Administration of criminal justice

  1. According to the principles of administration of criminal justice, for setting aside an acquittal order, there must be some perversity, illegality or violation of the statutory provisions or principles of law and justice. Musarrat Begum v. Muhammad Abbas & another  2014 SCR 318 (C)
  2. Bail matter — the trial is in progress, however not concluded as yet. In such like situation this Court is always reluctant to interfere with the orders relating to bail matters, so as to avoid the discussion and remarks on the merits of the case. Nazir Ahmed & 3 others v. Ghulam Hussain & another 2014 SCR 409 (C) 1992 SCMR 1418 ref.
  3. Grounds taken for transfer of case from one District to another seems to be a vague in nature — from which — the mala fide — is apparent — Held: — it is the duty of the superior Courts to give full protection against such like frivolous allegations while keeping in mind the honour, nobleness and dignified duty performed by the Judge — Further held: — the Court has to put itself in the position of applicant and then to see whether apprehension shown by him was genuine or not — the Presiding Officer should not be allowed to be harassed and maligned unnecessarily by the litigants merely on groundless and baseless apprehensions — if there is genuine complaint against any Presiding Officer that can be entertained according to the material placed before the superior Court. Nasar Ullah Khan v. Shahbaz Ashraf & 5 others 2014 SCR 362 (E)
  4. S. 193, APC — perjury — to prosecute a person under section 193, it is the duty of the prosecution to show first, that the statement made by the accused was false and secondly, that he knew it or believed it to be false or did not believe it to be true at the time when he made the statement.  Javed Iqbal Butt v. Abdul Ula But and 2 others 2014 SCR 372 (D) AIR 1928 Lah. 125 ,AIR 1927 Lah. 874 &AIR 1919 Lah. 158, ref.
  5. In a murder case the trial should be conducted consciously according to the statutory provisions and not such like casual manner. Specially, in murder cases, without compelling reasons, the grant of adjournments for frivolous reasons should be discouraged. Jahanzeb v. State through Advocate-General & 4 others 2014 SCR 750 (E)
  6. Registration of case by the police for the commission of cognizable offences — case is at the investigation stage — contention on behalf accused that false case is registered which is rightly quashed by Shariat Court u/s 561-A, Cr.P.C. — Held: according to the spirit and scheme of law, it is the duty of the investigating agency to conclude the investigation and thereafter draw the conclusion whether in the light of evidence or circumstances, according to law a case for commission of alleged offences has been made out or not.  In case of false implication, law has also prescribed a proper course. M. Saleem v. M. Zaman & 6 others 2014 SCR 809 (A)
  7. Release on bail — its purpose — The ultimate conviction and incarceration of a guilty person can repair the wrong caused by a mistaken relief of interim bail granted to him, but no satisfactory reparation can be offered to an innocent man for his unjustified incarceration at any stage of the case albeit his acquittal in the long run. Zaheer Ahmed v. Ibrar Hussain 2014 SCR 1667 (H)
  8. According to law, the punishment should be compatible with the allegation. Muhammad Yousaf Haroon v. Competent Authority & 4 others 2014 SCR 1180 (VV)
  9. The Court is vested with the powers for modification in the punishment to make it compatible with the nature and gravity of the allegations. Muhammad Yousaf Haroon v. Competent Authority & 4 others 2014 SCR 1180 (WW) 2012 PSC 1480, rel.
  10. Condonation of delay — appeal against conviction — It is long standing practice that the Courts, especially in criminal cases of conviction liberally exercise powers of condonation of delay and the wisdom behind exercise of such powers in such manner is that at least the convicted person should have no doubt in his mind that his right of hearing has been denied. M. Yousaf v. Arshad Mehmood  2014 SCR 1521 (B) PLD 2009 SC 814, 1984 SCMR 1474 &1978 P.Cr.L.J 546 rel.
