FEDERAL SHARIAT COURT Report/Final...• Compiled several books on Tafseer, Hadith, Islamic Ideology...

FEDERAL SHARIAT COURT

ANNUAL REPORTFOR THE YEAR - 2009

Phone: (051) 9203091, 9222525Phone: (051) 9203448

Website:- (federalshariatcourt.gov.pk)Email: ([email protected])

Mr. Justice Agha Rafi q Ahmed KhanChief Justice

Federal Shariat Court of Pakistan

Hon

’ble

Pre

side

nt o

f Isl

amic

Rep

ublic

of P

akis

tan,

adm

inis

terin

g oa

th o

f offi

ce to

Mr.J

ustic

e Agh

a R

afi q

Ahm

ed K

han,

as

Chi

ef Ju

stic

e of

the

Fede

ral S

haria

t Cou

rt.

Federal Shariat Court of Pakistan Page No. II

Mr. Justice Agha Rafi q Ahmed Khan was born on 23rd August, 1949 in Garhi Yasin, District Shikarpur in Royal Ba-rakzai Pathan family. He is son of Late Agha Mohammad Anwer Khan, prominent fi gure of the said area. He got early education from D.C. High School Garhi Yasin and Gradua-tion from C&S Government College, Shikarpur. He got LL.B Degree from University of Sindh in the year 1971.

Justice Agha was enrolled as Member of Sindh Bar Council in 1972. He joined Sindh Judicial Services as Civil Judge and First Class Magistrate in 1973 through Competitive Examination of Public Ser-vice Commission. He was promoted as Senior Civil Judge & Assistant Sessions Judge in 1978 and as Additional District & Sessions Judge in 1983. He was appointed as Additional Secretary, Sindh Assembly in 1985 and promoted as Secretary, Sindh Assembly in 1985. He attended Shariah Training Course in International Islamic University in Islamabad in 1984. He was appointed as Director Legal Services and Director Administration in PIA on deputation in 1989. He was promoted as District & Sessions Judge in May, 1990 and was appointed as Additional Secretary (Regulations) in Services and General Administration Department, Government of Sindh. He was appointed as Judge Sindh Labour Court No.1 Karachi in 1991. He was posted as Law Secretary Sindh in 1994-95. He was appointed Additional Judge Sindh High Court in 1995, and confi rmed as Judge of Sindh High Court in 1996. He was appointed as Federal Secretary, Law and Justice Division, Government of Pakistan in 2008 and appointed as Permanent Judge of Sindh High Court on 14.12.2008 alongwith original seniority from 1995. He was elevated as Chief Justice, Federal Shariat Court of Pakistan on 05.06.2009.

Mr. Justice Agha Rafi q Ahmed Khan participated in Training Course on Judicial Ethics organized by Royal Institute of Public Administration (RIPA), London in June, 2009.

Ex-offi cio: Member, National Judicial (Policy Making) Committee, Member, Law & Justice Commission of Pakistan, Member, Advisory Board of the Al-Mizan Foundation, Member, Administration Committee of Al-Mizan Foundation, Member, Board of Gov-ernors, Board of Trustees, Council of Trustees and Selection Board of the International Islamic University, Islamabad.

Examination of Public Ser-

MR. JUSTICE AGHA RAFIQ AHMED KHAN, CHIEF JUSTICEFEDERAL SHARIAT COURT

Born on August 23, 1949

Federal Shariat Court of Pakistan Page No. III

ACADEMIC QUALIFICATION• B.A Ist class Ist Position in the University (with distinction).

Awarded gold Medal and Merit scholarship.• B.Sc. (War Studies).• B.T.• Diploma Course in German Language.• M.A. (Islamiyat) Ist class (with distinction).• M.A. (Arabic) Ist class (with distinction).• M.A. (English) Ist position (with distinction).• Ph.D. (Islamic Law and jurisprudence).EXPERIENCE • Lecturer Islamiyat at Post-Graduate Level, University of Peshawar (about six

years):• Deputy Director of Education/Director of Motivation, PAF (about twenty years)• Juris-consult, Federal Shariat Court for about eight years.• Judge/Senior Puisne Judge, Federal Shariat Court of Pakistan. (for the last about

twenty one years):• Attended and read papers in many National Conferences, Seminars and delivered

countless Lectures on Islam.• Compiled several books on Tafseer, Hadith, Islamic Ideology and Islamic History.• Translated the Holy Quran (in the English) (being revised for printing). • He has relinquished the charge as Judge F.S.C. on 02.10.2009.MEMBER* Board of Governors, (IIU), Islamabad.* Council Dawah Academy, (IIU), Islamabad (several terms)* Council Islamic Research Institute,Islamabad (several terms)* Council Shariah Academy, (IIU), Islamabad (several terms).* Academic Programme Committee for Dawah Academy. IIU, Islamabad;* Advisory Board, World Jurists Council; * Former Member, Syndicate, Agriculture University, Faisalabad.* Former Member, Syndicate, Quaid-e- Azam University, Islamabad. * Former Member Executive Council, Allama Iqbal Open University (AIOU), Islam-

abad.* Former Chairman, Executive Committee, AIOU. * Former Member, Executive Council, AIOU, Islamabad (several times)* Former Member Board of Studies, Department Islamiyat, Peshawar* Former Member, Academic Council, AIOU Islamabad.

MR.JUSTICE ALLAMA DR. FIDA MUHAMMAD KHAN,SENIOR PUISNE JUDGE

Born on October 21, 1938

of Peshawar (about six

Federal Shariat Court of Pakistan Page No. IV

MR.JUSTICE SALAHUDDIN MIRZA, JUDGE

ACADEMIC QUALIFICATION• Matriculation in 1950 from Sindh University (B.V.S.

Parsi High School, Karachi). • Intermediate and B.A. from Sindh Muslim College

Karachi in 1954.• L.L.B from Sindh Muslim Law College in 1958. • Appeared in the P.C.S. (Judicial Branch) examination

of the West Pakistan Public Service Commission in 1959 and qualifi ed the same, standing fi rst in English language.

EXPERIENCE • On appointment, his services were placed at the disposal of Lahore Bench of West

Pakistan High Court. • First posting at Multan in 1960. Further postings in Lahore, Pakpattan and again in

Lahore and Dera Ghazi Khan. • On the break-up of one Unit in 1970, the all West Pakistan Services were bifurcated

on the basis of domicile and, since his domicile was of Karachi, he was repatriated to Sindh and posted in Thatta as Civil Judge and FCM.

• Promoted as Additional District & Sessions Judge and posted in Karachi from 1972 to 1974 and at Larkana from 1975 to 1976.

• Served as Judge of the Labour Court Sukkur(1977-79) and Judge of Labour Court at Karachi (1979 to 1981).

• Promoted as District and Sessions Judge in 1980. • Served in the Law Division, Ministry of Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islam-

abad, as Deputy Solicitor/Joint Secretary from February 1981 to March, 1985. • On completion of deputation in the Law Division, he was posted at Karachi as

Chairman Appellate Tribunal (Local Councils) where he served from April, 1985, to April, 1988.

• Served as the Registrar of the Sindh High Court from April 1988 to September, 1988. Elevated as Judge of Sindh High Court in 1988.

• Retired as Judge of the Sindh High Court in September, 1995 and appointed as Provincial Ombudsman, Sindh, and served until September, 1999.

• Appointed as Judge of the Federal Shariat Court of Pakistan, Islamabad, on 8.1.2007.

Born on September 23, 1933

l of Lahore Bench of West

Federal Shariat Court of Pakistan Page No. V

MR.JUSTICE MUHAMMAD ZAFAR YASIN, JUDGE

Born on April 2, 1942

ACADEMIC QUALIFICATION• Matriculation from Board of Intermediate & Secondary

Education Lahore D.B.High School, Karor Lal Isan District Muzaffargarh in 1957.

• F.A. Government College, Muzaffargarh in the year 1959.

• B.A. Emerson College, Multan: Punjab University, Lahore.

• LL.B. In the year 1964.• LL.M. University of London in the year 1970. (Master

of Laws)

EXPERIENCE • After six months apprenticeship enrolled as Pleader of the West Pakistan High

Court on 9.10.1965.• Enrolled as Advocate High Court on 29.4.1971.• Enrolled as Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan on 27.11.1976.• Elected as President High Court Bar Association, Multan for the Session 1984.85.• Part time law Lecture, Gillani Law College, Multan, Session 1971-72.• Part time Law Lecturer, H.I.Law College, Lahore 1972to 1974.• Part time Law Lecturer, University Law College, Lahore 1975 to 1981.• Part time Law Lecturer University Gillani Law College, Multan, 1982-1985.• Started Legal Practice at District Courts Multan in 1965. • Shifted from Multan to Lahore for High Court Practice after having obtained Masters

Degree in Law in the year 1971 and joined the Chambers of Mr. A.S. Salam (as he then was) Advocate, Supreme Court at Bajaj Mansion, 42-The Mall, Lahore, had honour to work in his Chambers with him till his elevation and thereafter has been practicing at Lahore in the Lahore High Court and Supreme Court of Pakistan.

• Shifted back to Multan in the year 1981 after the creation of permanent Bench of Lahore High Court at Multan. Till elevation continued legal practice at Multan before Lahore High Court and Supreme Court of Pakistan.

• Elevated as Judge, Lahore High Court vide Notifi cation dated 18.5.1998 and took oath on 21.5.1998 and on superannuation retired on 01.04.2004.

• Elevated as Judge Federal Shariat Court on 04.01.2007.

Federal Shariat Court of Pakistan Page No. VI

MR.JUSTICE SYED AFZAL HAIDER, JUDGE

Born on August 19, 1931 Received early education in Pakpattan-Joined Forman Christian College Lahore in 1946-Graduation from Government College Lahore in 1953-Graduation in law from Punjab University Law College Lahore in 1955-Started legal practice in January 1956 and also started teaching law in 1962-Professor Law in Punjab University Law College Lahore, Quaid-e-Azam Law College Lahore, Punjab Law College Lahore, Pakistan Navy War College Lahore, Pakistan College for Law Lahore, National Institute of Public Administration Lahore, Civil Services Academy Lahore & Federal Judicial Academy Islamabad.

Elected as Secretary 1960-61 and then President Lahore High Court Bar Association 1983-84, Co-Chairperson All Lawyer’s Action Committee 1983-86, Member Pakistan Bar Council 1984-95, Vice Chairman Pakistan Bar Council 1988-90, Chairman Pakistan Bar Council Executive Committee 1990-91.

Member: Law & Justice Commission of Pakistan(2001-04); National Mudarba Board 1995-98; Evacuee Trust Property Board, Government of Pakistan 2004-07, Council of Islamic Ideology 1989-2003 and sitting Member since October 2007-Minister Law and Parliamentary Affairs Government of the Punjab 1996-97-Federal Minister for Law, Justice and Parliamen-tary Affairs Government of Pakistan 2007-08, appointed as Judge Federal Shariat Court of Pakistan on 26th March, 2008, with 52 years of Law Practice in the Superior Courts of Pakistan and 46 years of law teaching experience.

Author of Books: Prem Piala; Zikr-e-Hussain; Willayat-e-Faqih (English and Urdu); Syed Moin-ud-Chishty; Hussain Ibn Ali; Baba Nanak; Zikr-e-Farid; Wajood Zaat aur Sifaat; Zikr-e Sakhian; Farid-Nanak-Bullah-Waris; Zindagi Nama Baba Farid, Zikr-e-Fatima; Baba Farid International Conference, Bhutto Trial in two volumes (English); Shariat Bill; Islami Nazriati Council; Rehmatalil Alemeen; F.I.R; Zikr-e-Darvish; Sukhmani Sahib; Supreme Judi-cial Council; Final Report under Article 230 of Constitution; Report on Prison Discipline and The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan; contributed articles in National Dailies.

Received Awards as Professor of the year in 1998, 1999, 2001 at Quaid-e-Azam law College, Lahore and also as King Scout in the Jambooree held in Sahiwal (1946), Bhai Vir Singh Award New Delhi (1992), Ambassador of Peace Award in 2001 by the International Federation for World Peace, New York, USA.

