Public Servant Bound to do

 Police officer/ public Servant judgments

50 Verified Pakistani Authorities

Case / Citation Court آپ کے مقصد کے لیے اہم اصول

1 M. Anwar v. SHO, PLD 1972 Lah. 493 LHC پولیس افسر cognizable offence کی اطلاع درج کرنے والا public servant؛ statutory duty

2 Saeed Ahmad v. Naseer Ahmad, PLD 2000 Lah. 208 LHC SHO کی FIR registration duty؛ M. Anwar کو reaffirm کیا

3 Sana Ullah v. SHO, PLD 2003 Lah. 228 LHC FIR درج نہ کرنا پولیس کی statutory duty میں failure

4 Muhammad Yousaf v. Director General of Police, PLD 1997 Lah. 135 LHC پولیس کے statutory functions/duties

5 Tassadaq Hussain v. DPO, PLJ 2008 Lah. 883 LHC پولیس officer کی statutory duty as public servant؛ neglect of duty 

6 Tassadaq Hussain v. DPO, 2007 PCr.LJ 145 LHC وہی اصول؛ پولیس officer کو public servant کے طور پر واضح کیا گیا 

7 Mohabat Khan v. Atta Muhammad, 1985 PCr.LJ 360 LHC پولیس officer کا FIR درج کرنا statutory duty as public servant 

8 Humair Yousaf v. SHO, 2024 PCr.LJ 756 LHC پولیس officer کی absolute statutory FIR duty؛ public servant

9 Dawood Abdul Ghafoor v. Justice of Peace, 2021 PCr.LJ 1527 LHC FIR/Justice of Peace jurisdiction؛ police statutory duty 

10 Muhammad Bashir v. SHO Okara Cantt., PLD 2007 SC 539 Supreme Court SHO کو cognizable offence کی FIR refuse کرنے کا اختیار نہیں

11 Younas Abbas v. Additional Sessions Judge, PLD 2016 SC 581 Supreme Court police hierarchy، neglect/failure/excess؛ Section 22-A(6)

12 Wajid Ali Khan v. Government of Sindh, 2001 SCMR 1556 Supreme Court FIR registration/police statutory obligation

13 Muhammad Ijaz v. SHO, 1979 SCMR 490 Supreme Court FIR registration اور police remedy

14 Javid Khan v. Arshid Khan, PLD 2024 SC 73 Supreme Court public servants، including police functionaries، public service کے لیے ہیں

15 Faraz Naveed v. DPO Gujrat, 2022 SCMR 1770 Supreme Court police officer/ASI کی service status اور statutory obligations 

16 Khalid Mehmood v. DPO D.G. Khan, PLD 2026 SC 205 Supreme Court police officials کے custodial violence/abuse of authority کو grave misconduct قرار دیا 

17 FIA through DG v. Syed Hamid Ali Shah, PLJ 2023 SC 247 Supreme Court public servants کے powers trust ہیں؛ fair, honest, good-faith exercise لازم

18 Sultan Ahmed v. Registrar BHC, 2023 SCMR 1955 Supreme Court public servant/public office اور official powers کی ذمہ داری

19 Riaz Hussain v. State, 2025 SCP 420 Supreme Court police/law-enforcement personnel performing public duty؛ attack on them کے قانونی اثرات

20 Fiaz alias Mansha v. State, 2025 SCP 441 / 2026 SCLR 10 Supreme Court public servant targeted during official duty؛ rule of law/public duty 

21 Yousuf Khan v. State, 2026 MLD 334 Sindh HC پولیس party کو public servants performing duty کے طور پر deal کیا گیا 

22 Tufail Ahmed v. State, 2024 Sindh HC police party performing lawful duty as public servant 

23 Sajjad Hussain Brohi v. State, 2023 Sindh HC ASI/police party lawful duty؛ public-servant context

24 Ali Murad v. State, 2024 Sindh HC police officials performing lawful/public duty

25 Ghaffar v. State, Special Case No.52/2014 ATC Sindh police constable/public servant performing official duty

26 Cr. Misc. Application S-262/2020 Sindh HC police officer/public servant، alleged illegal detention/bribery؛ statutory FIR mechanism 

27 Crl. Misc. Application / 2023 Sindh HC (FIR duty case) Sindh HC police officer fails to register FIR → failure of statutory duty as public servant 

28 2023 Sindh HC FIR-duty authority Sindh HC Section 154 CrPC mandatory؛ police officer duty-bound as public servant 

