Find a Lawyer

IQBAL BIBI versus ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE

ection Section 176 - Constitution of Pakistan, Article 199 dead applicant for decoration of the dead applicant applicant's bead utility - The applicant / widow has moved an application before the magistrate to dispose of her deceased husband's body It is alleged that he was poisoned. Through his other wife and children, the ist magistrate granted his request and directed the body to be disposed of - a valid - deceased widow allegedly kept the mother for a long time, though He had suspicions in mind, but was forbidden to raise a voice by the elders of the family - at some point such an argument given by the widow was not enough to accept her stance. - After a gap of about two-and-a-half years after the widow dies, her first request is made to dispose of her body and the second request is made to her. In filing a succession certificate filed with a delay of more than a month, the widow stated that the nature of the date of the deceased was natural, but then filed a criminal case against the opposition for almost three years. After the break, filing a petition for the deceased was nothing but a deliberate attempt to involve his opponents in the aforementioned case. In order to keep away from demanding their share of the inheritance - there was every possibility that an application for the recovery of the dead body was filed with the other party in an attempt to deprive them of the expected distribution of their inheritance. Late - The High Court observed the wrong order passed by the magistrate for the demolition of the death body.

P L D 2017 Lahore 435

Before Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, J 

IQBAL BIBI—Petitioner

versus

ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE and others—Respondents

Writ Petition No. 17182 of 2013, decided on 26th January, 2017.

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)—

—S. 176—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199—Application for disinterment/exhumation of dead body—Mala fides of applicant— Effect—Applicant/widow moved application before the Magistrate for disinterment of dead body of her deceased-husband alleging that he had been poisoned by his other wife and children—Magistrate allowed said application and gave directions for disinterment of dead body of deceased—Validity—Widow of deceased kept mum for a long time allegedly on the basis that although she had suspicion in her mind, but she was forbidden by the elders of the family to raise any voice—Such reasoning given by widow at a belated stage was not sufficient to accept her stance—Widow moved her first application for disinterment of dead body after a lapse of about two and half years from death of deceased and then a second application was filed by her with the further delay of more than one month—While filing succession certificate the widow had stated that death of the deceased was natural but subsequently after a lapse of about three years coupled with the registration of criminal case against the opposite party, filing of application for disinterment of the dead body was nothing but a malicious attempt to involve her opponents in the said case to keep away from demanding their share in inheritance—Every likelihood was there that the application for disinterment of the dead body was filed with an attempt to settle old scores with the other party under the garb of depriving them from an expected division of inheritance of the deceased—Impugned order passed by Magistrate for disinterment of death body was set aside accordingly—High Court observed that in Islam, sanctity had been attracted to human beings irrespective of being alive or dead— Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly

[pp. 439, 440, 441, 442] A, B, C, E & F

Muhammad Naseer v. The State PLD 1988 FSC 58; Messrs Bank of Oman Ltd. v. Messrs Estate Trading Co. Ltd. and others PLD 1987 Kar. 404 and Mirza Qamar Raza v. Mst. Tahira Begum and others PLD 1988 Kar. 169 ref.

(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)—

—S.176—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199—Constitutional petition— Disinterment/exhumation of dead body—Scope—Disinterment could be done in pursuance of a judicial intervention and there was no legal bar on the same—Court was however under obligation to ascertain the element of personal grouse or grudge, coupled with mens rea or ill-will before passing such order which might cause disgrace even to a dead subject while exercising powers under Art. 199 of the Constitution, [p. 442] D

Naseer ud Din Khan Nayyar for Petitioner.

Ch. Akbar Ali Kang, Assistant Advocate-General Rana Muhammad Akhtar for Respondent No.3.

ask a advocate free from Eminabad lawyer