Rules, orders and judicial interpretation
5 individually reviewed judgments connect to 7 separately preserved source editions through 9 provision-level relationships. Parallel source editions are not additional judgments.
Follow a rule to the judgment passage, compare both texts, and return to the exact reading position. These historical comparisons do not establish current force or subsequent treatment.
Judgment passage reviewed · historical comparisonRule 16(1)(d); historical Rule 16(2)
Mustafa Impex, Karachi and others v Government of Pakistan · Supreme Court of Pakistan
The Court treated Cabinet consideration of tax proposals as mandatory. Read the quoted rule and the Court's qualification of the Prime Minister's disposal power together.
Held Rules of Business compilation is amended to 11 May 2026; it is not the 2016 text quoted by the Court. This is a historical judgment linked to a separately held source edition. The exact law in force on the decision date and subsequent amendments or appellate treatment have not been comprehensively verified.
Read judgment and provision side by side
Judgment · Paragraph 44, printed pages 38–39
44.
Rule 16 is an important rule and, insofar as material, is
reproduced below:-
“16. Cases to be brought before Cabinet. – (1) The following
cases shall be brought before the Cabinet :-
(a) proposals for legislation, official or non-official, including
money bills;
(b) promulgation and revocation of Ordinances;
(c) the budgetary position and proposals before the
presentation of the Annual Budget Statement and a
Supplementary Budget Statement or an Excess budget
Statement under articles 80 and 84.
(d) Proposals for levy, abolition, remission, alteration or
regulation of any tax and floatation of loans;
(e) to (m)
(2)
Notwithstanding the provisions of sub-rule (1), the
Prime Minister may in any case give directions as to the
manner of its disposal without prior reference to the Cabinet.”
C.As.1428 to 1436 of 2016
-: 39 :-
It will be noted, and this is relevant for purposes of the present
matter, that it is mandatory to bring any proposal for the levy, abolition,
remission, alteration or regulation of any tax to the Cabinet. Whilst it is
no doubt true that the Prime Minister has been given discretionary power
in the matter it is clear that the exercise thereof is circumscribed by the
following conditions:
(i)
There must be a conscious application of mind by the Prime
Minister to the existing circumstances justifying the need for
this departure through passing of a reasoned and formal
order prior to the action taken, and
(ii)
More critically, and definitively, a determination whether the
constitutional provisions justify such a departure? This is a
matter which we will examine infra.
We note that, ex facie, this Rule has been violated by the Finance
Division in issuing the impugned notification merely on the basis of the
approval of the Secretary and the Advisor. This is a matter we will further
discuss at a later stage in this judgment, when we will also consider the
question of the constitutionality of Rule 16(2).
Open judgment source ↗Held legislation · Rule 16(1)(d); historical Rule 16(2)
Open the held provision in its reader →
16. Cases to be brought b efore the Cabinet.--(1) The following cases shall be
brought before the Cabinet:-
(a) proposals for legislation, official or non-official, including money bills;
(b) promulgation and revocation of Ordinances;
(c) the budgetary position and proposals before the presentation of an
Annual Budget Statement and a Supplementary Budget Statement or
an Excess Budget Statement under Articles 80 and 84;
(d) proposals for levy, abolition, remission, alteration or regulation of any
tax and floatation of loans;
(e) a reference to the Supreme Court for advice on a question of law under
clause (1) of Article 186;
(f) generation of electricity and laying of inter -provincial transmission
lines;
(g) omitted vide S.R.O 368(1)/2010 dated 1st June, 2010;
1(h) proposals for signing of negotiated instruments with foreign countries
and approval for ratification of the instruments:
Provided that all proposals for initiation of negotiation and for entering into any
cultural or other agreements with any foreign government shall, in the first instance, be
approved in principle by Minister-in-Charge of the Division concerned and actual
negotiations shall be initiated only after such approval:
Provided further that decisions regarding the composition of all delegations, except
those for which important briefs are required, to attend meetings of international bodies may
be taken by mutual consultation between the Minister and the Minister for Fin ance, but the
approval of the Prime Minister shall be obtained--
(i) where the delegation is sponsored by a Division under the direct
charge of the Prime Minister or a Division or Divisions under the
charge of the Minister for Finance; or
1 Substituted vide SRO 910 (1)/2017 dated 8-9-2017(F.No.4-2/2016-Min-I)
16
(ii) where a Minister is proposed to be included in the delegation:
Provided further that a decision regarding the opening of an honorary consulate
abroad may be taken by the Foreign Affairs Division in consultation with the Commerce
Division.
(i) important reports and documents required to be laid before the
Assembly or Senate;
1(j) cases involving a significant impact on political, economic and
administrative policies;
Note.- Cases of this nature shall first be brought to the notice of the
Prime Minister by the Minister -in-Charge. The Prime Minister will
decide whether any such case should be brought before the Cabinet.
(k) case which the Minister -in-Charge considers important enough for
discussion in the Cabinet;
(l) other cases required to be referred to the Cabinet under the
provisions of these rules;
(m) any case desired by the Prime Ministe r to be referred to the Cabinet;
and
2(n) appointments required to be made by the Government under any law
for the time being in force.
