Abida Parween Vs. S.H.O. etc.

APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE


FILING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURES.
=========================================

Respectfully Sheweth:-
That certified copies of Annexures A & B are not
available. However, uncertified/photo state copies of the
same have been annexed with the Petition, which are true
copies of original documents.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble


court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copies
of documents.

Petitioner

Dated: 6.12.99 Abida Parween

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

Amended W.P. No. 11328/1999

Abida Parween Vs. S.H.O. etc.

INDEX

S. No. NAME OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXURES PAGES


1 Urgent Form
2 Stamp Paper worth Rs. 500/-
3 Writ Petition. 1 to 5
4 Affidavit 7
5 Nikah Nama A 9
6 F.I.R. with better copy. B/B-1 11-13
7 Dispensation Application. 15
8 Affidavit. 17
9 Vakalatnama 19

Petitioner
Dated: -6.12.99.

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

W.P. No._________________/1999

Malik Qadeer Uddin Vs. The Province of Punjab etc.

Dispensation Application

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

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly


affirm and declare that the contents of the above
application are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept
concealed thereto.

Deponent

Verification: -

Verified on oath at Multan, this _____


day of October, 1999 that the contents of this
affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and
belief.
DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

Crl. Misc. No.____________/B/2000

1. Muhammad Hanif
2. Abdul Khaliq, both sons of Haji Allah Wasaya Caste Sumra, R/o
Chak No. 22/M, Tehsil Kahror Pakka District Lodhran.

Versus
The State

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

Case F.I.R. No. 10/2000 Dated 18.1.2000 U/s 302,


148/149 P.P.C. P.S. Dhanot, District Lodhran.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That it is the first petition for the subject cited relief. No such
application or any bail petition is filed before this Hon’ble Court
and any other Court.
2. That as per F.I.R the facts of case are that the complainant is
resident of Chak No. 22/M. On the day of occurrence at 8.30
A.M., he along with his two sons Mumtaz Ahmad, Sajjad Ahmad
and Muhammad Amin son Muhammad Bakhsh Caste Dhudi R/o
the same village were coming to their place of residence through
“Kaccha Road” leading Girls Primary school to Basant Pur
Miner. When they reached Bhani Lodhran Wali, situated in
Square No. 53 Qilla No. 1 on the road, suddenly Abdur-Razzaq
armed with gun 12 bores, Muhammad Siddique armed with 12
bores gun, Abdul Khaliq armed with hatchet, Hanif armed with
iron pipe, Abdul Majeed armed with pistol all sons of Allah
Wasaya Caste Sumra R/o 22/M appeared on Motor Cycles. Hanif
raised “Lalkara” addressing Mumtaz that today all you should be
taught lesson for asking the price of cotton as well as to insult the
brother Abdul Khaliq in today morning. On this, as well as
returned Abdur-Razzaq fired straight which landed on the left
side of chest of my son Sajjad. Muhammad Siddique too fired
with his 12 bore gun which hit on the upper part of arm. We
resiled with fear. Muhammad Sajjad son fell in injured condition
on the ground. On our noise, many people gathered, but on the
threats of Abdul Khaliq, Muhammad Hanif and Majeed no one
could help us. All the accused persons fled away on their motor
cycles along with their respective weapons. My son Muhammad
Sajjad scumed too injuries after some time on the spot. The
motive behind this occurrence is my son Mumtaz early in the
morning tried to settle the rate of cotton and price of 118 monds
cotton on which there was an altercation, in which Mumtaz
slapped Hanif. On this grievance, all these accused persons in
consultation with each other inflicted firearm injuries to my son
Sajjad which resulted his death. I left Mumtaz Ahmad son and
Muhammad Amin Dhudi along with the dead body reported the
matter. Copy of F.I.R is annexed as Annexure “A” and better
copy is annexed as “A/1”.
3. That the petitioners are entitled for the concession of pre-arrest
bail in the shape of protective bail on the following

GROUNDS
a. That the F.I.R is a concocted story which is registered
with the malafide consultation and assistance of the
Police.
b. That the petitioners are innocent and involved in this
case falsely.
c. That the petitioners have not inflicted any injury to the
deceased as per bare reading of F.I.R.
d. That actually Mumtaz the real brother of deceased
Sajjad along with other two committed robbery and
extorted Rs. 100,000/- from the petitioner No. 2. When
Mumtaz and his accomplices chased by the petitioner
No. 2 and his two brothers Mumtaz and Sajjad along
with others from one side and Rafiq, Siddique both by
Caste Dhudi started firing upon the petitioner No. 2 and
brothers. In this cross firing Sajjad received fires from
the guns of Rafiq and Siddique. This matter was also
reported to the Police, but they did not bother to take
any action.
e. That the Police in league with complainant party under
the malafide and ulterior motive are causing harassment
and humiliation to the petitioners. The Police,
complainant party and Police officials surrounded and
guarded the Sessions Court in such a way that the
petitioners cannot approach to avail the right of pre-
arrest bail.
f. That aggrieved by the conduct of complainant
party/Police, the petitioners are forced to file this
petition before this Hon’ble Court for the grant of
protective bail, to approach the proper forum.
It is therefore, humbly prayed that the
petitioners may please be granted pre-arrest bail
in the shape of protective bail, enable the
petitioners to approach the proper forum.
Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court
deems fit may please be extended in favour of the
petitioners.
Humbly Petitioners