  11. According to the celebrated principle of administration of criminal justice, it is not safe to convict a person against whom the prosecution has not succeeded to prove the case beyond shadow of doubt. Imran Khan & another v. Sarfraz alias Pallo & 3 others  2014 SCR 1564 (B)
  12. Two possibilities — according to the celebrated principle of law, when there are two possible probabilities, or hypothetical possibilities, one which favours the accused has to be adopted for safe administration of the criminal justice.  Javed Iqbal v. Fayyaz Ahmed & another 2014 SCR 1441 (D)   2013 SCR 192 rel.
  13. According to the injunctions of Holy Qur’an  الاتزروزارۃوزراخری” no one can be penalized for the act of others without any connection or attribution in the alleged act. Nishad Khan v. The State & another 2014 SCR 1460 (D)
  14. It is celebrated principle of law that for awarding conviction in criminal cases, the commission of offence has to be established beyond the shadow of doubt through legal and admissible evidence. Muhammad Ayub & & others v.  Imran & 6 others 2015 SCR 325 (B)
  15. Benefit of pre-sentence custody period — The learned Federal Shariat Court in the light of the principle of the Islamic Shariah has drawn  conclusion that non-extending  the benefit of such period of detention is unjust  (zulm), therefore, such period must be deducted from the quantum of the imprisonment or against the imposition of fine if the Court so felt advised. The reason appears to be logical and consistent with the principles of administration of criminal justice. Sain Muhammad & others v. The State & another 2015 SCR 339 (D)
  16. Trial of lunatic — accused not ready to instruct the counsel — counsel refused to defend — Court instead to provide time to the accused to be defended by some counsel ordered him to cross examine the witness — A person who is facing trial in the offence of murder wherein he can be sent to gallows, is not ready to engage a counsel and to disclose information or talk to the counsel appointed for him by the Court, how it can be said that he can understand the other things. Held: it is for the Court to determine whether the accused appears to be of unsound mind and is incapable to defend himself — Further held: The Court shall form the opinion not subjectively but keeping in view all the attending circumstances including the medical reports, if any. Nasir Mehmood v. The State & others 2015 SCR 551 (C)
  17. It is the duty of the Investigating Agency to investigate the matter according to law without being partisan or misusing any process of law. The Investigating Agency has not only to consider the version of the complainant but is also duty bound at the same time to provide equal opportunity of defence to the accused party; and if there is any legal defence, that should also be properly considered according to law Perveen Azam  v. S.S.P District Mirpur 2015 SCR  837 (C)
  18. Once an accused is acquitted by the Court of competent jurisdiction, for setting-aside the same, there must be some extraordinary compelling reasons. Zaffar Hussain Malik v. Abdul Salam & 5 others 2015 SCR 1090 (F)  2014SCR 318 rel.
  19. Two probabilities — It is also settled principle of law that in case of two possible probabilities or hypothesis, the probability or hypotheses which favours the accused has to be adopted. Raqiba Begum &  others v. Javid Iqbal & others  2015 SCR 1335 (B)2014 SCR 1441 rel.
