Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 LHC 1782
Court / Jurisdiction: Supreme Court / High Court of Pakistan
This judicial decision was delivered by the Supreme Court / High Court of Pakistan. The matter involves proceedings between Petitioner and Respondent, officially reported as 2025 LHC 1782. The court reviewed applicable Pakistani statutes, procedural requirements, and governing case-law authorities. The full text below contains the complete facts, arguments, and legal reasoning rendered by the honorable bench.
Case cited as 2025LHC1782
Stereo. H.C. JD A 38. Judgment Sheet IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, RAWALPINDI BENCH, RAWALPINDI JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Criminal Appeal No. 525 of 2024. (Raja Shahid Ahmad Vs. The State and another) Criminal Appeal No. 526 of 2024. (Haq Nawaz Abbasi Vs. The State and another) Criminal Appeal No. 520 of 2024. (Aurangzeb Vs. The State and another) Criminal Appeal No. 534 of 2024. (Malik Muhammad Safdar Vs. The State and another) JUDGMENT Date of hearing: 25.02.2025. Appellants by: Mr. Amjad Pervaiz, Advocate (for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 525 of 2024). Mr. Taimoor Aslam Khan, Advocate (for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 526 of 2024). Mr. Muhammad Asim, Advocate (for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 520 of 2024). Mr. Asad Abbasi, Advocate (for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 534 of 2024). State by: Complainant of the case by: Mr. Sohail Iqbal, District Public Prosecutor. Mr. Talat Mahmood Zaidi, Advocate. SADIQ MAHMUD KHURRAM, J. Raja Shahid Ahmad son of Bashir Ahmad, Haq Nawaz Abbasi son of Khuda Daad Khan, Aurangzeb son 2 Criminal Appeal No.525 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.526 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.520 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.534 of 2024 of Umar Khan and Malik Muhammad Safdar son of Khan Bahadur (convicts) were tried by the learned Sessions Judge/Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi, in case F.I.R No.13 of 2022 dated 18.05.2022 registered in respect of offences under sections 409, 420 468 and 471 P.P.C. and under section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 (Act No.II of 1947) at Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment, Rawalpindi. The learned trial court vide judgment dated 13.06.2024 convicted Raja Shahid Ahmad son of Bashir Ahmad, Haq Nawaz Abbasi son of Khuda Daad Khan, Aurangzeb son of Umar Khan and Malik Muhammad Safdar son of Khan Bahadur (convicts) and sentenced them as infra:- Raja Shahid Ahmad son of Bashir Ahmad:- i) Rigorous imprisonment of seven years under section 471 Pakistan Penal Code,1860 and directed to pay fine of Rs. 500,000/-, and in case of default of payment of fine the convict was directed to further undergo simple Imprisonment of six months. ii) Rigorous imprisonment of seven years under section 468 Pakistan Penal Code,1860 and directed to pay fine of Rs. 500,000/-, and in case of default of payment of fine the convict was directed to further undergo simple Imprisonment of six months. iii) Rigorous imprisonment of three years under section 420 Pakistan Penal Code,1860 and directed to pay fine of Rs. 200,000/-, and in case of default of payment of fine the convict was directed to further undergo simple Imprisonment of six months Haq Nawaz Abbasi son of Khuda Daad Khan:- i) Rigorous imprisonment of seven years under section 471 Pakistan Penal Code,1860 and directed to pay fine of Rs. 500,000/-, and in case of default of payment of fine the convict was directed to further undergo simple Imprisonment of six months. 3 Criminal Appeal No.525 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.526 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.520 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.534 of 2024 ii) Rigorous imprisonment of seven years under section 468 Pakistan Penal Code,1860 and directed to pay fine of Rs. 500,000/-, and in case of default of payment of fine the convict was directed to further undergo simple Imprisonment of six months. iii) Rigorous imprisonment of three years under section 420 Pakistan Penal Code,1860 and directed to pay fine of Rs. 200,000/-, and in case of default of payment of fine the convict was directed to further undergo simple Imprisonment of six months Aurangzeb son of Umar Khan:- i) Rigorous imprisonment of seven years under section 409 Pakistan Penal Code,1860 and directed to pay fine of Rs. 500,000/-, and in case of default of payment of fine the convict was directed to further undergo simple Imprisonment of six months. ii) Rigorous imprisonment of seven years under section 471 Pakistan Penal Code,1860 and directed to pay fine of Rs. 500,000/-, and in case of default of payment of fine the convict was directed to further undergo simple Imprisonment of six months. iii) Rigorous imprisonment of seven years under section 468 Pakistan Penal Code,1860 and directed to pay fine of Rs. 500,000/-, and in case of default of payment of fine the convict was directed to further undergo simple Imprisonment of six months. iv) Rigorous imprisonment of three years under section 420 Pakistan Penal Code,1860 and directed to pay fine of Rs. 200,000/-, and in case of default of payment of fine the convict