Through: -
Sh. Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts,
Multan.
C.C. No. 20176.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.
Crl. Misc. No.____________/B/2000

Muhammad Hanif etc. Vs. The State

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

INDEX

S. No. NAME OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXURES PAGES


1 Bail Application.
2 Affidavit
3 F.I.R. A
4 Better Copy of F.I.R. A/1
5 Application for Dispensation.
6 Affidavit
7 Vakalatnama

PETITIONER

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

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,


MULTAN.
Crl. Misc. No.____________/B/2000

Muhammad Hanif etc. Vs. The State

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

APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE


FILING OF CERTIFIED COPY OF ANNEXURE.
=========================================

Respectfully Sheweth:-
That certified copy of Annexure “A” is not available.
However, uncertified/photo state copy of the same has been
annexed with the Petition, which is true copy of original
document.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble


court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copy of
the document.

Petitioners

Dated: 25.01.2000

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

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,


MULTAN.
Crl. Misc. No.____________/B/2000

Muhammad Hanif etc. Vs. The State

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

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Muhammad Hanif son of Haji Allah Wasaya Caste
Sumra, R/o Chak No. 22/M, Tehsil Kahror Pakka
District Lodhran.

I, the above named deponent do hereby


solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the
application are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept
concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____day
of January 2000 that the contents of this affidavit are
true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,


MULTAN.
Crl. Misc. No.____________/B/2000

Muhammad Hanif etc. Vs. The State

Dispensation Application.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Muhammad Hanif son of Haji Allah Wasaya Caste
Sumra, R/o Chak No. 22/M, Tehsil Kahror Pakka
District Lodhran.

I, the above named deponent do hereby


solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the
application are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept
concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____day
of January 2000 that the contents of this affidavit are
true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,


MULTAN.
Crl. Appeal No.____________/2000

Rana Ghulam Mahboob Subhan S/o Rana Ghulam Gilani, Caste


Rajput, R/o Kameer Town, Tehsil & District Sahiwal.
Appellant
Versus
1. The State.
2. Ghulam Rasool alias Gamni S/o Pahlwan.
3. Zafar Iqbal S/o Muhammad Yuosaf.
4. Manzoor S/o Bahawal.
5. Pahlwan S/o Kaloo.
All caste Main R/o Kameer Town, Tehsil & District
Sahiwal.
6. Abdul Ghafoor S/o Sohna, Caste Dalloo, R/o Chak No.
121/9-L, Mauza Kameer Tehsil & District Sahiwal.
Respondents

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


the order dated 13.1.2000 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Sahiwal by
which the learned Trial Court acquit
the respondents No. 2 to 6.

F.I.R No. 175/94 dated 22.7.94 P.S. Kameer (Sahiwal)


U/s 324, 427, 148/149, 109 P.P.C.

Claim in Appeal to set aside the


impugned order along with request to
remand the case for decision on merits
after recording the prosecution evidence.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That the names and addresses of the parties are given
correct for the purpose of service of the parties and
citations.

2. That the above mentioned case was registered on the


statement of the appellant. That on 5.30 p.m. be along
with his son Ghulam Rabbani, Muhammad Hanif and
Mahram Khan the owner of car No. 9777 MNB while
riding on the same car after paying visit at Darbar Baba
Muhammad Panah were returning their home. The said
car was driven by son Ghulam Rabbani while he was
sitting on the passenger seat and while Mahram Khan and
Muhammad Hanif were sitting on the rear seat of the car.
When they reached near the office of Union Council
Kameer, suddenly Ghulam Rasool alias Gamni armed
with 222 riffle, Zaffar S/o Yousaf armed with 7mm riffle,
Manzoor S/o Bahawal armed with 12 bore gun, Noor S/o
Hayat armed with 7 mm riffle (died) all main by caste
R/o Kameer Town and Abdul Ghafoor S/o Sohna caste
Dalloo R/o Chak No. 121/9-L armed with 12 bore gun
appeared before the car. Noor raised a Lalkara that today
took the revenge of murder and Rana Mahboob should
not be escaped, in response of Lalkara, Ghulam Rasool,
Zafar, Abdul Ghafoor, Manzoor, and Noor started firing
on the car with their respective weapons. The fire of
Ghulma Rasool alias Gamni hit the front screen of the
car, the wind screen was broken and the fire after the left
ear of Ghulam Rabbani landed on the front of left side of
chest of Muhammad Hanif. The remaining fire could not
injure any one because keeping in view the situation,
Ghulam Rabbani accelerated the car. The accused
persons remained on firing which hit the rear side of car
and both tyres. In the meantime, people of locality
gathered there after listening to the firing noise. At this
instance, all the accused fled away from the spot along
with their respective weapons. The motive behind this
occurrence is that five years ago the son of Noor accused
namely Muhammad Yuosaf was murdered in which the
complainant and his brother Muhammad Akram were
accused but acquitted by the Court. By this grudge, all
the accused persons constituted the unlawful assembly
and launched a murderous assault upon the complainant
and his companions. A formal F.I.R was recorded at 6.45
p.m. on the same day. The case was investigated,
weapons were recovered and all the accused persons
mentioned in F.I.R were challaned along with another
accused Muhammad Ramzan S/o Charagh.