Attended (i) World Media Conference in the New Millennium 15-17 January 2001 To-kyo, Japan.(ii) International Conference on Interfaith Harmony, New York, U.S.A June, 2001.(iii) Loi Jirga, Kabul, Afghanistan as Member of the Presidium. (iv) War and Peace Confer-ence, Tehran, Iran- August 1988. (v) Sikh Cultural Heritage, Singapore. Delivered 23 lectures on Inter Faith Harmony in USA, Canada and India (2008).

Action Committee 1983-86, an Bar Council 1988-90,

Federal Shariat Court of Pakistan Page No. VII

MR.JUSTICE MUHAMMAD AFZAL SOOMRO, JUDGE

Born on January 8, 1951 ACADEMIC QUALIFICATION• Matriculation in 1967 from Government Pilot Higher

Secondary School Larkana. • Graduated in Science from Degree College Larkana in

1971.• Msc (Mathematics) in 1973 from University of Sindh,

Jamshoro. Being student of Mathematics he was elected as President of the Department of Mathematics.

• M.A (Political Science) in 1975 from University of Sindh, Jamshoro.

• LL.B. from Govt. Sindh Law College, Hyderabad.

EXPERIENCE • Joined Sindh Bar Council & Enrolled as an Advocate of the Lower Court on 10- 04-

1976.• Advocate of the High Court of Sindh on 09-04-1979. • Enrolled as an Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan on 30-01-1999 and was

enlisted as life member.• Remained Joint Secretary High Court Bar Association Sukkur for the years 1981-82

and 1982-83.• Elected as Honorary Secretary General, High Court Bar Association Larkana for

the year 1995-96 and 1996-97.• Elected President High Court Bar Association Larkana for the year 1998-99.• Elevated to the Bench as Judge of the High Court of Sindh on 10th October, 1999.• Appointed as Chief Justice of the High Court of Sindh and took Oath of the Offi ce

on 3rd November, 2007.• Appointed as Judge of the Federal Shariat Court on 15th May,2008.

Federal Shariat Court of Pakistan Page No. VIII

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

Federal Shariat CourtAnnual Report 2009

1. Foreword by the Chief Justice ---------------------------- IX

2. Introduction --------------------------------------------------- 1

3. Court Automation -------------------------------------------- 4

4. Composition --------------------------------------------------- 7

3. Organisational Chart of the Court ----------------------- 8

4. Ceremonies, Meetings and Group Photos --------------- 9

5. Statistical Tables and Court Budget ---------------------- 14

6. Selected Cases decided by Federal Shariat Court

in the year 2009 ----------------------------------------------- 21

8. Press Clippings ----------------------------------------------- 52

Federal Shariat Court of Pakistan Page No. IX

FOREWORD(In the name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, and the Most Merciful)

Justice is the common concern of all human beings. The Holy Quran and Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) stress the importance of ‘Adl in various contexts on different occasions, indicating its deep signifi cance. Therefore, this is responsibility of the whole Islamic Ummah collectively to administer justice in a smooth and transparent manner. Islam preaches such a comprehensive and coherent judicial and legal system as may ensure peace and prosperity in the society. The concept of ‘ Adl in the Holy Quran and the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (S.A.W) demands that there should be no delay in the dispensation of justice. Therefore, policy of the Federal Shariat Court is that the delay in the disposal of cases may be averted. Islamic injunctions as well as the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan impose on judges the duty to exercise wisdom, knowledge and authority in the adminis-tration of justice through speedy disposal of cases. Efforts have been made to refl ect the working of the Federal Shariat Court, in this report in a frank and transparent manner. Important / leading judgments of this court are regularly reported in the law journals of the country. The judgments published would, obviously, be a source of knowledge particularly for judicial offi cers, profes-sional lawyers, students of Law; and, all other interested persons. Lastly, I may here add that the foremost requirements of the successful enforce-ment of Islamic law and the implementation of Islamic Judicial System should be that it is administered by those persons who believe in it, and perform their duties conscien-tiously with true Islamic spirit. I thank my learned brother judges who have worked with dedication and devotion to achieve the goals of this Court in an effective way and have kept the fl ag of justice at high mast. Let me also record a note of gratitude for the Court staff who have rendered assistance in various ways for the smooth functioning of the Court.

(Justice Agha Rafi q Ahmed Khan) Chief Justice

INTRODUCTION

Federal Shariat Court of Pakistan Page No. 1




Our world today has changed a great deal with the aid of information technology. Things that were once done manually or by hand have now become computerized operating systems, which simply require a single click of a mouse to get a task

completed. With the aid of IT we are not only able to stream line our business processes but we are also able to get constant information in ‘real time’ that is up to the minute and up to date. Keeping in view the needs of modern world Federal Shariat Court has also started au-tomation of all activities being carried out manually in 2008.In the fi rst year Procurement of Hardware Infrastructure, LAN (Local Area Network) Establishments and Automation of some of business processes of FSC including Case Flow Management System and Human Resource Management were done.

Some of the features of these Systems are as under

CASE FLOW MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Computerized Case Institution Searching case record Bench Allocation Date Fixation Checking Case Status Case proceedings Finding Judgments Proposed Cause List Report generation regarding pendency, disposal, institution, and offence wise

statistics.

In year 2009 following tasks were performed regarding Case Flow Management System

(a) Record of cases from the year 1980 to 2009 including more than 11,000 cases have been computerized at Principal seat

(b) Status of cases has been made online and now Advocates or Appellants can check their case status through website www.federalshariatcourt.gov.pk/onlinestatus.html at any time.

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM:

Computerized Information of any Employee of the Court Leave Record of the employee Seniority list of staff and offi cers

COURT AUTOMATION


In year 2009 following features were added

Promotion History of the court staff Feature of ACRs of employees have been integrated in the system

The offi cial website of FSC has been changed from shariatcourt.gov.pk to federalshariatcourt.gov.pk and following information can be downloaded.

Brief history of establishment of Federal Shariat Court. Chapter 3-A of the constitution of Pakistan (This chapter consist articles of the

constitution pertaining to the establishment of the Federal Shariat Court, appointment and qualifi cation of judges, jurisdiction etc.

Procedure Rules of the court. Profi le of former and present judges. Profi le of present and former Chief Justices. Leading Judgments of the court (Shariat Petitions and suo moto cases) A summary of reported criminal cases from 1980 up to date. Tenders Notifi cations Photo Gallery Articles Case Status

Following Business Processes were automated in year 2009.

BUDGET MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Budget Management System have been developed by the team of the programmers which provides the following features

Expenditure under any Account Head in a Fiscal Year Balance Available under any Account Head in a Fiscal Year Detail of Expenditure under any Account Head Total Expenditure and Balance available in a Fiscal Year

LIBRARY Library of the Court is under process of automation; data entry of about ten thousand books has been completed in a locally developed software “LIMS” (library information management system) acquired free of cost by the Court librarian. However, purchase of integrated library software (ILS ) complying with the international standards is in the pipeline. Presently, Online Public Access Catalogue (OPAC) is available on LAN for the users. Search facility by author, title, subject and DDC No. is provided.


DIGITAL LIBRARY

Information technology has infl uenced every sphere of life; there is booming trend in the modern world to establish digital libraries by organizing scanned as well as born digital books. Federal Shariat Court Library has taken initiative and developed a collection of digital books comprising of 9,500 titles which is growing day by day. There are 336 Encyclopedias including Encyclopedia of Islam 13 volumes, Encyclopedia of Hinduism, Encyclopedia of Social Problems, Gale Encyclopedia of Everyday Law, Encyclopedia of Law and Higher Education, Encyclopedia of World Biography, Encyclopedia of Modern World 1900 to present, World Encyclopedia of Political System and Parties, Encyclopedia of Women and Islamic Cultures, McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology 19 vols. and 91 dictionaries including Oxford Dictionary of English Language 20 vols. E-books on law, Islam, banking and fi nance, Seerat-un-Nabi (SAW) are also included. These books can be downloaded and print out of relevant / required pages can also be taken. Pakistan Library Automation Group (www.paklag.org) has provided digital library soft-ware free of cost. Federal Shariat Court library is the 1st one among the Court Libraries in Pakistan which is maintaining a digital library along with computerization of its physical collection.


FEDERAL SHARIAT COURT COMPOSITION 2009

THE CHIEF JUSTICES:

Mr.Justice Haziqul Khairi 05 06 2006 04 06 2009

Mr.Justice Agha Rafiq Ahmed Khan 05 06 2009

THE JUDGES OF THE FEDERAL SHARIAT COURT:

Mr.Justice Dr.Fida Muhammad Khan 02 10 1988 02 10 2009

Mr.Justice Salahuddin Mirza 08 01 2007

Mr.Justice Muhammad Zafar Yasin 08 01 2007

Mr.Justice Syed Afzal Haider 26 03 2008

Mr.Justice Muhammad Afzal Soomro 19 05 2008 18 05 2009

Federal Shariat Court of Pakistan Page No. 8Organ

isationalCh

artoftheCourt

Hon:Ch

iefJustice

AndHon:Ju

dges

REGIST

RAR

Additional R

egistrar (Lahore)

Assistant R

egistrar (Lahore)

Deputy R

egistrar Judicial

Deputy R

egistrar (G

eneral & Budget)

Superintendent (G

eneral & Stores )

Superintendent (G)

(Lahore)

Com

puter Program

mer

Asstt. Registrar

Shariat & Record

Asstt. Registrar

(Project/Building/ Incharge ofServices

Branch)

DD

O

Supdtt. (Adm

n.)

Deputy R

egistrar Adm

n. & IT.

Asstt. Protocol O

fficer

Superintendent (Judicial)

Assistant R

egistrar Bench R

egistry (Karachi)

Assistant R

egistrar Bench R

egistry (Q

uetta)

Superintendent Bench R

egistry (Peshaw

ar)

Assistant R

egistrar (Judicial)

Research Advisor r

Database

Administrator

Assistant Program

mer

Netw

ork. Adm

inistrator

Superintendent (Q

uetta)


ceremonies, meetings& Group photos


Hon’ble Chief Justice with the President and the Prime Minister of Islamic Republic of Pakistan,after Oath taking ceremony as Chief Justice on 5-6-2009.

Mr. Asif Ali Zardari, The President of Pakistan, greeting Mr. Justice Agha Rafi q Ahmed Khan after taking oath as Chief Justice Federal Shariat Court on 05-06-2009, Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhary Chief Justice of Pakistan and Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani the Prime Minister of Pakistan are also present.


Hon’ble Chief Justice of Pakistan Mr.Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry greetingHon’ble Mr.Justice Agha Rafi q Ahmed Khan, Chief Justice Federal Shariat Court, after oath taking ceremony.

Mr. Justice (R) Hamid Ali Mirza Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan, calls on Mr. Justice Agha Rafi q Ahmed Khan, Chief Justice Federal Shariat Court on 28-6-2009 in his offi ce, congratulating him on his appointment as Chief Justice.


Hon’ble Chief Justice Federal Shariat Court is presiding a meeting on ‘Automation of Judiciary in Pakistan’.

His Excellency Mr. Muhammad Rida Elfassi, the Ambassador of Kingdom of Morocco calls on Hon. Mr. Justice Agha Rafi q Ahmed Khan, Chief Justice Federal Shariat Court on 24-02-2010 in his offi ce at Islamabad.


The participants of Allama Iqbal Open University with Hon’ble Chief Justice of Federal Shariat Court.

A group photo of Hon’ble Judges with the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Pakistan and the Chief Justice Federal Shariat Court, at Federal Shariat Court building, Islamabad.


statistical tablesand court budget


Judicial Activity And Statistics

Consolidated Position of Cases At Principal Seat and Bench RegistriesDuring The Year 2009

CRIMINAL MATTERS

Total 2120 981 3101 1656 1445SHARIATMATTERS

107 11 118 39 79

08 04 12 12

03 06 09 09

01 01 01

118 01 119 119

Total: 237 22 259 39 220

Total: 2357 1003 3360 1695 1665


Consolidated Position for Criminal Matters at the Principal Seatand Bench Registries During the Year 2009

Total: 2120 981 3101 1656 1445

Number of CasesPrincipal Seat and Registries: Criminal Matters

187

24

131

920

394

130

11

53

438

349

249

117

156

1276

322

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Bench Registry Quetta

Bench Registry Peshawar

Bench Registry Karachi

Bench Registry Lahore

Principal Seat Islamabad

Pendency

Institution

Disposal


Category wise Consolidated Position for Criminal Matters Duringthe Year 2009

Total: 2120 981 3101 1656 1445

585

3

3

27

40

174

195

629

437

5

2

31

12

67

87

340

406

0

6

60

76

207

532

833

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Criminal Miscellaneous

Criminal Review

Criminal Suo Moto

Criminal Murder/Hadd References

Criminal P.S.L.A.