(2) Omitted vide S.R.O 623(I)/2021 (F.No.4-11/2019-Min-I), dated 27.5.2021.
Not comprehensively checked; no conclusion that this remains good law.
Evidence identity
Judgment text SHA-256: 76db17cab82bc675b96c63bc57f3e32f102a66e97106f86a34622f105770cecd
Judgment excerpt characters 68555–70564, end exclusive.
Legislation text SHA-256: 9891101e1417c7fa89201f5f1c43111fd0c3e43eda7238611a14d7bfe6d15ef3
Legislation characters 39022–42156, end exclusive.
Read provision → · Case and source details →
Judgment passage reviewed · historical comparisonHistorical Rule 16(2)
Mustafa Impex, Karachi and others v Government of Pakistan · Supreme Court of Pakistan
The Court expressly declared Rule 16(2), apparently enabling the Prime Minister to bypass the Cabinet, ultra vires. This is a historical invalidity finding, not a declaration against every provision numbered 16(2) in later editions.
The held compilation records Rule 16(2) as omitted by SRO 623(I)/2021 dated 27 May 2021. Compare this with the historical wording in paragraph 44; do not assume identical text or current effect. This is a historical judgment linked to a separately held source edition. The exact law in force on the decision date and subsequent amendments or appellate treatment have not been comprehensively verified.
Read judgment and provision side by side
Judgment · Paragraph 84(vi), printed page 79
(vi)
Rule 16(2) which apparently enables the Prime Minister to
bypass the Cabinet is ultra vires and is so declared.
Open judgment source ↗Held legislation · Historical Rule 16(2)
Open the held provision in its reader →
16. Cases to be brought b efore the Cabinet.--(1) The following cases shall be
brought before the Cabinet:-
(a) proposals for legislation, official or non-official, including money bills;
(b) promulgation and revocation of Ordinances;
(c) the budgetary position and proposals before the presentation of an
Annual Budget Statement and a Supplementary Budget Statement or
an Excess Budget Statement under Articles 80 and 84;
(d) proposals for levy, abolition, remission, alteration or regulation of any
tax and floatation of loans;
(e) a reference to the Supreme Court for advice on a question of law under
clause (1) of Article 186;
(f) generation of electricity and laying of inter -provincial transmission
lines;
(g) omitted vide S.R.O 368(1)/2010 dated 1st June, 2010;
1(h) proposals for signing of negotiated instruments with foreign countries
and approval for ratification of the instruments:
Provided that all proposals for initiation of negotiation and for entering into any
cultural or other agreements with any foreign government shall, in the first instance, be
approved in principle by Minister-in-Charge of the Division concerned and actual
negotiations shall be initiated only after such approval:
Provided further that decisions regarding the composition of all delegations, except
those for which important briefs are required, to attend meetings of international bodies may
be taken by mutual consultation between the Minister and the Minister for Fin ance, but the
approval of the Prime Minister shall be obtained--
(i) where the delegation is sponsored by a Division under the direct
charge of the Prime Minister or a Division or Divisions under the
charge of the Minister for Finance; or
1 Substituted vide SRO 910 (1)/2017 dated 8-9-2017(F.No.4-2/2016-Min-I)
16
(ii) where a Minister is proposed to be included in the delegation:
Provided further that a decision regarding the opening of an honorary consulate
abroad may be taken by the Foreign Affairs Division in consultation with the Commerce
Division.
(i) important reports and documents required to be laid before the
Assembly or Senate;
1(j) cases involving a significant impact on political, economic and
administrative policies;
Note.- Cases of this nature shall first be brought to the notice of the
Prime Minister by the Minister -in-Charge. The Prime Minister will
decide whether any such case should be brought before the Cabinet.
(k) case which the Minister -in-Charge considers important enough for
discussion in the Cabinet;
(l) other cases required to be referred to the Cabinet under the
provisions of these rules;
(m) any case desired by the Prime Ministe r to be referred to the Cabinet;
and
2(n) appointments required to be made by the Government under any law
for the time being in force.
(2) Omitted vide S.R.O 623(I)/2021 (F.No.4-11/2019-Min-I), dated 27.5.2021.
Not comprehensively checked; no conclusion that this remains good law.
Evidence identity
Judgment text SHA-256: 76db17cab82bc675b96c63bc57f3e32f102a66e97106f86a34622f105770cecd
Judgment excerpt characters 147038–147159, end exclusive.
Legislation text SHA-256: 9891101e1417c7fa89201f5f1c43111fd0c3e43eda7238611a14d7bfe6d15ef3
Legislation characters 39022–42156, end exclusive.
Read provision → · Case and source details →
Judgment passage reviewed · historical comparisonRule 4(6)
Farrukh Nawaz Bhatti v Prime Minister of Pakistan; Rana Iradat Sharif Khan v Federation · Islamabad High Court
The Court rejected the constitutional challenge to Rule 4(6), while distinguishing a Special Assistant's status from Cabinet membership and executive authority. It separately set aside the challenged Cabinet committee appointments.
