Civil Judge, Adpp/ddpp Preparation

Whether presumption of correctness attached to a negotiable instrument, in terms of Section 118 of the Act, is lost or rebutted if the said instrument-the cheque in present case, is in a mutilated/torn-down condition?

Admittedly, the cheque on the basis of which the suit was instituted by the respondent was torn down/mutilated but the suit was decreed as issuance of the cheque was admitted albeit as a guarantee and given to the arbitrators named in petition for leave to defend but none of them appeared as witness. The core legal issue before this Court is whether presumption of correctness attached to a negotiable instrument, in terms of Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is lost or rebutted if the said instrument-the cheque in present case, is in a mutilated/torn-down condition. Held: The mutilated condition of a negotiable instrument is not sufficient to hold that presumption of correctness is no more attached with it if the key information of an instrument such as the name of payee, date, amount, signatures etc., have not been damaged. In such circumstances, the presumption attached thereto is not lost.

Regular First Appeal-338-21
LIAQAT ALI VS
NOOR AHMAD Mr. Justice Anwaar Hussain
29-05-2024
2024 LHC 3063

Law of bail in 381-A ppc

2014 MLD 1781 Lhr
MUHAMMAD AFZAL alias JANI
versus State

S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 381 -A & 411---Theft of vehicle and receiving stolen property---bail , grant of---Case of further inquiry---Recovery on the pointation of accused---Effect---Six days, delay in lodging of FIR which had not been explained---Accused was neither named in FIR nor there was direct evidence against him---No one claimed to have seen accused while stealing alleged vehicle---Accused was involved for the first time in case through supplementary statement recorded by complainant 10 days after registration of FIR without specifying his source of information as to how he came to know about the involvement of accused---Validity---Although recovery of alleged stolen vehicle had been effected on the pointation of accused yet provisions of S. 411, P.P.C. were attracted which entailed maximum punishment of three years which did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.---Accused had been behind the bars since his arrest---Matter to the extent of accused was one of further inquiry as contemplated under S.497(2), Cr.P.C.---bail was allowed in circumstances.
2015 PCrLJ 1146 LAHORE
SADAQAT HUSSAIN SHAH
versus State

S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 381 -A & 411---Theft of motor vehicle, dishonestly receiving stolen property---bail , grant of---Further inquiry---Implication through supplementary statement of complainant---Source of information not mentioned by complainant---Effect---Accused and co-accused were alleged to have committed theft of car belonging to the complainant and said car was also allegedly recovered from possession of the accused---Accused was not nominated in the F.I.R. and no direct evidence was available against him on the file---Accused was involved in the case through supplementary statement of complainant, without mentioning any source of information---Evidentiary value of such supplementary statement would be adjudged by the Trial Court after recording of evidence---Co-accused had already been allowed post-arrest bail by Trial Court---Although recovery had been effected from possession of accused but the same fell under S. 411, P.P.C. which entailed a maximum punishment of three years, and hence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.---No useful purpose would be served by keeping accused behind bars for an indefinite period---Matter required further inquiry---Accused was admitted to post-arrest bail accordingly.
.

ایسا اقرار نامہ جو والدہ کے اپنے بچوں کے حق حضانت سے دستبرداری کی بابت ہو سراسر غیر قانونی ہے
The delivery of Mahr is one such right, the dutY of which is bestowed upon the husband for the financial support and stability of his wife. Such entitlement to dower has the origin in the HoIy Quran, and the inspiration of the same entitlement has been made part of the statutory law.

Para 352 (5) of the Muhammadan Law provides that the mother is entitled to the custody (Hizanat) of her male child until he has completed the age of seven years and of her female child until she has attained puberty. These rights cannot be denied to her as any such action would be contrary to law. Any agreement related to the custody of minor child would be violative of law and cannot be enforced by a Court of law. This Court in a reported case titled Mst. Beena v. Raja Muhammad and others [PLD 2020 SC 508], at paragraph 8, held that the agreement where mother surrendered the custody of her child or the agreement which stopped the mother to claim his custody is not lawful; it is contrary to the Islamic principles governing Hizanat and the law determining the custody of minors and thus forbidden. An agreement the object or consideration of which is against public policy is void, as stipulated in section 23 of the Contract Act.