29 2024 Sindh HC FIR-duty authority Sindh HC failure to record FIR = failure of statutory duty as public servant 

30 2025/26 Sindh HC police-official case Sindh HC police officials' conduct during official duty subject to investigation and law 

31 Ali Gohar v. Pervaiz Ahmed, PLD 2020 SC 427 Supreme Court law-enforcement officials/public duty؛ attack on police in official duty

32 Ghulam Hussain v. State, PLD 2020 SC 61 Supreme Court terrorism/public duty; law-enforcement context

33 Ahmed Shah v. State, 2003 YLR 1977 LHC police officials performing lawful duty

34 Muhammad Nawaz v. State, 2024 YLR 670 High Court police/public servant performing official duty

35 Gulzar Ali v. State, 2026 PCr.LJ 289 Sindh HC police officers in execution of duties; public confidence/writ of State 

36 Shahnaz Begum v. SHO Okara, PLD 1971 SC 677 Supreme Court police action subject to constitutional/writ jurisdiction

37 Ali Muhammad v. State, 2010 YLR 1621 High Court misuse of police authority; legal remedy against police officials

38 Khizer Hayat v. IGP Punjab, PLD 2005 Lah. 470 LHC police functions; neglect/failure/excess; Section 22-A

39 Muhammad Ali v. Additional IG, PLD 2015 SC 753 Supreme Court police authority/function under Section 22-A

40 Abid Ali alias Imran v. CPO Faisalabad, PLD 2021 Lah. 274 LHC police hierarchy and FIR-registration duty

41 Saeed Ahmad v. Naseer Ahmad, PLD 2000 Lah. 208 LHC police statutory obligation; FIR

42 Tassadaq Hussain v. Inspector/SHO, PLJ 1983 Lah. 40 LHC FIR registration is statutory obligation of SHO

43 Nazir Ahmed v. Khushi Muhammad, 1974 PCr.LJ 579 LHC/FB police bound to record FIR; failure attracts consequences

44 M. Anwar v. SHO Civil Lines, PLD 1972 Lah. 493 LHC foundational authority: police officer as public servant

45 Allah Ditta v. IG Police, 1998 Lah. 193 LHC SHO may be directed to register case; police duty

46 Mirza Muhammad Iqbal v. Government of Punjab, PLD 1999 Lah. 109 LHC FIR registration against public servant; police jurisdiction

47 Mirza Muhammad Iqbal v. State, NLR 1999 Cr. 161 LHC FIR at police station under Section 154 CrPC

48 Sheikh Naseem Ahmed, NLR 1981 Cr. 155 LHC registration of FIR by police authority

49 Muhammad Ramzan, 1979 SCMR 200 Supreme Court registration/investigation of criminal case; statutory police mechanism

50 Tassawar Ali Khan Rana v. Province of Punjab, 2025 LHC 2787 LHC “public servant” is a broader category than “civil servant” — important general authority

PERA FIR

                                PERA FORCE 

ایف آئی  آر کا طریقہ الگ ہے

لاہور ہائیکورٹ، ملتان بینچ نے ایک اہم فیصلے میں قرار دیا ہے کہ اگر شکایت پنجاب انفورسمنٹ اینڈ ریگولیٹری اتھارٹی (PERA) کے افسران یا اہلکاروں کے خلاف ہو اور مبینہ جرم Punjab Enforcement and Regulation Act, 2024 کے تحت آتا ہو، تو ایسی صورت میں ضابطۂ فوجداری (Cr.P.C.) کی دفعہ 154 کے تحت عام ایف آئی آر کے اندراج کا طریقہ اختیار نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔ ایسے معاملات میں خصوصی قانون میں فراہم کردہ طریقۂ کار پر عمل کرنا ضروری ہوگا۔

مقدمے میں درخواست گزار نے مؤقف اختیار کیا کہ اس نے پولیس اسٹیشن ممتاز آباد، ملتان میں قابلِ دست اندازی جرم کی اطلاع دی، مگر پولیس نے ایف آئی آر درج نہیں کی۔ بعد ازاں اس نے دفعہ 22-A/22-B ضابطۂ فوجداری کے تحت ایکس آفیشیو جسٹس آف پیس سے رجوع کیا، تاہم جسٹس آف پیس نے بھی ایف آئی آر درج کرنے کا حکم دینے سے انکار کر دیا، جس کے خلاف لاہور ہائیکورٹ میں آئینی درخواست دائر کی گئی۔

عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ چونکہ شکایت کا تعلق PERA کے اہلکاروں سے تھا، اس لیے یہ معاملہ Punjab Enforcement and Regulation Act, 2024 کے دائرہ کار میں آتا ہے۔ اس خصوصی قانون کے باب XI میں متعلقہ جرائم، ان کی تحقیقات اور کارروائی کا مکمل طریقہ کار موجود ہے، لہٰذا عام فوجداری قانون کی بجائے اسی قانون پر عمل کیا جائے گا۔

عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ دفعہ 16 کے تحت متاثرہ شخص 30 دن کے اندر متعلقہ Hearing Officer کے سامنے نمائندگی (Representation) دائر کر سکتا ہے۔ اسی طرح دفعہ 49 کے تحت Sub-Divisional Enforcement Officer مخصوص حالات میں خود بھی ایف آئی آر درج کر سکتا ہے، جبکہ دفعہ 53 کے تحت اختیارات کے ناجائز استعمال کی شکایت Grievance Redressal Commissioner (GRC) کے سامنے بھی پیش کی جا سکتی ہے۔

لاہور ہائیکورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ جب کسی خصوصی قانون میں شکایت کے ازالے، ایف آئی آر کے اندراج اور متعلقہ افسران کے خلاف کارروائی کا مکمل قانونی نظام موجود ہو تو ایسے معاملات میں دفعہ 154 ضابطۂ فوجداری کے تحت عام ایف آئی آر درج کرانے کا راستہ دستیاب نہیں رہتا۔ اسی بنیاد پر جسٹس آف پیس کا ایف آئی آر درج کرنے سے انکار قانون کے مطابق قرار دیا گیا۔

چنانچہ عدالت نے آئینی درخواست نمٹاتے ہوئے درخواست گزار کو ہدایت کی کہ وہ Punjab Enforcement and Regulation Act, 2024 کی دفعات 16، 49 اور 53 کے تحت دستیاب قانونی فورمز اور remedies سے رجوع کرے، کیونکہ انہی کے ذریعے اس کی شکایات کا مؤثر ازالہ ممکن ہے۔

Affidavit Cost

 Affidavit

 بیان حلفی عدالت کےلیئے استثناء 

لیگل ٹی وی ایچ ڈی

Forgery

 

*  Ansar Ali and another Vs. The State and another 

(Crl. Misc. No. 73022-B of 2025۔21.1.26),

 *Honorable Justice Tariq Saleem Sheikh

• of the Lahore High Court confirmed the pre arrest bail of real estate agents facing charges under Sections 420, 468, and 471 PPC.

¶√Here is the exact ratio laid down by His Lordship regarding criminal liability in real estate transactions:

√ ¶ On the Liability of Marginal Witnesses*

•√The Court held that signing a property agreement as a marginal witness merely certifies its execution. 

¶It does not mean the witness guarantees the vendor's title. ¶√Criminal liability cannot be fastened onto a witness or facilitator without explicit material proving their prior knowledge of the fraud or active participation in the deception.

 ******* PROOF*****

¶√On Establishing the Offense of Cheating*

The core ratio established is that dishonest or fraudulent intent (mens rea) must exist at the very inception of a transaction. 

••¶ A subsequent breach of agreement, failure to perform, or inability to refund the consideration remains a civil dispute and does not constitute the criminal offense of cheating.

¶√On Physical Presence vs. Complicity in Forgery*

The Court ruled that mere presence during the exchange of sale consideration, 

¶√even if evidenced by photographs showing the counting of cash, does not establish that the accused knew the property's title documents were forged. 

¶•√To attract forgery charges, the prosecution must directly connect the accused to the actual preparation, procurement, or knowing use of those fabricated documents.

¶√On the Grant of Pre Arrest Bail*

Consequently, the Court held that where the non bailable offense (forgery) is not prima facie attracted against the accused, their arrest serves no legitimate investigative purpose, entitling them to the *confirmation of pre arrest bail.*

BOARD of REVENUE

       

          BOARD of REVENUE

            2026 SCMR 605

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Shahid Bilal Hassan and Aamer Farooq, JJ

SENIOR MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and others ---Petitioners

Versus

ABDUL SHAKOOR (Deceased) through I.Rs. ---Respondent

C.P.L.A. No. 1718-L of 2015, decided on 24th April, 2025.

(Against the order dated 12.05.2015 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in W.P.No.4218 of 2008).

Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)---

-S. 30---Punjab Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957), S.8---Review-Maxim audi alteram partem-Judicial and executive authorities---Proprietary rights---Board of Revenue was aggrieved of review of order passed in judicial side during executive proceedings, whereby grant of proprietary rights were recalled---Validity---Board of Revenue, exercising its powers on judicial side, granted proprietary rights in land to respondents---Board of Revenue had no powers on administrative side to set at naught the judicial orders, even more so when they had attained finality---Senior Member, Board of Revenue, had no jurisdiction to pass order in question which had been challenged in Constitutional jurisdiction before High Court, for the same purports to have been passed in exercise of suo motu review jurisdiction of the urisdiction of the Board Rev Revenue---By virtue of the provisions of Section 8 of Board of Re d of Revenue Act,1957 no such power vested in the Board---If suo motu review was to be exercised by the Board for rectifying decision of a Member suffering from incorrect interpretation and application of law or non-appreciation of facts, it would lead to an unending cycle of litigation---Such order was also illegal as it had been passed in disregard of principle of natural justice that no one should be condemned unheard, as embodied in the maxim, audi alteram partem---General letter of Senior Member had set aside judicial order of Member (Judicial) through an administrative order-Supreme Court declined to interfere in order passed by High Court who appreciated law and had rightly adjudicated upon the matter and passed order in question within the four corners of law---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Basher Ahmed (Deceased) through LRs. v. Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue, Lahore and others 2022 SCMR 620; Atta Muhammad Qureshi v. The Settlement Commissioner, Lahore PLD 1971 SC 61; Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and others v. Muhammad Shafi and others 2008 SCMR 589; Riaz Hussain and others v. Board of Revenue and others 1991 SCMR 2307; Commissioner of Income Tax East Pakistan v. Fazlur Rahman PLD 1964 SC 410; Chuttan and another v. Sufaid Khan and another 1987 SCMR 503; The University of Dacca v. Zakir Ahmad PLD 1965 SC 90 and Syed Abul Ala Maudoodi v. The Government of West Pakistan PLD 1964 SC 673 rel.

Ahmad Awais Qazi, Additional Advocate General Punjab for Petitioners. M.A. Ghaffar Ul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.

Checque of security

 

 

     سیکیورٹی چیک کا قانونی مقام

⚖️ ضمانتی چیک پر دفعہ 489-F کا اطلاق نہیں ہوتا — سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان کا اہم فیصلہ (2024 SCMR 1567)

سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان نے 2024 SCMR 1567 (Muhammad Anwar v. The State) میں ایک نہایت اہم قانونی اصول واضح کیا ہے کہ محض کسی شخص کے پاس چیک کا ہونا یا چیک کا اجرا ہونا، بذاتِ خود تعزیراتِ پاکستان کی دفعہ 489-F کے تحت جرم ثابت کرنے کے لیے کافی نہیں۔

عدالتِ عظمیٰ نے قرار دیا کہ دفعہ 489-F کے اطلاق کے لیے درج ذیل بنیادی عناصر کا موجود ہونا ضروری ہے:

✅ چیک بدنیتی (Dishonest Intent) کے ساتھ جاری کیا گیا ہو۔

✅ چیک کسی قرض، واجب الادا رقم یا قانونی مالی ذمہ داری (Obligation) کی ادائیگی کے لیے دیا گیا ہو۔

✅ چیک بینک سے ڈس آنر (Dishonour) ہو گیا ہو۔

سپریم کورٹ نے مقدمہ کے ریکارڈ کا جائزہ لینے کے بعد یہ مشاہدہ کیا کہ متعلقہ چیک کسی قرض یا مالی ذمہ داری کی ادائیگی کے لیے جاری نہیں کیا گیا تھا بلکہ معاہدے کے تحت بطور ضمانت (Security/Guarantee) دیا گیا تھا۔ مزید یہ کہ شکایت کنندہ یہ ثابت کرنے میں بھی ناکام رہا کہ اس نے ملزم کو رقم ادا کی تھی یا کوئی ایسی مالی ذمہ داری موجود تھی جس کی ادائیگی کے لیے چیک جاری کیا گیا ہو۔

عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ جب چیک صرف بطور سکیورٹی یا گارنٹی دیا گیا ہو اور اس کے بدلے کوئی قابلِ ادائیگی قرض یا ذمہ داری ثابت نہ ہو تو دفعہ 489-F کے ضروری اجزاء پورے نہیں ہوتے۔ چنانچہ سپریم کورٹ نے ملزم کی قبل از گرفتاری ضمانت (Pre-Arrest Bail) منظور کرتے ہوئے اسے ریلیف فراہم کیا۔