The judgment concerns the rule as considered in 2020; the held compilation is amended to May 2026. This is a historical judgment linked to a separately held source edition. The exact law in force on the decision date and subsequent amendments or appellate treatment have not been comprehensively verified.
Read judgment and provision side by side
Judgment · Paragraphs 16–18, printed pages 22–23
16.
The upshot of the above discussion of the law is that Rule 4(6) of the
Rules of Business, 1973, which provides for appointment of Special Assistant to
the Prime Minister is not in violation of any provision of the Constitution,
however, the Special Assistant to the Prime Minister is not a Minister of State or
a Federal Minister but only enjoys the status for the purposes of perks and
privileges. He cannot address the parliament nor has any executive authority
vested in him. He also is not a Member of the Cabinet and cannot take part in
the proceedings of the same.
17.
The Advisor to the Prime Minister is a constitutional post, there can
be maximum of five Advisors to the Prime Minister and again the conferring of
status of Federal Minister on the Advisor to the Prime Minister is only for the
purposes of perks and privileges and does not make the Advisor a Federal
Minister as such. An Advisor to the Prime Minister is not Member of the Cabinet
and cannot participate in the proceedings, hence he can also not be a Member or
even chair the Committee of the Cabinet. He can address the parliament but
cannot participate in the voting process.
-23-
Writ Petition No.01 of 2020
Writ Petition No.1870 of 2020
18.
For what has been stated above, Writ Petition No.01 of 2020 is
without merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, Writ Petition No.1870 of
2020 is allowed and notification dated 25.04.2019 appointing respondents No.4
to 6 as Chairman and Members of the Committee of Cabinet on privatization is
set-aside.
Open judgment source ↗Held legislation · Rule 4(6)
Open the held provision in its reader →
(6) There may be a Special Assistant or Special Assistants to the Prime Minister
with such status and functions as may be determined by the Prime Minister.
Not comprehensively checked; no conclusion that this remains good law.
Evidence identity
Judgment text SHA-256: 9ea35a5537c6f0f4b842cd172346c873616b86f8129225a7cc0242a2bd50a54e
Judgment excerpt characters 52655–54233, end exclusive.
Legislation text SHA-256: 9891101e1417c7fa89201f5f1c43111fd0c3e43eda7238611a14d7bfe6d15ef3
Legislation characters 12545–12702, end exclusive.
Read provision → · Case and source details →
Judgment passage reviewed · historical comparisonArticle 155; distinct from CrPC section 155
Haji Rehman SHO and others v Provincial Police Officer, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa · Peshawar High Court
For the police-misconduct offence before it, the Court treated Article 155 as cognizable by reading its punishment with CrPC section 4(f) and Schedule II. Article 153 was not treated as an exhaustive list.
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa dispute in 2012. The held federal/Punjab source edition is a comparison text, not proof of historical provincial applicability. This is a historical judgment linked to a separately held source edition. The exact law in force on the decision date and subsequent amendments or appellate treatment have not been comprehensively verified.
Read judgment and provision side by side
Judgment · Judgment paragraphs 5–7
5. The proposition to be resolved in the instant petition is that; whether the offence under
Article 155 of Police Order, 2002 is cognizable or otherwise? The main reliance of learned
counsel for the petitioner was on Article 153 of ibid Order, by virtue of which certain offences
have been declared as cognizable, which does not include Article 155, hence it according to him,
would be non-cognizable. The proposition advanced by the learned counsel is misconceived.
Chapter XVI of Police Order, 2002, comprising Articles 148 to 152 are offences relating to the
public and these offences have been made cognizable by virtue of Article 153 of the Police
Order 2002. In pursuance of Article 154 of ibid Order these offences are summarily triable by
the competent Court, as provided for summery trial in Criminal Procedure Code. The
punishments provided in Articles 148, 149, 150 and 152 are minor in nature as of imprisonment
of six months or/and three months along with fine, which in normal course, would have been
non-cognizable offences, except Article 151, which entails punishment of three years. But the
legislature has made it cognizable, despite of having lesser punishment by inserting special
clause of Article 153 in the ibid Order. On the other hand Chapter XVII of Police Order
specifically deals with the punishment provided for police officers, relating to the offences of
their omissions or commissions, during the discharge of their official duties. Article 155 entails
punishment of three years for which there is no specific express provision in Police Order 2002,
that it is a non-cognizable offence. In such situation recourse would be made to the general law
of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. Section 4(f) of the Code, defines the cognizable offence or
cognizable case, according to which the offence or case in which a police officer may arrest the
accused without warrant in accordance with IInd Schedule of the Code is a cognizable offence or
a cognizable case. Under the head of "OFFENCES AGAINST OTHER LAWS" it is provided in
the IInd Schedule of the Code that police officer may arrest the accused without warrant in an
offence, which is punishable with imprisonment for three years or upward and has also been
made non-bailable, except section 13 of Arms Ordinance, 1965. There is no such exception
provided in the Code or in the Police Order, 2002 for an offence punishable under Article 155 of
the Police Order. In view of this legal perspective, it is a cognizable offence and F.I.R has rightly
and legitimately been registered, in pursuance of section 154, Cr.P.C.
