Bajwa

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,
MULTAN.
W.P. No._____________/2000
Mst. Hameeda Sultana d/o Late Ch. Muhammad Hassan, R/o

H.No.7, Block No. 8, Khanewal city.
Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Administrator, Municipal Committee, Khanewal.
2. Chief Officer, Municipal Committee, Khanewal.
3. Accounts Officer, Municipal Committee, Khanewal.
Respondent
Writ Petition under Article 199

Of The Constitution of Islamic
Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That names and addresses of the parties have correctly been
given for the purpose of services and summons.
2. That brief facts giving rise to the instant petition are that the
petitioner joined as J.V. Teacher on 20.5.1961 and retired after
completing the period of her service as Headmistress in
different schools working under the Municipal Committee,
Khanewal.
3. That the petitioner completed her service satisfactorily upto
the entire satisfaction of her superiors and there is no any sort
of complaint or any type of adverse remarks during entire
service of the petitioner.
4. That just before the retirement, the petitioner submitted her
documents for the finalisation and sanction of her dues, which
were the entitlement of the petitioner after the retirement.
Those documents were dully verified by the respondents and
kept for further approval and sanction.
5. That the petitioner retired on 30.09.1998. Since then nothing
was given to the petitioner from her dues. The petitioner was
oscillating from the office of one of the respondents to the
other but there was no response at all. The petitioner
submitted many applications but no response given by the
respondents. The petitioner was forced to knock at the door of
this Hon’ble Court under the constitutional jurisdiction by
filing the writ petition No. 6552/99. This writ petition was
heard by his lordship Mr. Justice Naseem Sikandar an order
dated 20.09.99 was passed. The copy of order is attached as
Annex “A”.
6. That the respondents, Municipal committee filed a C.M. No.
3601/99 and delivered a cheque of Rs. 2,70,072.02 as a sum
of Gratuity, for the other terminal benefits the petitioner was
directed to approach the respondent with a application which
was to be decided within a period of 15 days. The order on
C.M. is attached as Annex “B”.
7. That on the said C.M. the order was passed on 13.12.99 and
the petitioner submitted an application before the respondent
No. 1 on 14.12.99 which was duly received by respondent No.
2 on the same day but neither the application was decided by
the respondents nor the remaining terminal benefits are given
to the petitioner. Even the monthly pension of the petitioner is
not regularised till now. Copy of application is attached as
Annex “C”.
8. That no doubt, the dues outstanding against the respondents
are the entitlement and right of the petitioner, but she is
seriously in need of the same because the petitioner could not
marry and at this stage there is nobody to look after or provide
the necessities of life or to help the petitioner financially. The
petitioner is only dependent upon the payment, which is
outstanding in the shape of her dues against the respondents.
Due to the act and conduct of the respondents, the petitioner
became heart patient along with hypertension and also became
the victim of depression.
9. That though the respondents are under legal obligation to pay
the dues to the petitioner, but she has been deprived of without
assigning any fault, sin or crime on her part. The petitioner is
not in a position to crease the palms of the respondents or
their sub-ordinates so as to push her life.
10. That on the above facts and circumstance the petitioner, as a
last resort is left with no other efficacious, adequate, speedy as
well as alternate remedy except to agitate her grievance before
this Hon’ble Court for the redressal of her grievance, hence
this petition.
In view of the above submissions, it is
respectfully prayed that this petition may kindly be
accepted and the respondents may graciously be
directed to pay all the dues to the petitioner which are
legally required to be paid to her after her retirement in
the form of pension, leave encash and others.
Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems
just and appropriate, may also be awarded to the
petitioner in the interest of justice.
Humble Petitioner
(Hameeda Sultana)
Through: -
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Hamad Afzal Bajwa,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20176 C.C. No. 20959
Certificate: -
As per instructions of my client, similar writ petition No.
6552/99 was filed in which partial relief was granted.
This petition is filed for the remaining relief.
Advocate
Note: -
Office is requested to place the record of W.P. No.
6552/99 along with this petition.
Advocate
MULTAN.
W. P. No. _____________/2000
Mst. Hameeda Sultana Vs Administrator, M.C.K. etc.
AFFIDAVIT of: -
Mst. Hameeda Sultana d/o Late Ch. Muhammad
Hassan, R/o H.No.7, Block No. 8, Khanewal city.
I, the above named deponent do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above Writ 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 ____ day
of June 2000 that the contents of this affidavit are
true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT
MULTAN.
C.M. No. _____________/2000

In
W.P. No._____________/2000
APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE

FILING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURES.
=========================================
That certified copies of Annexures: _________ 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: _________ (Hameeda Sultana)
Through: -
C.C. No. 20176 C.C. No. 20959
MULTAN.
C.M. No. _____________/2000

In
W.P. No._____________/2000
Dispensation Application
Affidavit of: -
Mst. Hameeda Sultana d/o Late Ch. Muhammad
Hassan, R/o H.No.7, Block No. 8, Khanewal city.

the above application are true and correct to the
DEPONENT
Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
DEPONENT
MULTAN.
W. P. No. _____________/2000
INDEX
S. No. NAME OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXES PAGES

1 Urgent Form
2 Stamp Paper worth Rs. 500/-
3 Writ Petition.
4 Affidavit
5 Photocopy of order dated 20.09.99. A
6 Photocopy of order dated 13.12.99. B
7 Copy of application. C
8 Dispensation Application.
9 Affidavit.
10 Vakalatnama
PETITIONER
Dated:__________
Through: -
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20176
Hamad Afzal Bajwa,

C.C. No. 20959
MULTAN.
C.M. No. _________/2000

In
W.P. No. 5033/2000
M. Afzal Versus The State etc.
Application for the impleading of the

applicants as respondents the titled case.
1. The titled writ petition was filed by one M. Afzal who is one
of the tenant under will along with Muhammad Sharif and
Mazhar Hussain.
2. That as the petitioner and other two tenants were not giving
the share of crop to the owners of the land/applicants as per
their entitlement, the applicants started legal proceedings
against the petitioner and other tenants.
3. That the applicants filed a suit for ejectment against the

petitioner and other and during the proceeding of the case as
per law a referee was appointed by the court for the division
of produce. After the division of the produce a Superdar was
further deputed, who took the produce in the custody till the
final decision of Ejectment case.
4. That the petitioner and two others removed the produce form
the custody of Superdar without his consent, on which the
case F.I.R. No. 112/2000 dated 10.05.2000 was registered at
P.S. Chab Kalan u/s 379/188 P.P.C. against the petitioner and
others. Consequently, one Mazhar Hussain was arrested and a
part of produce/stolen property was recovered from him.
5. That one Muhammad Afzal filed writ petition for the

quashment of said F.I.R. which is pending adjudication before
this Hon’ble Court. It is pertinent to point out that the
applicants are not being impleaded as party under the malafide
intention, and they may be impleaded as respondents on the
following mentioned
GROUNDS
i) That the applicants are necessary party in this

application being the owners of land.
ii) That the applicants are necessary party being the

aggrieved persons.
iii) That in case of quashment of F.I.R. the applicants shall

be effected persons.
iv) That in absence of applicants they should be

condemned un-heard.
v) That even the complainant is not impleaded as

respondent, which is a concealment of facts on the part
of petitioner.
vi) That a great miscarriage of justice shall be caused to the

right of applicant if not impleaded as party.
It is most respectfully prayed that the

application may please be allowed and the writ
petitioner may please be directed to implead the
applicants as respondents.
Any other relief which this Hon’ble court
deems fit, may please be granted in favour of
applicants.
Humble Applicants
(i) Muhammad Bakhsh

S/o Wahid Bakhsh
(ii) Zaffar Hussain,
(iii) Shabbir Hussain,
(iv) Muhammad Ramzan,
(v) Sagheer Hussain &
(vi) Ijaz Hussain
All from (ii) to (vi) sons

of Muhammad Bakhsh.
Through: -
C.C. No. 20176
MULTAN.
C.M. No. _________/2000

In
W.P. No. 5033/2000
M. Afzal Versus The State etc.
Affidavit of: -
Muhammad Bakhsh S/o Wahid Bakhsh, caste Bhatti,
R/o 103/15-L, Tehsil Mian Channu, District Khanewal.

DEPONENT
Verification: -
DEPONENT
MULTAN.
C.M. No. ____________/2000

In
W.P. No. 1442/2000
Mst. Tausif Anwar Vs. Ghulam Ghaus
Application u/s 151 C.P.C.
1. That the parties in writ petition are spouses. The marriage
dated 20.11.99 is still intact, but there is no issue from the
wedlock.
2. That due to conflict between the parties, both the parties filed
firmly suits, e.g. Recovery of Maintenance and Restitution of
conjugal rights. Both the suits were consolidated; however,
suit for maintenance was decreed, while the suit for
Restitution of Conjugal Rights was dismissed vide judgment
dated 1.6..98 by the Court of family Judge, Mr. Agha Inaum-
ur-Rahim.
3. That the applicant filed two separate appeals, before the first
appellate court. Both the appeals were accepted by S. Hamid
Hussain Shah the learned A.D.J., Multan vide judgment
dated 16.11.99.
4. That Mst. Tausif Anwar preferred to file the titled writ
petition against the applicant in the suit for Recovery of
Maintenance, when the other judgment passed in Restitution
for Conjugal Rights was not challenged.
5. That during the course of arguments, in the titled writ
petition a compromise was effected between the parties, on
the terms and conditions detailed in order dated 5.4.2000
passed by this Hon’ble Court which is Annexure “A”.
6. That as per essence of order dated 5.4.2000 the applicant
despatched a demand draft No. DIY/643263/100/06 dated
24.4.2000 amounting Rs. 72,000/- on the address of Mst.
Tauseef Anwar. (Copies of Demand Draft and despatch
receipt are Annexures “B & C”.
7. That as per settlement, the applicant, his mother along with
other relatives/respectables came Multan and visited the
residence of Muhammad Anwar, father in law of the
applicant at 10.00 a.m. on 14.5.2000, but he did not even
bother to attend all the persons. Mujahid Anwar a son of
Muhammad Anwar asked to come back at 7.00 p.m. On
second visit Muhammd Anwar was again not present but his
son Mujahid Anwar, nephews, Muhammad Safdar and
Muhammd Khan were present. They replied that Muhammad
Anwar is not willing to send Mst. Tausif Anwar. Affidavits of
mother of applicant along with relatives/respectables are
attached as Annexures “D, E, F, G & H”.
8. That the conduct of writ petitioner and her father is below the
dignity, even the family members in attendance tried to
misbehave with the visitors. They also did not honour their
commitment before this Hon’ble Court. The mother of
applicant and others tried to argue, but all the young boys
were not ready to listen the visitors and were going to be
flare up.
It is therefore, respectfully prayed that the writ
petitioner may please be directed to join the
matrimonial life with the applicant as she is living
apart without any cogent reason. The applicant is
ready to facilitate the writ petitioner upto the extent of
his means, in the compliance of order dated of this
Hon’ble Court. Anyhow, if the writ petitioner is not
going to join the matrimonial life with the applicant
she shall return the amount of Maintenance Rs.
72,000/- to the applicant, as mentioned in order
5.4.2000.
It is, further requested that an appropriate action
may please be taken against the writ petitioner and her
father for resiling from their commitment.
Any other relief, order or direction, which this
Hon’ble Court deems fit may please be issued in the
favour of applicant, in the interest of justice.
Humble Applicant
(GHULAM GHAUS)
Through: -
C.C. No. 20176
Hamad Afzal Bajwa,

C.C. NO. 20959
MULTAN.
C.M. No. __________/2000

In
W.P. No. 1442/2000
Application u/s 151 C.P.C.
Affidavit of: -
Ghulam Ghaus S/o Rustam Ali, caste Rajput, R/o
147/EB, Tehsil Pakpattan, District Sahiwal.