3. That the challan was submitted in the Court. On 28.2.95,


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

GROUNDS

a. That the impugned order is illegal, unlawful and


void ab-initio.

b. That the learned Trial Court exercised the powers,


which are not available under the law.

c. That the learned Trial Court does not fulfill the


requirements of section 249-A Cr.P.C.

d. That the delay in trial cannot be attributed to the


prosecution if the order sheet is perused carefully.
The certified copy of interim order is Annex “B”.

e. That many adjournments were happened due to the


non-availability of learned Presiding Officer.

f. That many adjournments were happened due to


frequent transfer of case from one Court to another
Court under the administrative orders of learned
Sessions Judge.

g. That the service of summons/warrants issued by


the learned Trial Court was oftenly not effected
upon the witnesses.

h. That the evidence of the witnesses was not


recorded by the learned Trial Court without any
justification or plausible explanation.

i. That the impugned order was passed in haste,


without application of judicial mind, principles and
norms.

j. That the learned Trial Court does not exercise the


discretion within Four Corners of law.

k. That the impugned order caused a great discourage


of justice to the appellant.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the


impugned order may please be set aside by way of
accepting this appeal and case may please be
remanded to the Trial Court for fresh decision after
recording the prosecution evidence.

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court


deems fit may please be extended in favour of
appellant in the interest of justice.
Appellant

Through: -
Sh. Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts,
Multan.
C.C. No. 20176.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.
Crl. Appeal No.____________/2000

Rana Ghulam Mahboob Subhan Vs. The State etc.

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

INDEX

S. No. NAME OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXURES PAGES


1 Appeal.
2 Affidavit
3 Impugned order dated 13.1.2000. A
4 Copy of interim order. B
5 Vakalatnama

APPELLANT

Dated: .2.2000

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

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,


MULTAN.
Crl. Appeal No.____________/2000

Rana Ghulam Mahboob Subhan Vs. The State etc.

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

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Rana Ghulam Mahboob Subhan S/o Rana Ghulam
Gilani, Caste Rajput, R/o Kameer Town, Tehsil &
District Sahiwal.

I, the above named deponent do hereby


solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the
appeal are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept
concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____day
of February 2000 that the contents of this affidavit are
true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,


MULTAN.
Crl. Appeal No.____________/2000

1. Muhammad Nadeem Mustafa S/o Ghulam Mustafa, Caste Arain,


R/o Gali No. 2 Madina Town, Old Shujabad Road, Multan.
2. Shakeel Ahmad S/o Saeed Ahmad Caste Qureshi, R/o Gali No. 2
Madina Town, Old Shujabad Road, Multan.
Appellants
Versus
The State. Respondent

Appeal U/s 410 Cr.P.C against the


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

F.I.R No. 209/96 dated 21.10.96 U/S 365-A 302/34 P.P.C.


P.S Qutabpur, Multan.

Claim in appeal to set aside the


judgment of the learned Trial Court,
along with request of acquittal of
Appellants/accused persons.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That the names and addresses of the parties are given correct
for the purpose of service of the parties and citations.