6. There is no cavil with the proposition that in non-cognizable cases/offences, the only
course open for the police, by virtue of section 155, Cr.P.C., is to obtain permission of
Magistrate after making entry in the concerned book and then investigate the case. Neither the
police officer can register the case under section 154, Cr.P.C. in a non-cognizable offence nor
can arrest the accused without warrant. As offence under Article 155 Police Order 2002 is a
cognizable one, so F.I.R. has rightly been registered, to which no exception can be taken.
7. For what has been discussed above, this petition being devoid of merits, is hereby
dismissed.
Open judgment source ↗Held legislation · Article 155; distinct from CrPC section 155
Open the held provision in its reader →
155. Penalty for certain types of misconduct by police officers.—(1) Any police officer who—
(a) makes for obtaining release from service as police officer, a false statement or a
statement which is misleading in material particulars or uses a false document
for the purpose;
(b) is guilty of cowardice, or being a police officer of junior rank, resigns his office or
withdraws himself from duties without permission;
(c) is guilty of any wilful breach or neglect of any provision of law or of any rule or
regulation or any order which he is bound to observe or obey;
(d) is guilty of any violation of duty;
(e) is found in a state of intoxication, while on duty;
(f) malingers or feigns or voluntarily causes hurt to himself with the intention to render
himself unfit for duty;
(g) is grossly insubordinate to his superior officer or uses criminal force against a
superior officer; or
(h) engages himself or participates in any demonstration, procession or strike or resorts
to or in any way abets any form of strike or coercion or physical duress to force any
authority to concede anything,
shall, on conviction, for every such offence be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend
to three years and with fine.
Page 59 of 67
(2) Prosecution under this Article shall require a report on writing by an officer authorized in this
behalf under the rules.
Not comprehensively checked; no conclusion that this remains good law.
Evidence identity
Judgment text SHA-256: c3db6f3e53f94f8ac3d54bbd7ba0085f9513fe1fc1237011f569d4002056e4af
Judgment excerpt characters 4223–7472, end exclusive.
Legislation text SHA-256: 6d22f0fe24d013fc2b4da493669b123c1b36d55bca69b892c2b7f060af8d68e7
Legislation characters 136464–137890, end exclusive.
Read provision → · Case and source details →
Judgment passage reviewed · historical comparisonArticle 155; distinct from CrPC section 155
Haji Rehman SHO and others v Provincial Police Officer, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa · Peshawar High Court
For the police-misconduct offence before it, the Court treated Article 155 as cognizable by reading its punishment with CrPC section 4(f) and Schedule II. Article 153 was not treated as an exhaustive list.
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa dispute in 2012. The held federal/Punjab source edition is a comparison text, not proof of historical provincial applicability. This is a historical judgment linked to a separately held source edition. The exact law in force on the decision date and subsequent amendments or appellate treatment have not been comprehensively verified.
Read judgment and provision side by side
Judgment · Judgment paragraphs 5–7
5. The proposition to be resolved in the instant petition is that; whether the offence under
Article 155 of Police Order, 2002 is cognizable or otherwise? The main reliance of learned
counsel for the petitioner was on Article 153 of ibid Order, by virtue of which certain offences
have been declared as cognizable, which does not include Article 155, hence it according to him,
would be non-cognizable. The proposition advanced by the learned counsel is misconceived.
Chapter XVI of Police Order, 2002, comprising Articles 148 to 152 are offences relating to the
public and these offences have been made cognizable by virtue of Article 153 of the Police
Order 2002. In pursuance of Article 154 of ibid Order these offences are summarily triable by
the competent Court, as provided for summery trial in Criminal Procedure Code. The
punishments provided in Articles 148, 149, 150 and 152 are minor in nature as of imprisonment
of six months or/and three months along with fine, which in normal course, would have been
non-cognizable offences, except Article 151, which entails punishment of three years. But the
legislature has made it cognizable, despite of having lesser punishment by inserting special
clause of Article 153 in the ibid Order. On the other hand Chapter XVII of Police Order
specifically deals with the punishment provided for police officers, relating to the offences of
their omissions or commissions, during the discharge of their official duties. Article 155 entails
punishment of three years for which there is no specific express provision in Police Order 2002,
that it is a non-cognizable offence. In such situation recourse would be made to the general law
of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. Section 4(f) of the Code, defines the cognizable offence or
cognizable case, according to which the offence or case in which a police officer may arrest the
accused without warrant in accordance with IInd Schedule of the Code is a cognizable offence or
a cognizable case. Under the head of "OFFENCES AGAINST OTHER LAWS" it is provided in
the IInd Schedule of the Code that police officer may arrest the accused without warrant in an
offence, which is punishable with imprisonment for three years or upward and has also been
made non-bailable, except section 13 of Arms Ordinance, 1965. There is no such exception
provided in the Code or in the Police Order, 2002 for an offence punishable under Article 155 of
the Police Order. In view of this legal perspective, it is a cognizable offence and F.I.R has rightly
and legitimately been registered, in pursuance of section 154, Cr.P.C.