DEPONENT
Verification: -
DEPONENT
MULTAN.
C.M. No. __________/2000

In
W.P. No. 1442/2000
Affidavit of: -
Ghulam Ghaus S/o Rustam Ali, caste Rajput, R/o
147/EB, Tehsil Pakpattan, District Sahiwal.

DEPONENT
Verification: -
DEPONENT
MULTAN.
C.M. No. __________/2000

In
W.P. No. 1442/2000

=========================================
That certified copies of Annexures A to H are not

of documents.
PETITIONER
Dated: _________ (Ghulam Ghaus)
Through: -
C.C. No. 20176
Hamad Afzal Bajwa,

C.C. NO. 20959
MULTAN.
C.M. No. __________/2000

In
W.P. No. 1442/2000
INDEX

1 Application u/s 151 C.P.C.
2 Affidavit
3 Photocopy of order dated 4.4.2000 A
4 Copies of D.D. & despatch receipt. B&C
5 Photocopies of affidavits. D to H
7 Affidavit.
8 Vakalatnama
APPLICANT
Dated:__________
Through: -
C.C. No. 20176
Hamad Afzal Bajwa,

C.C. No. 20959
MULTAN.
Cr. Appeal No._____________/2000
Altaf Hussain S/o Allah Ditta, caste Bappi, R/o Mauza Panj Kooha,
Tehsil & District Multan.
Petitioner
Versus
1. The State.
2. Mazhar Abbas S/o Ghulam Hussain, caste Bappi, R/o Mauza
Panj Kooha, Tehsil & District Multan.
3. Muhammad Ali S/o Haji Ghulam Muhammad, caste Mochi,
R/o Mauza Panj Kooha, Tehsil & District Multan.
4. Rab Nawaz S/o Faiz Bakhsh, caste Bhatti, R/o Mauza Panj
Kooha, Tehsil & District Multan.
5. Mst. Mubarak Mai widow of Haji Sher Muhammad, caste
Bappi, R/o Mauza Panj Kooha, Tehsil & District Multan.
Respondents
F.I.R. No. 195/99 dated 22.7.99

P.S. Sadar, Multan u/s 302/201/34 P.P.C.
Appeal u/s 417 (2-A), against the judgment dated

25.5.2000 passed by Mr. Sajjad Ahmad Chawan
the learned Additional Sessions, Judge, Multan, by
which the respondents No. 2 to 5 were acquitted.
CLAIM IN APPEAL: -
To set aside the impugned judgment and the
accused persons/respondents No. 2 to 5, be awarded
maximum punishment u/s 302/201/34 P.P.C.
1. That names and addresses of the parties are given correct for
the purpose of service of summons and citations.
2. That the above mentioned case was registered on the
statement of Altaf Hussain (PW-7), that he is a resident of
Panj Kooha and he is landlord. His uncle Sher Muhammad
(deceased) was married 10/12 years ago with one Mubarak
Bibi daughter of Sardar Muhammad, caste Bappi, resident of
Panj Kooha (respondent No. 5). From the wed-lock one
daughter and three sons were born and still alive. 2/3 months
prior to the occurrence said Mubarak Bibi established illicit
relations with Mazhar S/o Ghulam Hussain, caste Bappi,
resident of the same village (respondent No. 2) and Mazhar
used to visit the house of Haji Sher Muhammad (deceased).
Haji Sher Muhammad deceased doubted about these
relatioins. He stopped Mazhar to visit his house, reprimanded
his wife Mubarak Bibi, and started to watch both of them.
Mazhar and Mubarak Bibi felt aggrieved and launched a
programme to eliminate Haji Sher Muhammad. On the
midnight of 16/17-7-99 as per their programme when Sher
Muhammad (deceased) was sleeping in a room of his
residential house and Mubarak Bibi was sleeping with her
children in the courtyard. Mazhar, Rab Nawaz and
Muhammad Ali (respondents No. 2,3 & 4) came there.
Mubarak Bibi brought all three accused inside the room where
Haji Sher Muhammad was sleeping. All, they caught hold of
Haji Sher Muhammad. On the hue and cry of Haji Sher
Muhammad, Allah Diwaya (PW-9) and Sikandar (PW-10)
attracted to the spot. They saw that the legs of Haji Sher
Muhammad were in the hold of Rab Nawaz when the arms
were in the hold of Muhammad Ali, Mazhar was throttling the
neck of Haji Sher Muhammad, when the Mubarak Bibi was
standing beside the cot of Haji Sher Muhammad. In the sight
of eye witnesses Haji Sher Muhammad was done to death.
Mazhar accused threatened the witnesses if the occurrence
was disclosed to anyone they would also meat the same fate.
Both the eye witnesses remained silent due to the fear of their
lives. The complainant was not present at his home on the
fateful night. Next morning when he came back, Mubarak
Bibi told him that Haji Sher Muhammad had been expired due
to natural death and deceased was burried. Last night the eye
witnesses narrated whole the story to him on which he
contacted Malik Amir Member District Council and along-
with said Malik Amir he came for the registration of case. On
his statement Khawar Zaman I/S.H.O. (PW-12) registered the
F.I.R. No. 195/99 u/s 302/201/34 P.P.C. on 22.7.99 (EX. PD).
3. That Khawar Zaman S.H.O. started the investigation and

recorded the statements of PW’s u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and also
prepared a rough sight plan (FX. PF), he also gave the
marginal notes on (EX. PE) prepared by Irfan Hayat
draftsman (PW-8). The said Khawar Zaman also submitted an
application to the District Magistrate for exhumation and
determination of cause of death. On the transfer of said
Khawar Zaman the investigation was entrusted to Ghulam
Muhammad S.I. (PW-4). Before the exhumation memo (EX.
PC) for the identification of grave of Haji Sher Muhammad
was prepared on the pointation of Muhammad Nawaz (PW-5)
and Haji Allah Ditta (not produced) by Ghulam Muhammad
S.I. (PW-4). The process of exhumation was supervised by
Abdul Ghaffar Magistrate. At the time of post-mortem Altaf
Hussain (PW-7) and Allah Diwaya (PW-8) identified the dead
body of Haji Sher Muhammad deceased and post-mortem was
conducted by Dr. Muhammad Bakhsh Chawan (PW-2). After
the post-mortem PW-2 handed over two sealed tin and two
sealed envelopes to PW-4 which were taken into possession
vide recovery memo (EX. PA) in the witness of Muhammad
Akbar 1662/C (PW-1) and Muhammad Akbar A.S.I. (not
produced). The Post-mortem Report (EX. PB), the application
for the detection of cause of death (EX. PB/1) submitted by
PW-4 Inquest Report (EX. PB/2 to EX. PB/5) prepared by
PW-4 all dated 17.8.99 were signed by the Dr. Muhammad
Bakhsh Chawan (PW-2). The material taken into possession
vide (EX. PA) was handed over to Muhammad Zafar
Muharrar (PW-3) who kept all these things in “Mal Khana”
and on 18.8.99 handed over to PW-1 for onward transmission
to the office of Chemical Examiner.
On the transfer of Ghulam Muhammad S.I./I.O. the
investigation of this case was conducted by Aslam Hayat
S.I/S.H.O. who arrested Mazhar, Rab Nawaz and Muhammad
Ali on 25.8.99 and Mubarak Mai on 26.8.99 respectively. He
prepared the challan on 30.8.99.
4. That the prosecution produced 12 witnesses and remaining

three A.S.I. Muhammad Akbar, Allah Ditta and Abdul Ghaffar
M.I.C. were given up being unnecessary and tender in
evidence EX. PG report Chemical Examiner and EX. PH
Report of Bacteriologist and closed the evidence. The
statements of accused persons were recorded u/s 342 Cr.P.C.
Neither they appeared as a witness u/s 340 (2) Cr.P.C. nor
produced any defence evidence.
After arguments of both the parties the learned trial

court acquitted all the accused persons vide judgment dated
25.5.2000. (Annex “A”). The judgment is liable to be set aside
inter alia on the following
GROUNDS
i) That the impugned judgment is against the principles of

justice and natural justice.
ii) That the impugned judgment is against the norms of

criminal law and also against the facts of case.
iii) That the learned trial court considered the prosecution

evidence in the shape of pick and choose, which is not
allowed under the law and the same is deprecated by
higher courts.
iv) That the delay in lodging the F.I.R. was sufficiently

explained in the F.I.R. and the same was also
substantiated during the prosecution evidence. The
learned trial court miserably failed to appreciate this
fact that the prosecution witnesses were illiterate and
the occurrence was happened in such a locality having
the atmosphere of feudalism where nothing can be done
without the permission of lords. This aspect of delay in
lodging the F.I.R. was analysed by the learned trial
court under the technicalities not under the prevailing
circumstances.
v) That the learned trial court has given unnecessary

weight to the opinion of PW-2 and has not considered
the law relating to the DECOMPOSED BODIES. The
answer of PW-2 for the natural death was used for
negative inference, which is the self determination of
learned trial court. Otherwise, it was an answer in the
circumstances when the case of death could not be
determined, then one can say it may be a natural death.
In fact, the exhumation and postmortem was conducted
after one month and one day of the occurrence and even
in the presence of skin no injury can be detected in
these special circumstances. This fact became crystal
clear in the cross-examination for Muhammad Ali
accused. “There was no mark of violence or injury
detected due to state of decomposition of dead body. In
fact, the postmortem after one month and one day of the
occurrence was a formality and no conclusion can be
drawn from the evidence of PW-2.
vi) That keeping in view the un-certainty of medical