2. That the facts of the case as mentioned in the F.I.R are that
Fazl-ur-Rehman complained/made statement before the Police
that he has a shop of children school bag in Safdar Market.
His son Irfan Ahmad aged 12 years was student of fifth (5th)
class. On 11.6.96 at 4.30 p.m. Irfan Ahmad went to tuition
from Muhammad Ashraf. At that time, Irfan Ahmad was
wearing grey pent, white shirt and Banyan and light green
chappal in his feet. When Irfan Ahmad did not come back
home then he went to the house of Master Muhammad Ashraf.
He came to know that Master Muhammad Ashraf was not
present in his house. He continued to search for his son Irfan
Ahmad but he found no clue. On 12.9.96 he lodged report No.
13 at P.S. Qutab Pur for missing of his son Irfan Ahmad so
that publicity in T.V and Newspapers, etc. could be made. He
had been receiving telephonic calls on his telephone in which
the caller demanded ransom of Rs. 50,000/- for return of his
son Irfan Ahmad. Then he arranged for an observation on his
telephone No. 582130. After installation of observation,
messages were received form different telephone numbers but
be had been contacted the said telephone numbers but nothing
about Irfan Ahmad could be found. During search Zamir
Abbas S/o Afzal Caste Syed R/o Abuturab Colony and Akbar
Khan S/o Charagh Khan Caste Pathan R/o Chowk Shaheedan,
Mohallah Fareedabad told the complainant two days before
the registration of case that Nadeem Mustafa S/o Ghulam
Mustafa Caste Arain armed with pistol and Shakeel Ahmad
S/o Saeed Ahmad Caste Qureshi were taking Irfan Ahmad on
Motor Cycle when Irfan Ahmad was sitting between both of
them. Shakeel Ahmad was driving the motorcycle and
Nadeem Mustafa was sitting behind Irfan Ahmad. Both of the
above said PW’s had gone out for their work and on return,
they had come to know about the abduction of Irfan Ahmad.
On this information, he along with Nazir Ahmad &
Muhammad Latif inquired from Nadeem Mustafa and Shakeel
Ahmad accused about Irfan Ahmad. After some hesitation,
they told that they had left Irfan Ahmad at about 6 p.m. Irfan
Ahmad has not been found despite great struggle. Accused
had abducted Irfan Ahmad for ransom and had concealed him
somewhere or had murdered him. In this respect, he has got
proofs with him. Hence this case.
3. That the accused were arrested and challaned. At first
instance, the challan of the case was submitted in the Special
Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Multan. As the
case was not one, falling within the jurisdiction of Special
Court as per Schedule, so the same was returned and
thereafter submitted to the Sessions Judge, Multan.

4. That the accused persons were charge sheeted U/s 365-A/


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

5. That the judgment dated 17.1.2000 is liable to set aside on the


following: -

GROUNDS

a. That the impugned judgment is against the law and


norms of justice.

b. That the impugned judgment is a result of non-reading


and misreading of the evidence.

c. That the prosecution evidence was given unnecessary


weight when the material infirmities discrepancies and
irregularities are not considered.

d. That there is no evidence against the accused persons


and the impugned judgment is a result of conjectures
and surmises.

e. That the prosecution did not bring cogent with evidence


against the accused persons. Whole the case of the
prosecution is based upon the extra judicial confession
of the accused persons, which is the weakest type of
evidence in the eyes of law. The extra judicial
confession, which was brought upon the file by the
prosecution, is a joint admission. The same is otherwise
not admissible in evidence. Such statement has no legal
sanctity and could not be a base for the conviction.

f. That there are material discrepancies and improvements


in the statement of prosecution witnesses and the
benefit of all these things was not extended to the
accused persons.

g. That the impugned judgment is the formula judgment


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

h. That the complainant appeared as PW 4. He made


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

i. That the bare reading of section 365-A P.P.C bifurcated


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

j. That the PW’s 7 & 8 are the witnesses for the extra
judicial confession. They along with the PW’s 4 & 5
unanimously admitted that it was the joint confessional
statement of the accused persons before all of them.

k. That the best evidence (expert, mother of alleged


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

l. That the statement made by the accused persons must


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

m. That the learned Trial Court made four points to base


the impugned judgment: -

i. The last scene/ocular evidence.


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

ii. Extra Judicial confession.


Without going into the deeper analogy of such
evidence, it can be examined on the verdict of the
Hon’ble High Courts and Supreme Court that in
first instance it is a weaker type of evidence and
if does not inspire the confidence, no conviction
could be passed on the bases of such evidence. In
the present case, it is a joint and is not in such
terms, which could be considered according to
the ingredient of any offence.

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

iv. Medical Evidence.


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

n. That the impugned judgment caused great


miscarriage of justice to the appellants.
It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the
impugned judgment may please be set aside
and the accused persons/appellants be
acquitted.
Any other relief, order or direction
which this Hon’ble Court deems fit may
please be extended in favour of appellants.
Humble appellants

Dated: .2.2000.

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

2. Sh. Muhammad Faheem,


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

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

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,


MULTAN.
Crl. Appeal No.____________/2000

Muhammad Nadeem Mustafa etc. Vs. The State.

Appeal U/s 410 Cr.P.C.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Muhammad Nadeem Mustafa S/o Ghulam Mustafa,
Caste Arain, R/o Gali No. 2 Madina Town, Old
Shujabad Road, Multan.