Criminal Revisions (Against Convictions)

Criminal Appeals (Against Acquittal)

Criminal Appeals (Against Conviction)

Pendency

Institution

Disposal


Consolidated Position for Shariat Matters at the Principal SeatAnd Bench Registries During The Year 2009.

107 11 118 39 79

08 04 12 12

03 06 09 09

01 01 01

118 01 119 119

Total: 237 22 259 39 220

0

0

0

0

0

39

1

0

0

6

4

11

118

0

1

3

8

107

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Remanded Shariat Matters

Bench Registry Quetta

Bench Registry Peshawar

Bench Registry Karachi

Bench Registry Lahore

Principal Seat Islamabad

Pendency

Institution

Disposal


DETAIL OF BUDGET ALLOCATION AND ACTUAL EXPENDITURE.INCURRED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008 2009

HEAD OF ACCOUNT BUDGET ALLOCATION EXPENDITUREA01 Employee Related Exp 58,104,000 79,015,719A01101 Pay of OfficerA01151 Pay of other StaffA012 1 Regular AllowanceA012 2 Other AllowancesA01271 Over time AllowanceA1273 HonorariaA01274 Medical ChargesA01277 Contigent Paid StaffA012778 Leave SalaryA03 Operating Expenses 20,162,000 20,122,630A032 Communication 2,466,000 2,464,560A03201 Postage & StampA03202 Telephone & Trunk CallsA03205 Courier and Poilet ServiceA033 Utilies 10,000 8,450A03301 Gas ChargesA03302 Water ChargesA03303 Electricity ChargesA03304 Hot & ColdWater ChargesA034 Occupency Costs 6,950,000 6,949,251A03402 Rent for Office BuildingA03403 Rent of Residence BuildingA03407 Rate of TaxesA038 Travel & Transportation 7,838,000 7,818,548A03805 Traviling AllowanceA03806 Tranpotation of GoodsA03807 P.O.L ChargesA03808 Conveyance ChargesA039 General 2,898,000 2,881,821A03901 Office StationeryA03902 Printing and PublicationA03905 News Papers Periodicals & BooksA 03906 Uniform/Liveries & ProtectiveA03907 Advertising & PublicityA03912 Delegation AbroadA03919 Payment to others for servicesA03970 OthersA06 Transfers 135 133,140A06301 Entertainment & GiftsA09 Physical Assets 1,800 1,793,489A09501 Purchase of TransportA09601 Purchase of Plant &MachineriesA09701 Purchase of Furniture & FixtureA13 Repair & Maintenance 2,207 2,198,321A13001 Repair of TransportA13101 Repair of MachineryA13201 Repair of Furniture & FixtureA13301 Repair of Office BuildingTOTAL 82,408, 000 103,263,299


DETAIL OF BUDGET ALLOCATION AND ACTUAL EXPENDITURE.INCURRED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008 2009

HEAD OF ACCOUNT BUDGET ALLOCATION EXPENDITUREA01 Employee Related Exp 58,104,000 79,015,719A01101 Pay of OfficerA01151 Pay of other StaffA012 1 Regular AllowanceA012 2 Other AllowancesA01271 Over time AllowanceA1273 HonorariaA01274 Medical ChargesA01277 Contigent Paid StaffA012778 Leave SalaryA03 Operating Expenses 20,162,000 20,122,630A032 Communication 2,466,000 2,464,560A03201 Postage & StampA03202 Telephone & Trunk CallsA03205 Courier and Poilet ServiceA033 Utilies 10,000 8,450A03301 Gas ChargesA03302 Water ChargesA03303 Electricity ChargesA03304 Hot & ColdWater ChargesA034 Occupency Costs 6,950,000 6,949,251A03402 Rent for Office BuildingA03403 Rent of Residence BuildingA03407 Rate of TaxesA038 Travel & Transportation 7,838,000 7,818,548A03805 Traviling AllowanceA03806 Tranpotation of GoodsA03807 P.O.L ChargesA03808 Conveyance ChargesA039 General 2,898,000 2,881,821A03901 Office StationeryA03902 Printing and PublicationA03905 News Papers Periodicals & BooksA 03906 Uniform/Liveries & ProtectiveA03907 Advertising & PublicityA03912 Delegation AbroadA03919 Payment to others for servicesA03970 OthersA06 Transfers 135 133,140A06301 Entertainment & GiftsA09 Physical Assets 1,800 1,793,489A09501 Purchase of TransportA09601 Purchase of Plant &MachineriesA09701 Purchase of Furniture & FixtureA13 Repair & Maintenance 2,207 2,198,321A13001 Repair of TransportA13101 Repair of MachineryA13201 Repair of Furniture & FixtureA13301 Repair of Office BuildingTOTAL 82,408, 000 103,263,299


SELECTED CASES DECIDED BYTHE FEDERAL SHARIAT COURT

IN THE YEAR 2009


SELECTED CASES DECIDED BY

FEDERAL SHARIAT COURTDURING THE YEAR, 2009

1. Shariat Petition No.7-I of 1998 Captain (Retired) Mukhtar Ahmed Shaikh Vs. Government of Pakistan (PLD 2009 FSC P-65) Decided on 06.04.2009 Present: Mr. Justice Haziqul Khairi, Chief Justice Mr. Justice Dr. Fida Muhammad Khan, Judge Mr. Justice Salahuddin Mirza, Judge Mr. Justice Muhammad Zafar Yasin, Judge Judgment by Mr. Justice Haziqul Khairi, Chief Justice. The petitioner Captain (Retd) Mukhtar Ahmed Shaikh has challenged sub-article 4 of Article 151 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 under Article 203-D (1) of the Constitu-tion of Islamic Republic of Pakistan being repugnant to the Holy Quran and Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (PUBH). The contention of the petitioner is that the impugned sub-article 4 of Article151 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 give right to a man to impeach the credit of a woman by abducing evidence which right is denied to a woman. This provision purports to give protection to a man accused of rape to impeach the character of a woman while depriving similar right to a woman. Thus these are discriminatory and against the dictates of justice and equality as ordained by the Quran and Sunnah. This tantamount to give free license to an accused to commit Qazf without producing four male witnesses in clear vio-lation of the Holy Quran. The petitioner Captain (Retd) Mukhtar Ahmed in support of his petition has placed reliance on Surah Noor and Surah Maryam without quoting them. The respondents in the petition are the State of Pakistan and its four provinces to whom notices were issued to fi le comments on the petition in response to which Government of Pakistan fi led its comments opposing the petition which were adopted verbatim by the Government of Punjab, Sindh and Baluchistan. The Government of N.W.F.P has however taken entirely different stand fully supporting the petition.

2. The Court held that Article 151 (4) of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 is discriminatory on the basis of sex and violates Article 25 (2) of the Constitution as it purports to impeach the credit of a woman, and above all it negates the concept of “gender equality” as en-shrined in the Holy Quran as under:-“He it is who created you from a single therefrom did make his mate” (7:189).

“They are raiment for you and you are raiment for them.”(2:187).


“And the women have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness.” (2:28).

“Indeed we created men out of the essence of clay (23:12), verily we create man in the best of moulds” (95:4).

3. Resultantly in exercise of the powers under clause (3) (a) of Article 203-D of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan the Court declared sub-Article (4) of Article 151of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 as repugnant to the Quran and Sunnah and accord-ingly directed the President of Pakistan to take appropriate steps for repeal of sub-Article (4) of Article 151 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order within a period of six months hereof, failing which the said provision of law shall cease to have effect whatsoever.

2. Shariat Decisions (2009 SD-40) Cr. Appeal No.302-L/2006 L/W Cr.Appeal No.303-L/2006 Muhammad Shafi que alias Chuma Vs. State.

Present: Mr. Justice Haziq-ul-Khairi, Chief Justice Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din Mirza, Judge Mr. Justice Muhammad Zafar Yasin, Judge

Mr. Justice Haziq-ul-Khairi, Chief Justice Appellants have challenged the conviction and sentence through their appeals, who were convicted under section 302-(b) P.P.C and sentenced to death also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation under section 544-A Cr.P.C to the legal heirs of the deceased, in default thereof each of them were directed to undergo S.I for six months. Further, they were convicted under section 377/34 PPC and sentenced to six years R.I with fi ne of Rs.25,000/- and in default thereof each of them were directed to undergo S.I for three months.

The brief facts of the case are that on 17.3.2006 at about 3.30 p.m. complainant’s nephew Muhammad Usman aged about 10/11 years went outside the home for playing but he did not turn up after a considerable time. The complainant Allah Bux alongwith P.Ws when reached at the land of Syed Muhammad Azim Shah they met Zulfi qar and Javed Iqbal who told them that they had seen their nephew Usman in the company of the appellants while eating berry fruits at about 4.00 p.m. They looked for him around the berry trees but could not fi nd, therefore, complainant Allah Bux lodged a complaint suspecting the appellants of abducting/committing sodomy and murdering his nephew. The prosecution case revolves around circumstantial evidence and extra judicial confession made by appellant Shafi que. According to the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Rehman Zafar, the so called extra judicial confession made by appellant Shafi que has no evidentiary value against him and more-so against the appellant Nazeer. It was alleged by him that the conduct of both the


P.Ws was unnatural as they made no attempt to apprehend appellant Shafi que and took him to police station. It was further contended that P.W Muhammad Abid Inspector/SHO had stated that P.W 3 and P.W 4 did not mention about extra judicial confession to him. Even if it is so, the extra judicial confession made by appellant Shafi que to sodomy and murder of Usman whereby he had also implicated appellant Nazeer may be overlooked, still no reasonable inference could be drawn except commission of crime by both of them on the basis of last seen evidence and unimpeachable evidence establishing recoveries of the dead body of the deceased, last worn clothes and the bicycle all at the pointation of appellants in the presence of witnesses. However, as regards commission of sodomy on the deceased there is again unimpeachable medical evidence but there was neither DNA test nor group-ing of semen / swabs to establish whether both the appellants or one of them had committed sodomy. The court giving benefi t of doubt acquitted both the appellants from the charge under section 377/34 PPC but their sentences under section 302/34 PPC were converted into imprisonment for life from death. The amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased was also maintained with benefi t of section 382-B Cr.P.C. Murder Reference was replied in negative.

3. Cr.A.No.269-I/2005 L/W Cr.Murder Ref. No.13-I/2005 Abid Mehmood Vs. The State (2009 P.Cr.L.J Page 8940)

Present: Mr. Justice Haziq-ul-Khairi, Chief Justice Mr. Justice Allama Dr. Fida Muhammad Khan, Judge Mr. Justice Salahud-ud-Din Mirza, Judge

Mr. Justice Haziq-ul-Khairi, Chief Justice Abid Mehmood was convicted and sentenced under section 377/511 PPC for fi ve years R.I and fi ne of Rs.10,000 or two months imprisonment and under section 302(b) PPC for death penalty and compensation in the sum of Rs.2 lac to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A Cr.P.C or 6 months imprisonment.

FIR dated 25.11.2004, lodged by Muhammad Safdar, father of deceased Jamshed is that his son used to receive religious education from the appellant Abid Mehmood. In the evening of 24.11.2004 the appellant called the deceased from his house and took him away. When the deceased did not return till 11.00 p.m. the complainant along with Muhammad Ali (not produced) and Feroz Khan (not produced) started his search. He met Tariq Nawaz P.W-9 and Muhammad Yaqoob (not produced) who told the complainant that they had seen the deceased in the company of the appellant while they were going towards Sawan Vali Bun at night. The complainant reached the land of one Abdul Malik in the aforesaid area where in torch light he saw the dead body of his son lying in a deserted well. They took


the dead body from the well and saw a noose around the neck and blood was oozing from mouth and nose of the dead body. Shalwar of the deceased had been partly removed and there were bruises on the body. The complainant got the case registered against the appel-lant after a few hours.