evidence, the case of prosecution rests on the
confidence inspiring ocular evidence. The prosecution
discharged the onus of ocular evidence while producing
two eye witnesses and first informant Altaf Hussain
(PW-7). In the evidence of (PW-7) Altaf Hussain the
material and major part quoted as under remained un-
rebutted and un-cross-examined: -
“Mazhar and Mubarak Mai chalked out a scheme
to eliminate Sher Muhammad. On the night between
16/17-7-99 due to already chalked out program
Muhammad Ali Mochi, Rab Nawaz Bhatti, Mazhar
Hussain went to the house of Sher Muhammad.
Mubarak Mai wife of Sher Muhammad took the
accused inside the room, where Sher Muhammad was
sleeping. Rabnawaz Bhatti had caught hold of Sher
Muhammad from his legs, Muhammad Ali caught hold
of his arms and Mubaraka Mai was standing near the
cot and saying that he should be done to death, and
Mazhar was twisting the neck of Sher Muhammad, and
Sher Muhammad died. Allah Diwaya and Sikandar
PW’s were attracted to the spot on hearing noise of Sher
Muhammad deceased. All the accused had threatened
them that in case they come near to them they would be
facing the same consequences and witnesses went
back.”
Same like as the material and major part of (PW-9)
Allah Diwaya eye witness remained un-rebutted and
un-cross-examined as quoted below.
“Before the occurrence 2/3 months prior Mst.
Mubraka Mai developed illicit relations with Mazhar
son of Ghulam Hussai. On the knowledge deceased
Sher Muhammad stopped Mazhar accused to visit his
home and reprimanded the Mubarak Mai. Both Mazhar
and Mubarak Mai felt annoyance. On the midnight of
16/17-7-99 on hearing hue and cry from the house of
my brother Sher Muhammad I ran towards the house of
my brother Sher Muhammad alongwith Sikandar. When
we reached in the courtyard we saw in the light of
electric bulb Sher Muhammad was on a cot in the room.
His legs had been caught by Rabnawaz accused present
in court, arms of Sher Muhammad were caught by
Muhammad Ali accused present in court and Mazhar
accused was strangulating the deceased Mubarak Mai
accused present in court was present nearby the cot of
deceased and she was instigating the co-accused to kill
the deceased. Sher Muhammad in our view died due to
the attack of accused. All the accused issued threats to
us that if we had informed any one about murder of
Sher Muhammad then we should also be treated in the
same manner by accused. All the four accused had
committed murder of my brother in furtherance of their
common intention.”
Also the major and the material part of eye witness
(PW-10) Sikandar remained un-rebutted and un-cross-
examined as quoted below: -
“In the life of Sher Muhammad three months
prior to occurrence Mubarak Mai developed illicit
relations with Mazhar Abbas accused. Sher Muhammad
reprimanded Mazhar due to suspicion not to visit his
house and he also reprimanded to Mubarak Mai
accused. They both felt annoyance due to reprimand of
Sher Muhammad. On intervening night of 16/17-7-99 I
heard the noise of hue and cry from house of Sher
Muhammad. I along-with Allah Diwaya attracted to the
spot the outer door of the house of Sher Muhammad
was open. We entered in the house and saw that door of
room is also opened and electric bulb was on and we
saw that Sher Muhammad lying on a cot and Rabnawaz
had caught hold of his legs while his arms were caught
hold by Muhammad Ali and Mazhar accused was trying
to strangulate him. Mubarak Mai was standing nearby
the cot of Sher Muhammad and was instigating to the
co-accused for killing Sher Muhammad. In our view
due to the strangulation Sher Muhammad died at the
spot. All the accused gave us threats that if we had
informed to any else then we shall also be treated in the
same manner, so we keep quite. All the four accused in
furtherance of their common intention committed the
murder of Sher Muhammad.
It is pertinent of point out that under the law of
cross-examination any part of evidence which is not
cross examined shall be treated as true.
vii) That the motive behind the occurrence was illicit
relations between Mazhar accused and Mubarak Mai
wife of deceased Sher Muhammad. There relations
were suspected by the Sher Muhammad deceased
himself. This fact came to the knowledge of Sikandar
And Allah Diwaya through Sher Muhammad deceased
being the relatives. Both the eye witnesses categorically
stated this fact in their statement and when cross
examined, declared that the fact of illicit relations came
to their knowledge through Sher Muhammad deceased.
It is important to point out that defence does not try to
rebut this fact even by putting a simple suggestion.
viii) That the learned trial court could not appreciate the fact
of admission of guilt of accused persons before the
Punchayat. The learned trial court wrongly evaluated
this fact in the terms of extra-judicial confession. This
fact of convening the Punchayat and admission of guilt
was not seriously denied by the defence side. However,
this admission of guilt before the Punchayat is going to
strengthen the case of prosecution.
ix) That the learned trial court does not bother to discuss
the evidence of parties and miserably failed to quote the
arguments and citations offered by them and without all
these the judgment can not be termed u/s 367 Cr.P.C.
and also not curable u/s 537 Cr.P.C.
x) That the impugned judgment caused a great miscarriage

of justice to the appellants.
It is therefore, respectfully prayed that the

appeal may please be accepted, the impugned
judgment may please be set aside, the
respondents No. 2 to 5 may please by summoned
and convicted under the charge u/s 302/34/201
P.P.C.
Any other order, direction or relief which
this Hon’ble Court deems fit, may please be
granted in the interest of justice.
Humble Appellants
Through: -
C.C. No. 20176
Hamad Afzal Bajwa,

C.C. No. 20959
Certificate: -
As per instructions of my client no
such appeal is ever filed before this
Hon’ble Court.
Advocate
MULTAN.
Cr. Appeal No._____________/2000
Altaf Hussain Versus The State etc.
INDEX
S. No. NAME OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXURES PAGES

1 Opening Sheet.
2 Memo of Appeal.
3 Copy of Impugned Judgment. A
4 Vakalatnama
APPELLANT
Dated:__________
Through: -
C.C. No. 20176
Hamad Afzal Bajwa,

C.C. No. 20959
Syed Munawwar Hussain Rizvi
S/o Syed Sadiq Ali Shah, caste Syed Rizvi,
R/o H. NO. 9, Street No. V, Block “S”,
New Multan.
Subject: - Legal Notice.
Dear Sir,
I have been directed by my client Syed Sagar Abbas Naqvi,
S/o Syed Nazar Abbas Naqvi, caste Syed Naqvi, R/o Street No. 2,
Iqbali Masjid Mohallah Islam Nagar, Multan, to serve you with this
legal notice on the following mentioned grounds: -
1. That you obtained a loan of rupees one lac (Rs. 100,000/-)
from my client on 15.8.98 for which you executed a
Promissory Note on the same day.
2. That an agreement was also executed on the same day in
which the terms and conditions for the return of this loan were
incorporated. Both the documents were dully executed in the
presence of witnesses and you received Rs. 100,000/-.
3. That it was the material condition between the parties that till
the realization of original loan/amount (one lac rupees), you
had to pay 15% of the loan per week since the date of receipt
of money and the execution of documents. Neither you have
paid 15% of this loan (Rs. 15,000/-) per week as settled in the
agreement nor you have returned the original amount. Now
ninety-three (93) weeks have been passed and the outstanding
amount with original becomes Rs. 14,95,000/-.
4. That it was also mentioned in the agreement that in case of
default, the loan shall be recovered by the sale of your
property (H. No. 9 Street No. V, Block “S” New Multan). It
was also settled that you shall be responsible for the legal
expenses incurred in recovery of the said amount.
5. That you are hereby advised to pay Rs. 14,95,000/- to my
client within one week of the receipt of this notice, otherwise,
my client reserves right to initiate legal proceedings
(Civil/Criminal) against you, and you shall be responsible for
each and every expenses incurred in the litigation along-with
the outstanding amount.
6. That you are hereby advised to keep this notice in safe
custody and same can be asked to produce in the court of law.
However a copy of this notice is retained in my office as
record.
Ch. Hamad Afzal Bajwa,

10-Muhammadan Block,
District Courts, Multan.
Certified that the notice consists upon 2 pages and there is no

cutting/correction in it.
Advocate
MULTAN.
W.P. No._____________/2000
Dr. Noor-ud-Din Jami, Chairman Department of Islamic Studies,

Baha-ud-Din Zakariya University, Multan.
Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Baha-ud-Din Zakariya University, Multan through Registrar.
2. Vice Chancellor, B.Z.U. Multan.
3. Dr. Muhammad Akram Rana Associate Professor, Department
of Islamic Studies B.Z.U. Multan.
Respondents

1. That names and addresses of the parties are given correct for the
purpose of services and citations.
2. That the petitioner started his career as a lecturer in 1981 and

remained posted till 1984 in different colleges. In 1984 the
petitioner joined the Baha-ud-Din Zakariya University as lecturer
and by the blessing of God alongwith hardworking and entire
satisfaction of his superiors, promoted as Associate Professor
vide office order No. PF/19/15-7/Admn/4227 dated 5.9.1996.
Copy of order is attached as Annex “A”.
3. That the petitioner improved his qualifications by passing LL.B.

examination and obtaining Master Degree in Arabic. The
petitioner continued his research work and completed Ph.D. The
petitioner brought a new philosophy by writing a thesis under the
heading of “Discretionary Power of Head of the State and Judge,
in Islamic Law”. Along-with all these the petitioner is a Jurist
Consult for Federal Shariat Court, a Member of Board of
Governors for Sh. Zyed Islamic Centre Peshawar University. The
petitioner has been obtained Presidential Award on the topic of
“Seerat-un-Nabi” (PBUH). The petitioner has delivered many
lectures in International Islamic University Islamabad and
participated in uncounted National and International
Conferences.
4. That keeping in view the hardworking, loyalty towards the aim,

seniority and ability of the petitioner, he was appointed as
Chairman, Department of Islamic Studies vide Notification No.
Acad-8, Vol-III/1888 dated 10.9.96. Again petitioner was
appointed vide Notification No. Acad-8, Vol-III/99-1452 dated
11.8.99. Copies of Notifications are attached as Annexes “B &
C” respectively.
5. That the respondent No. 2, who was going to be retired on

13.7.2000, started to make decisions of his own choice by
adopting the policy of nepotism. Vice Chancellor of Islamic
University, Bahawalpur is member of many statutory bodies in
the B.Z.U. Multan and respondent No. 3 happened to be the
brother-in-law of said Vice Chancellor. The respondent No. 2,
having friendly relations with the said Vice Chancellor, appointed
respondent No. 3 as Chairman, Department of Islamic Studies
vide Notification No. Acad-8/Vol-IV/1438 dated 12.7.2000. Copy
of Impugned Notification is Annex “D”.
6. That the impugned Notification is liable to be set aside, inter alia

on the following: -
GROUNDS
i) That the impugned Notification is against the prevailing

law, justice, Natural Justice and law of equity.
ii) That the impugned Notification is passed illegally,

unlawfully and without authority, utterly a colourable
exercise of jurisdiction, which did not vest in him.
iii) That the powers exercised by the respondent No. 2 are
not available to him as held in 2000 PLC (C.S) 385, by
His Lordship Mr. Justice Jawad S. Khawaja. So the
exercise of same powers again amounts to contempt of
court.
iv) That the impugned Notification is not clear cut statutory

violation of provision-3 of First Statute of B.Z.U.
Multan.
v) That the impugned Notification is not based on

nepotism and malafide, which is against the protections
provided under the constitution.
vi) That the impugned Notification is a clear violation of

Articles 2-A, 4 and 25 of Constitution of Islamic
Republic of Pakistan, 1973, because the tenure of all
other Chairmen/Chairpersons is extended, but only the
petitioner is replaced without assigning any reason.
Copies attached as Annexes “E & F”.
vii) That the respondent No. 2 under sec. 16 (1) of B.Z.U.