قانونی نکتہ:

"ضمانتی (Security) چیک اور ادائیگی (Payment) کے چیک میں فرق کو ہمیشہ مدنظر رکھا جائے گا۔ صرف چیک کا ڈس آنر ہونا دفعہ 489-F کے تحت جرم قائم کرنے کے لیے کافی نہیں، بلکہ اس کا کسی واجب الادا قرض یا مالی ذمہ داری سے تعلق ثابت کرنا بھی ضروری ہے۔"

📖 حوالہ: 2024 SCMR 1567

Muhammad Anwar v. The State

سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان۔

Check Meter

 Check Meter چیک میٹر 

     https://youtu.be/OuPczSIEIpw?si=zp767zSq-3ncSTGI

Voluntary Said

  https://youtu.be/N42luhBJQiw 

                Legal Tv hd

          P L D 2024 Sindh 289

Cross-examination.

•√Voluntary statement---Scope---Voluntary statement by a witness in cross-examination has no legal evidentiary value---Witness is not permitted to foist into his answer, any statement/material which is not in answer to or explanatory of his answer to the questions put to him---Such voluntary evidence is denominated as "irresponsive" testimony and introduction of such evidence is against the rule of re-examination as contemplated under Art.133 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.

•2003 Y L R 406

Voluntary statement by a witness in cross‑examination has no legal evidentiary value‑‑‑Witness is not permitted to foist into his answer statement any material which is not in answer to or explanatory of his answer to the questions put to him‑‑‑Such voluntary evidence is denominated as "irresponsive" testimony and the introduction of such evidence shall be against the rule of re­-examination as contemplated under Art.133 of Qanun‑e‑Shahadat, 1984‑‑‑Principles.

•According to Article 133 of the Qanun‑e‑Shahadat Order, 1984, the order of examination of witnesses has been set down. The witnesses shall be first examined‑in‑chief and then if the adverse party so desires shall be cross‑examined. The re‑examination, however, is limited to the explanation of matters referred to in‑cross‑examination and if permission in this respect is granted by the Court. It would thus, be seen that the voluntary statement by a witness in cross-­examination has no legal evidentiary value. It is not permissible for a witness to foist into his answer statement any material which is not in answer to or explanatory of his answer to the questions put to him. In jurisprudence, such voluntary evidence is denominated as "irresponsive" testimony and the introduction of such evidence shall be against the rule of re‑examination as contemplated under Article 133 of the Qanun‑e‑Shahadat Order, 1984.

Strike by Lawyers

               

 

                   2023 SCMR 421

 Strikes by lawyers causing delay in of trial Breach of Fundamental rights of accused --- Accused person like any other has the inalienable right to enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law ' but if advocates strike and trials are postponed this constitutional right of the accused is negated. 
If the trial of a detained accused is delayed on account of strike (s), and subsequently , the accused is acquitted then the additional incarceration suffered by the accused would have been detrimental to his liberty. 
•••√Prestige of the legal profession should not be undermined by advocates who strike for a lesser cause than to protect and defend the Constitution in the public interest.
  •Courts are the only place where it is believed that justice is administered, and that is why people approach them to get justice and their rights. But, regrettably in Pakistan, the situation is contrary to it, for there is neither the rule of law nor is quick justice provided to the common man.
•Unfortunately, despite the backlog of millions of cases and the judiciary’s ranking at 130 out of 139 in the World Justice Project Ranking, the clashes between judges and the bar members have not reduced.
•The courts in Malir are a case in point, where the strike by bar against the conduct and administration of a district judge recently led to a halt in proceedings in all cases. Such a rift between the bench and the bar affects only the people who, despite their harsh economic conditions, take time out and wait outside the courts from 8am, hoping that it would be the day when they would get at least an inch closer to getting justice. But that does not happen often.
• 2023 SCMR 421, held that the strikes by “lawyers for their personal means consequently injures the fundamental rights i.e. right of due process of law, fair trial, liberty, right of equal protection of law guaranteed by the Constitution, of an accused, who is behind the bar, are violated”.
•Besides, it also held that the “prestige of the legal profession should not be undermined by the advocates who strike for a lesser cause than to protect and defend the Constitution in the public interest”.
•The lawyers should refrain from holding strikes, and, if they do, the authorities should take necessary steps to overcome this issue in the larger public interest.

Advocate No Sign

•وکیل کے ساتھ سائل کے دستخط https://youtu.be/JKZlVd7C6rg?si=hJyewGYa5bHZo2mK