was directed to further undergo simple Imprisonment of six months v) Rigorous imprisonment of seven years under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 (Act No.II of 1947). Malik Muhammad Safdar son of Khan Bahadur:- i) Rigorous imprisonment of seven years under section 409 Pakistan Penal Code,1860 and directed to pay fine of Rs. 500,000/-, and in case of default of payment of fine the convict was directed to further undergo simple Imprisonment of six months. ii) Rigorous imprisonment of seven years under section 471 Pakistan Penal Code,1860 and directed to pay fine of Rs. 500,000/-, and in case of default of payment of 4 Criminal Appeal No.525 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.526 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.520 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.534 of 2024 fine the convict was directed to further undergo simple Imprisonment of six months. iii) Rigorous imprisonment of seven years under section 468 Pakistan Penal Code,1860 and directed to pay fine of Rs. 500,000/-, and in case of default of payment of fine the convict was directed to further undergo simple Imprisonment of six months. iv) Rigorous imprisonment of three years under section 420 Pakistan Penal Code,1860 and directed to pay fine of Rs. 200,000/-, and in case of default of payment of fine the convict was directed to further undergo simple Imprisonment of six months v) Rigorous imprisonment of seven years under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 (Act No.II of 1947). The convicts were, however, extended the benefit available under section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 by the learned trial court. All the sentences awarded to the appellants were ordered to run concurrently by the learned trial court. 2. Feeling aggrieved, Raja Shahid Ahmad son of Bashir Ahmad, lodged the instant Criminal Appeal No.525 of 2024 assailing his conviction and sentences. Feeling aggrieved, Haq Nawaz Abbasi son of Khuda Daad Khan (convict) lodged the instant Criminal Appeal No.526 of 2024 assailing his conviction and sentences. Feeling aggrieved, Aurangzeb son of Umar Khan (convict) lodged the instant Criminal Appeal No.520 of 2024 assailing his conviction and sentences. Feeling aggrieved, Malik Muhammad Safdar son of Khan Bahadur (convict) lodged the instant Criminal Appeal No.534 of 2024 assailing his conviction and sentences. I intend to decide the Criminal Appeal No.525 of 2024, the Criminal Appeal No.526 of 2024, the Criminal 5 Criminal Appeal No.525 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.526 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.520 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.534 of 2024 Appeal No.520 of 2024 and the Criminal Appeal No.534 of 2024 through this single judgment. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case, as stated by the complainant of the case in his statement before the learned trial court are as under:- “ I have purchased a lot of piece of land at Mauza Rajer. I got enter number of two Mutations No.5442 & 5442/1 bearing land measuring 388-K 13-M & 2142-K 10-M respectively in my favor and I deposited the official fee regarding the purchasing of land in the above said Mutations. I and my family transferred the above said land to Haji Muhammad Azram and his brother Guftar in the year 2003. Since there was some commitment between me and Muhammad Azram, due to none fulfillment of the obligations the above said land was again transferred to me through the Mutations No.5442 & 5442/1. Thereafter, I went to abroad after my arrival in Pakistan, I inquired record of my said Mutations in Revenue Department and to utter my disbelief that the said land was transferred in my name alongwith three accused persons namely accused Muhammad Almas Abbasi, accused Haq Nawaz Abbasi and accused Raja Shahid. The transfer of land in the name of accused Almas Abbasi, accused Haq Nawaz Abbasi and Raja Shahid accused person in the result of their connivance with the concerned Revenue Department. In above said Mutations the word "Mazkoor" was written instead of "Mazkooraan" which proved that I was the sole owner of the land in the above said Mutations. Almas Abbasi accused was my commissioned agent. (objected by learned defense counsel Mr. Ansar Nawaz Mirza the word commission is objectionable cannot be treated as commissioned agent). Almas Abbasi accused is also involved a number of fraud cases. These cases are pertained to Tehsil Gujjar Khan, and decided in my favor and against accused Almas 6 Criminal Appeal No.525 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.526 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.520 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.534 of 2024 Abbasi and others. The disputed property comprising of said Mutations is worth of more than three billions rupees. I moved an application to the DG Anti-Corruption Establishment Lahore to take the cognizance of the matter in issue. The application Exh.P.J which bearing my signatures and I owned my signature Exh.P.J/1. The accused persons be dealt accordingly, I have been lost a huge amount of loss. The aforesaid accused persons have alienated the some piece of land out of the disputed land to other persons.” 