Act, 1975 is bound to ensure that the provisions of the
Act, the Statute and the Regulations of the Act are
faithfully observed. Thus an order passed in violation of
the Act is nullity in the eyes of law and abuse of
statutory provisions.
viii) That there was no complaint against the petitioner and

the Dean, Faculty of Islamic Studies & Languages, who
is supposed to supervise the petitioner issued an
appreciation letter about the working of petitioner.
Copy attached as Annex “G”.
7. That there is no other alternate, adequate efficacious and speedy

remedy available to the petitioner for the redressal of this
grievance except to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this
Hon’ble Court.
In view of the above-mentioned circumstances is

most respectfully prayed that the impugned Notification
No. dated 12.7.2000 passed in violation of the statute
and statutory Rules, be declared without lawful
authority and having no legal effect.
It is further prayed that any writ, order or
direction which this Hon’ble Court deems fit may
please be issued in faovur of petitioner.
Humble Petitioner
Through: -
C.C. No. 20176
Hamad Afzal Bajwa,

C.C. No. 20959
CERTIFICATE: -
Certified that this is the first writ on the
subject matter, no such has earlier been filed
before this Hon’ble Court.
Advocate
Note: - Office is requested to place the

record of W.P. No. 8220/99 along-with this
petition.
Advocate

MULTAN.
W.P. No._____________/2000
Dr. Noor-ud-Din Jami Vs. B.Z.U. Multan etc.
AFFIDAVIT of: -
Dr. Noor-ud-Din Jami, Chairman Department of
Islamic Studies, Baha-ud-Din Zakariya University,
Multan.

DEPONENT
Verification: -
of July 2000 that the contents of this affidavit are
DEPONENT

MULTAN.
C.M. No. _____________/2000
In
W.P. No._____________/2000

=========================================
That certified copies of Annexures “A to G” are not

of documents.
PETITIONER
Dated: _________ (Dr. Noor-ud-Din Jami)
Through: -
C.C. No. 20176
Hamad Afzal Bajwa,

C.C. No. 20959
MULTAN.
C.M. No. _____________/2000
In
W.P. No._____________/2000
Affidavit of: -
Multan.

DEPONENT
Verification: -
Deponent

MULTAN.
C.M. No. _____________/2000
In
W.P. No._____________/2000
Application for Suspension

of Impugned Notification
1. That the contents of main petition may please be treated as the
integral part of this application.
2. That the prima facie applicant has a strong case in his favour.
3. That in absence of suspension of impugned Notification an
irreparable loss shall be caused to the valuable rights of the
applicant.
4. That applicant is still working as Chairman and no charge of
hand over/ take over is happened.
5. That the balance of convenience also leans in favour of
applicant.
It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the
operation of impugned Notification may please be
suspended till the final decision of main petition.
Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems
fit may please be extended in furtherance of justice.
Humble Applicant
Through: -
C.C. No. 20176 C.C. No. 20959

MULTAN.
C.M. No. _____________/2000
In
W.P. No._____________/2000
Application for Suspension of Impugned Notification.
Affidavit of: -
Multan.

DEPONENT
Verification: -
Deponent

MULTAN.
W.P. No._____________/2000
INDEX

1 Urgent Form
3 Writ Petition.
4 Affidavit
5 Photocopy of order. A
6 Copies of Notifications B&C
7 Copy of Notification dt. 12.7.2000. D
8 Copies of relevant documents E&F
9 Copy of letter. G
11 Affidavit.
12 Stay Application
13 Affidavit
14 Vakalatnama
PETITIONER
Dated: __________
Through: -
C.C. No. 20176 C.C. No. 20959
IN THE COURT OF JUDGE ANTI-TERRORISM,

COURT NO. 1, MULTAN.
Muhammad Azeem Kamran S/o Muhammad Moosa, caste Bhatti,
R/o Hassan Abad, Near Goal Masjid, Khanewal Road, Multan.
Petitioner
VERSUS
The State. ……Respondent
F.I.R. No. 433/99 dated 21.9.1999

P.S. Mumtazabad, Multan.
U/s 165-A P.P.C.
APPLICATION U/S 497/498 CR.P.C.

FOR POST-ARREST BAIL.
1. That this is the first bail application of the petitioner.
Previously no bail application is ever filed in any court.
2. That the present case was registered on the application of one
Khan Muhammad stating thereby that he was abducted on
26.6.99 at 7 p.m. when he was sitting at his business place by
Ghulam Sarwar Saqi Sub Inspector, Muhammad Hussain,
Muahammad Azeem and Muhammad Ramzan. He was taken
to a house near Rehman Pura where he was illegally detained
and subjected to torture. All the accused persons pressurised
the complainant to arrange Rs. 25,000/-. He contacted with his
wife on telephone who arranged the money and the same was
received by Muhammad Hussain. After that the complainant
was released with a threat that he must leave Multan for some
time otherwise he shall be done to death. F.I.R. is annexed as
Annex “A”.
3. That the petitioner is entitled for post arrest bail inter alia on
the following: -
GROUNDS
a) That the case against the petitioner is false one and is
based upon a concocted story.
b) That the F.I.R. is registered with ordinate delay,
consultation and deliberation.
c) That the petitioner is innocent and involved in this case
with the personal enmity.
d) That Ghulam Sarwar Saqi a Sub Inspector has abducted
the complainant and another and Mulazim Hussain. A
complaint was filed by both the persons and during the
inquiry, Ghulam Sarwar Saqi S.I. admitted his guilt but
in very positive sense that he arrested both the persons
in connection to discover a gang of dacoits. He
accepted the responsibility to take away both the
persons and he was hold responsible for his illegal and
unlawful act by the enquiry officer/S.P. city.
e) That during the whole process of enquiry neither the
Khan Muhammad nor any other person disclosed the
name of the petitioner to any one, but when the
complainant filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble
High Court, he disclosed the name of the petitioner first
time and errayed the petition as an accused person.
f) That the bare reading of F.I.R. does not disclose any
offence against the petitioner.
g) That the ingredients of section 365-A P.P.C. are not
completed against the petitioner because no money was
received by the petitioner.
h) That the petitioner remained on physical remand but no
recovery was effected from the petitioner. The amount
which was taken into possession by the police at the
time of arrest by the personal search planting Rs. 3000/-
upon the petitioner and such recovery has no value in
the eyes of law.
i) That the petitioner is in judicial lock-up and no more
required by the police.
j) That the investigation upto the petitioner is completed
and further detention of the petitioner could not serve
any useful purpose.
k) That the petitioner is previously non-convict also
having no record.
l) That the petitioner remained in “Tanzeem Qaumi
Razakaran, Punjab” and obtained many appreciation
certificates.

application in hand may please be accepted and the
petitioner may please be allowed bail till the final
decision of the case.
Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems
fit, may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.
Humble Petitioner,
Through: -

MULTAN.
Cr. Revision No._____________/2000
Ejaz Ahmad S/o Malik Rahim Bakhsh, caste Jat Thaheem, R/o E-36,
WAPDA Colony, Piran Ghaib, Multan.
Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State.
2. Mst. Raziya Bibi, D/o Bahawal Bakhsh, caste Arain, R/o
Chah Shakir Wala, Mauza Pir Tannu, Tehsil & District
Multan.
Accused/Respondents
Revision Petition U/s 439 (6) Cr.P.C. for the

enhancement of punishment to DEATH for
Respondent No. 2, convicted to imprisonment for
life on TWO counts u/s 302-B P.P.C. and
compensation of Rs. 50,000/- u/s 544 Cr.P.C. to the
legal heirs of each deceased in case of default of
payment of compensation shall undergo R.I. for
Six months, vide Judgment dated 30.6.2000 passed
by Mr. Abdul Sattar the learned ASJ, Multan.
Case F.I.R. No. 133/99 Dated 14.4.99.

U/s 302/109 P.P.C. P.S. Basti Malook.
CLAIM IN REVISION: -
To accept the Revision Petition and enhance the
punishment of respondent No. 2 to DEATH.
1. That names and addresses of the parties are given correct for
the purpose of service of summons and citations.
2. That the instant case was registered on the statement of

complainant/petitioner. According to the contents of the
complaint, which has been marked as Ex-P.J the complainant
stated that he is an Advocate by profession and on 14.4.1999
he along-with his maternal nephew Saqlain Ahmad had gone
to meet his maternal nephew Hasnain Ahmad at Chah Shakir
Wala, Mauza Pir Tanun and were sitting and talking in a room
of the house, when at around 3.00 p.m., Hasnain Ahmad came
over there. Wife of Hasnain Ahmad, Mst. Raziya Bibi started
exchanging hot words with her husband on the controversy
that who was the girl in the room. After hearing this
alteraction of the husband and wife, the complainant along-
with other came and saw Mst. Raziya firing straight at her
husband with 12-bore single barrel licenced gun, which hit on
his left eye. Hasnain Ahmad fell on the ground. When the
complainant and other PW’s tried to intervene, Mst. Razia
warned them to keep away otherwise will be killed. So no
body went near to her. In the meanwhile Mst. Raziaya made a
second fire hitting that girl on her belly and she also fell on
the ground. Hearing the noise of firing, Allah Rakha son of
Alla Dewaya also came inside and witnessed the incident
along-with the complainant and other. The complainant and
other PW’s tried to provide aid to Hasnain Ahmad and that
girl but both of htem after some time succumbed to the
injuries in the room. Motive of the incident was that Mst.
Raziya doubted the character of her husband Hasnan Ahmad,
and she was of the view that her husband had illicit relations
with Mst. Sajida and Mst. Raziya also used to taunt her
husband on this issue and extended threats to kill him. So the
complainant compressed his strong suspicion that Mst. Raziya
on the asking of her brother Zawar Hussain had killed her
husband and Mst. Sajida. The complainant leaving behind
Saqlain Ahmad and Allah Rakha to guard the dead bodies,
approached the Police Station for registration of the case.
Copy of F.I.R. is Annex “A”.
3. That the investigation of the case was conducted by PW-9 &

PW-8 (Khawar Zaman Lodhi Inspector & Iqbal Hussain S.I.)
respectively, and found guilty respondent No. 2 for the
commission of murders of Hasnain Ahmad and Mst. Sajida.
Report u/s 173 Cr.P.C was submitted in the competent court
and a formal charge was framed on 17.9.99. Copy of charge
sheet is Annex “B”.
4. That to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined as

much as nine witnesses, including PW-6 & PW-7 (Ejaz
Ahmad & Saqlain Ahmad) respectively as eye-witnesses. The
prosecution tendered documents Ex-PA to PU, also produced
P1 and P2 to P4 last worn clothes of Hasnain Ahmad and Mst.
Sajida respectively along-with P5 gun 12 bore (weapon of
offence) and P-6/1-2 the crime empties. Copy of prosecution
evidence is Annex “C to C/1”.
5. That the respondent No. 2 got recorded her statement u/s 342
Cr.P.C. on 27.4.2000. The respondent No. 2 accepted the
charge in the answer of Q. No. 13, but taken the plea of
“Chairat”, under sudden and grave provocation. However the
respondent neither produced any defence evidence nor
appeared as a witness u/s 340 (2) Cr.P.C. Copy of statement is
Annex “D”.
6. That vide judgment dated 30.8.2000 the respondent No. 2 held

guilty for the commission of double murder, and convicted to
imprisonment for life on TWO counts along-with
compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to legal heirs of each deceased,
and shall undergo R.I. for six months in default of payment of
compensation. Copy of Judgment is Annex “E”.
7. That the grounds for enhancement in punishment are as

under:-
GROUNDS
i) That the facts of the case were not considered correctly

by the learned trial court while pronouncing the
judgment.
ii) That the law produced at the time of argument neither
appreciated properly nor quoted in the judgment by the
learned trial court.
iii) That the learned trial court limited the judicial

principles upto the extent of first plea of the
accused/respondent No. 2 which is against the law of
enunciation principally the evidence of prosecution and
the statement of accused shall have to be placed in just
a position.
iv) That the learned trial court used the system of pick and
choose in the evidence of prosecution as well as in the
statement of accused.
v) That learned Trial Court in its para No. 18 of Judgment

clearly stated as below: -
“The upshot of above discussion is that

prosecution case against Mst. Raziya accused
having been proved beyond any shadow of doubt.
I, therefore hold Mst. Raziya accused guilty of
offence of “Qatl-e-Amd” u/s 3002-B P.P.C.”
In reported case: -
Abdus Salam Vs. The state
Reported in 2000 SCMR 338 the Hon’ble
Supreme Court clearly held as under: -
“If Qatl-e-Amd could not be punished as