  20. The principle has to be applied while taking into consideration peculiar facts of each case. Tasawar Hussain versus The State & 9 others 2016 SCR 373 (D)
  21. It is settled principle of administration of criminal justice that every criminal case has its own merits from that of another criminal case. Saidullah Khan v. Sohrab & others 2016 SCR 569 (C)
  22. 497, Cr.P.C. — bail — Held: although, the person, the case of whom does not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., cannot claim the bail as of right but every case has its own peculiar facts and circumstances. M. Arshad v. M. Younis & another 2016 SCR 512 (C)
  23. جرائم 337/427، 452/448، APC—14، EHA— فارم مضروبی شامل ریکارڈ- — میڈیکل رپورٹ شامل نہ کی گئی- — بوجہ اختتامی /تکمیل تفتیش— حکم اخراج مقدمہ- — عدم تعمیل حکم شریعت کورٹ — -دوبارہ ناقص تفتیش و اختتامی — دوبارہ حکم اخراج مقدمہ — حکم عدالت ابتدائی بلاوجوہ- — قابل افسوس امر— میڈیکل رپورٹ پیش کرنا تفتیشی آفیسر کی ذمہ داری –مضروبہ کو فارم مضروبی مرتب کرنے کے بعد ہسپتال رجوع کرایا گیا — عدالت تحصیل فوجداری نے اخراج مقدمہ کے وقت تحریر کیا کہ مضروبہ کی طبی رپورٹ شامل نہ ہے ۔ شریعت کورٹ نے ریمانڈ کرتے ہوئے قرار دیا کہ میڈیکل رپورٹ شامل کرنا تفتیشی افسر کی ذمہ داری ہے عدالت تحصیل فوجداری دوبارہ تفتیشی ایجنسی کو معاملہ سونپ دیا۔ جس نے تین سال بعد دوبارہ اختتامی پیش کر دی۔ عدالت ابتدائی نے نہ تو شریعت کورٹ کے فیصلہ کی منشاء کو قابل توجہ و قابل عمل سمجھا، نہ ہی پولیس کی ذمہ داری اور کردار کو پر توجہ دی اور نہ ہی مستغیث مقدمہ کی جانب سے پیش کردہ ریکارڈ و بیان حلفی گواہان کو مدنظر رکھا۔ متعلقہ منصف کا یہ عمل عدالتی بصیرت و بصارت سے عاری ہونے اور قتل انصاف کے مترادف ہے محمد اکرم خان بنام محمد محبوب وغیرہ  (الف)2016 SCR 1516
  24. کردار و عمل تفتیشی آفیسران — مبنی بر غفلت، انتہائی جانبدارانہ و بدنیتی- انتہائی تاخیر اندراج بیان زیر دفعہ-161 ضٖ ف — عدم اشتمال رپورٹ طبی — دوبار رپورٹ اختتامی پیش کرنا — عدالت تحصیل فوجداری کا بلاوجوہ دوبار اختتامی سے اتفاق کرنا — مستغیث مقدمہ کا پیش کردہ ریکارڈ نظر انداز کرنا — حکم شریعت کورٹ کی عدم تعمیل — بادی النظر میں جانبداری اور قانون کو بے اثر کرنے کے مترادف ہے۔اور اختیارات کا غلط استعمال ہے۔ محمد اکرم خان بنام محمد محبوب وغیرہ  (ب)2016 SCR 1516
  25. عدالت تحصیل فوجداری — انتہائی لاپروائی کا ثبوت — عدم سماعت مستغیث مقدمہ —عدم تعمیل حکم شریعت کورٹ — پولیس نے معاملہ کو سال ہا سال تک لٹکائے رکھا۔ پولیس کے اختیارات کو لاقانونیت اور جرائم کے تدارک کے بجائے تحفظ کے طور پر استعمال کیا گیا۔ پولیس کے ایسے کردار و عمل کے حامل آفیسران معاشرہ کے لیے ناسور ہیں۔ محمد اکرم خان بنام محمد محبوب وغیرہ  (پ)2016 SCR 1516
  26. —Reversal of an acquittal order— It  is  well  settled  principle  of administration  of  criminal  justice  that  for reversal  of  an  acquittal  order  the  perversity, arbitrariness  or  capriciousness  in  the  impugned order  must  be  established.  Waseem Hussain & 2 others v. Muhammad Rafique & another  2017 SCR 428 (D)
  27. —Held:it is settled principle of criminal law that precedents of the Superior Courts cannot be applied on each and every case strict senso and principle of law enunciated in a case should not be applied in inflexible manner to that of other. The facts and circumstances of each criminal case are different and principles of law should be applied keeping view the peculiar facts of each case. Muhammad Rashid vs Muhammad Israr & others 2018 SCR 397 (F)
  28. —S. 377, APC—S.12, the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Act, 1985—Benefit of acquittal of co-accused could be extended to non-appealing co-convict— appellant exempted from personal hearing during trial—who joined army, there is nothing on record that he was ever intimated about fate of his case or declared proclaimed offender—both accused convicted by trial Court, sentence was maintained by the Shariat Court—the appellant did not challenge the judgment of the Shariat Court before the Supreme Court—the co-convict who filed appeal was acquitted by the Supreme Court—The allegations and the set of evidence against the convict-appellant are the same as of the acquitted co-accused. The appellant was extended the same benefit which was extended to the co-convict. Appellant accused was acquitted. Nisar Hussain v. The State & another 2019 SCR 527 (A)  2011 SCMR 1142 & 2018 SCMR 344 Rel