4. After the formal investigation of the case report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was submitted before the learned trial court, wherein the accused were sent to face trial. The learned trial court framed the charge against the accused on 23.01.2023, to which the accused pleaded not guilty, claimed trial and the learned trial court proceeded to examine the prosecution witnesses. 5. The prosecution in order to prove its case got recorded statements of as many as eleven witnesses recorded. Muhammad Asad, Constable (PW- 1) stated that on 18.05.2022, he recorded the formal F.I.R. (Exh.PA). Muhammad Zohaib Sarwar, Senior Auditor (PW-2) stated that on 15.06.2022, he issued the letter (Exh.PB/1-2). Israr Ul Haq Constable (PW-3) stated that on 03.06.2022, he received the reports of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore and handed them over to the Investigating Officer of the case and on 07.07.2022, he received the Death Certificate (P-4/1-4) of Haji Muhammad Azram and produced the same before the Investigating Officer of the case. Muhammad Shabbir, Girdawar (PW-4) stated that on 15.06.2006, 7 Criminal Appeal No.525 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.526 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.520 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.534 of 2024 he received the Mutation No. 5442/1 (P-1/1-6). Saleem Raza, Naib Tehsildar (PW-5) stated that on 28.06.2018, he registered the Mutation No. 5442/1 (P- 1/1-6). Nasir Qureshi, Record Keeper (PW-6) stated that on 17.06.2022, he produced the Pert Sarkar pertaining to the Mutation No. 5442/1 (P-1/1-6) before the Investigating Officer of the case. Farhat Mahmood, Patwari (PW- 7) stated that on 10.06.2022, he joined the investigation of the case and produced the copies of the Mutation No. 5442/1 and the Mutation No. 5442 and other documents (Exh.PG/1-57) before the Investigating Officer of the case. Ghulam Mujtaba, Naib Tehsildar (Retired) (PW-11) stated that he had not signed the Mutation No. 5442/1 and the Mutation No. 5442. Zulfiqar Muhammad Bazeed, Circle Officer (PW-8) investigated the case from 18.05.2022 till 05.10.2022 and detailed the facts discovered during the investigation of the case in his statement before the learned trial court. 6. On 14.05.2024, the learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor closed the prosecution evidence after tendering in evidence the reports of Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore (Exh.PK, Exh.PL and Exh.PM) and certified copies of other documents related to the litigation between the parties (Exh.PN to Exh.PX). 7. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the learned trial court examined the appellants namely Raja Shahid Ahmad son of Bashir Ahmad, Haq Nawaz Abbasi son of Khuda Daad Khan, Aurangzeb son of Umar Khan and Malik Muhammad Safdar son of Khan Bahadur , under section 342 8 Criminal Appeal No.525 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.526 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.520 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.534 of 2024 Cr.P.C. and in answer to the question why this case against you and why the P.W.s have deposed against you, they stated that they had been falsely involved in the case and were innocent. The appellants opted not to get themselves examined under section 340(2) Cr.P.C however the appellants namely Malik Muhammad Safdar and Aurangzeb produced the document (Exh.DG) as evidence in their defence, whereas the appellants namely Haq Nawaz Abbasi and Raja Shahid Ahmad produced the document (Exh.DH) as evidence in their defence. 8. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge/ Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi, convicted and sentenced the appellants as referred to above. 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants precisely was that the whole case was invented and untrue and that the prosecution remained unable to prove the facts in issue and did not produce any unimpeachable, admissible and relevant evidence. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the appellants were quite innocent and had nothing to do with the alleged crimes. They further submitted that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellants beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and the learned trial court, while passing the impugned judgment of the appellants’ conviction, had erred in law and facts of the case, which warranted interference by this Court. 9 Criminal Appeal No.525 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.526 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.520 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.534 of 2024 10. On the other hand, the learned District Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the prosecution had proved its case beyond shadow of doubt by producing independent witnesses. The learned District Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that the appellants were involved in the commission of the crimes for which they had been convicted and that the impugned judgment entailing the convictions and sentences of the appellants did not warrant interference by this Court. Lastly, the learned District Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant prayed for the rejection of the appeals. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned District Public Prosecutor, the learned counsel for the complainant and with their assistance, perused the record and evidence recorded during the trial. 12. It is trite that in a civil action, a party has to prove his case on the test of preponderance of probability but in a case entailing criminal liability, the requirement is to prove the charges beyond the shadow of doubt. The decision of a court in a suit does not automatically act as proof of guilt of the accused in a criminal matter, without leading any evidence to prove the facts in issue in the case being tried by the learned trial court. The law is absolutely clear that the matter is to be decided in the light of the evidence that may be adduced before the learned trial court and its decision must rest on such evidence. The crux of the case of the prosecution against the appellants is that 10 Criminal Appeal No.525 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.526 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.520 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.534 of 2024 the appellants namely Raja Shahid Ahmad and Haq Nawaz Abbasi got entered their names as vendees in the Mutation No. 5442/1 and Mutation No. 5442, with the active connivance of the appellants namely Aurangzeb and Malik Muhammad Safdar, despite the fact that neither Haji Muhammad Azram (since dead), had sold any land to the appellants namely Raja Shahid Ahmad and Haq Nawaz Abbasi nor the said appellants namely Raja Shahid Ahmad and Haq Nawaz Abbasi had any title over the said land. At the very outset it has been noticed that both mutations i.e. the Mutation No. 5442/1 and Mutation No. 5442 were sent to the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore for analysis and according to the report of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore (Exh.PK also exhibited as Exh.PC/1-13), it could not be determined that the names of the appellants namely Raja Shahid Ahmad and Haq Nawaz Abbasi had been inserted subsequently. The relevant portion of the report of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore (Exh.PK also exhibited as Exh.PC/1-13) reads as under:- “ 11 Criminal Appeal No.525 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.526 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.520 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.534 of 2024 Furthermore, Zulfiqar Muhammad Bazeed, CO (PW-8), the Investigating Officer of the case, also admitted during cross-examination that according to the report of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore (Exh.PK also exhibited as Exh.PC/1-13), it was determined that the names of the appellants namely Raja Shahid Ahmad and Haq Nawaz Abbasi had not been inserted subsequently. During cross-examination, Zulfiqar Muhammad Bazeed, CO (PW-8), the Investigating Officer of the case, admitted as under:- “During investigation the reference was sent to PFSA only pertaining to Column No.7 of Mutation No.5442/1 regarding its "Pert Patwar & Pert Sarkar" for verification. It is correct that as per report of PFSA Exh.PC/6 does not disclose any subsequent insertion of alleged three persons in Column No.7 as mentioned ( نام مالک مع احوال ) This fact also came in report PFSA Exh.PC/6 that names of alleged three persons have been written using similar kind of ink/writing instrument (pen). …………… It is correct that during inquiry/investigation original Mutation No.5442/1 (PF/1-6) "Pert Sarkar" was sent to PFSA for forensic report in respect to "whether the names of alleged three persons in column No.7 of Mutation are inserted subsequently or not" and "whether the names of all alleged three persons in Column No.7 of Mutation were written with same instrument (Pen) and Ink or not". Similarly, I also sent the original "Pert Patwar" of Mutation No.5442/1 to PFSA for forensic report in respect to "whether the names of alleged three persons in column No.7 of Mutation are inserted subsequently or not" and "whether the names of all alleged three persons in Column No.7 of Mutation were written with same instrument (Pen) and Ink or not".It is correct that as per report of 12 Criminal Appeal No.525 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.526 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.520 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.534 of 2024 PFSA Exh PC/1-13 in respect to Pert Patwar and Pert Sarkar of Mutation No.5442/1 no abnormality was found.” (emphasis supplied) Nisar Ahmad Afzal (PW-10) , the complainant of the case also admitted during cross-examination that he had not assailed the report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore and stated as under:- “ It is correct that Mutation No.5442/1 was sent by Investigating Officer for forensic analysis to PFSL. It is correct that the report was submitted to the 1.0 by the PFSL. I have not challenged the report of PFSL regarding Mutation No.5442/1. ” As mentioned above,the sole allegation levelled by the complainant of the case against the appellants was that the appellants namely Raja Shahid Ahmad and Haq Nawaz Abbasi got entered their names as vendees in the Mutation No. 5442/1 and Mutation No. 5442, with the active connivance of the appellants namely Aurangzeb and Malik Muhammad Safdar. During the cross-examination of Nisar Ahmad Afzal (PW-10), the learned trial court observed as under:- “Q. How many Mutations regarding