Learned counsel for the appellant Malik RabNawaz Noon contended that the im-pugned judgment suffers from surmises and conjectures and based upon misreading and non-reading of evidence as well. He drew attention fi rstly to FIR according to which the victim was called from his house by the appellant who took along with him. The complain-ant had improved his version in his testimony but there too he had stated that appellant called his son from his house and took the deceased with him. It was argued that in any case it had to be established by the prosecution that the complainant had in fact saw the deceased going with the appellant otherwise the case would not fall within the ambit of last seen evidence. It was further argued that extra judicial confession was made before the P.W-9 Tariq Nawaz who had last seen the deceased were of no social or offi cial status. Extra judicial confession has almost become a norm when the prosecution could not other-wise succeed.

The court held that the prosecution story was fabricated and it was all a cock and bull story. The complainant’s own version was that he searched for his son along with Muhammad Ali and Feroz Khan, when on the way they met the star witnesses PW-9 Tariq Nawaz and Yaqoob who had last seen the deceased in the company of the appellant. As against this, according to PW-9 he was sitting in the house of one Muhammad Iqbal when the complainant came there along with Muhammad Ali and Feroz Khan and enquired about his son. It was also signifi cant to note that on 25.11.2004 at about 4.00 or 4.15 a.m., PW-9 went to the well and found the dead body and all the Muhalla people there, but he did not remember whether there was moonlight or not or whether it was a month of Ramazan or not. He was also not sure if his friend Yaqoob was present at the well to see the dead body of the deceased boy. No private person whatsoever was made a witness of recoveries for which no explanation had been offered. The prosecution had failed to produce two material witnesses for which no plausible explanation was offered. Evidence of extra judicial con-fession and last seen evidence had been disbelieved, recovery alone could not prove guilt of accused, therefore, court had set-aside the judgment and appellant was acquitted from charge and criminal murder reference was answered in negative.

4. Cr.A.No.5-P of 2004 Umar Gul Vs. State (P.Cr.L.J Page 435 and PLJ 2009 FSC 140)

Present: Mr. Justice Haziq-ul-Khairi, Chief Justice Mr. Justice Dr. Fida Muhammad Khan


Mr. Justice Haziq-ul-Khairi, Chief Justice Appellant namely Umar Gull has assailed judgment dated 23.12.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II Kohat whereby he was convicted under section 302-(i) PPC to imprisonment for life and to pay Rs. one lac as compensation under section 544-A Cr.P.C to legal heirs of deceased in default whereof to suffer S.I for two years.

The prosecution story is that the complainant Arif Gul was present in his room and his daughter-in-law Mst. Bakhmal Bibi was in her own room, when he heard the fi re shot from her room. He rushed there and saw that his son Umar Gul had a pistol in his hand while Mst. Bakhmal Bibi without shalwar was breathing her last. In the meanwhile Mst. Zar Nisa wife of his other son also came there. Umar Gul told him that he had seen his wife and Sahib Gul accused (complainant’s grandson) in a compromising position, therefore, he killed his wife with pistol while Sahib Gul made good his escape. Learned counsel con-tended that witnesses who appeared subsequently as prosecution witnesses would be sub-jected to cross-examination in support of previous examination-in-chief but in the present case prosecution witnesses produced earlier were not in the subsequent regular proceeding for which no plausible reason was given by the prosecution and their depositions under section 512(i) Cr.P.C therefore cannot be accepted or taken into consideration because accused had no opportunity to cross-examine them. The court held that their deposition may not be totally rejected where it is favourable to an accused person and helpful in his defence. Further that complainant helplessly delayed reporting of the murder and allowed his son and grand son to become fugitive from law could not be ruled out. When both per-sons were arrested and faced trial the complainant took U-turn and came out with version different from his statement from FIR and under section 512 Cr.P.C. The plea of alibi put up by accused was on the face of it self defeating, contradictory, concocted and false, not supported by tangible evidence and liable to be rejected outrightly. There was no eye wit-ness available of murder of deceased at the hands of accused, but there is irrefutable and overwhelming circumstantial evidence available against accused establishing beyond any shadow of doubt that accused had murdered his wife and his attempt to save himself from the clutches of law had ultimately failed.

Under these circumstances the court upheld the conviction and sentence awarded to appellant Umar Gul.

5. J.Cr.A.No.72/I of 2009 Safdar Vs. the State

Present: Mr. Justice Agha Rafi q Ahmed Khan, C.J: The appellant Safdar has impugned judgment dated 03.03.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh, whereby he has been convicted under section 10 (3) Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and sentenced to undergo 10 years’ R.I and fi ne of Rs.50,000/- to pay to the victim Mst. Farzana Bibi, as compensation


under section 544-A Cr.P.C. or six months S.I. The benefi t of section 382-B, Cr.P.C was extended to him.

According to the FIR recorded with Police station Toba Tek Singh that on 21.6.2006 Noor Muhammad, complainant and his two sons namely Shah Nawaz and Rab Nawaz and his daughter Mst. Farzana were grazing goats. Complainant alongwith his son went to the ‘dera’ of Ghulam Rasool to drink water leaving his daughter Mst. Farzana Bibi alone to look after the goats. After sometime they came back and saw that the goats were grazing and Mst. Farzana Bibi was not there. During her search, they heard noise of Mst. Farzana Bibi from nearby crop of maize. They rushed towards the crop and saw that Safdar son of Muhammad Shafi was committing forcible Zina with Mst. Farzana and Tanvir Ahmed son of Bashir accused (since acquitted) was sitting near them. On seeing them they fl ed away from the spot leaving Mst. Farzana in naked condition and blood was oozing from her. Mst. Farzana told that fi rst Tanvir Ahmed then Safdar accused committed Zina with her.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant does not press the appeal but his only contention is that the appellant at the time of committing the alleged offence was aged about 19 years and it was his fi rst crime, therefore, he would be satisfi ed if the sen-tence is reduced.

The Court held that medical certifi cate Ex.PA shows that the appellant was 19 years of age at the time of commission of offence. Keeping in view his tender age and being fi rst offender, the court took a lenient view, reducing his sentence from 10 to 7 years’ R.I. However, the payment of Rs.50,000/- as compensation under section 544-A Cr.P.C. to the victim Mst. Farzana Bibi by the appellant was maintained with the benefi t of section 382-B Cr.P.C.

6. Cr.A.No.79/I of 2009 Haleemullah Vs. the State

Present: Mr. Justice Agha Rafi q Ahmed Khan, C.J: Appellant Haleemullah assailed judgment dated 02.04.2009, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I/Judge Juvenile Court Lakki Marwat has convicted him under section 365-B PPC and sentenced to 10 years’ R.I with payment of fi ne of sRs.100,000/- or to undergo S.I for one year.

The facts of the case are that complainant Rafi ullah lodged the FIR in alleging that his sister Mst. Irshad Bibi was engaged to be married to one Mir Qadir. She was sick and was being treated by private doctors but she was not cured, therefore, on 16.09.2005 at 7.50 a.m. he along with his sister proceeded for Lakki Marwat Hospital for her treatment in a taxi. On their way to hospital when they reached Gul Baz Dhukan, a red coloured motorcar


No.2310 followed them which came too close to their taxi and got it stopped. Immediately thereafter, appellant Haleemullah along with co-accused Sher Bahadur and Zarin armed with Kalashnikovs got out of the said motorcar. They aimed their weapons at the complain-ant party and then forcibly took away Mst. Irshad Bibi in their motorcar.

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that charge was framed in the case under section 10/11 and 16 of the Ordinance but the appellant was convicted under section 365-B PPC, therefore, the appeal should have been fi led in the High Court instead of the Federal Shariat Court. He further argued that the victim did not involve the appellant for com-mission of Zina and the confession made by the appellant before the Magistrate was also defective. His last contention was that the appellant could not have been awarded sentence of ten years as admittedly he was minor at the time of alleged offence and he was tried separately from the other accused persons.

The court held that Mst. Irshad Bibi victim has fully involved the present appellant in this case and stated that he was accompanying the main accused armed with Kalashnik-ove. He was sitting on the front seat of the motorcar in which the victim was forcibly taken away by the main accused Sher Bahadur and his other companions. These facts in his con-fessional statement made before the Judicial Magistrate was admitted by the appellant. The other eyewitnesses had also supported the prosecution case. The Court further held that the charge of abduction of Mst. Irshad Bibi was fully proved but the appellant was minor at the time of commission of alleged offence; therefore his sentence of imprisonment was reduced from 10 to 4 years’ R.I maintaining sentence of fi ne with the benefi t of Section 382-B Cr.P.C.

7. Cr.A.No.85/I of 2009 Qasim Vs. the State

Present: Mr. Justice Agha Rafi q Ahmed Khan, C.J: By this appeal the appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan vide judgment dated 04.06.2009 whereby he was con-victed under section 10 (3) Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and sentenced to suffer R.I for seven years and to pay fi ne of Rs.5000/- or R.I for two months with benefi t under section 382-B Cr.P.C.As per FIR, on 16.7.2005 accused Zulfi qar, Imran, Mst. Gager and Mehboob came to the house of complainant Mst. Javeda wife of Akhtar Ali and asked her to accompany her daughters as they are going for a spree to old fort, Qasim Garden, Multan. She permitted her daughters Mst. Shahnaz Bibi (13) and Mst. Gulnaz (12) to go with the accused persons as they were close relatives. At the time of Magrib prayer, only Mst. Gulnaz came and told that the accused had left her at bus stand and took away Mst. Shahnaz somewhere, and she could not fi nd them. The complainant alongwith her husband searched, on the way M.


Siddique, P.W met who told that he had witnessed Shahnaz on a car alongwith said co-accused.

The learned counsel for the appellant at the very outset requested that he would be satisfi ed if the sentence is reduced not challenging conviction of the appellant as accord-ing to him, the alleged victim had voluntarily gone with the appellant and had also sworn affi davit of her freewill and Nikah was also solemnized. He has further contended that the co-accused of the case have already been acquitted by the trial Court by giving them benefi t of doubt.

Under the circumstances, the court has reduced the sentence of appellant from sev-en years to fi ve years’ R.I with benefi t under section 382-B Cr.P.C. The sentence of fi ne of Rs.5000/- or the imprisonment indefault thereof was set aside as the same is not provided under section 10 (3) of the Ordinance. With modifi cation in the sentences, the appeal was dismissed.

8. Cr.A.No.113/I of 2009 Ghaffar Ahmed Vs.The State

Present: Mr. Justice Agha Rafi q Ahmed Khan, Chief Justice: Appellant Ghaffar Ahmed was convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi camp at Kahuta, under section 10 (2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and sentenced to undergo R.I for ten years and to pay fi ne of Rs.10,000/- or in default thereof to further undergo S.I. for one month. Benefi t of section 382-B Cr.P.C. was also extended to the appellant. Co-accused of this case namely Shabbir Ahmed was acquitted by the trial court as the charge against him was not proved.

Brief facts of the prosecution case that complainant Abdul Latif on 11.11.2002 lodged FIR at Police Station Kotli Sattian, District Rawalpindi, stating that his daughter Mst. Nazia Latif aged 21/22 years who was teacher in Marjan Public School, Narrar, was weeping in the room. They went inside the room and on their inquiry, she disclosed that in March, 2002, when she was coming from school to her house, in Jungle of Baghoo Lehrri suddenly Ghaffar Ahmed and Shabbir Ahmed emerged and caught hold of her. They took her in nearby Kassi and committed Zina-bil-Jabr with her and also threatened her to kill if she disclosed the incident to anybody. After sometime Mst. Nazia Latif became pregnant. In spite of her pregnancy she did not dis-close this fact to her parents, but went to the appellant Ghaffar Ahmed and disclosed him. On the next day i.e 19.09.2002 Ghaffar Ahmed took her to the hospital for medical assistance. She then came back to her house and on 02.11.2002 Ghaffar Ahmed took her to Islamabad Hospital where she gave birth to an illegitimate son. Ghaffar Ahmed handed over the son to one lady, and in the morning he sent Mst. Nazia Latif to her house. After hearing this story complainant got registered case against the appellant.


Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that there was inordinate delay of about eight months in lodging the FIR which had not been convincingly explained. It came on record that the alleged victim had herself gone with the appellant and had sworn affi davit of freewill on 30.10.2001 and had thereafter contracted marriage with him and the Nikah was accordingly registered. The I.O. himself verifi ed about the Nikah from Nikahnama and the witnesses of Nikah. Keeping in view the delay in the FIR, report of Finger Print Expert and valid marriage, it came to the conclusion that charge against the present appellant was not proved beyond any reasonable doubt. In the above mentioned circumstances, the benefi t of doubt was given to the appellant and he was acquitted from charge setting aside his convic-tion and sentence awarded by the trial Court.

9. J.Cr.A.No.11-K/2009 Khalid Mehmood Vs. The State

Present Mr. Justice Agha Rafi q Ahmed Khan, Chief Justice By this appeal appellant Khalid Mehmood has impugned judgment dated 26.6.2009 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge Hyderabad, whereby he was convicted under sec-tion 392 PPC and sentenced to three years R.I and to pay fi ne of Rs.10,000/- or to undergo R.I for six months in default of its payment.

The facts of the case are that complainant Ghulam Shabbir lodged FIR at Police Station Bhitai Nagar, wherein he alleged that he was a resident of House No.62/235 Katchi Abadi, Bhitai Town, Hyderabad and was plying a hired rickshaw. On 25.5.2003 three per-sons got in his rickshaw from Pathan Colony, Gharibabad Chowk and asked to take them to Rani Bagh. When the complainant reached Gora ground the said passengers told the com-plainant that one of them had to alight at Naseem Delux, therefore, he should fi rst drop him at Naseem Delux then to proceed Rani Bagh. The complainant while driving his rickshaw reached in the middle of Gora Qabrustan at 8-15 p.m., all of a sudden one of them took out a TT pistol from the fold of his trouser and got the complainant out of rickshaw, snatched the keys and directed him to keep quite. Due to fear, the complainant did not raise any cry and the said three passengers drove away his rickshaw towards National Highway. After search of his rickshaw, along with Muhammad Aslam and Sher Muhammad Lakho owners of rickshaw, he came to the Police Station and got registered FIR of the incident.

The Court held that FIR was lodged on 25.5.2003 at Bhitai Nagar Police Station Hyderabad but the complainant did not give any features of the culprits who were three in number. After investigation, this crime was disposed of in ‘A’ Class being untraceable. The present appellant was arrested in 2004 in some other crime and, thereafter he was also arrested in this case and was put for identifi cation parade before the Magistrate where the complainant identifi ed him. The appellant was arrested on 18.1.2004, but was put in identifi cation parade on


21.1.2004 after three days. Since there were no features or description given in the FIR by the complainant, therefore, it would not have been possible for him to identify the appellant after several months of the incident and three days after his arrest. There was no corrobora-tive evidence in the words of the complainant.

Keeping in view the circumstances, Court had set-aside the conviction and sentence of appellant awarded by the trial court, and was acquitted from the charge.

10. Shariat Petition No.4/I of 2007 (PLD 2008 FSC 20) Zafar and another Vs. Federation of Pakistan

Present: Mr. Justice Dr. Fida Muhammad Khan, Judge Mr. Justice Salahuddin Mirza, Judge Mr. Justice Muhammad Zafar Yasin Mr. Justice Dr. Fida Muhammad Khan, Judge. The petitioners through their learned counsel have fi led the instant petition wherein, Inter-alia, they have prayed that section 302 (b) of PPC, 1860 so far as stipulates death pen-alty, even if qualitative evidence provided for grant of death penalty as ‘Qisas’ is not avail-able, and Section 345 (2) Cr.P.C, so far it stipulates that it is mandatory for all legal heirs of the victim to agree on compromise, is repugnant to the Quran and Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H) and may, therefore, be declared as such. He has also prayed vide Misc. A. No.4/I of 2007, that the death sentence awarded to the petitioners, which are likely to be executed very shortly, be suspended during pendency of the petition. In view of urgency of the matter, the Cr. Misc. was fi xed for hearing today.

2. The Court held that this Court is vested with powers to exercise its jurisdiction un-der Articles 203-D and 203-DD of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. While exercising its powers under Article 203-D, this Court may, on its own motion or on petition by any citizen of Pakistan, examine the repugnancy or otherwise of any law or provision of law, on the touch stone of Islamic Injunctions as contained in the Holy Quran and Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H). However, it is pertinent to highlight that while exercising its jurisdiction under this provision it cannot grant any Injunction in respect of relief in personem. While exercising its powers under Article 203-DD, it is worth mention-ing that this Court can hear and decide the appeal as well as revisions only in cases which carry charge under the Hudood laws and cannot pass order or temporary injunction pertain-ing to other laws not relating to Hudood laws or conviction thereunder.

3. For the reasons stated above, Shariat Petition and the Miscellaneous Application No.4/I of 2007 for grant of stay of the execution of death sentence of the petitioners have been dismissed.


11. Shariat Petition No.38/L of 1992 (PLJ 2009 FSC 291) Muhammad Rasheed Rashid Vs. Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Present: Mr. Justice Haziqul Khairi, Chief Justice Mr. Justice Dr. Fida Muhammad Khan, Judge Mr. Justice Salahuddin Mirza, Judge Mr. Justice Muhammad Zafar Yasin, Judge

Judgment by Mr. Justice Salahuddin Mirza, Judge. According to the petitioner, Rules 16, 17, 18, 18-A and 19 of the Revised Leave Rules, 1980 (As amended upto date) issued by the Finance Department of the Federal Gov-ernment are violative of the Injunctions of the Holy Quran and Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (PBUH). These are about:-

16. Leave preparatory to retirement. 17. Encashment of refused leave preparatory to retirement. 18. Power to refuse leave preparatory to retirement etc. 18-A. Encashment of leave preparatory to retirement 19 In service death etc.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that a government servant earns 4 days’ earned leave for every month of his service per Rule-3(1) of the said Rules and there is no maxi-mum limit on the accumulation of such leave per Rule 3 (3) but Rule 16 put a maximum ceiling of 365 days to such accumulation and, as a result, any leave in excess of 365 days just goes down the drain. Moreover, if a government servant does not opt to avail all this accumulated 365 days’ earned leave at the time of his retirement, he is paid, in lieu thereof, encashment of leave salary equivalent to salary for 180 days instead of the entire 365 days and his grievance against Rule 19 is that it deprives the widow of a government servant who dies while still in service to avail encashment benefi ts of the entire ‘earned and ac-cumulated’ leave at the credit of the deceased government servant ( and is held entitled to lump-sum payment equal to leave pay upto 180 days out of the leave at his credit). Ac-cording to him the stipulations per impugned ‘Rules’ are contrary to the Injunctions of the Quran and Sunnah. In support of his contention he relies upon the Surras of the Holy Quran and the sayings of the Holy Prophet.

3. The Quranic ayaat or the sayings of the Holy Prophet, on which the petitioner has relied, do not indicate that the man is entitled to be paid for the days on which he has not rendered any service to his employer. Benefi ts of the weekly holidays and ‘earned and ca-sual leave’ are the creations of the social evolution and when a government servant is not satisfi ed with the rules and regulations governing his service, he can agitate his grievances before the various forums provided by the State for the redressal of his grievances.


4. Besides, when a man enters government service, he undertakes to abide by the terms and conditions of service and the rules and regulations governing his service which include the leave rules in force and which are subject to amendment from time to time. Ayat 1 of Surah Al-Maida and part of Ayat 34 of Surah Bani Israel are, in fact, attracted in the context where the Almighty God exhorts “Believers! Honour your bonds” and’ fulfi l the covenant, for you will be called to account regarding the covenant. This is not to say that Rules 16, 17, 18, 18-A and 19 of the Revised Leave Rules 1980 are good and are not oppressive. They may be bad, unjust or oppressive but the proper forum to assail them is not this Court as they do not violate any Injunctions of Islam and therefore they may be challenged before the competent authority, a Service Tribunal, a Civil Court or even before a High Court under its writ jurisdiction.

5. For the afore-noted reasons the Court declined to give the relief asked for in the prayer clause of the petition. Petition was dismissed.

12. Shariat Petition No.11/I of 2002 (PLD2009 FSC 33) Muhammad Saeedullah Khan Vs. Secretary, Government of N.W.F.P, Excise and Taxation Department, Peshawar and another .

Present: Mr. Justice Haziq-ul-Khairi, Chief Justice Mr. Justice Dr. Fida Muhammad Khan, Judge Mr. Justice Salahuddin Mirza, Judge

Mr. Justice Salahuddin Mirza, Judge Vide amendment brought by the North-West Frontier Province in West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958, property tax was for the fi rst time levied on the houses which were in personal use of their owners or their families, with the concession that a rebate of 50 % would be allowed in the case of such self-occupied houses – Petitioner feeling aggrieved from the said amendment had prayed that Amending Ordinance to that extent be declared repugnant to Shariat --- Grounds pleaded by the petitioner for seeking the annulment of amendment, though seemed to have some force, but same could be agitated only before a High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution, as Federal Shariat Court had very limited jurisdiction under Art.203-D (1) of the Constitution, and it was to decide the question as to whether any law or a provision of law was repugnant to the In-junctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) --- Petitioner did not want the Federal Shariat Court to decide the vires of the impugned amendment in the light of the Injunctions of Islam, but in the light of Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Report of Islamic Ideology Council which on the principle of equity and justice Federal Shariat Court could not do that while exercising jurisdiction under Art. 203 D (1) of the Constitution --- Shariat petition being not maintainable, was


dismissed.13. Cr.A.No.30-K/2006 Wahab Ali and another Vs. The State PLJ 2009 FSC Page 154

Present Mr. Justice Haziq-ul-Khairi, Chief Justice Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din Mirza, Judge

Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din Mirza Judge Appellants Wahab Ali and Bashir Ahmed have challenged impugned judgment dat-ed 31.5.2006 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge Karachi (South) whereby they have been convicted under article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Had) Order, 1979 and sentenced to life imprisonment with payment of fi ne, in the case of Wahab Ali Rs.25,000/- or S.I for two months and whereas in the case of Bashir Ahmed the amount of fi ne is Rs.50,000/- or S.I for four months.

According to prosecution, Excise Inspector Nazir Ahmed with a team of the Excise staff on 12.6.1997 during patrolling stopped two persons near Madani Masjid, Dhobi Ghat, in the presence of two witnesses Amanullah and Saif Ali who were carry-ing a shopping bag in their right hand. The two men gave their names as Muhammad Iqbal and Wahab Ali. On personal search conducted by Inspector Nazir Ahmed, an old National Identity Card and Rs.500/- were recovered from Iqbal and Wahab Ali’s search yielded copy of his NIC and Rs.300/- in cash. Both of them were formally arrested. Search of the shopping bag of Wahab Ali yielded one cloth ‘theli’ containing heroin powder and search of Iqbal (absconder) also yielded heroin powder. When weighed at the spot both the ‘theli’ weighed one K.G each. 20 grams of powder was taken from each ‘theli’ and sealed for chemical examination. Both the apprehended accused took the police party to house No.95, Street No.33, Noor Muhammad village, Joona Dhobi Ghat, Liyari, Karachi and disclosed that more heroin was stocked there and their third accomplice was present in the house. Inspector Nazir Ahmed raided the house along with staff and the two witnesses, found its door open and entered the same and found a man in a room on ground fl oor who gave his name as Bashir Ahmed (one of the appel-lants) whose personal search did not yield any incriminating article but the search of the room yielded a polythene ‘bori’ from under a ‘charpai’ containing 21cloth-‘thelies’ full of heroin powder. Bashir Ahmed was then also arrested. Each of the cloth ‘thelies’ was weighed at the spot and found to contain one K.G heroin. Thus 21K.G heroin was recovered from 21 ‘thelies’. Inspector Nazir Ahmed took out 20 grams of powder from each of the 21 ‘thelies’ and sealed them. The recovered heroin weighing in all 23 K.G and three accused were then brought to Excise Police Station Karachi where the case against the accused was registered under article 4 of the order. Both the appellants in their statement under section 342 Cr.P.C denied the prosecution story.