6. There is no cavil with the proposition that in non-cognizable cases/offences, the only
course open for the police, by virtue of section 155, Cr.P.C., is to obtain permission of
Magistrate after making entry in the concerned book and then investigate the case. Neither the
police officer can register the case under section 154, Cr.P.C. in a non-cognizable offence nor
can arrest the accused without warrant. As offence under Article 155 Police Order 2002 is a
cognizable one, so F.I.R. has rightly been registered, to which no exception can be taken.
7. For what has been discussed above, this petition being devoid of merits, is hereby
dismissed.
Open judgment source ↗Held legislation · Article 155; distinct from CrPC section 155
Open the held provision in its reader →
155. Penalty for certain types of misconduct by police officers.– (1) Any
police officer who–
(a) makes for obtaining release from service as police officer, a
false statement or a statem ent which is mis leading in material
particulars or uses a false document for the purpose;
(b) is guilty of cowardice, or being a police officer of junior rank, resigns
his office or withdraws himself from duties without permission;
(c) is guilty of any wilful breach or neglect of any provision of law or of
any rule or regulation or any order which he is bound to observe or
obey;
(d) is guilty of any violation of duty;
(e) is found in a state of intoxication, while on duty;
(f) malingers or feigns or voluntarily causes hurt to himself with
the intention to render himself unfit for duty;
(g) is grossly insubordinate to his superior officer or uses criminal
force against a superior officer; or
(h) engages himself or participates in any demonstration, procession
or strike or resorts to or in any way abets any form of strike or coercion
or physical duress to force any authority to concede anything, shall,
on conviction, for every such offence be punished with imprisonment
for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.
(2) Prosecution under this Article shall require a report on writing by
an officer authorized in this behalf under the rules.
Not comprehensively checked; no conclusion that this remains good law.
Evidence identity
Judgment text SHA-256: c3db6f3e53f94f8ac3d54bbd7ba0085f9513fe1fc1237011f569d4002056e4af
Judgment excerpt characters 4223–7472, end exclusive.
Legislation text SHA-256: ce3348f13d00ba1721800d9acf9522f9e14844da5914843c622d2118941675cb
Legislation characters 166992–168439, end exclusive.
Read provision → · Case and source details →
Judgment passage reviewed · historical comparisonArticle 3(1)(c): sale of intoxicant
Shahjehan v The State · Peshawar High Court
In this prosecution the Court found Article 3 was not attracted, discussing proof of sale and defects in the forensic evidence. The acquittal was fact-specific; it did not invalidate Article 3.
The case arose in D.I. Khan in 2011. Federal and Punjab editions remain distinct comparison records. This is a historical judgment linked to a separately held source edition. The exact law in force on the decision date and subsequent amendments or appellate treatment have not been comprehensively verified.
Read judgment and provision side by side
Judgment · Judgment paragraphs 8–9
8. The word 'sale' is not to be taken in its ordinary dictionary meaning or as is being used in
the common parlance but carries with it its meaningful legal connotation as held by the
honourable Federal Shariat Court in 1996 PCr.LJ 1787 (b):--
"Article 3(c) ---Charge of selling intoxicant---Proof---Prosecution for the purpose of proving the
charge of selling intoxicant is bound to produce the purchaser, the currency used for the purchase
and the purchased intoxicants and if any of the three factors is missing then sale would not be
proved."
Such being the case, I am afraid, Article 3 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 is
not attracted in the present case. Moreover, the statements of the P.Ws. have also been found to
be inconsistent, contradictory inter se and incoherent.
9. It was the bounden duty of the prosecution to have exhibited the F.S.L report pertaining
to the recovery of the alleged charras so as to confront the appellant with the same and to have
provided him with an opportunity to subject it to cross-examination but for reasons best known
to the prosecution, the same was never exhibited and for that matter, was not even available at
the time of recording of the statement by P.W.2 Muhammad Nawaz S.H.O., Police Station Cantt.
D.I.Khan on 12-7-2011 who in a frank and candid manner admitted that:--
"It is correct that at present there is no FSL report available on the judicial file. However, I have
sent the sample for the chemical analysis vides my application dated 31-3-2011."
Thus, in a situation, where the F.S.L report was neither exhibited nor any question put to the
appellant regarding the same in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C, the case of the
prosecution shrouded in mysteries and doubts and the beneficiary can be none other but the
appellant. Such recovery cannot be used against the appellant for holding him guilty of the
offence. Reliance placed on 2010 SCMR 1009, head notes "d" and "e".