I, the above named deponent do hereby


solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the
appeal are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept
concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____day
of February 2000 that the contents of this affidavit are
true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,


MULTAN.
Crl. Appeal No.____________/2000

Muhammad Nadeem Mustafa etc. Vs. The State.

Appeal U/s 410 Cr.P.C.

INDEX

S. No. NAME OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXURES PAGES


1 Opening Sheet.
2 Appeal.
3 Copy of Judgment dated 17.1.2000. A
4 Vakalatnama.

APPELLANT

Dated: .2.2000

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

2. Sh. Muhammad Faheem,


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

Crl. Misc. No. ___________B/2000

1. Zaffar Hussain.
2. Ijaz Hussain.
3. Shabbir Hussain all sons of Muhammad Bakhsh, caste Bhatti,
r/o Chak No. 103/15-L Tehsil Mian Channun District
Khanewal.
4. Allah Ditta s/o Sikandar, caste Sipra, r/o 104/15-L Tehsil
Mian Channun District Khanewal.
Petitioners
Versus
The State………………… Respondent

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

F.I.R. No. 3/2000 dated 17.1.2000 P.S. Chab Kalan


(Khanewal) under section 440/148/149 P.P.C.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That names and addresses of the parties with other relevant
particulars of case are stated correct for the service and
citations.

2. That the above mentioned case was registered on the instance


of one Mushtaq Ahmad and briefly stated the facts that he is a
cultivator and residing in a house on his land. On 10.1.2000
he, in Qila No. 5 Square No. 3 in the boundary of Chak No.
103/15-L, on his lands he planted the “Kinoo” in the shape of
a garden same day at 10.30 a.m. Zaffar Hussain armed with
rifle 222, Shabbir Hussain and Ijaz Hussain armed with pistols
all sons of Muhammad Bakhsh, all Bhatti by caste, resident of
Chak No. 103/15-L along with Allah Ditta son of Sikandar,
caste Sipra, resident of Chak No. 104/15-L came there and
started to sever the “Kinoo” plants from Kila No. 5. He along
with witnesses attracted there and tried to restrain them but
could not succeed. They severed the 130 number of plants. It
is also alleged that Zaffar Hussain etc. threatened them.
Motive behind this occurrence is stated that the agricultural
land of Zaffar Hussain etc. and complainant falls in the same
Khewat and a stay order not to change the position and nature
of this land is issued by the learned Civil Judge, Mian
Channun (Mr. Shahbaz Ali Paracha) in favour of Zaffar
Hussain etc. Hence this F.I.R. Annex “A”.

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

4. That the petitioners are entitled for pre-arrest bail inter alia on
the following

GROUNDS

a) That question of malafide and ulterior motive, which is


the essence for the grant of pre-arrest bail, was not
decided by the learned judge.

b) That a suit for perpetual injunction is pending between


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

c) That the narration of F.I.R. is incorrect because


humanly it is not possible to severe 130 plants when
armed with weapons also.

d) That contents of F.I.R itself prove the violation of stay


order and such behaviour of complainant does not
entitle him for grant of any relief from the Court of law.

e) That keeping in view the strand relations between the


parties, possibilities of false implications is not ruled
out.

f) That “Kinoo” plants are neither produced before the


Police nor taken into possession by the police as the
sole proof of the contention of the complainant.

g) That there is seven days unexplained delay in the


registration of case. This only fact is sufficient to
discard the version of the complainant.

h) That the narration of F.I.R. does not constitute any


offence and the ingredients of section 440 P.P.C. are
absent.

i) That the three real brothers are roped up falsely only to


pressurise the family of the petitioners.

j) That the punishment for the offences in F.I.R. does not


fall within the preview of prohibitory clause.

k) That on the same facts, a co-accused has been granted


relief when the case of the present petitioners is
identical.

l) That no specific role is attributed to any of the


petitioners.
m) That the petitioners belong to respectable family. The
police in league with complainant under the malafide
intention and ulterior motive want to arrest the
petitioners and this act of police will cause humiliation
and harassment to the petitioners.

It is therefore, humbly prayed that the petitioners


may please be granted ad-interim pre-arrest bail till the
final disposal of the petition and same may please be
confirmed till the final decision of case.

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems


fit, may please be granted in favour of the petitioners.

Humble Petitioners

1. Sh. Muhammad Faheem,


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

2. Hammad Afzal Bajwa,


Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts,
Multan.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

Crl. Misc. No. ___________B/2000

Zaffar Hussain, etc. Versus The State.

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

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

I, the above named deponent do hereby


solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the
above application are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept
concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this ____day of
March 2000 that the contents of this affidavit are true
to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

C.M. No. _____________/2000


In
Crl. Misc. No. ___________B/2000

Zaffar Hussain, etc. Versus The State.

APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE


FILING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURES.
=========================================

Respectfully Sheweth: -
That certified copies of Annexures “A to G” are not
available. However, uncertified/photo state copies of the
same have been annexed with the Petition, which are true
copies of original documents.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble


court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copies
of documents.
PETITIONERS

Dated: _________

1. Sh. Muhammad Faheem,


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

2. Hammad Afzal Bajwa,


Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts,
Multan.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

C.M. No. _____________/2000


In
Crl. Misc. No. ___________B/2000

Zaffar Hussain, etc. Versus The State.

Dispensation Application

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

I, the above named deponent do hereby


solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above application are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has
been kept concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of March 2000 that the contents of this affidavit
are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.

Crl. Misc. No. ___________B/2000

Zaffar Hussain, etc. Versus The State.

INDEX

S. No. NAME OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXURES PAGES


1 Urgent Form
2 Bail Application.
3 Affidavit
4 Photocopy of F.I.R. A
5 Copy of bail application along with B
order.
6 Copy of 1st interim injunction. C
7 Copy of contempt application. D
8 Copy of contempt application. E
9 Copy of contempt application. F
10 Copy of report of Local G
Commissioner.
11 Dispensation Application.
12 Affidavit.
13 Vakalatnama
PETITIONER
Dated:__________

Sh. Muhammad Faheem,


Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts,
Multan.
C.C. No. 20176.
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN.
1. Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad Versus Mst. Balqees Begum
etc.
RENT APPEAL NO. 8/14 OF 1983

2. Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad Versus Mst. Balqees Begum


etc.
SUIT FOR DECLARATION NO. 164 OF 1979

3. Sheikh Imdad Ahmad Versus Sheikh Maqbool Ahmad etc.


SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND PARTITION NO. 383 OF 1983

APPLICATION FOR RELEASE OF


DEFENCE SAVING CERTIFICATES.

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

2. That on 14.5.1986 the award was announced and was received in this
Hon’ble Court on 19.5.1986. Along with other matters as per para No. 5
of award amount Rs. 815,167/- had to be deposited by two parties and
had to be divided between three parties. The contents of para No. 5 of
award are as under: -
Para No. 5.
(i) Sheikh Imdad Ahmad shall pay Rs. 679,084/-
(ii) Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad shall pay Rs. 136,083/-
Total: Rs. 815,167/-
The above amount of Rs. 815,167/- will be divided to the following
persons: -
(i) Sheikh Maqbool Ahmad Rs. 495,917/-
(ii) Mst. Shabeeran Rs. 159,625/-
(iii) Mst. Akhtari Begum Rs. 159,625/-
The payments as above were directed to be made
within one month from the date of award (14.5.1986).

3. That Sheikh Imdad Ahmad late (predecessor of the applicants) accepted


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

4. That during the proceedings of this case on 6.12.1986 Shiekh Imdad


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All the above mentioned matters were withdrawn by compromise


outside the court as the appellants/assailants accepted the awards. The
court passed order dated 17.5.99 and hence the Judgment/Decree dated
18.4.92 declaring the award as RULE OF COURT attained finality.

6. That during the litigation Sheikh Imdad Ahmad late (father) and Mst.
Balqees Begum (mother) of applicants died and the successors/
applicants impleaded as party in the titled matter. However, the
succession certificates were also obtained in this regard and annexed
herewith also.

It is, therefore, requested that the Defence Saving Certificates


purchased in lieu of amount deposited by the predecessor of
applicants may please be released after their endorsement in favour
of Sheikh Afzaal Ahmad (applicant No. 4) Attorney of the applicant
udner the true letter and spirit of order dated 21.4.88 of this Hon’ble
Court.

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit may
please be granted to the applicants.

Humble Applicants

(i) Sheikh Akhlaq Ahmad

(ii) Sheikh Iftikhar Ahmad

(iii) Sheikh Ashfaq Ahmad

(iv) Sheikh Afzaal Ahmad


Also as General power of attorney for 1 to 3.

Through: -
Sh. Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts,
Multan.
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN.

1. Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad Versus Mst. Balqees Begum


etc.
RENT APPEAL NO. 8/14 OF 1983

2. Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad Versus Mst. Balqees Begum


etc.
SUIT FOR DECLARATION NO. 164 OF 1979

3. Sheikh Imdad Ahmad Versus Sheikh Maqbool Ahmad etc.


SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND PARTITION NO. 383 OF 1983

APPLICATION FOR EXECUTION OF PARA NO. 5 OF


AWARD DATED 14.5.86, DECLARED AS RULE OF
COURT VIDE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 18.4.92.