It was held that report of Chemical Examiner showed that the samples sent to him were found to be identical with heroin. However, the samples received by the Chemical Examiner after delay of three days for which no explanation was given which was fatal to the prosecution case. In cross-examination PW admitted that he had been the servant of the brothers of Excise Inspector who was a member of the raiding party which apprehended appellant and absconding accused. In view of this old relationship and statement of P.W showed that he deceived the court into believing that P.W was a stranger to the Excise party. His testimony could not therefore be relied upon. Keeping in view contradictions and discrepancies of evidence the appellant were acquitted from charge and appeal was allowed.

14. J.Cr.A..No.21-K/2007 Shahzad Masih Vs.State (2009-SD Page-145)

Present: Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din Mirza, Judge, Mr. Justice Muhammad Zafar Yasin, Judge,

Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din Mirza, Judge This appeal was directed against the judgment dated 8.1.2007 whereby learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (South) convicted appellant Shahzad Masih under section 10(3) of offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and sentenced to suffer fi ve years R.I and under section 11 of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 life imprisonment, fi ne of Rs.50,000/- or one month imprisonment.

The complainant Parvez Masih lodged FIR on 15.7.2006 at police station Saddar Clifton Town Karachi that his daughter Hina aged 15 years, worked as maidservant at the house of Commander Haseeb and on 12.7.2006 he received telephone call from the house of Commander that his daughter did not report for duty that day. On receiving this informa-tion he searched her in hospitals and made enquiries from the people of the Mohalla and learnt that appellant Shahzad Masih with the help of his friend Ramesh had persuaded Hina to go with him and marry him. He then reported the matter to the police.

From the perusal of impugned judgment of trial court held that judgment of trial court sentencing accused for offence under section 10(3) and 11 of Zina (Hudood Ordi-nance), 1979 would be perversed when there not an iota of evidence on record in support of charge of abduction and Zina-bil-jabr leveled against the accused. Further non-production of report of Chemical Examiner on vaginal slides of the victim would raise presumption that had the report not been produced it would have shown that it was not stained with semen and no zina was committed on victim. Recovery of girl from Edhi Centre would suggest that girl had come to Edhi Centre with accused of her free will and without any


intimation from any one and both she and accused had sought refuge in Edhi Centre.

Keeping in view the above fi nding, the court accepted appeal acquitting the appel-lant from charges.

15. Shariat Petition No.1/K of 2000 (PLJ 2009 FSC) Decided on 06.04.2009 Inayatullah & 4 others Vs Province of Sindh, Through Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of Sindh, Karachi and another.

Present: - Mr. Jusitce Haziqul Khairi, Chief Justice Mr. Justice Dr. Fida Muhammad Khan, Judge Mr. Justice Salahuddin Mirza, Judge Mr. Justice Muhammad Zafar Yasin

Mr. Justice Muhammad Zafar Yasin, Judge. Through this Shariat Petition fi led under Article 203 D of the Constitution, petition-er Inayatullah along with four others have challenged sub-sections (3) and (6) of Section 18 of the Agricultural Pesticides Ordinance, 1971 as amended by Ordinance No.XLIX of 1997, with the plea that the said sub-sections of Section 18 are repugnant to the Holy Quran and Sunnah of Holy Prophet (PBUH), thus prayed for a declaration in this respect.

2. The grievance of the petitioners is that they have neither any facility of chemical laboratories to check the quality as per standard specifi cation of the chemical formula of the pesticides, which they purchase from various registered companies, for sale as retail sellers nor they are authorized to remove the sealing applied by the manufacturer on the container, while such facility is fully available with the Government of Pakistan as well as with the provincial government. Therefore, the retail seller should not be held liable for any penalty, if sample of pesticides is taken from his possession by the Inspector under this Ordinance and it is found sub-standard or adulterated by the pesticides laboratory.

3. The petitioners have not cited/quoted any Quranic Verses or any Hadith of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) to substantiate their plea that the above noted provisions under challenge are violative of Injunctions of Islam but the petitioners have simply alleged so and have referred following Quranic verses in the foot note of the Shariat petition.

4. The Court held that a person is considered to be owner of an article from whose custody it has been recovered—If an adulterated or sub-standard pesticide is recovered from a retail seller it would be presumed that he was its owner and responsible of its being substandard or adulterated—Retailer has full right to get the pesticide checked from labo-


ratory, whether these are according to prescribed chemical formula and also unadulterated, when he had purchased from importer or formulator-Provisions of Agricultural Pesticides Ordinance, as amended in 1997 is to be read as a whole and S. 18 (3) (6) are not to be read in isolation-

Further held: To secure interest of consumer the law has been enacted and amended, while no provision of the amended law has been found to be contrary to Injunction of the Quran or Hadith-

Petition was dismissed.

16. Cr.A.No.89-I/2004 L/W Murder Ref.No.11-I/2004 Decided on 30.4.2009 Ghulam Yasin Vs. The State (PLJ 2009 FSC Page 309)

Present Mr. Justice Haziq-ul-Khairi, Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad ZafarYasin, Judge Mr. Justice Syed Afzal Haider, Judge

Mr. Justice Muhammad ZafarYasin, Judge Through this criminal appeal, the appellant Ghulam Yasin son of Ghulam Qadir has challenged his conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Bahawalpur vide judgment dated 6.4.2004 whereby he has been convicted under section 302 (b) PPC and sentenced to death with a fi ne of Rs. one lac or S.I for two years. The appellant has also been convicted under section 18 R/W section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and sentenced to four years R.I.

Facts giving rise to the present appeal briefl y stated are that complainant Abdul Sattar P.W-2 had lodged FIR wherein he alleged that on 8.9.2002 at about 12.00 noon he was going back to Kot Khalifa from Chuni Goth on his bicycle when he saw Ghulam Ya-sin grappling with his sister Mst. Salma Bibi in the cotton crop of his maternal uncle Shah Muhammad. His sister Mst. Salma Bibi deceased was raising hue and cry. The complain-ant came to the spot where, he found Ghulam Yasin accused having ‘Dranti’ sickle in his hands. On the alarm of Mst. Salma Bibi deceased Shah Muhammad, Yasin, Allah Wasaya and Muhammad Hassan who were spraying the cotton crop in the nearby fi eld also got at-tracted to the spot. Ghulam Yasin accused meanwhile gave ‘Dranti’ blows to Mst. Salma Bibi on her chest and left fl ank. The complainant and P.Ws chased him but the accused fl ed away brandishing ‘Dranti’ in his hand. Complainant further alleged that his sister Mst. Salma Bibi was seriously injured, was without ‘shalwar’ and she told the complainant and other P.Ws that she was cutting fodder when the accused came there and started caressing


with her. She further told that on her resistance he made her to fall on the ground. Accord-ing to her, the accused forcibly untied the string of her ‘shalwar’ and attempted to commit zina with her but on her resistance he caused her injuries. The complainant and the P.W took injured lady to Chuni Goth hospital where she succumbed to the injuries before any medical aid.

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt and apart from third eye witness Ghulam Hussain but none of three eye witnesses were produced before the court. Further argued that recovery of bloodstained sickle at the pointation of the accused from his residential house is also very doubtful. On the other hand DPG Punjab has argued in this case that FIR was lodged promptly by the complainant who is an eye witness of the occurrence i.e the occurrence took place at 12.00 noon while FIR was lodged at 1.15 p.m.

Court held that non-production of eye witnesses named in FIR is not fatal to the prosecution. Further the recovery of bloodstained sickle and evidence of both the ocular witnesses was fully supported and corroborated by medical evidence.

In view thereof, conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 302(b) PPC was maintained answering the murder reference in affi rmation. However, his conviction under section 18 R/W section 10 (3) was set-aside and convicted the appellant under sec-tion 354 PPC to undergo R.I for two years with fi ne of Rs.10,000/- or in default to suffer two months S.I.

17. J.Cr.A.No.35-I/2007 Maqsood Ahmed Vs. The State (2009-SD Page 290)

Mr. Muhammad Zafar Yasin, Judge The appellant Maqsood Ahmed impugned judgment dated 14.4.2006 passed by Ad-ditional Sessions Judge Deepalpur District Okara whereby he was convicted under section 10(3) of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and sentenced to four years R.I and fi ne of Rs.10,000/- or in default two months S.I with benefi t of section 382(b) Cr.P.C.

Brief facts of the case as given in the FIR are that on17.7.2004 at 1.00 p.m. the complainant along with inmates was away on account of labour, his wife Mst. Haleema and daughter Mst. Sajida Parveen (victim) who was married with Talib son of Shahbaz one month prior to the occurrence was alone in the house, as Mst. Haleema, his wife had gone in the neighbourhood, when she came back she did not fi nd Mst. Sajida Parveen. After search the complainant was informed about the missing of Sajida Parveen by his wife. The complainant during search was told by Arif son of Shahbaz and Iqbal son of Rahmat Ali


that they had seen accused Maqsood Ahmed armed with 30 bore pistol and Alamgir, taking forcibly Mst. Sajida Parveen on a motorcycle going towards Baseerpur.

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that trial court has acquitted co-ac-cused Alamgir on the same set of witnesses while appellant Maqsood Ahmed has been convicted for Zina-bil-Jabr without any further independent corroborative evidence, hence conviction of the appellant is illegal. Further argued that Mst. Sajida Parveen was admit-tedly a married lady and positive result of Chemical Examiner could not be made basis for conviction of the appellant or commission of zina. On the other hand learned DPG Punjab has argued that the prosecution has fully proved the offence of commission of zina with Sajida Parveen. The court held that prosecutrix who remained with the appellant 10/11 days of her free will without raising any hue and cry and rather enjoyed sexual intercourse with accused would fail to prove charge of Zina-bil-jabr under section 10(3) of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 against the accused. Absence of any mark of violence on body on victim would show that victim was not subjected to Zina-bil-jabr. In such case, conviction/sentence recorded by trial court against the accused under section 10(3) of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 was set aside. How-ever, he was convicted under section 10(2) of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and sentenced to two years R.I, and fi ne of Rs.10,000/- or in default three months S.I with benefi t of section 382(B) Cr.P.C.

18. Shariat Petition No.61/I 1992 linked with Shariat Petitions and Miscellaneous Applications Decided on 28th August, 2009 Dr. Muhammad Aslam Khaki and others Vs. The State and others (P L D 2010 Federal Shariat Court 1)

Present: Mr. Justice Dr. Fida Muhammad Khan, Judge Mr. Justice Salahuddin Mirza, Judge Mr. Justice Muhammad ZafarYasin, Judge Mr. Justice Syed Afzal Haider, Judge

Mr. Justice Syed Afzal Haider, Judge. The following Shariat Petitions and Miscellaneous Applications challenged legal

provisions relating to prisons and prisoners. SHARIAT PETITIONS PROVISIONS CHALLENGED

(I) Shariat Petition No.61/I of Rules 307, 314 of Chapter 13 entitled: 1992 Women Prisoners and Children Dr. M. Aslam Khaki v. Rules 935, 939 of Chapter 39 entitled: Federation of Pakistan and others Superintendent. (fi led on 19-10-1992)


Rule 1002 of Chapter 41 entitled: Deputy Superintendent. Rules1180, 1181 of Chapter 46 entitled: Lady Superintendents and Women Warders. Rules 1004 of Chapter 41 entitled: Deputy Superintendent.

(ii) Shariat Petition No.62/I of 1992 Rules 225, 242, 243, 244, 245, 248, 249 of Dr. M. Aslam Khaki v. Chapter 9 entitled: The Classifi cation and Federation of Pakistan and others Separation of Prisoners. (fi led on 1-11-1992) Rules 250, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267 of Chapter 10 entitled: Superior Class Prisoners. Rules 180, 181 Chapter 7 entitled: General Rules Relating to Prison Offi cers.

(iii) Shariat Petition No.12/I of 1999 Rule 1078 of Chapter 44 entitled: General Master Ijaz Hussain v Rules Relating to Prison Offi cers. Government of Pakistan. (fi led on 31-3-1999)

(iv) Shariat Petition No.4/I of 2004 Section 30 (2) Prisons Act, 1894 and Rules Dr. M. Aslam Khaki v. 624 (f), 633 of Chapter 25 entitled: Prisoners Federation of Pakistan and others in cells. fi led originally on 2004 and refi led on 23-12-2008. (v) S. Misc. App. No.21/I of 1995 Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Master Ijaz Hussain v. Procedure and other matters. Government of Pakistan (fi led on 9-4-1995) (vi) Sh. Misc. App. No.16/I of 1997 Rule 546 of Chapter 22 entitled: Letters and Master Ijaz Hussain v. Interviews and Rule 690 of Chapter 28 The State (fi led on 7-7-1997) entitled: Discipline And Daily Routine.