Open judgment source ↗Held legislation · Article 3(1)(c): sale of intoxicant
Open the held provision in its reader →
3. Prohibition of manufacture, etc., of intoxicants: (1) Subject to the provisions of Clause
(2) whoever:—
(a) imports, exports, transports, manufactures or processes any intoxicant; or
(b) bottles any intoxicant; or
(c) sells or serves any intoxicant; or
(d) allows any of the acts aforesaid upon premises owned by him or his immediate
possession;
Shall be punishable with imprisonment of other description f or a term which may extend to five
years and with whipping not exceeding thirty stripes, and shall be also be liable to fine.
2[(2) Whoever—
(i) Import, exports, transports manufacture s, or traflic s in, opium or coca leaf or
coca derivatives; or
(ii) finances the import, export, transport, manufacture, or traflicking of, opium or
coca leaf or opium or coca derivatives;
1Re-numbered and subs. by the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) (Amdt.) Order, 1983 (P.O 12 of 1983), Art, 2.
2Added and subs., ibid., Art. 3.
Page 5 of 12
shall be punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment which is not less than two years
and with whipping not exceeding thirty stripes, and shall also be liable to fine.]
Not comprehensively checked; no conclusion that this remains good law.
Evidence identity
Judgment text SHA-256: 67a0aa52b1bba228cbf26855d17cac0e3c5ed25ed82f63937f9f4f8a0c31a6b5
Judgment excerpt characters 5553–7512, end exclusive.
Legislation text SHA-256: 4552b4a684aaf6b1d9279ccb53a8dd76c5878f66a0fea56e852b74ab57b66349
Legislation characters 5107–6309, end exclusive.
Read provision → · Case and source details →
Judgment passage reviewed · historical comparisonArticle 3(1)(c): sale of intoxicant
Shahjehan v The State · Peshawar High Court
In this prosecution the Court found Article 3 was not attracted, discussing proof of sale and defects in the forensic evidence. The acquittal was fact-specific; it did not invalidate Article 3.
The case arose in D.I. Khan in 2011. Federal and Punjab editions remain distinct comparison records. This is a historical judgment linked to a separately held source edition. The exact law in force on the decision date and subsequent amendments or appellate treatment have not been comprehensively verified.
Read judgment and provision side by side
Judgment · Judgment paragraphs 8–9
8. The word 'sale' is not to be taken in its ordinary dictionary meaning or as is being used in
the common parlance but carries with it its meaningful legal connotation as held by the
honourable Federal Shariat Court in 1996 PCr.LJ 1787 (b):--
"Article 3(c) ---Charge of selling intoxicant---Proof---Prosecution for the purpose of proving the
charge of selling intoxicant is bound to produce the purchaser, the currency used for the purchase
and the purchased intoxicants and if any of the three factors is missing then sale would not be
proved."
Such being the case, I am afraid, Article 3 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 is
not attracted in the present case. Moreover, the statements of the P.Ws. have also been found to
be inconsistent, contradictory inter se and incoherent.
9. It was the bounden duty of the prosecution to have exhibited the F.S.L report pertaining
to the recovery of the alleged charras so as to confront the appellant with the same and to have
provided him with an opportunity to subject it to cross-examination but for reasons best known
to the prosecution, the same was never exhibited and for that matter, was not even available at
the time of recording of the statement by P.W.2 Muhammad Nawaz S.H.O., Police Station Cantt.
D.I.Khan on 12-7-2011 who in a frank and candid manner admitted that:--
"It is correct that at present there is no FSL report available on the judicial file. However, I have
sent the sample for the chemical analysis vides my application dated 31-3-2011."
Thus, in a situation, where the F.S.L report was neither exhibited nor any question put to the
appellant regarding the same in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C, the case of the
prosecution shrouded in mysteries and doubts and the beneficiary can be none other but the
appellant. Such recovery cannot be used against the appellant for holding him guilty of the
offence. Reliance placed on 2010 SCMR 1009, head notes "d" and "e".
Open judgment source ↗Held legislation · Article 3(1)(c): sale of intoxicant
Open the held provision in its reader →
3. Prohibition of manufacture , etc, of intoxicants .–
1
[(1) Subject to the
provisions of clause (2) whoever
(a) Imports, exports, transports, manufactures or processes any intoxicant;
or
(b) Bottles any intoxicant; or
(c) Sells or serves any intoxicant; or
(d) allows any of the acts aforesaid upon premises owned by him or in his
immediate possession;
Shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to five years and with whipping not exceeding thirty stripes, and
shall also be liable to fine.]
2
[(2) Whoever–
(i) imports, exports, transports, manufactures, or traffics i n, opium or coca
leaf or opium or coca derivatives, or
(ii) Finances the import, export, transport, manufacture, or trafficking of,
opium or coca leaf or opium or coca derivatives;
Shall be punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment which is
not less than two years and with whipping not exceeding thirty stripes, and shall also
be liable to fine]
1Inserted by Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) (Amendment) Order, 1983 (P.O. No. 12 of 1983)
2Ibid.
Not comprehensively checked; no conclusion that this remains good law.
Evidence identity
Judgment text SHA-256: 67a0aa52b1bba228cbf26855d17cac0e3c5ed25ed82f63937f9f4f8a0c31a6b5
Judgment excerpt characters 5553–7512, end exclusive.