Qisas u/s 302 (a) P.P.C. on account of proof being
not available in either of the forms specified in
section 304 P.P.C. as Ta’zir could be awarded
under section 302 (b) P.P.C., which provided for
sentence of death or imprisonment for life---
Either of said tow punishments could be awarded
as Ta’zir for Qatl-e-Amd and there was no bar or
restraint in awarding punishment of death under
section 302 (b) P.P.C.”
vi) That the learned trial court did not award the Death
sentence to accused Raziya, although the prosecution
case was proved beyond any shadow of doubt, meaning
be the learned trial court believed the prosecution
witnesses. Like such situation the learned trial court
took a leniant view in awarding punishment to the lady
accused. Law laid down in case “Muhammad Sharif Vs.
Muhammad Javaid alias Jeda Tedi and five others”
reported in PLD 1976 S.C. 452 wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held as under: -
“Courts, responsibility of ---Inhabitation or
hesitancy on part of trial Courts in awarding
normal penalty of death---Marked tendency to
find laboured pretext to alter death sentence to
life imprisonment---Sanctity of human life---Pros
and cons of doctrine---Necessity of awarding
deterrent punishment---Effect of marked
propensity to avoid death penalty or to allow
commutation in appeal followed by frequent
remissions of sentences---Factors indirectly
contributing to incidence of heinous crime---
Responsibility of Courts.—[Sentence].
vii) That both the dead bodies were lying separately and
were in full dresses, so the plea taken by accused/
respondent No. 2 is baseless and after thought. On the
other hand the analysis of evidence by the learned trial
court in this regard is quoted below: -
(Page 19 para 13 10th line from the bottom of judgment)
“In this respect it would be pertinent to
observe that when Mst. Raziya accused
murdered her husband Hasnain Ahmad and
Mst. Sajida according to her plea they were
found in compromising position, on account
of which, she lost her senses and out of
“Ghairat” killed both of them. From the
perusal of site plan Ex-P-G of the place of
murder prepared by Irfan Hayat Draftsman
PW-4 and the one drawn by Iqbal Hussain
S.I. one of the Investigation Officer Ex-P-N
and prosecution evidence, it is manifest and
admitted that when Mst. Raziya killed
Hasnain Ahmad and Mst. Sajida in a room
of their house, at that time their two grown
up daughters and one son were also present
and the two deceased were allegedly
committing Zina in a room not bolted from
inside during day time and when her
husband very well knowing that his wife
was also present in the house a question
strikes the mind, whether such kind of event
is possible in ordinary course of life. Normal
human conduct cannot support such a
situation. In this regard it is very interesting
to note that none of the PW’s has been given
suggestion by the defence that two victims
were killed when they were naked and after
being killed their clothes were put on to their
bodies because when the dead bodies were
taken to Doctor for autopsy, the Constable
Haq Nawaz PW-2 received the last worn
clothes of the two deceased, which were
subsequently preserved into separate
parcels. The accused Mst. Raziya had also
the option to ask for examination of her
grown up children as witnesses to falsify the
ocular account disclosed by PW-6 and PW-7
but she has not chosen this course for the
reason best known to her.
viii) That the learned trial court accepted the evidence of
PW-6 and PW-7 as eye-witnesses and other prosecution
evidence trustworthy. The finding is quoted as below: -
(Page 20 para 13 6th line from the bottom of judgment)
“So for the reasons above-discussed, I have

no hesitation in accepting the statements of
eye-witnesses of this case, whose statements
are further corroborated by medical
evidence, motive and recoveries. The
witnesses have successfully stood the test of
lengthy cross-examination and nothing
damaging to their voracity and integrity
could be elicited in their statements and
cross-examination. The statements made by
them are in consonance with probabilities
and naturally fit in with the rest of the
evidence. Except for minor immaterial
discrepancies, the learned defence counsel
has not been able to point out any major
discrepancy, material contradiction or
dishonest improvement in their statements.
In this behalf it may be observed that the
learned counsel for the prosecution in
arguments even offered to this court to open
the parcel of last worn clothes of the two
deceased to confirm the availability of blood
stains and corresponding hole on the shirt of
Mst. Sajida.”
ix) That the impugned judgment caused great mis-carriage

of justice to the prosecution.
Keeping in view the above-mentioned

circumstances, it respectfully prayed that the
punishment for imprisonment of life awarded to
accused/respondent No. 2 may please be
enhanced to DEATH.
Any other, relief, order or direction which

issued in the interest of justice.
Humble Petitioner,
Dated: _________
(AIJAZ AHMAD)
Through: -
C.C. No. 20176
Hamad Afzal Bajwa,

C.C. No. 20959
CERTIFICATE: -
As per instructions of my client no such
Revision Petition is ever filed before this
Hon’ble Court.
Advocate

MULTAN.
C.M. No. _____________/2000
In
W.P. No._____________/2000
Application for Suspension

of Impugned Notification
1. That the contents of main petition may please be treated as the
integral part of this application.
2. That the prima facie applicant has a strong case in his favour.
3. That in absence of suspension of impugned Notification an
irreparable loss shall be caused to the valuable rights of the
applicant.
4. That applicant is still working as Chairman and no charge of
hand over/ take over is happened.
5. That the balance of convenience also leans in favour of
applicant.
operation of impugned Notification may please be
suspended till the final decision of main petition.
Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems
fit may please be extended in furtherance of justice.
Humble Applicant
Through: -
C.C. No. 20176 C.C. No. 20959

MULTAN.
Cr. Revision No._____________/2000
Ejaz Ahmad Vs. The State etc.
INDEX

1 Opening Sheet.
2 Criminal Revision.
3 Copy of F.I.R. A
4 Copy of Charge Sheet. B
5 Copy of Prosecution Evidence. C to C/1
6 Copy of Statement of accused. D
7 Copy of Judgment. E
8 Power of Attorney.
APPELLANT
Dated: __________
Through: -
C.C. No. 20176 C.C. No. 20959
MULTAN.
C.M. No._______/2000
In
CR. No. 226/1985
Allah Diwaya etc. VS. Nadir Ali
Application U/s 41, Rule 19, Sec 151 C.P.C.
2. That the above mentioned Civil Revision was filed in the year
1985, which was adjourned time to time for different reasons.
3. That the titled petition was filed initially by Ch. M.A. Latif
Amratsari. the learned Advocate died on 7.11.87 and the case
was taken up by Malik Noor Muhammad Advocate. Lastly the
case was fixed on 23.11.92 in his life. The learned advocate
passed on 5.1.97.
4. That the case was fixed on 20.3.2000 and the same was
dismissed for non-prosecution.
5. That the order dated 20.3.2000 is liable to be set aside inter-
alia on the following: -
GROUNDS
i) That the case was fixed after the lapse of 7-1/2 years
and no fresh notices were issued to the parties.
ii) That the fact of sad demise was not in the knowledge of
applicants.
iii) That even the date fixed was not in the knowledge of
the applicants.
iv) That there was no fault on the part of applicants for the
absence on the date fixed.
v) That the valuable rights of the applicants are annexed
with the matter in dispute and the applicant will face
irreparable loss if case is not restored.
vi) That as soon as the fact of dismissal came to the
knowledge of applicants, the application in hand was
filed after obtaining the certified copy of impugned
order.
facts, it is respectfully prayed that the order dated
20.3.2000 may please be set aside and the Civil
Revision may please be restored to its original
number.
Any other relief, order or direction which
Humble Applicants
Through: -
C.C. No. 20176
Hamad Afzal Bajwa,

C.C. No. 20959

MULTAN.
C.M. No._______/2000
In
CR. No. 227/1985
passed on 5.1.97.
GROUNDS
applicants.
the applicants.
order.
number.
Humble Applicants
Through: -
C.C. No. 20176
Hamad Afzal Bajwa,

C.C. No. 20959

MULTAN.
C.M. No._______/2000
In
CR. No. 228/1985
passed on 5.1.97.
GROUNDS
applicants.
the applicants.
order.
number.
Humble Applicants
Through: -
C.C. No. 20176
Hamad Afzal Bajwa,

C.C. No. 20959

MULTAN.
C.M. No._______/2000
In
CR. No. 228/1985
Affidavit of: -
Allah Diwaya S/o Ghulam Muhammad Alias
Ghulaman, caste Arain, R/o Jalalpur Pirwala, Tehsil
Shujabad, District Multan.

DEPONENT
Verification: -
of August 2000 that the contents of this affidavit
are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Deponent

MULTAN.
C.M. No._______/2000
In
CR. No. 226/1985
Affidavit of: -

DEPONENT
Verification: -
Deponent

MULTAN.
C.M. No._______/2000
In
CR. No. 227/1985
Affidavit of: -

DEPONENT
Verification: -
Deponent

MULTAN.
C.M. No._______/2000
In
CR. No. 228/1985
Application U/s-5 Limitation Act.
1. That contents of application for restoration be treated as
integral part and parcel of this application.
2. That the applicant was not aware about the said demise of his
counsel, by this reason could not appear before this Hon’ble
Court personally.
3. That the case was fixed after the lapse of 7-1/2 years but no
fresh notices were issued to the parties.
4. That as soon as the fact of dismissal of Civil Revision came to
the knowledge of applicant, the restoration application is filed
within time after obtaining copies.
5. That there is no fault on the part of applicant for delay.
It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the delay for
filing the restoration application, if any, may please be
condoned.
It is further prayed that any order, direction or relief
which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, may please be granted in
the interest of justice.
Humble Applicants
Through: -
MULTAN.
Crl. Misc. No._____________/CB/2000
Muhammad Shafiq S/o Sher Muhammad, Jat Khokhar, R/o H. No.