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

2. That on 14.5.1986 the award was announced and was received in this
Hon’ble Court on 19.5.1986. Along with other matters as per para No. 5
of award amount Rs. 815,167/- had to be deposited by two parties and
had to be divided between three parties. The contents of para No. 5 of
award are as under: -
Para No. 5.
(i) Sheikh Imdad Ahmad shall pay Rs. 679,084/-
(ii) Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad shall pay Rs. 136,083 /-
Total: Rs. 815,167/-
The above amount of Rs. 815,167/- will be divided to the following
persons: -

(i) Sheikh Maqbool Ahmad Rs. 495,917/-


(ii) Mst. Shabeeran Rs. 159,625/-
(iii) Mst. Akhtari Begum Rs. 159,625/-
The payments as above were directed to be made
within one month from the date of award (14.5.1986).

3. That Sheikh Imdad Ahmad late (predecessor of the applicants No.2 to 5)


accepted the award and deposited Rs. 679,084/-. Sheikh Maqbool
Ahmad and Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad filed objections. Sheikh Maqbool
Ahmad however, did not own the objections vide interim order dated
25.6.86 and Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad remained in field as sole contested
objector.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All the above mentioned matters were withdrawn by compromise


outside the court as the appellants/assailants accepted the awards. The
court passed order dated 17.5.99 and hence the Judgment/Decree dated
18.4.92 declaring the award as RULE OF COURT attained finality.

5. That mainly the RULE OF COURT is executed and desired to be


executed the remaining part as stated in para No. 2 of this application,
and ready to deposit the required money. It is proposed that during the
litigation Sh. Imdad Ahmad, Balqees Begum, Mst. Shabiran and
Mst.Akhtari Begum died and their legal heirs were brought on file as
party.

6. That the parties are residing at different places, and for their
convenience, the applicants are ready to deposit the amount in shape of
D.D./Pay order as per their share, which could be dispatched on the
expenses of applicants, to the entitled persons or under any other terms
as directed by this Hon’ble Court. A diagram of entitled person is
annexed herewith.

It is, therefore, prayed that files of above-mentioned cases


may please be summoned for the execution of remaining part of
award/ Rule of Court.

Humble Applicants

Dated: ___________

(i) Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad

(ii) Sheikh Akhlaq Ahmad

(iii) Sheikh Iftikhar Ahmad

(iv) Sheikh Ashfaq Ahmad

(v) Sheikh Afzaal Ahmad


Also as General power of attorney for 2 to 4.

Through: -
Sh. Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts,
Multan.
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN.

1. Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad Versus Mst. Balqees Begum


etc.
RENT APPEAL NO. 8/14 OF 1983

2. Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad Versus Mst. Balqees Begum


etc.
SUIT FOR DECLARATION NO. 164 OF 1979

3. Sheikh Imdad Ahmad Versus Sheikh Maqbool Ahmad etc.


SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND PARTITION NO. 383 OF 1983

APPLICATION FOR RELEASE OF


DEFENCE SAVING CERTIFICATES.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Sheikh Afzaal Ahmad son of Sh. Imdad Ahmad, caste
Sheikh, c/o Al-Hamad Textile Mills Tipu Sultan Road,
Multan.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly


affirm and declare that the contents of the above-titled
accompanying application are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION: -
Verified on oath that the contents of this
affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief.
DEPONENT

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN.

1. Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad Versus Mst. Balqees Begum


etc.
RENT APPEAL NO. 8/14 OF 1983

2. Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad Versus Mst. Balqees Begum


etc.
SUIT FOR DECLARATION NO. 164 OF 1979

3. Sheikh Imdad Ahmad Versus Sheikh Maqbool Ahmad etc.


SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND PARTITION NO. 383 OF 1983

APPLICATION FOR EXECUTION OF PARA NO. 5 OF


AWARD DATED 14.5.86, DECLARED AS RULE OF
COURT VIDE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 18.4.92.

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

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly


affirm and declare that the contents of the above-titled
accompanying application are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT

VERIFICATION: -
Verified on oath that the contents of this
affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief.
DEPONENT
Sh. Imdad Ahmad Rs. 679,084/- + 136.083/- Sh. Sarfraz Ahmad

Shall be divided

Sh. Maqbool Ahmad (alive) Muhammad Muslim husband of Mst. Shabiran (died)
Rs. 495,917/- Rs. 39,906.25 Rs. 159,625/-

M. Waseem M. Saleem M. Azeem M. Naeem M. Tasleem Nusrat Tasleem Sadaqt Khan Nuzhat Nighat Musarrat Rifaat
Rs. 15,962.50 Rs. 1995.31 (daughter) Rs. 7981.25

M. Azeem Sidra Sumra Aamera


Rs. 5,596.88 Rs. 2,793.44

H. M. Zaffar husband Mst. Akhtari Begum (died)


Rs. 39,906.25 Rs. 159,625/-

Zahid Nawaz Sitara Begum Ishrat Begum Bushra Naz


Son Daughter Daughter Daughter
Rs. 47,887.50 Rs. 23,943.75
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN.

1. Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad Versus Mst. Balqees Begum etc.


RENT APPEAL NO. 8/14 OF 1983
2. Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad Versus Mst. Balqees Begum etc.
SUIT FOR DECLARATION NO. 164 OF 1979
3. Sheikh Imdad Ahmad Versus Sheikh Maqbool Ahmad etc.
SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND PARTITION NO. 383 OF 1983

To act upon the para No. 5 of Award Rule of Court.


Amount shall be deposited by
Sh. Imdad Ahmad: Rs. 679,084/-
Sh. Sarfraz Ahmad: Rs. 136,083/-
Total: Rs. 815,167/-
&
Shall be divided as under: -
Sh. Maqbool Ahmad: Rs. 495,917/- (Alive)
Mst. Shabiran: Rs. 159,625/- (Died)
Mst. Akhtari Begum: Rs. 159,625/- (Died)
Total: Rs. 815,167/-

LEGAL HEIRS OF MST. SHABBIRAN

S. No. Name Relation Amount Remarks


1. Muhammad Muslim Husband 39,906.25
2. Sadaqat Zaman Daughter 7,981.25
3. Nuzhat -do- 7,981.25
4. Nighat -do- 7,981.25
5. Mussarat -do- 7,981.25
6. Riffat -do- 7,981.25
7. Muhammad Salim Son 15,962.50
8. Muhammad Naseem -do- 15,962.50
9. Muhammad Naeem -do- 15,962.50
10. Muhammad Waseem -do- 15,962.50
11. Muhammad Tasleem -do- 15,962.50 (Died)
Total: - 1,59,625/-
LEGAL HEIRS OF M. TASLEEM: -
S. No. Name Relation Amount Remarks
11 A. Nusrat Tasleem Legal Wife 1,995.31 Rs. 15,962/50 of deceased
11 B. Muhammad Azim heirs Son 5,596.85 Muhammad Tasleem are
11 C. Sidra of Daughter 2,793.44 divided to the legal heirs
11 D. Sumra Muhammad -do- 2,793.44 as per their shares.
11 E. Aamra Tasleem -do- 2,793.44

LIST OF LEGAL HEIRS OF MST. AKHTARI BEGUM


1. H. Muhammad Zafar Husband 33,906.25
2. Zahid Nawaz Son 41,906.15
3. Sitara Begum Daughter 20,953.15
4. Azra Begum -do- 20,953.15
5. Ishrat Begum -do- 20,953.15
6. Bushra Naz -do- 20,953.15
Total: - 1,59,625/-
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN.

1. Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad Versus Mst. Balqees Begum etc.


RENT APPEAL NO. 8/14 OF 1983

2. Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad Versus Mst. Balqees Begum etc.


SUIT FOR DECLARATION NO. 164 OF 1979

3. Sheikh Imdad Ahmad Versus Sheikh Maqbool Ahmad etc.


SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND PARTITION NO. 383 OF 1983

APPLICATION FOR EXECUTION OF PARA NO. 5 OF AWARD


DATED 14.5.86, DECLARED AS RULE OF COURT VIDE
JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 18.4.92.

REPLY

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That the para No. 1 of this application is admitted as correct.
2. That the para No. 2 of this application is admitted as correct.
3. That the para No. 3 of this application is admitted as correct.
4. That the para No. 4 of this application is admitted as correct.
5. That the para No. 5 of this application is admitted as correct.
6. That the respondent (s) has/have no objection if Demand Draft/Pay
order as per entitlement may please be delivered/despatched as the
given address.
It is therefore, prayed that there is no objection, if the
application is accepted as prayed.
Humble Respondent

Through: -
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN.

1. Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad Versus Mst. Balqees Begum etc.


RENT APPEAL NO. 8/14 OF 1983

2. Sheikh Sarfraz Ahmad Versus Mst. Balqees Begum etc.


SUIT FOR DECLARATION NO. 164 OF 1979

3. Sheikh Imdad Ahmad Versus Sheikh Maqbool Ahmad etc.


SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND PARTITION NO. 383 OF 1983

APPLICATION FOR RELEASE OF


DEFENCE SAVING CERTIFICATES.

REPLY

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That the para No. 1 of this application is admitted as correct.
2. That the para No. 2 of this application is admitted as correct.
3. That the para No. 3 of this application is admitted as correct.
4. That the para No. 4 of this application is admitted as correct.
5. That the para No. 5 of this application is admitted as correct.
6. That the para No. 6 of this application is admitted as correct.
It is therefore, prayed that the application may please be
accepted as prayed and the certificates may please be released
in favour of applicants/attorney.
Humble Respondent

Through: -
To,
The Deputy Commissioner,
Faisalabad.

Subject: - APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITTAL.

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