  29.  —recording of evidence—non-production of accused before Court—due to non-availability of police squad—regarded as facilitation to accused to get relief of bail on statutory ground. Court expressed severe displeasure over non-production of accused— Duty of District Administration to produce accused in safe custody. Subedar Retired Manzoor  Hussain & others v. Khursheed Ahmed & another  2019 SCR 880 (A) 
  30.  —Administration of Criminal Justice—non-conclusion of trial for seven years—declared weakness of the trial Court—trial Court not used its powers for production of accused and witnesses–Direction issued to the trial Court to conclude trial within 3 months—Direction issued to the Deputy Commissioner and Superintendent Police to ensure production of accused before trial Court on relevant dates. Subedar Retired Manzoor  Hussain & others v. Khursheed Ahmed & another  2019 SCR 880 (B)  
  31. —while deciding a bail application, the Court has to struck balance between the accused and the society on the other hand but at the same time for the purpose of bail, law cannot be stretched in favour of the prosecution. Waqas Habib v. Khalid Mehmood & another 2020 SCR 396 (B)
  32.  —prosecution failed to prove his case beyond the shadow of doubt on the basis of such evidence the awarded conviction cannot be upheld. Muhammad Qurban v.  Ehtesab Bureau 2020 SCR 85 (B)
  33.   —No one can be punished merely on the basis of  relationship or presumptions.  Muhammad Qurban v.  Ehtesab Bureau 2020 SCR 85 (C)
  34.  —Bail—grant of— COVID-19— the High Court released the prisoners by passing a general order—Held: the impugned order is against basic principle of administration of justice—in the offences, punishable with Qisas or Diyat—the legal heirs are necessary parties to be heard—but no notice was issued—it amounts to mockery of law and very unhealthy practice. Asad Muneer Khan V. The State & 16 others 2020 SCR 413 (J)
  35.  —plea of time barred investigation—raised first time before the Supreme Court—the question of time barred investigation has neither been raised before the trial Court nor before the High Court. This question was raised for the first time before the Supreme Court. Held: we are unable to take up this matter for the first time. Even otherwise, the reference has been filed before the competent Court and the appellants, herein, are at liberty to raise all these points before the competent forum. Abdul Waheed Khan V. Ehtesab Bureau 2020 SCR 622 (B)
  36.  —Section 561-A—question as to applicability of particular penal section—job of the investigating agency—after perusing the copy of the FIR. and other record appended with the appeal, we are of the view that this Court cannot resolve the question that, as to whether section 14, EHA, is applicable to the facts of the case in hand or not, rather, it is the job of the investigating officer. The appellant, herein, is at liberty to submit his view point before the investigating agency. Muhammad Amin Khan v. The State through Advocate-General & 4 others 2020 SCR 802 (C)
  37. —Appeal against conviction—delay—condonation of— rejection of application  for condonation of delay will surely result into an unusual situation in shape of conviction in the case in which the other co-accused has been acquitted on the ground of doubtful prosecution story—it will create serious doubts that proper course of safe administration of justice has not been adopted— it must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its powers to legalize injustice on technical grounds, but because it is capable of removing injustice—when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. Muhammad Muzamal        The State & others 2022 SCR 26 (B)
  38. —In the dispensation of criminal justice, decision of the case must not be taken in relation to accused’s case but must rest on the examination of entire evidence. Syed Kamran Hussainshahv. State & another 2022 SCR 365 (E)
  39. —Criminal trial—application under section 94 Cr.P.C, filed before trial Court for including cell-phone recording of accused as evidence—no merit involved in the application, which has apparently been filed only to prolong the trial—the speedy and fair trial is not possible if such like practice is allowed in routine—it should be discouraged by the superior judicial fora. Khalid Mehmood v. Noreen & another 2022 SCR 473 (B)