474/2 Mohallah Tibbi Sher Khan, Multan (Chah Aima Wala, Mauza
Lutf Abad, Tehsil & District Multan).
…………..Petitioner/Complainant
VERSUS
1. The State,
2. Taj Muhammad S/o Sher Muhammad. Khokhar, R/o
3. Muhammad Shahzad S/o Taj Muhammad. Mauza Lutf
Abad, Tehsil and District Multan.
……..Respondents/Accused
Petition under U/s 497 (5) Cr.P.C.
F.I.R. No. 124/2000 Dated 8.5.2000

P.S. Alpa (Multan) U/s 380 P.P.C.
2. That the instant case was registered on the application of

petitioner/complainant in which he stated that he is a land--
owner of village Lutf Abad. He purchased a donkey and cart
on 15.9.1999 from Hafiz Muhammad Ishaq in lieu of Rs.
4,500/-. On 12.2.99 the Petitioner placed donkey, donkey cart,
a while rope, a cloth sheet to tie fodder and drum for fodder
on his lands, were found stolen. The petitioner tried himself to
search the articles. Now through Hafiz Muhammad Ishaq it
came to the knowledge of the petitioner that his real brother
Taj Muhammad and his sons namely M. Shehzad and M.
Sajjad had stolen the donkey carts etc. and still with them. The
petitioner through his “Brathri” demanded the donkey cart
back, but in first they refused but after they remained
reluctant. Yesterday on 4.5.2000 accused persons in presence
of witnesses admitted and for the return of donkey cart, put
condition that no proceedings should be initiated before
police. Today accused persons refused to return the stolen
donkey and cart etc. and to restrain the petitioner from
initiating the legal proceeding, Taj Muhammad and Shahzad
extended the threats of murder. Hence this F.I.R. Copy is
Annex “A” and better copy of the same is Annex “A/1”.
3. That the respondents No. 2 filed a pre-arrest bail petition on

9.5.2000, which was entrusted for further hearing to the court
of Mian Basheer Ahmad Bhatti the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Multan which was fixed for 18.5.2000 for
want of record. Meanwhile the respondent No. 3 also filed a
petition for the same relief, which was also fixed for
18.5.2000. The learned Trial Judge was on leave on 18.5.2000
while the record was also not received, ultimately both the
petitions were adjourned for 31.5.2000. On 31.5.2000,
respondents No. 2 & 3 filed an application before the learned
Sessions Judge, Multan for the consolidation of the bail
matters in the cases F.I.R. No. 361/99, 110/2000 and
124/2000. This application was accepted vide order dated
2.6.2000 by the learned Sessions Judge, Multan. The learned
Judge accepted all the bail applications on the same day
(2.6.2000). Copy of bail application along-with interim orders
is Annex “B & C” while the copy of Consolidation
application along-with interim order is Annex “D & E”.
4. That the impugned order is liable to be set aside inter alia on

the following: -
GROUNDS
a) That the impugned order is against the principles of

justice, natural justice and law of equity.
b) That the impugned order is against the law as well as

against the facts of the case.
c) That no doubt, the relief in bail matter is a discretionary

one, but the discretion must be exercised within the
Four Corners of law, however in the above case, the
discretion is used sparingly.
d) That in the pre-arrest bail, malafide and ulterior motive

on the part of police and complainant must be alleged
and is a paramount consideration for the grant of pre-
arrest bail. If this element is absent, the Court has no
authority to allow the pre-arrest bail, being the extra-
ordinary relief.
e) That in cases where there are matters regarding the

recovery are pending, or, prosecution has to complete
the investigation normally the pre-arrest bail is not
granted.
f) That the learned Trial Court consolidated the cases and

granted the bail in haste which castes serious doubts
about the legality and sanctity of the impugned order.
g) That the impugned order has caused a great mis-

carriage of justice to the petitioner.

circumstances, it is respectfully prayed that the
order dated 2.6.2000 passed by the learned
Sessions judge, Multan may please be set aside
and pre-arrest bail allowed to respondents No. 2
to 5 may please be cancelled.
Any other relief, order or direction, which
Humble Petitioner,
Dated: _________
Through: -
C.C. No. 20176 C.C. No. 20959
CERTIFICATE: -
Certified that this is the first petition
on the subject matter and no such
petition has earlier been filed before
this Hon’ble Court.
Advocate
MULTAN.
Crl. Misc. No._____________/CB/2000
Muhammad Shafiq Versus The State etc.
F.I.R. No. 124/2000 Dated 8.5.2000

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Muhammad Shafiq S/o Sher Muhammad, Jat Khokhar,
R/o H. No. 474/2 Mohallah Tibbi Sher Khan, Multan
(Chah Aima Wala, Mauza Lutf Abad, Tehsil & District
Multan).
I, the above named deponent do hereby declare as under: -


petitioner/complainant in which he stated that he is a land-
a while rope, a cloth sheet to tie fodder and drum for fodder
Taj Muhammad and his sons namely M. Shehzad and M.


the following: -
GROUNDS



ordinary relief.

granted.


Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this ____ day of August
2000 that the contents of this affidavit are true to the best of
my knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT
MULTAN.
Crl. Misc. No._____________/CB/2000
F.I.R. No. 124/2000 Dated 8.5.2000

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Multan).


petitioner/complainant in which he stated that he is a land-
a whilte rope, a cloth sheet to tie fodder and drum for fodder
Taj Muahammad and his sons namely M. Shehzad and M.



the following: -
GROUNDS




ordinary relief.

granted.


Verification: -
DEPONENT
MULTAN.
C.M. No. _____________/2000

In
Crl. Misc. No._________/CB/2000

=========================================
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.

court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copy of
the document.
APPLICANT
Dated: _________
Through: -
C.C. No. 20176 C.C. No. 20959
MULTAN.
C.M. No. _____________/2000

In
Crl. Misc. No.____________/CB/2000
AFFIDAVIT of: -
Multan).

DEPONENT
Verification: -
DEPONENT
MULTAN.
Crl. Misc. No._____________/CB/2000
Muhammad Shafiq S/o Sher Muhammad, Jat Khokhar, R/o H. No.

474/2 Mohallah Tibbi Sher Khan, Multan (Chah Aima Wala, Mauza
Lutf Abad, Tehsil & District Multan).
…………..Petitioner/Complainant
VERSUS
1. The State,
2. Taj Muhammad S/o Sher Muhammad Khokhar, R/o Mauza
Lutf Abad, Tehsil and District Multan.
3. Syed Sakha-ur-Rehman. Ss/o Syed Noor-ul-Hassan,
4. Raza-ur-Rehman. Syed Bukhari, R/o Qadeer
Abad, Multan.
……..Respondents/Accused
F.I.R. No. 361/99 Dated 12.11.99

P.S. Alpa (Multan)
U/s 365/452, 440/427, 148/149 P.P.C.

petitioner/complainant stating that he along-with 10 others
purchased land measuring 40 kanals vide Mutation No. 2136
to 2145 in Mauza Lutaf Abad at Chah Aima Wala, in lieu of
Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lac), from Taj Muhammad real
brother vide Rapat No. 508 dated 6.6.98, possession of said
land was taken through court. Taj Muhammad wants to take
back this possession, and attempt for it. On 29.10.99 at 10.00
a.m. Taj Muhammad along-with two sons M. Shehzad, M.
Sajjad, 11 others named and 20/25 un-known persons (but can
be identified), all armed with Kalashinkoves, guns, mousers
and hatchets came on vehicles. The petitioner along-with his
father, son and Hafiz Ishaq was present at place of occurrence.
All the accused persons on the instigation of Taj Muhammad
pointed their weapons upon them. Sher Muhammad the father
of the petitioner made treaties but the accused persons
dragged and detained all of them in a room. Accused persons
tortured and extended threats of murder to them, and they
remained silent due to fear and were released at the time of
AZAN. All the accused persons demolished the house,
destroyed the thoroughfare and extorted the household
articles. Petitioner filed a writ petition No. 10247/98 in the
Hon’ble High Court and consequently local police registered
the case. Copy is Annex “A” and better copy of the same is
Annex “A/1”.
3. That the respondents No. 2 to 4 filed a pre-arrest bail petition

on 13.11.99, which was heard by the learned Sessions Judge,
Multan. This bail petition remained pending for 7-1/2 months
and adjourned 16 times for one or other reasons. But when on
31.5.2000 the application for consolidation of bail matters in
cases F.I.R. No. 361/99, 110/2000 and 124/2000 was
submitted by the respondent No. 2, this consolidation
application was accepted on 2.6.2000 and on the same day all
the bail petitions in 3 cases were accepted. Copy of bail
application along-with interim orders is Annex “B & C” while
the copy of Consolidation application along-with interim
order is Annex “D & E”.

the following: -
GROUNDS




ordinary relief.

granted.



circumstances, it is respectfully prayed that the
Sessions judge, Multan may please be set aside
and pre-arrest bail allowed to respondents No. 2
to 5 may please be cancelled.
Any other relief, order or direction, which
Humble Petitioner,
Dated: _________
Through: -
C.C. No. 20176 C.C. No. 20959
CERTIFICATE: -
Advocate
MULTAN.
Crl. Misc. No._____________/CB/2000
F.I.R. No. 361/99 Dated 12.11.99

P.S. Alpa (Multan)
U/s 365/452, 440/427, 148/149 P.P.C.
AFFIDAVIT of: -
Multan).


petitioner/complainant stating that he along-with 10 others
purchased land measuring 40 kanals vide Mutation No. 2136
to 2145 in Mauza Lutaf Abad at Chah Aima Wala, in lieu of
Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lac), from Taj Muhammad real
brother vide Rapat No. 508 dated 6.6.98, possession of said
land was taken through court. Taj Muhammad wants to take
back this possession, and attempt for it. On 29.10.99 at 10.00
a.m. Taj Muhammad along-with two sons M. Shehzad, M.
Sajjad, 11 others named and 20/25 un-known persons (but can
be identified), all armed with Kalashinkoves, guns, mousers
and hatchets came on vehicles. The petitioner along-with his
father, son and Hafiz Ishaq was present at place of occurrence.
All the accused persons on the instigation of Taj Muhammad
pointed their weapons upon them. Sher Muhammad the father
of the petitioner made treaties but the accused persons
dragged and detained all of them in a room. Accused persons
tortured and extended threats of murder to them, and they
remained silent due to fear and were released at the time of
AZAN. All the accused persons demolished the house,
destroyed the thoroughfare and extorted the household
articles. Petitioner filed a writ petition No. 10247/98 in the
Hon’ble High Court and consequently local police registered
the case. Copy is Annex “A” and better copy of the same is
Annex “A/1”.
3. That the respondents No. 2 to 4 filed a pre-arrest bail petition

on 13.11.99, which was heard by the learned Sessions Judge,
Multan. This bail petition remained pending for 7-1/2 months
and adjourned 16 times for one or other reasons. But when on
31.5.2000 the application for consolidation of bail matters in
cases F.I.R. No. 361/99, 110/2000 and 124/2000 was
submitted by the respondent No. 2, this consolidation
application was accepted on 2.6.2000 and on the same day all
the bail petitions in 3 cases were accepted. Copy of bail
application along-with interim orders is Annex “B & C” while
the copy of Consolidation application along-with interim
order is Annex “D & E”.

the following: -
GROUNDS



ordinary relief.

granted.