the case in hand were entered in your favor as per version. Ans. Mutations No.5442 and 5442/1 were entered in my favor. Q.As per your version in this case whether the Mutations werewrongly entered or names of the accused were subsequently entered. Ans. The names of the accused were subsequently entered through tampering. ” During cross-examination, Zulfiqar Muhammad Bazeed, CO (PW-8), the Investigating Officer of the case, admitted as under:- 13 Criminal Appeal No.525 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.526 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.520 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.534 of 2024 “It is correct that the only allegation raised by the complainant that names of three persons (accused present in the Court) were subsequently inserted in the Mutations ” The very report of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore (Exh.PK also exhibited as Exh.PC/1-13) smashes the whole foundation of the prosecution case against the appellants when it was determined that the names of the appellants namely Raja Shahid Ahmad and Haq Nawaz Abbasi had not been inserted subsequently in the mutations i.e. the Mutation No. 5442/1 and Mutation No. 5442 , which was the sole allegation levelled by the complainant of the case against the appellants. 13. Another admitted fact of the prosecution case is that the vendor of the land which was sold through the mutations i.e. the Mutation No. 5442/1 and Mutation No. 5442 was Haji Muhammad Azram, however, according to the Death Certificate (P-4/1-4), the said Haji Muhammad Azram died on 01.04.2021 and it was only after the death of the said vendor that Nisar Ahmad Afzal (PW-10), the complainant of the case, submitted the application (Exh.PJ) for the registration of the case on 17.11.2021. Zulfiqar Muhammad Bazeed, CO (PW-8), the Investigating Officer of the case, admitted during cross-examination as under :- “It is correct that I took into possession the death certificate P.D/1-4 and as per the said death certificate his date of death is 01.04.2021. Whereas complaint Exh.PJ was moved on 17.11.2021 after his death. It is correct that the Mutation No.5442/1 was sanctioned on 06.07.2015. It is on the record that since 06.07.2015, till death of Haji Muhammad Azram no application or complaint 14 Criminal Appeal No.525 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.526 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.520 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.534 of 2024 regarding Mutation No.5442/1 was ever moved by the complainant before any forum.” (emphasis supplied) It is obvious that Nisar Ahmad Afzal (PW-10) ,the complainant of the case , waited for the death of Haji Muhammad Azram, the vendor, before he challenged the mutations i.e. the Mutation No. 5442/1 and Mutation No. 5442 and that too only to the extent that the names of the appellants namely Raja Shahid Ahmad and Haq Nawaz Abbasi had been inserted subsequently in the mutations i.e. the Mutation No. 5442/1 and Mutation No. 5442. What precluded Nisar Ahmad Afzal (PW-10) from assailing the addition of the names of the appellants namely Raja Shahid Ahmad and Haq Nawaz Abbasi in the mutations i.e. the Mutation No. 5442/1 and Mutation No. 5442 has not been explained. Nisar Ahmad Afzal (PW-10) admitted during cross- examination as under:- “I am fully conversant with Haji Muhammad Azram, the vendor. It is correct that Haji Muhammad Azram was died in April 2021. I have not moved any application during the lifetime of Haji Muhammad Azram regarding Mutation No.5442/1 and Mutation No.5442 ” (emphasis supplied) It was also admitted by Nisar Ahmad Afzal (PW-10) ,the complainant of the case , that on 15.03.2017, he had mutated his land in the same Mauza Rajer, however, still waited till the death of Haji Muhammad Azram, to assail the Mutation No. 5442/1 and Mutation No. 5442. During the trial, Nisar Ahmad Afzal (PW-10) was confronted with the said fact and the learned trial court recorded as under:- 15 Criminal Appeal No.525 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.526 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.520 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.534 of 2024 “Court Question: Document Exh. DA Mutation No.6464 dated 15.03.2017 is before you, wherein you have alienated the land measuring 101-Kanal in favor Raja Aurangzeb S/o Abdul Majeed of same Mauza Rajer and Khewat No. 1164/2464 to 3096 is it correct? Answer: After going through my record, I memorized that I have sold land measuring 101-Kanal in favor of Raja Aurangzeb S/o Abdul Majeed from Mauza Rajer. I owned my signature and thumb impression on Exh. DA. ” (emphasis supplied) It is correct that there is no estoppel in criminal matters but it is equally true that the malice of fact, when apparent, can be considered as fatal for the case. In this case, the very act of Nisar Ahmad Afzal (PW-10) of not challenging the Mutation No. 5442/1 and Mutation No. 5442 during the lifetime of Haji Muhammad Azram (since dead) , the vendor, itself raises the presumption that had the Mutation No. 5442/1 and Mutation No. 5442 been assailed with regard to the names of the appellants namely Raja Shahid Ahmad and Haq Nawaz Abbasi being inserted subsequently, in the lifetime of Haji Muhammad Azram…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.