(vii) Sh. Misc. App. No.19/I of 1997 Rules relating to classifi cation of prisoners Capt.Rtd. Mukhtar Ahmad Sheikh v. into A, B & C category. Chapters 2 and 10 Federation Government of Pakistan of the Rules entitled: Classifi cation of (fi led on 23.8.1997) Prisons; Superior Class Prisoners respectively.


(viii) Sh. Misc. App.No.10/I of 1998 This application seeks amendment in Sh. (fi led on 22-7-1998) in Petition No.61/I of 1992. Rules 307 (i)and S.P.No.61/I of 1992 314 of Chapter 13 entitled: Women Prisoners Dr. M. Aslam Khaki v. and Innocent Children. Federation of Pakistan and others

(ix) Sh. Misc. App. No.11/I of 1998 This is an amended petition and impugns (fi led on 23-07-1998 in Rules 242 (b), 245 (d), (e),(f) 248 (i) (ii) of S.P.No.62/I of 1992 Chapter 9 entitled: The Classifi cation and Dr. M. Aslam Khaki v. Separation of Prisoners. Government of Pakistan and others

The above mentioned Shariat Petitions and Miscellaneous Applications were heard on more than 20 occasions spread over a period of 16 years. The following consensus is-sues were reframed for the purpose of deciding the petitions:-

(i) Whether a prisoner be allowed to perform conjugal rights in the prison?

(ii) Whether the female prisoners be allowed to remain under control and conduct of the male staff of Jail?

(iii) Whether various classes i.e. A, B, C in the Jail be allowed to prisoners on the basis of their status, position, educational and fi nancial background?

(iv) Whether remission of sentence be granted to prisoners on festival and special occa-sions?

(v) Whether fi nancial assistance and remuneration for labour of prisoners be provided to the families of prisoners?

(vi) Whether a convicted person sentenced to death whose appeal has not been disposed of for long be allowed to suffer double punishment of imprisonment?

(vii) Whether all prisoners who have not been given benefi t under section 382-B, of the Code of Criminal Procedure should by a general order be accorded benefi t thereunder?

(viii) Whether the provision of section 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be made mandatory so that sentences awarded to prisoners in two or more sections under one F.I.R. be made to run concurrently?

(ix) What facilities and conveniences be provided to the prisoners and their families?


(x) What measures be taken for rehabilitation, reformation and character building of prisoners?

During the course of arguments, the following questions were also taken into consideration:-

SUPPLEMENTARY ISSUES

(a) Whether the punishment by way of rigorous imprisonment is not opposed to Is-lamic Injunctions?

This point is not the subject-matter of any Shariat Petition.

(b) Whether uncompensated hard labour, as a consequence of imposition of the punish-ment of rigorous imprisonment by criminal courts, can be exacted from a convict without violating Ayat 29 Sura 4 of Holy Quran and the tradition “The wages of a labour should be paid immediately” quoted by Ibn Maja in the Book of Mortgage?

The Court held that uncompensated labour should be abolished and steps should be taken to devise a methodology whereby uninterrupted work is provided to the prisoners and payments for the work done is also made regularly. (For detail see segment 20 of judgment)

(c) What are the rights of an accused before and after the verdict has been recorded?

Since this judgment deals with laws relating to prison population so it is meet that the various categories of rights of an accused or a detenue or a prisoner as recog-nized by constitution, law, precedents and Deen (religion) have been enumerated at one place and in particular this judgment. (For detail see Segment 15 of judgment)

(d) Whether a system be not evolved on the basis of Islamic Insurance permissible by Islamic Injunctions, to compensate the victim in advance and then deduct the same from the wages in installments on monthly basis from the wages that will be earned by a prisoner within prison precincts?

The court proposed that monthly income against the compensated labour could be invested in the Islamic Insurance so that the prisoner gets a handsome amount at the time of his release to help him enter the mundane life-cycle with confi dence. Further, there should be a scheme wherein the government compensates the complainant or aggrieved person at the time of the verdict of the last court and then recover the same amount from the amount of money accumulated with the Insurance Company. (For detail see Segment 20 of judgment)


(e) Whether a convict can be declared as condemned prisoner the moment a trial court announces capital punishment upon him notwithstanding the fact that the sentence is subject to confi rmation by the High Court?

And he still has a statutory right of appeal against confi rmation of his conviction and sentence by the High Court;

After considering this issue from various angles in the light of Injunctions of Islam, the Court held that a convict should not be declared a condemned prisoner from the date of pronouncement of the verdict of guilty by the trial Court for the reason that unless the death sentence is confi rmed by the High Court the sentence awarded to the accused by the trial Court is not capable of execution (For detail kindly see Segment 13 of judgment)

(f) Whether the isolation imposed upon an already incarcerated condemned convict while confi ned in a death cell is at all justifi ed in the light of Islamic Injunctions? And

Issue answered as above

(g) Whether the current amount of Rs.33 allocated by the Prison Department as dietary money per person per diem is adequate to sustain a normal healthy person? Refer-ence Ayat 8 Sura 76 (Al-Dahr).

The Court felt that adequate provision has to be made by all the provincial Gov-ernments to rationalize the quantum of dietary sanction for the prison population because the Islamic Injunctions are very clear on this point. Rule 176 (iii) has been declared un-Islamic because it provides that a prisoner on transfer will get diet money of Rupees three per meal. This diet money will not by even one thin of loaf of bread. Unless otherwise deleted or suitably amended this provision will cease to be part of the code after 1-12-2009. The minimum diet amount per meal should be Rs.50/- which amount will be revisable every three years. (For detail see Segment 11 of judgment)

(h) Whether the sentences awarded to persons convicted under different counts in rela-tion to the same crime report should not be made concurrent by operation of law.

Issue not raised in any petition.

(i) Whether Prison Department should not be under administrative control of Judi-ciary?


These are three functions of prisons: CUSTODY CARE AND CORRECTIVE. The purpose of prisons is certainly custodial but the purpose of custody has to take care of prisoners and apply corrective measures. The corrective/rehabilitation aspect is not visible in the prison Discipline applicable in Pakistan. The Prison Administra-tion is itself plagued with a number of serious problems. Some details were given with regard to challenging problems and their solution. (For detail, kindly see Seg-ment 14 of Judgment)

(j) What are the main causes of Jail Riots?

The causes for the jail riots can be attributed to the factors like over crowding, un-hygienic atmosphere, meagre allocation of funds, delay in disposal of cases, short-age of staff, non-availability of modern security equipments, paucity of medical facilities, meagre dietary allowance, break-down of electricity, etc. (for detail see segment 16 of the judgment)

(k) Issue No. VI relating to Condemned Prisoners was recast to read as follows:--

“Whether the person, sentenced to death by the trial court, should continue being treated as a Condemned Prisoner immediately after the trial court has announced its verdict and before his appeals or mercy petitions are decided and thereby sub-ject him to additional hardships and strict surveillance in squalid and overcrowded cells?”

(l) In view of notices sent in the related matters, the following issues were also struck:--

(a) What are the causes of Jail riots?

(b) Are the Guiding Principles (the Permanent Values), enunciated in the Holy Quran, not covered by the scope of the term Injunctions of Islam? Can these principles be identifi ed?

(c) What are the problems associated with prison discipline and what are the possible solutions?

(d) What are the rights of accused/prisoners in our legal system?

After lengthy arguments of jurisconsults, representatives of Federal and Provincial Governments, Advocate Generals, Offi cers of the prisons and the petitioners, the Court decided the petitions on 28-08-2009 in the following terms:


Conclusion:

The following provisions of law were declared repugnant to the Injunctions of Is-lam:-

(i) Rules 329 through 364 Chapter 14 Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978 and Section 30 of the Prisons Act, 1894 to the extent indicated in Segment 13 of the Judgment.

(ii) Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The period spent by an accused in custody before and during the trial shall be deducted from the quantum of sen-tence awarded by the trial court;

(iii) Sub Rule 6, 7, 8 and 9 of Rule 583, Sub Rule 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Rule No.584 and rules 588 through 591 as they do not provide the right of appeal to the accused;

(iv) Rule 1078 of Pakistan Prisons Rules 1978 to the extent that it authorizes employ-ment of dismissed Government servants by way of special sanction of the Govern-ment and employment of previous convicts with the special sanction of the Inspec-tor General Prisons and for reasons recorded in Segment 9 of this Judgment;

(v) Rules 147 through 149 of Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978 and Section 29 of the Pris-oners Act, 1900 to the extent mentioned in Segment 1 of this Judgment;

(vi) Clauses (a), (c) and (d) of Rule84 of Pakistan Prisons Rules to the extent and for the reasons recorded in Segment 19 of this Judgment; and

(vii) Item No.5 and Rule 690 of Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978 for reasons recorded in Segment 4 of this Judgment.

The decision of this Court shall take effect from 1-12-2009 during which period the President of Pakistan in relations to the provisions contained in the Prisoners Act, 1900 and the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the Governors of the four Provinces in relation to the above mentioned impugned legal provisions of the Pakistan Prison Rules, 1978 shall take necessary steps to bring such provisions in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam as indicated in the text of this Judgment.

The Bench Registry of the Federal Shariat Court at Islamabad and all the four Provin-cial Headquarters shall strictly observe the directions contained in Rule 7, Chapter 2 as well as Chapter 3 of the Federal Shariat Court (Procedure) Rules, 1981 at the time Shariat Petitions/Shariat Miscellaneous Applications/Appeals and Revisions are fi led. It is worthwhile mention-ing that the Provincial Governments have moved to implement the order of the Court including the step to annul provisions permitting prisoners to declare them condemned prisoners immedi-ately on conviction after trial and before confi rmation of sentence by the High Court.


19. Cr.A.No.24-I/2008 Irfan Vs. The State Decided on 28.10.2009

Present: Mr. Justice Muhammad Zafar Yasin, Judge. Mr. Justice Syed Afzal Haider, Judge. Mr. Justice Syed Afzal Haider, Judge. The appellant Irfan assailed the judgment dated 4.2.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Nankana Sahib, whereby he was convicted under section 302 (b) of PPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fi ne of Rs.50,000/- as a compensation to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased or to suffer S.I for six months. He was further convicted under section 449 PPC and sentenced to 10 years R.I along with fi ne of Rs.20,000/- or S.I for three months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently with benefi t of sec-tion 382-B Cr.P.C.

2. Brief facts as narrated in the complaint are that on 24.5.2005 at about 8.00 Mst. Azra Kausar daughter of complainant was present in her house, after half an hour she heard some noises emanating from the street and saw a group of persons gathered in front of her house. On enquiry some persons told the complainant to enquire the matter from her daughter Mst. Azra Kausar herself. When the complainant entered the house she saw her daughter in naked condition, who informed her that accused Irfan armed with pistol had forcibly taken her inside the room on gunpoint and committed zina-bil-jabr after breaking the string of her shalwar. On her alarm, accused who was having a bottle containing acid with him forcibly poured into her mouth. On hearing her cries, the witnesses entered the house of complainant and on seeing them the accused fl ed away leaving Mst. Azra Kausar in naked condition. The complainant took her daughter to Dr. Islamuddin Kambuh as a private patient, who referred to Lahore in view of the gravity of the case. Complainant brought the victim to Mayo Hospital Lahore where she received emergency treatment. It was further stated that complainant lodged an information with the police and her crime report was registered as FIR No.187/2005 dated 30.5.2005 in the police station Mananwala initially under section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, 337-C, 337-J and 334/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code while section 302 PPC was added after the death of her daughter.

3. The complainant reportedly fi led various applications with police authorities for the arrest of the accused person but police did not oblige, then, complainant fi led an application under sections 22-A and 22-B Cr.P.C with the learned Sessions Judge Sheikhupura, who directed for arrest of accused person and put up the report under section 173 Cr.P.C. Irfan accused alone was arrested by the Investigation Offi cer but no action was taken against the 3 other accused nominated by the complainant. Since accused were not arrested so Mst.