Verification: -
DEPONENT
To,
Malik Rab Nawaz S/o Malik Khuda Bax
Caste Jat Ran, R/o 1098/X-EX Mohallah
Eidgah Officers Colony, Multan.
Subject: - LEGAL NOTICE.
Dear Sir,
I have been instructed by my client Mian Sadiq Muhammad
S/o Faiz Bax, caste Jhandeer, R/o ground floor of H. No. 1098/X-EX
Mohallah Eid Gah Officers Colony, Multan to serve you with this
legal notice on the following mentioned: -
GROUNDS
1. That my client is a tenant in the property above-mentioned
owned by you. You filed an ejectment petition against my client
for the vacation of said property and the learned Rent Controller
was pleased to accept this petition on 1.7.2000 and granted a
period of two months for the vacation of the said property. My
client shall file an appeal against this order.
2. That the other portion is occupied by the tenant namely Rao
Naeem and the upper story is occupied by you as well. The
electricity meter is only installed in the portion of Rao Naeem the
other tenant and you, along-with my client are using the
electricity form the same meter. However, my client, for the fair
dealing has installed a sub-meter in portion occupied by him and
always paying his share regularly.
3. That my client is informed by the other tenant Rao Naeem that
you are pressurising him to disconnect the electricity power of
the portion of my client for which you have no such authority u/s
10 of Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 my client as a
tenant has protection upto the extent of amenities enjoying
already at the time of filing of the ejectment petition.
4. That you are hereby informed that in case of any illegality
committed by you towards my client, his rights or amenities
enjoyed by him legal proceeding (criminal/civil) shall be initiated
against you. It is advised in you better interest that let the law
make its own course in a legal way.
5. That you are hereby advised to keep this notice in safe custody
and same can be asked to produce in the court of law. However a
copy of this notice is retained in my office as record.
Ch. Hamad Afzal Bajwa,

10-Muhammadan Block,
District Courts, Multan.
Certified that the notice consists upon 2 pages and there is no

cutting/correction in it.
Advocate
MULTAN.
Crl. Misc. No._____________/CB/2000
INDEX

1 Petition u/s 497 (5) Cr.P.C.
2 Affidavit.
3 Copy of F.I.R. with better copy. A & A/1
4 Copy of Bail Petition. B
5 Interim order. C
6 Copy of application for D
Consolidation.
7 Interim orders. E
9 Affidavit.
10 Vakalatnama.
HUMBLE PETITIONER
Dated: __________
Through: -
C.C. No. 20176 C.C. No. 20959
MULTAN.
W.P. No._____________/2000
Muhammad Izhar Ahsan Rana, S/o Muhammad Ahsan Rana, caste

Rajput, R/o H. No. 51-Fateh Sher Colony, Sahiwal.
Petitioner
Versus
1. The State.
2. Javaid-ur-Rehman S/o Alla Ditta, caste Arain R/o PWD
Colony, Sahiwal.
Respondents

F.I.R. No. 110/2000 Dated 23.6.2000

U/s 324, 336, 459, 148, 149 P.P.C. Sec. 7/ATA
P. S. Fateh Sher (Sahiwal).
2. That the above-mentioned case was registered on the

statement of petitioner. He stated that he is a retired Colonel,
today 8:00 by night his wife Ghazal Izhar in the verandah and
he, himself in his courtyard were present. The petitioner
having his face on the side of South, when all of a sudden
with muffled faces 3/4 persons came from the side of North.
They threw acid from the plastic “DABBA”, started beating
by fist blows. On hue and cry, accused persons fled away after
climbing the wall. He expressed his ignorance about the
identity of them but suspected his neighbour Zakir Ali Shah
for the occurrence, hence this F.I.R. copy of which is Annex
“A” and better copy of the F.I.R. is Annex “A/1”.
3. That during the investigation respondent No. 2, along-with

Sohail Sarwar, Shabbir Hussain, Khurram Riaz, Hanif Billo,
Muhammad Riaz, Zakir Ali Shah and Abid Gilani were held
responsible for the occurrence. Except Abid Gilani and Zakir
Ali Shah, all other accused were arrested and recoveries wree
effected from them. Sohail Sarwar and Shabbir Hussain got
recorded their confessional statements u/s 164-Cr.P.C.
However, incomplete challan was submitted in the Court No.
1 established under Anti-terrorism Act on 20.7.2000.
4. That Zakir Ali Shah and Abid Gilani applied for the grant of
pre-arrest bail, in the court of learned Sessions Judge,
Sahiwal, which was entrusted for further hearing to the court
of Malik Peer Muhammad the learned A.S.J., Sahiwal; but
due to the Sec-7 Anti-terrorism Act, the jurisdiction of the
court of learned Additional Sessions Judge was ousted, then
both (Zakir alil Shah & Abid Gilani) submitted application for
same relief before the Judge, Anti-terrorism Court No. 1,
Multan. An application u/s 23 of Anti-terrorism Act, 1997 was
submitted by respondent No. 2 challenging the jurisdiction of
the said court, which was accepted vide order dated
19.8.2000. Copies of application and order are attached as
Annex “B & C” respectively.
5. That the order dated 19.8.2000 is liable to be set aside inter

GROUNDS
(i) That the impugned order is against the natural justice

and principles of equity.
(ii) That the impugned order is against the law and facts of
the case.
(iii) That the learned trial court did not examine the case in
the light of Anti-terrorism Act, 1997.
(iv) That the instant case was not examined keeping in view
the vires of Sec-6 of Act ibid.
(v) That the Anti-terrorism Act clearly bifurcated the

“Scheduled Offence” and “Terrorist Act”, so the
offences falling in preview of Sec-6 (a) of the Act ibid
are purely within the jurisdiction of the Anti-terrorist
Court.
(vi) That the learned trial could while enumerating the

reasons for accepting the application could not meet
with the merits of case.
(vii) That petitioner was retired Colonel and was a practicing

advocate. This act of accused created a sensation and
fear in the retired personnels as well as in the
advocates.
(viii) That the petitioner has lost his left eye and still under
treatment in C.M.H. Okara. His face is disfigured and
acid effected the throat from inside also.
(ix) That the act committed by the accused persons is a

“Terrorist Act” and falls within the ambit of Anti-
terrorist Court.
(x) That learned court could not apply judicious mind to

the real sense and essence of the matter and Act ibid.
(xi) That the impugned order caused a great mis-carriage of

justice to the petitioner.

Judge Anti-Terrorist Court No. 1 may please be
set aside and also be directed to try the case
F.I.R. No. 110/2000 dated 23.6.2000 registered
u/s 324/336/459/148/149 P.P.C. and 7 Anti-
terrorism Act.
It is further prayed that any order, direction
or relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit may
please be granted in the interest of justice.
Humble Petitioner
Dated: _________
Through: -
C.C. No. 20176 C.C. No. 20959
CERTIFICATE: -
Advocate
MULTAN.
W. P. No. _____________/2000
Muhammad Izhar Ahsan Rana Vs The State etc.
AFFIDAVIT of: -
Muhammad Izhar Ahsan Rana, S/o Muhammad Ahsan
Rana, caste Rajput, R/o H. No. 51-Fateh Sher Colony,
Sahiwal.

DEPONENT
Verification: -
DEPONENT
MULTAN.
C.M. No. _____________/2000

In
W.P. No._____________/2000

=========================================
That certified copies of Annexures: _________ are not

of documents.
PETITIONER
Dated: _________
Through: -
C.C. No. 20176 C.C. No. 20959
MULTAN.
C.M. No. _____________/2000

In
W.P. No._____________/2000
Affidavit of: -
Sahiwal.

DEPONENT
Verification: -
DEPONENT
MULTAN.
C. M. No. _______________/2000
In
W.P. No.________________/2000
Application under section 151 C.P.C.

for Stay of proceedings.
The applicant respectfully sheweth as under: -

1. That the above captioned Writ Petition has been filed before this
August Court.
2. That the contents of the Writ Petition should be considered as

part and parcel of this application.
3. That the accused persons are very influential persons and under
the cover of impugned order wanted to be released by any
means.
4. That the procedure before any court prior to determination of

competent forum shall be treated as Corum-non-judice.
5. That if the proceedings before any court remain continued, this

writ petition shall not bear the legal consequences, as required
under the law.
6. That the short legal but important point is involved which can
bring the vast legal results.
7. That the applicant/petitioner has a good prima facie case & the
balance of convenience lies with him.
Therefore, it is respectfully prayed that further
proceedings in case F.I.R. No. 110/2000 dated
23.6.2000 P.S. Fateh Sher (Sahiwal) u/s 324/336/
458/148/149 P.P.C. read with Sec-7 of Anti Terrorism
Act may please be stayed till the final decision of the
main petition.
Humble Applicant
Dated: ___________
Through: -
C.C. No. 20176 C.C. No. 20959
MULTAN.
C.M. No. _____________/2000

In
W.P. No._____________/2000
Stay Application
Affidavit of: -
Sahiwal.

DEPONENT
Verification: -
DEPONENT
MULTAN.
W. P. No. _____________/2000
INDEX

1 Urgent Form
3 Writ Petition.
4 Affidavit
5 Photocopy of F.I.R. & Better copy. A & A/1
6 Copy of application. B
7 Copy of Order dated 19.8.2000. C
9 Affidavit.
10 Application for Stay of proceedings
11 Affidavit.
12 akalatnama
PETITIONER
Dated: __________
Through: -
C.C. No. 20176 C.C. No. 20959
MULTAN.
C. M. No. ____________/2000
In
C. M. No. ____________/2000
In
W.P. No. 8263/2000
Mehmood-ul-Hassan etc. Vs District Collector Khanewal etc.
Application under section 151 C.P.C.

for the grant of Stay.
The applicant respectfully sheweth as under: -

1. That the contents of the main application may please be treated
as the integral part and parcel of this petition.
2. That the disputed property is inherited property of the

applicants, over which the applicants have every right.
3. That there are concurrent findings uptill Hon’ble High Court in

the favour of the applicants.
4. That the applicants have a good prima facie case in their favour.
5. That the applicants have obtained possession after a long

litigation, and if possession shall be taken away from the
applicants, the applicants shall face irreparable loss.
6. That the balance of convenience is also in favour of the

applicants.
It is, therefore respectfully prayed that the writ

petitioner and respondents No. 1 to 6 may please
directed not to dispossess the applicants from the
disputed land till the final disposal of main petition.
It is further prayed that any direction/order/or

relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, may please
be granted in the interest of justice.
Humble Applicants
Dated: ___________
Through: -
C.C. No. 20176 C.C. No. 20959
MULTAN.
C. M. No. ____________/2000
In
C. M. No. ____________/2000
In
W.P. No. 8263/2000
STAY APPLICATION
AFFIDAVIT of: -
Nasir Shabbir S/o Muhammad Nawaz, caste Sayal, R/o
Chak Kaccha Maghiyana, Tehsil & District Jhang.