  40. — Judge in all circumstances is under obligation to decide the cases in accordance with law— the Courts have only to go behind the principle “Let justice be done though the heavens may fall” — Justice must be realized regardless of the consequences. Parveen Akhtar Chaudhary v. Rifat Rani & others  2022 SCR 714 (B)
  41. —Examination of witnesses—criminal jurisprudence requires that best evidence should be brought on record before Court—Court cannot compel either party to produce any particular witness—However, Court can draw adverse inference in case of non-production of evidence or witness. Munir Ahmed v. Kaleem Abbasi & others 2022 SCR 992 (C)
  42. —Evidentiary value of statement—determination of—job of the trial Court, not of Superior Court—the Superior Courts cannot bear the robe of trial Court. Zahid Mehmood v. The State and others  2022 SCR 1362 (A)
  43. —Burden to prove case against accused lies on prosecution through cogent evidence excluding all doubts. Malik Zaffar v. Rashid Hussain Shah & others 1489 (M)
  44. —Accused of serious charges, is attached with all kinds of hate and disgust by society—But the Courts must abide by the principles of criminal jurisprudence and the crucial aspect of appreciation of evidence keeping the emotions and sentiments aside. Malik Zaffar v. Rashid Hussain Shah & others 1489 (R)
  45. —To justify conviction, guilt must be proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubt—Held: when contradictions exist in a criminal case, the story must be broken down into elements; more precisely, criminal elements and each element must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by prosecution in order to form an unbroken chain which connects the accused with the guilt. The burden always lies on prosecution to prove. Malik Zaffar v. Rashid Hussain Shah & others 1489 (T)
  46. —Construing accused into a crime—not on presumptions and in absence of strong and admissible evidence —Held: no should be construed into a crime on the basis of presumption in the absence of strong evidence of unimpeachable character and legally admissible one. Jahangir Khan & others v. Safia Tanveer & others 2022 SCR 1541 (E)
  47. —Duty of Court in criminal administration of justice—not to influenced by severity of offence and strict to due course of law and extend benefit of doubt to accused—mere heinous or gruesome nature of crime shall not detract the Court of law in any manner from the due course to judge and make the appraisal of evidence in a laid down manner and to extend the benefit of reasonable doubt to an accused person being indefeasible and inalienable right of an accused. Jahangir Khan & others v. Safia Tanveer & others 2022 SCR 1541 (F)
  48. —Duty of Judge in criminal administration of justice—not to be influenced from mere heinousness of offence—Being influenced from the nature of the crime and other extraneous consideration might lead the judges to a patently wrong consideration and in that even, the decision would be casualty and justice will loose its flavor.  Jahangir Khan & others v. Safia Tanveer & others 2022 SCR 1541 (G)
  49. — fugitive from law — the legal system honours or extends compassion to those people who respect law and abide by the same. Muhammad Pervaiz & others v. State & others 2023 SCR 563 (A)
  50. — the Courts are not supposed to decide the cases on the desire of any party or on the sympathetic grounds rather the Courts have to decide the cases in accordance with law. Habib-ur-Rehman Chughtai v. Kabir Hussain & others 2023 SCR 87 (A)
  51. — criminal trial — burden of proof — benefit of doubt — the burden lies on the prosecution to prove its case through cogent evidence by excluding all doubts — the accused is always extended with the benefit of ‘reasonable’ and not of ‘imaginary’ doubt — what constitutes reasonable doubt is a basic question of flaw, essentially a question for human judgment by a prudent person to be found in each case, taking in account fully all the facts & circumstances appearing on the entire record. Muhammad Asif  versus State & another 2023 SCR 1172 (I) 2009 SCR 390, 2016 SCR 373, 2014 SCR 983 & 2017 Pcrlj. 789 ref.