It is imperative that the wife must be made a party to the agreements concerning her rights. A wife enjoys exclusive and absolute right over her dower and the same could not be waived via lqrarnama/ Agreement/Compromise and any such document, registered or unregistered, attempting to compromise the wife’s right to dower, especially in the context of familial dissolution, lacks legal validity. Further, any Iqrarnama/ Agreement/Compromise made by the mother waiving her statutory right of Hizanat of a minor child would be violative of law and cannot be enforced by a Court of law.

C.A.1227/2016
Mst. Haseena Bibi v. Abdul Haleem & others
P L D 2024 Supreme Court 291

📸 Look at this post on Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/VLXgdA9a88TRm2me/?mibextid=CDWPTG

Registration of First Information Report
Registration of FIR is mandatory for the police officer u/S. 154 Cr.P.C. in a cognizable offence (1993 SCMR 550). A suspect is not to be arrested straightaway upon registration of an F.I.R. or as a matter of course and, unless the situation on the grounds so warrants, the arrest is to be deferred till such time that sufficient material or evidence becomes available on the record of investigation prima facie satisfying the investigating officer regarding correctness of the allegation levelled by the complainant party against such suspect or regarding his involvement in the crime in issue. PLD 2005 LHR 470

what are the guidelines/principles provided for grant of physical remand of the accused in H.C rules and orders and landmarks judgements?
Reference to MUNIR AFTAB- Versus The STATE [2021 P Cr. L J 293] and Ghulam Sarwar case [1984 Pcrlj 2588]
Following are the guidelines for exercise of powers by the Magistrates under sections 167 and 344, Cr.P.C.

(1) During first 15 days the Magistrate may authorize the detention of the accused in judicial custody liberally but shall not authorize the detention in the custody of the police except on strong and exceptional grounds and that too for the shortest possible period;

(2) The Magistrate shall record reasons for the grant of remand;

(3) The Magistrate shall forward a copy of his order passed under section 167, Cr.P.C., to the Sessions Judge concerned;

(4) After the expiry of 15 days the Magistrate shall require the police to submit complete or incomplete challan and, in case the challan is not submitted, he shall refuse further detention of the accused and release him on bail with or without surety;

(5) After the expiry of 15 days, no remand shall be granted unless the application is moved by the police for the grant of remand/adjournment;

(6) The application moved by the prosecution/police after the expiry of 15 days of the arrest of the accused shall be treated as an application for adjournment under section 344, Cr.P.C.;

(7) Before granting remand the Magistrate shall ensure that evidence sufficient to raise suspicion that the accused has committed the offence has been collected by the police and that further evidence will be obtained after the remand is granted;

(8) The Magistrate shall not grant remand/adjournment in the absence of the accused;

(9) The Magistrate should avoid giving remand/ adjournment at his residence.

(10) The Magistrate shall give opportunity to the accused to raise objection, if any, to the grant of adjournment/remand;

(11) The Magistrate shall record objection which may be raised by an accused person and shall give reasons for the rejection of the same;

(12) The Magistrate shall examine police file before deciding the question of remand;

(13) If no investigation was conducted after the previous remand, the Magistrate shall refuse to grant further remand/adjournment;

(14) The Magistrate shall not allow remand/adjournment after two months (which is a reasonable time) of the arrest of the accused unless it is unavoidable;

(15) In case complete challan is not submitted, the Magistrate shall commence trial on the strength of incomplete challan and examine the witnesses given in the list of witnesses;

(16) If the challan is not submitted within two months, the Magistrate shall report the matter to the Sessions Judge of the district and also bring the default of the police to the notice of Superintendent of Police of the district;

(17) The Magistrate shall not grant remand mechanically for the sake of co-operation with the prosecution/police;

(18) The Magistrate shall always give reasons for grant of remand and adjournmen

Lets have knowledge of Legal Terms

Friends get ready..........
139 seats ADPP
16 DDPP
3 DPG
1 seat APG
Requsition has been sent to PPSC.

Basic Principles of Criminal Justice:
 Law is to define the offence and its punishment.
 Fair investigation is the right of both the victim and the accused.
 Charge is to be clearly stated.
 No man is to be condemned unheard.
 Law must treat all equally.
 Prosecution is to stand on its own legs.
 Benefit of doubt is to go to the accused.
 Accused has the right to engage a counsel.
 Both the prosecution and the accused are to be given full opportunity of evidence.