DEPONENT
Verification: -
DEPONENT
MULTAN.
C. M. No. ____________/2000
In
W.P. No. 8263/2000
INDEX

1 Urgent Form.
2 Application for suspension. 1-5
3 Affidavit. 7
4 Mutation No. 113 dated 7.11.1991. A 9-11
5 Photocopy of Judgment & Decree B 13-23
dated 23.6.1998.
6 Photocopy of Judgment & Decree C 25-51
dated 3.6.2000.
7 Certified copy of Order D 53-61
dated 28.6.2000.
8 Dispensation Application. 63
9 Affidavit. 65
10 Application for Stay. 67-69
11 Affidavit. 71
12 Vakalatnama 73
APPLICANTS
Dated: __________
Through: -
C.C. No. 20176 C.C. No. 20959
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
Certified that an order in C.M. No. 1988/2000 for restoration of

possession of agricultural land measuring 97K---8M situated in Chak
No. 14 Ghagh Tehsil Kabirwala District Multan was passed in W.P. No.
8263/2000, filed by Mr. Mehmood-ul-Hassan and Mst. Ghulam Jannat,
in which Mr. Sabir Shabbir (wrongly quoted in W.P. as Nasir Shabbir),
Nasir Abbas and Mst. Zahida Parween were pleaded as respondents
No. 7, 8 and 9. Having information about this order, the respondents
No. 7, 8 & 9 preferred to file a C.M. No. 2099/2000 for suspension of
order dated 23.8.2000, on 30.8.2000. This C.M. No. 2099/2000 along-
with Stay Application (C.M. No. 2104/2000) was fixed for further
hearing on 31.8.2000 before His Lordship Mr. Justice Naseem
Sikandar. The Lordship is pleased to suspend the order dated 23.8.2000
passed in C.M. No. 1988/2000 for restoration of possession, by
accepting the C.M. No. 2104/2000. All the concerned shall remain
intimated.
(SH. MUHMAMMAD FAHEEM)

MULTAN.
W.P. No._____________/H/2000
Mst. Fazeela Salahuddin daughter of Salahuddin, caste Kashmiri,

R/o H. No. 24, Block No. 74, Railway Colony, Multan.
Petitioner
Versus
1. Saqib Ali Aqeel S/o Liaqut Ali, caste Jat Jindran, R/o H. No.
1159, Colony No. 3, Khanewal.
2. Liaqut Ali S/o unknown, caste Jat Jindran, R/o H. No. 1159,
Colony No. 3, Khanewal.
3. Mst. Munazza daughter of Haji Abdul Haq, R/o Rashid Gate,
Shujabad District Multan.
Respondents
Writ Petition under Article 199 (1) (b) (i)

of The Constitution of Islamic Republic
of Pakistan, 1973 r.w. Section 491 Cr.P.C.
for the recovery of minors (i)
Rashna daughter aged 4-1/2 years & (ii)
Sharik son aged 3-1/2 years
2. That the petitioner was married with respondent No. 1 on

13.1.1995. From this wedlock, Rashna daughter aged 4-1/2
years, Sharik son aged 3-1/2 and Mah Noor daughter aged 2
years were born.
3. That after the marriage, the character and behaviour of

respondent No. 1 un-veiled before the petitioner. Respondent
No. 1 was the womanizer, habitual drinker and his behaviour
always remained cruel towards the petitioner. Even the
respondent No. 1 was earning more than enough money
through his corruption, but the petitioner always passed a
miserable life with him. The petitioner passed the days of her
life being a Eastern woman keeping in view the respect,
honour and prestige of her family and specially her parents.
4. That the bad luck knocked the door of petitioner when

respondent No. 1 was caught red-handed with respondent No.
3 in room No. 201 of Royal City Hotel in the area of police
station Nolukha (Lahore) by the police on 18.7.2000. The
respondent No. 1 & 3 expressed their suspicion upon the
petitioner about the occurrence. The petitioner tried her level’s
best to prove innocent but all in vain. Resultantly the
respondent No. 1 expelled the petitioner after snatching all the
three kids on the night of 3.9.2000 and divorced the petitioner
orally. On the hue and cry of the petitioner, she succeeded to
get the younger one namely Mah Noor daughter aging 2
years.
5. That on 4.9.2000 the respondent No. 1 executed a Talaq Nama

but refused to hand over the minor children (detenu), dowry
and other things. The petitioner approached the Resident
Editor of “Khbrain” Multan Mian Ghaffar Ahmad for the
recovery of children and other articles. Upon the intervention
of Mian Ghaffar Ahmad, the respondent No. 1 agreed to solve
all the disputes through arbitration. The petitioner and
respondent No. 1 executed the arbitration agreements in
favour of Mian Ghaffar Ahmad. On 7.9.2000, the arbitrator
announced the award and intimated both the parties
accordingly. The petitioner approached the respondent No. 1
for the recovery of both the children (detenu) but respondent
No. 1 refused to return the both. Copy of Award is annexed as
Annex “A”.
6. That the petitioner is entitled for the custody of all the

children being in tender age having the right of “Hazanat”
under Shariah and the law of land for a male child upto 7
YEARS and for the female child attaining PUBERTY.
7. That the respondent is a Govt. servant having no time to look
after the children and both are living with the respondents No.
2 & 3. Both the detenus are not familiar with respondents No.
2 & 3, hence, both the detenus are not feeling any association
with them.
8. That in the normal circumstances and in the presence of lap of

the mother no other can be presumed to be a fit person/place
for the children.
9. That the respondent No. 1 is a Magistrate by designation

having deep roots and relations in the Bureaucracy and
influential persons as well. The petitioner feels every
apprehension that the respondent No. 1 will shift both the
detenus out of the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.
10. That the petitioner is left with no other adequate, efficacious

and speedy remedy except to invoke the extra ordinary
constitutional jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.
It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that a Bailiff

of this Hon’ble Court may please be appointed to
recover the female child Rashna aged 4-1/2 years and
male child Sharik aged 3-1/2 years (detenus) from the
illegal and improper custody of the respondents. And
after the recovery of detenus the custody may please be
handed over to the petitioner.
It is further prayed that any other writ, order,

direction or relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit,
may please be awarded in the interest of justice.
Humble Petitioner,
Dated: ________
(Mst. Fazeela Salahuddin)
Through: -
C.C. No. 20176 C.C. No. 20959
MULTAN.
W. P. No. _____________/H/2000
Mst. Fazeela Salahuddin Vs Saqib Ali Aqeel etc.
AFFIDAVIT of: -
Mst. Fazeela Salahuddin daughter of Salahuddin, caste
Kashmiri, R/o H. No. 24, Block No. 74, Railway
Colony, Multan.

DEPONENT
Verification: -
of September 2000 that the contents of this
affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge
and belief.
DEPONENT
MULTAN.
C.M. No. _____________/H/2000

In
W.P. No._____________/H/2000

FILING OF CERTIFIED COPY OF ANNEXURE.
=======================================
That certified copy of Annexure is not available.
However, uncertified/photo state copy of the same has been
annexed with the Petition, which is true copy of original
document.

court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copy of
document.
PETITIONER
Dated: _________
Through: -
C.C. No. 20176 C.C. No. 20959
MULTAN.
C.M. No. _____________/H/2000

In
W.P. No._____________/H/2000
Affidavit of: -
Mst. Fazeela Salahuddin daughter of Salahuddin, caste
Kashmiri, R/o H. No. 24, Block No. 74, Railway
Colony, Multan.

DEPONENT
Verification: -
of September 2000 that the contents of this
affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge
and belief.
DEPONENT
MULTAN.
W. P. No. _____________/H/2000
INDEX

1 Urgent Form
3 Writ Petition.
4 Affidavit
5 Photocopy of Award. A
6 Dispensation application.
7 Affidavit
8 Vakalatnama
PETITIONER
Dated: __________
Through: -
C.C. No. 20176 C.C. No. 20959
LIST OF 20 CASES
S. No. Title Court Next date

1. State Vs. Youaf Aheer Bashir A. Bhatti A.S.J Multan. 11.9.2000
2. State Vs. Manzoor Special Judge, A.T.C., Multan. 14.9.2000
3. State Vs. Nayyar-ul-Haq Special Judge, A.T.C., Multan. 4.10.2000
4. State Vs. Altaf etc. Session Judge, Multan. 25.9.2000
5. Ata Rahim Vs. State Ch. Abdur Rashid M. Sec. 30 16.2.2000
6. State Vs. Ahmd Yar etc. Ch. Abdur Rashid M. Sec. 30 7.9.2000
7. State Vs. Imam Bakhsh Ch. Abdul Sattar A.S.J. 6.9.2000
8. State Vs. Ijaz etc. Taj Muhammad Mirza, M.S.30. 6.9.2000
9. State Vs. Zulfiqar etc. Haroon Mahmood MIC 13.9.2000
10. Dost Muhammad Vs

Allah Ditta Ejaz Ahmad Munir M.Sec. 30 5.2.2000
11. State Vs. Khaleel Ejaz Ahmad Munir M.Sec. 30 5.2.2000
12. State Vs. Taj Muhammad Special Judge, Anti Corruption

decided on 17.6.2000
13. State Vs. Akhtar Ali Sh. Muhammad Naeem M.S.30 7.9.2000
14. State Vs. Shafique Mehboob Alam Natkani M.S.30 11.9.2000
15. State Vs. Taj etc. Special Judge, Court No. 6 18.9.2000
16. Muhammad Ramzan
Vs. Akbar etc. Sajjad Ahmad Chawan A.S.J. 10.8.2000
17. Najamul Haque Vs. Rao Akbar Ali A.S.J.

Naveed Butt decided on 6.3.2000
18. State Vs. Muntazir Mehdi Special Court No. 6 3.10.2000
19. State Vs. Masood Anwar Special Court No. 6 3.10.2000
20. State Vs. Jameel etc. Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad A.S.J. 6.3.2000

Bajwa

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Bajwa

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

Mst. Hameeda Sultana d/o Late Ch. Muhammad Hassan, R/o

Writ Petition under Article 199

Mst. Hameeda Sultana Vs Administrator, M.C.K. etc.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

C.M. No. _____________/2000

Mst. Hameeda Sultana Vs Administrator, M.C.K. etc.

APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE

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

Dated: _________ (Hameeda Sultana)

C.M. No. _____________/2000

Mst. Hameeda Sultana Vs Administrator, M.C.K. etc.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

Mst. Hameeda Sultana Vs Administrator, M.C.K. etc.

S. No. NAME OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXES PAGES

Hamad Afzal Bajwa,

C.M. No. _________/2000

M. Afzal Versus The State etc.

Application for the impleading of the

3. That the applicants filed a suit for ejectment against the

5. That one Muhammad Afzal filed writ petition for the

i) That the applicants are necessary party in this

ii) That the applicants are necessary party being the

iii) That in case of quashment of F.I.R. the applicants shall

iv) That in absence of applicants they should be

v) That even the complainant is not impleaded as

vi) That a great miscarriage of justice shall be caused to the

It is most respectfully prayed that the

(i) Muhammad Bakhsh

(ii) Zaffar Hussain,

(iii) Shabbir Hussain,

(iv) Muhammad Ramzan,

(v) Sagheer Hussain &

(vi) Ijaz Hussain

All from (ii) to (vi) sons

C.M. No. _________/2000

M. Afzal Versus The State etc.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

C.M. No. ____________/2000

Mst. Tausif Anwar Vs. Ghulam Ghaus

Application u/s 151 C.P.C.

Hamad Afzal Bajwa,

C.M. No. __________/2000

Mst. Tausif Anwar Vs. Ghulam Ghaus

Application u/s 151 C.P.C.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

C.M. No. __________/2000

Mst. Tausif Anwar Vs. Ghulam Ghaus

I, the above named deponent do hereby

C.M. No. __________/2000

Mst. Tausif Anwar Vs. Ghulam Ghaus

APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE

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

Dated: _________ (Ghulam Ghaus)

Hamad Afzal Bajwa,

C.M. No. __________/2000

Mst. Tausif Anwar Vs. Ghulam Ghaus

S. No. NAME OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXES PAGES

Hamad Afzal Bajwa,

Cr. Appeal No._____________/2000

F.I.R. No. 195/99 dated 22.7.99

Appeal u/s 417 (2-A), against the judgment dated

3. That Khawar Zaman S.H.O. started the investigation and