  52. — criminal trial — whenever any reasonable doubt arises in the prosecution case, the benefit thereof, would be extended to the accused as a matter of right — whenever any person is accused of serious charges, all kinds of hate and disgust are naturally attached to the accused, but the Courts must abide by the principles of criminal jurisprudence and crucial expect of audience by keeping the emotions and sentiments aside — the evidence in a criminal case must be scrutinize with due caution and care so that no possibility of doubt is left behind — but in a case where the prosecution story itself is full of visible doubts and loop-holes, then it would be against the principle of criminal jurisprudence and natural justice. Muhammad Saeed versus The State & 12 others 2023 SCR 1006 (J)
  53. — criminal trial — guilt of the accused in order to justify conviction, must be proved beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt — when there exists contradiction in a criminal case, this story must be broken down into elements, and each criminal element must be proved beyond reasonable doubt — the burden of proof always lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused which is a settled principle of law and requires no debate. Muhammad Saeed versus The State & 12 others 2023 SCR 1006 (K)
  54. — extra judicial confession — admissibility of — the principle of innocent until proven quality is the corner stone of criminal justice — mere admission of an accused in police custody cannot be made basis for conviction in pursuit of fair and impartial trial — it is incumbent upon the Courts to uphold the sanctity of evidence and refrain from relying in the statement extracted under questionable circumstances — Muhammad Saeed versus The State & 12 others 2023 SCR 1006 (E)
  55. — it is settled that unlike civil case, in criminal case, the strict proof is required for conviction of an accused. Mst. Haleema Bibi versus Muhammad Nadim & others 2023 SCR 751 (B)
  56. — the guilt of an accused in order to justify conviction, must be proved beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt — when contradictions are found in a criminal case, the story must be broken down into elements, more precisely, criminal elements, and each element must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, by the prosecution in order to form an unbroken chain which connects the accused with the guilt. Afzan Ahmed versus The State & 06 others 2023 SCR 1085 (I)
  57. — writ maintainability of — application — u/s 22-A Cr.PC, for registration of FIR — dismissal of — recourse of — remedies for aggrieved by an offence — when an offence is committed, the initial recourse available is to promptly lodge an FIR — if FIR is not registered, the complainant then escalate the matter to the higher police authorities or immediately file a private complainant — when complainant has got these alternate avenues, filing of writ petition is generally not permissible — additionally, the complainant is also provided with the recourse of section 22-A Cr.PC — in the case in hand the application u/s 22-A, Cr.PC, dismissed, leaving the appellant with the only remaining option of writ petition to challenge the order of Justice of Peace — High Court dismissed writ — held: after dismissal of application u/s 22-A, Cr.PC, the sole recourse was indeed to file the writ petition. Appeal accepted and direction issued for filing of FIR against respondent No.3. Regional Manager Utility Stores Coproration versus Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace MZD & 03 others 2023 SCR 661 (A)
  58. — section 22-A, Cr.PC — remedy against rejection of application. See Regional Manager Utility Stores Coproration versus Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace MZD & 03 others 2023 SCR 661(A)
  59. — audi-alteram-partem — principle of — in criminal cases, the formal requirement to include a necessary party may not always be mandated, however, the principle of natural justice, which are fundamental to a fair and just legal system, often necessitate affording individual, an opportunity to defend himself — the justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done — when an act is attributed to a person, he must be provided chance to present his version — it is an inherent part of the principle that no one should be condemned unheard — Faheem Afsar versus Muhammad Khursheed & another 2023 SCR 1063 (C)
  60. — criminal trial — burden of proof — the burden lies on the prosecution to prove its case through cogent evidence by exclusion of all doubts — the accused is always extended the benefit of ‘reasonable’ and not of ‘imaginary’ doubt — what constitutes a reasonable doubt is a basic question of law; essentially a question for human judgment by a prudent person to be found in each case, taking into account fully all the facts and circumstances appearing on the entire record. Muhammad Saeed versus The State & 12 others 2023 SCR 1006 (I) 2009 SCR 390, 2016 SCR 373 & 2014 SCR 983 ref.
error: Content is protected !!