Legislation text SHA-256: 589b503e05571b86368705a94348559dd587f689c3a584426ca030f56658930b
Legislation characters 4870–6067, end exclusive.
Read provision → · Case and source details →
Judgment passage reviewed · historical comparisonArticle 129 illustration (g)
Awais Khan v The State · Islamabad High Court
The Court applied the adverse-inference principle to non-production of the alleged shopping bag in the narcotics prosecution, alongside doubts about the weight and packaging. It is not an automatic acquittal rule for every missing exhibit.
This is a historical judgment linked to a separately held source edition. The exact law in force on the decision date and subsequent amendments or appellate treatment have not been comprehensively verified.
Read judgment and provision side by side
Judgment · Paragraph 10, printed pages 5–6
Such aspect is to be
considered in light of broader principles, where case property was not produced
Crl. Appeal No.345/2023 & Jail Appeal No.353/2023
6
before the trial court as held in 2012 SCMR 577 (Amjad Ali Vs. State), 2017
P.Cr.L.J [Lahore] 14 (Abrar Hussain Vs. State), 2009 P.Cr.L.J [Lahore] 1334 (Agha
Qais Vs. State), 2015 YLR [Peshawar] 2189 (Fiaz Shah Vs. State) and 2015
P.Cr.L.J. [Karachi] 235 (Abdul Qadir Vs. State), however, in all these cases the
vehicles were not produced, but the said principle is equally applicable in the
cases where shoulder bag or shopping bag in which narcotics was carried out by
the accused persons were not produced, therefore, the principle which attracts in
the present scenario is to be considered in terms of Article-129 (g) of Qanun-e-
Shahadat Order, 1984, where it can easily be presumed that no such material /
narcotics is in existence, as adverse inference or assumption against the
prosecution could be drawn as held in 2023 SCMR 781 (Ahmed Ali Vs. State).
Open judgment source ↗Held legislation · Article 129 illustration (g)
Open the held provision in its reader →
129. Court may presume existence of certain facts.— The Court may presume the existence
of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural
events, human conduct and public and private business, in their rel ation to the facts of the particular
case.
Illustrations
The Court may presume—
(a) that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the
thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account
for his possession ;
(b) that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material
particulars ;
(c) that a bill of exchange, accepted or endorsed, was accepted or endorsed for good
consideration ;
(d) that a thing or state of things which has been shown to be in existence within a
period shorter than that within which such things or states of things usually
cease to exist, is still in existence ;
(e) that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed ;
(f) that the common course of business has been followed in particular cases;
(g) that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be
unfavourable to the person who withholds it ;
(h) that, if a man refuses to answer a question which he is not compelled to answer
by law, the answer, if given, would be unfavourable to him;
Page 56 of 65
(i) that when a document creating an obligation is in the hands of the obligor, the
obligation has been discharged.
But the Court shall also have regard to such facts as the following, in considering whether such
maxims do or do not apply to the particular case before it;
as to illustration (a).—a shopkeeper has in his till marked rupee soon after it was stolen, and
cannot account for its possession specifically, but is continually receiving rupees in the course
of his business;
as to illustration (b).—A, person of the highest character, is tried for causing a man’s death by
an act of negligence in arranging certain machinery, B, a person of equally good character, who
also took part in the arrangement, describes precisely what was done, and admits and explains
the common carelessness of A and himself ;
as to illustration (b). —a crime is committed by several persons. A, B and C, three of the
criminals, are captured on the shop and kept apart from each other. Each gives an account of
the crime implicating D, and the accounts corroborate each other in such a manner as to render
previous concert highly improbable;
as to illustration (c). —A, the drawer of a bill of exchange, was a man of business. B, the
acceptor, was a young and ignorant person, completely under A’s influence;
as to illustration (d).— It is proved that a river ran in a certain course five years ago, but it is
known that there have been floods since that time which might change its course ;
as to illustration (e).—a judicial act, the regularity of which is in question, was performed under
exceptional circumstances ;
as to illustration (f).—the question is, whether a letter was received. It is shown to have been
posted, but the usual course of the post was Interrupted by disturbances;
as to illustration (g). —a man refuses to produce a document which would bear on a contract
of small importance on which he is sued, but which might also injure the feelings and reputation
of his family;
as to illustration (h). —a man refuses to answer a question which he is not compelled by law
to answer, but the answer to it might cause loss to him in matters unconnected with the matter
in relation to which it is asked ;
as to illustration (i).— a bond is in possession of the obligor, but the circumstances of the case
are such that he may have stolen it.
CHAPTER X
OF THE EXAMINATION OF WITNESS
Not comprehensively checked; no conclusion that this remains good law.
Evidence identity
Judgment text SHA-256: b3d317c35cbfa39e0c5ade5f251548c0b107daefa270f05cf04091e5bd8efcd7
Judgment excerpt characters 9063–10097, end exclusive.