Naseem Akhtar, the complainant PW-5 was constrained to fi le a private complaint.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant took a defence plea with some following points.

i) That only one person was nominated as accused in the FIR while number of accused were increased at the time of fi ling of complaint.

ii) That the incident took place on 24.5.2005 while report was lodged on 30.5.2005.

iii) The medico legal report does not show any mark of violence and there was no Chemical Examiner’s report.

iv) That according to the medico legal report it was a case of suicidal attempt. v) That no allegation of rape was leveled against the accused by the victim

before the medical offi cer. vi) That statement of victim about the cause of her death if treated as a dying

declaration, has to be accepted in toto or rejected outright. vii) There was neither any recovery of pistol nor was the bottle containing the

acid recovered from the place of occurrence.

5. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General on the other hand supported the conviction and sentence. Learned Court after thorough examination of record and arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and DPG had dismissed the appeal upholding the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court.

6. The Court further observed that provisions of section 174-A of Cr.P.C were violated brutally both at the level of 3 medical stages and at the level of local police station and Hospital Emergency Police. Therefore, the Court directed to:

i) Send a copy of this Judgment along with the enquiry reports submitted by District Police Offi cer Nankana Sahib to the Inspector General of Police, Punjab for a detailed enquiry and report within two months of the receipt of this Judgment. The report will reach this Court through the Registrar who will place the same before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Federal Shariat Court.

ii) The Inspectors General of Police of all the Provinces including Islamabad should be provided a copy each of this Judgment with a direction that each and every Station House Offi cer in their province should be offi cially ap-prised of the existence of section 174-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The teaching and training institutions, managed and controlled by Police Department throughout the country, should also be informed so as to in-clude section 174-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the syllabus if


not already done. It is hoped that instruction will be issued upto the lowest level in the police stations throughout the country that the purpose of in-corporating this special provision was that its contents shall be honoured in letter and spirit. It should be made known that violation of these mandatory provisions in future would not be countenanced at all.

2. The offi ce was also directed to send a copy of this Judgment to the:-

a) Health Secretaries of all the Provincial Government; b) The Principals of all Medical Colleges whether run privately or at State expenses; c) Professors of Forensic Medicines in all the Medical Colleges; d) Pakistan Medical and Dental Council, Islamabad with the direction that the

existence of section 174-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the ensu-ing obligations created there-under be made known at grass-root level to the member of medical fraternity.

20. Cr. A. No.14-L/2005 & Cr. A. No.45-L/2005 Muhammad Farooq and others Vs. The State Decided on 9.1.2009 (PLJ 2009 FSC 133)

Mr. Justice Syed Afzal Haider, Judge Appellant Sarfraz alias Shafoo and Muhammad Farooq impugned the judgment dated 15.12.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Bahawal Nagar Camp at Min-chinabad whereby learned judge convicted and sentenced both the appellants as under:

Sarfraz alias Shafoo Under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 for 7 years R.I with fi ne of Rs.50,000/- or to undergo 2 years’ R.I. Out of Fine if recovered, Rs.40,000/- would be paid to the complainant. How-ever, he was granted benefi t of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Muhammad Farooq Under Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 read with Section 109 PPC 2 years’ R.I with fi ne of Rs.5000/- or to undergo 3 months’ S.I.

2- Brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in the Crime Report are that on the night between 12/13.02.2004 in the area of Mauza Akaal Garh, Tehsil Minchinabad, Mu-hammad Sarfraz appellant committed Zina-bil-Jabr with Mst. Yasmeen, PW-3, daughter of Khurshid Ahmad complainant at the tubewell of Muhammad Balal while Muhammad Farooq appellant was keeping a watch. The victim, PW-3, alongwith her brother Zulfi qar, went to the Police Station on the third day of the occurrence to lay information and it was on her oral complaint Crime Report, F.I.R No.40/2004, Ex.P-D, was registered by Meh-boob Alam Assistant Sub Inspector, PW-8.


2- After the prosecution evidence, statements of both the accused under section 342 Cr.P.C were recorded. In reply to the question as to “why this case against them and why P.Ws had deposed against them”, both the appellants stated that P.Ws were closely related to the complainant and due to enmity with the accused. Allah Bakhsh son of Muhammad Ramzan appeared as D.W-1 and stated that Farooq appellant was son of his daughter and during investigation Zulfi qar brother of Mst. Yasmin victim had agreed that Allah Bakhsh would give oath/defence on Holy Quran which was accepted by the complainant party and due to this oath police declared Muhammad Farooq appellant as innocent. Muhammad Fa-rooq appellant according to witnesses was not involved in the instant case. Learned counsel for the appellant Farooq vehemently stressed that appellant had been found innocent during police investigation. It was further urged that it was impossible for the appellant to stand as guard during cold night in open fi eld and that no independent witness had supported the version either of abduction or of rape.

4- The Court held that decision of the cases on oath under article 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat does not apply in Hudood or other criminal cases yet such bar is applicable only during trial or in appellate proceedings and if a party voluntarily during investigation or in an inquiry accepts the offer of the party to settle the controversy out of court, then such fact may be looked into by Court. Further the court held that victim kept mum, FIR was registered on the 3rd day of the occurrence, and eyewitness of the abduction neither came to rescue her nor informed her parents, therefore conviction under section 10 (3) was con-verted into section 10 (2) of the Ordinance 1979 in case of appellant Muhammad Sarfraz and his sentence of imprisonment has been reduced from seven to four years RI and fi ne from rupees 50,000/- to rupees 20,000/- or SI for three months with benefi t of section 382 (b) Cr.P.C. while the appeal of Muhammad Farooq appellant was accepted setting aside his conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court.

21. Cr.A.No.125-L-2005 Bashir Ahmed and others Vs. Maqsood Ahmed and others Decided on 21-3-2009 (PLJ 2009 FSC 187)

Mr.Justice Syed Afzal Haider, Judge. This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 11.4.2005 delivered by Additional Session Judge Bahawalpur whereby the appellant namely Bashir Ahmed and Munir Ahmed were convicted under section 11 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance VIII of 1979 and sentenced to three months RI each with 10 strips each and fi ne of Rs.10,000/- each or RI for one month each.

2- The prosecution story as mentioned in the private complaint fi led by complainant Maqsood Ahmad, PW.1, is as under briefl y:-- The complainant and both accused are consanguine brothers and after death of their father a dispute arose over the land property whereafter complainant/plaintiff fi led a suit


against the accused persons/respondents who in their written statement dubbed complain-ant/plaintiff as bastard. It was further alleged that after the birth of the complainant their father entered into Nikah with the mother of complainant. It was further urged that the respondents had committed an offence u/s 7/11 of Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ord. VIII of 1979 so they be summoned and be punished accordingly.

3- In statement under section 342 Cr.P.C both the appellants denied the allegations leveled against them and stated as under:-

“The complainant had grudge with me and my co-accused over landed property so he has deposed against me and the PWs are related to him so they deposed against me. We had already instituted a suit against the complainant in the year 1990 about the property in which we wrote the parentage of Maqsood Ahmad as unknown.”

4- The accused produced two DWs. DW-1 Muhammad Shafi q and DW-2 Shah Mu-hammad who deposed the following story:

“Fazal Muhammad, Bashir & Munir accused are known to me. Fazal Muhammad were six brothers namely, Rehmatullah, Ali Muhammad, Abdullah, Din Muhammad, Fazal Din and Ismail. Abdullah was the person who engaged and made preparation for the marriage of Fazal Muhammad with Hameedan Bibi. At that time Hameedan Bibi was pregnant and the relative women advised Abdullah not to arrange for the marriage of Hameeda with Fazal Muhammad. After some time Maqsood complainant born out of the womb of Hameedan Bibi. After expiry of Iddat then Hameedan was married with Fazal Muhammad and out of this wed-lock one female baby was born, whose name is not known to me and she is since dead. After the birth of above said baby one year later Hameeda also died. Then Fazal Mu-hammad married with Hashmat Bibi and out of this wed-lock fi ve sons and three daughters born. Two sons are Bashir and Munir. Uptill now we could know regarding the paternity of Maqsood complainant. The complainant remained in Chak No.157/M for twelve years and he was looked after by his Tai, wife of Abdullah. When Maqsood became major and the people of locality taunted the wife of Abdullah then accused came to Chak No.64/ Fateh. Fazal Muhammad in his lifetime after feeling danger on the part of the complainant alien-ated his property to his sons accused Bashir & Munir 1½ years ago Fazal Muhammad died. When this property was alienated by Fazal Muhammad. This alienation was challenged in the Civil Court. The accused and their mother had not any false acquisition against the complainant.

5- The Court held that there was no proof whatsoever that deceased Fazal Muhammad entered into a marriage with the mother of Maqsood Ahmed after he was born as a result of Zina. It was very clear that imputer not only intended to harm Maqsood Ahmed but he had reason to believe that said imputation would harm his reputation and also hurt his feelings particularly when the mother of Maqsood Ahmed was the lawfully wedded wife of Fazal


Muhammad. In such a case, the slenderer did not deserve any sympathy whatsoever. The Holy Quran in very clear terms in Sura Bani Israel declares and uphold the principle of hu-man dignity. According to this Islamic Injunction, every person born in this world without reference to colour, caste, creed is clothed with dignity. It is a free gift from Allah Almighty and no human being has the authority to tear as under the cloak of honour conferred by the Lord Creator. It is a fundamental right which is not dependent on the sanction of human legislation.

5- Keeping in view the circumstances of the matter and evidence produced, the con-viction and sentence recorded by the trial judge was maintained and this criminal appeal was dismissed except setting aside sentence of 10 strips.


PRESS CLIPPINGS






The News 29th August, 2009

Prisoners allowed conjugal rights by Shariat CourtThree jail classification declared as Islamic

In a landmark decision Friday, theFederal shariat Court (FSC) askedthe jail authorities to facilitateconjugal rights of prisoners either atthe jail premises or briefly releasethe condemned prisoners.A larger bench of the FSC said that

spouses of prisoners jailed for morethan five years might spent somedays with them or the inmatescould be briefly released on surelythat they return to the jail.The court also directed that the

prisoners should be given right toappeal against the discretionarypowers of the superintendent of therespective jail.The judgment alsosaid that there should be properplace near the jail premises wherethe prisoners could meet theirrelatives.The FSC also declared provision of

A, B and C classes to prisoners asper Islamic injunctions and held

that the relaxation given underSection 382(B) of the CrPC wouldbe applicable to all the offendersalike.The FSC gave the judgment in

petitions, challenging variousprovisions in jail regulations.Justice Syed Afzal Haider, the

author of the verdict, announcedthe judgment. The court referred to350 verses of the holy Quran and 64judgments of higher court in theverdict.

Dr.Aslam Khaki, CaptainMukhtarand Master Ijaz Hussian hadchallenged various provisions of thesaid law being not in line with theIslamic injunctions.

They had raised the issues ofpivotal importance like the issue ofclassification of prisoners into A, Band C, inhuman living conditions ofcondemned prisoners, powersexercised by the jail superintendentand giving rights to the prisonersetc.

the court held that the sentencewould include the period spent bythe convict during the trial. Thejudgment said that a person wouldonly then be declared as a prisonerof death sentence only if the highcourt or the Federal ShariatCourtupholds his sentence. Thecourt also declared as un Islamicnon provision of standard livingfacilities to such prisoners.The court also directed that

salaries of the jail staff should bebrought at par with those of thePolice and ordered that prisonersshould be given Rs.100 per day forfood as against the Rs.33, which thecourt said weretoo little in view ofthe prevailing price hike.

The judgment also said thatkeeping continuous check onprisoners was against the Islamicinjunctions. The court also pointedout 32 more flaws in jail regulationsand directed for removal of thesame.


DAWNMay 7, 2009

Govt plea aginst 1991 FSC ruling rejectedBy Nasir Iqbal

Dawn

Date post:	15-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vannhi
View:	225 times
Download:	0 times

FEDERAL SHARIAT COURT Report/Final...• Compiled several books on Tafseer, Hadith, Islamic Ideology...

Documents