Legislation text SHA-256: 5ce43f10ab3749bc6aa8780e7dbe51b2831c5a282bc0d4feb651a72db12996af
Legislation characters 131839–135783, end exclusive.
Read provision → · Case and source details →
Judgment passage reviewed · historical comparisonArticle 129 illustration (g)
Awais Khan v The State · Islamabad High Court
The Court applied the adverse-inference principle to non-production of the alleged shopping bag in the narcotics prosecution, alongside doubts about the weight and packaging. It is not an automatic acquittal rule for every missing exhibit.
This is a historical judgment linked to a separately held source edition. The exact law in force on the decision date and subsequent amendments or appellate treatment have not been comprehensively verified.
Read judgment and provision side by side
Judgment · Paragraph 10, printed pages 5–6
Such aspect is to be
considered in light of broader principles, where case property was not produced
Crl. Appeal No.345/2023 & Jail Appeal No.353/2023
6
before the trial court as held in 2012 SCMR 577 (Amjad Ali Vs. State), 2017
P.Cr.L.J [Lahore] 14 (Abrar Hussain Vs. State), 2009 P.Cr.L.J [Lahore] 1334 (Agha
Qais Vs. State), 2015 YLR [Peshawar] 2189 (Fiaz Shah Vs. State) and 2015
P.Cr.L.J. [Karachi] 235 (Abdul Qadir Vs. State), however, in all these cases the
vehicles were not produced, but the said principle is equally applicable in the
cases where shoulder bag or shopping bag in which narcotics was carried out by
the accused persons were not produced, therefore, the principle which attracts in
the present scenario is to be considered in terms of Article-129 (g) of Qanun-e-
Shahadat Order, 1984, where it can easily be presumed that no such material /
narcotics is in existence, as adverse inference or assumption against the
prosecution could be drawn as held in 2023 SCMR 781 (Ahmed Ali Vs. State).
Open judgment source ↗Held legislation · Article 129 illustration (g)
Open the held provision in its reader →
129. Court may presume existence of certain facts .– The Court may presume
the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have ha ppened, regard being had to
the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private
business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.
Illustrations
The Court may presume–
(a) that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is
either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen,
unless he can account for his possession ;
(b) that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in
material particulars ;
(c) that a bill of exchange, accepted or endorsed, was accepted or
endorsed for good consideration;
(d) that a
13
thing or state of things which has been shown to be in existence
within a period shorter than that within which such things or states of
things usually cease to exist, is still in existence ;
13Misprinted in official Gazette as “think”.
(e) that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed ;
(f) that the common course of business has been followed in particular
cases;
(g) that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced,
be unfavourable to the person who withholds it ;
(h) that, if a man refuses to answer a question which he is not compelled
to answer by law, the answer, if given, would be unfavourable to him;
(i) that when a document creating an obligation is in the hands of the
obligor, the obligation has been discharged.
But the Court shall also have regard to such facts as the following, in
considering whether such maxims do or do not apply to the particular
case before it;
as to illustration (a) .– a shopkeeper has in hi s till marked rupee soon
after it was stolen, and cannot account for its possession specifically,
but is continually receiving rupees in the course of his business ;
as to illustration (b) .– A, person of the highest character, is tried for
causing a man’s death by an act of negligence in arranging certain
machinery, B, a person of equally good character, who also took part in
the arrangement, describes precisely what was done, and admits and
explains the common carelessness of A and himself ;
as to illustra tion (b) .– a crime is committed by several persons. A, B
and C , three of the criminals, are captured on the shop and kept apart
from each other. Each gives an account of the crime implicating D and
the accounts corroborate each other in such a manner as to render
previous concert highly improbable;
as to illustration (c).– A. the drawer of a bill of exchange, was a man of
business. B , the acceptor, was a young and ignorant person,
completely under A’s influence;
as to illustration (d).– It is proved that a river ran in a certain course five
years ago, but is known that there have been floods since that time
which might change its course ;
as to illustration (e) .– a judicial act, the regularity of which is in
question, was performed under exceptional circumstances ;
as to illustration (f).– the question is, whether a letter was received. It is
shown to have been posted, but the usual course of the post was
interrupted by disturbances;
as to illustration (g) .– a man refuses to produce a document which
would bear on a contract of small importance on which he is sued, but
which might also injure the feelings and reputation of his family;
as to illustration (h) .– a man refuses to answer a question which he is
not compelled by law to answer, but the answer to it mi ght cause loss
to him in matters unconnected with the matter in relation to which it is
asked ;
as to illustration (i) .– a bond is in possession of the obligor, but the
circumstances of the case are such that he may have stolen it.
CHAPTER X
OF THE EXAMINATION OF WITNESS
Not comprehensively checked; no conclusion that this remains good law.
Evidence identity
Judgment text SHA-256: b3d317c35cbfa39e0c5ade5f251548c0b107daefa270f05cf04091e5bd8efcd7
Judgment excerpt characters 9063–10097, end exclusive.
Legislation text SHA-256: d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8
Legislation characters 130200–134184, end exclusive.
Read provision → · Case and source details →
