Justice Qaiz Faiz Issa issues a Pro-Qadiani decree in Pakistan, thus proving that #Qadiani control their own alleged persecution in Pakistan

Intro
This was an ongoing court case in Pakistan (Check out the KTV news report), we covered it in 2022 herein. It seems that the Qadiani’s were publishing their fake Quran’s in Pakistan and sending them abroad. This is part of the Qadiani strategy of proliferating Quran’s and distorting Islam to the masses. Furthermore, this is nothing new, the Qadiani’s have been controlling most institutions in Pakistan since 1947 and specifically under General Zia ul Haq Ahmadi officers were promoted and highly regarded which culminated in 1987 with 328 Ahmadi officers reported as being in the Pak Army.

Nevertheless, in Feb-2024, Justice Qaiz Faiz Issa proved himself to be an undercover Qadiani as he gave a Pro-Qadiani decision on a case wherein the Qadiani’s were 100% guilty in many ways, he then gave many Pro-Qadiani remarks. In fact, his landmark decision gives Qadiani’s new unprecedented rights to publish their false Quran’s in Pakistan. Justice Qaiz Faiz Issa argued that in 2019 it wasn’t illegal for Qadiani’s to publish their Quran’s and thus this entire case was false. Faiz Issa also mentioned that 298-C and 295-B or Ord-XX were not mentioned at all in this court case and thus had no relevance. This comment alone shocked the laymen Pakistani. Faiz Issa quoted the Quran and “No compulsion in Religion” as evidence that the Qadiani’s were innocent. In the end, Faiz Issa said:

“…since the petitioner has already served out the maximum imprisonment of six months prescribed for the offence if he is found to be guilty of having committed it, keeping him incarcerated would violate a number of his Fundamental Rights…”””

Per the judgement of Feb-2024, a Qadiani-Ahmadi named Mubarik Ahmad Sani (a few years ago) was arrested for distributing Ahmadiyya literature and per Ord-XX. Mubarik Ahmad Sani was charged for three offences pursuant to the case arising out of FIR No. 661/22 registered against him on 6 December 2022, at Police Station Chenab Nagar, District Chiniot. The three offences for which the petitioner is charged were under: (a) section 7 read with section 9 of the Punjab Holy Quran (Printing and Recording) Act, 2011, (b) under section 298-C of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (‘PPC’), and (c) under section 295-B of the PPC.

It was alleged in the FIR that the petitioner was distributing/disseminating a proscribed book – Tafseer-e-Sagheer. Learned counsel submits that distributing/disseminating a proscribed book was made an offence by the Punjab Holy Quran (Printing and Recording) (Amendment) Act in the year 2021 whereas the FIR alleged that the petitioner had done this in 2019. We have examined the original law and the changes made to it, and the contention of the learned counsel that the said offence was incorporated into the law in 2021 is correct.

In fact, Qadiani wikipedia are even banned in Pakistan.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
‘Learned counsel states that the petitioner was arrested on 7 January 2023 and if at all the offence is made out it would be under section 5 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, as
the allegation against him is that he distributed a proscribed book, that is, Tafseer-e-Sagheer, which section attracts a maximum imprisonment of six months. Learned counsel further
states that the FIR was registered on 6 December 2022 whereas the alleged offence was stated to have been committed on 7 March 2019 without explaining the delay and the petitioner has remained incarcerated since 7 January 2023. Issue notice for 6 February 2023.’
______________________________________________________________________________________________
cr.p_1054_l_2023 (1)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
Present:
Justice Qazi Faez Isa, CJ
Justice Musarrat Hilali
Criminal Petitions No.1054-L and 1344-L of 2023
(Against the orders dated 16.10.2023and 27.11.2023 respectively of
the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Crl. Revision No. 68011/2023
and Crl. Misc. No. 41772-B/2023)
Mubarik Ahmad Sani. … Petitioner
(in both cases)
Versus
The State and another. … Respondents
(in both cases)
For the Petitioner: Sh. UsmanKarim-ud-Din, ASC.
(In both cases)
For the State: Mr. Ahmed Raza Gillani,
(In both cases) Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab.
a/w Shabraiz, DSP.
For the Complainant: Mr. M. Shahid Tasawar Rao, ASC.
(In both cases)
Date of Hearing: 06.02.2024.
ORDER
Qazi Faez Isa, CJ.
Criminal Petition No. 1054-L/2023: Through this petition the petitioner
seeks the deletion of certain charges from the Charge framed against him.
The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was charged
for three offences pursuant to the case arising out of FIR No. 661/22
registered against him on 6 December 2022, at Police Station Chenab
Nagar, District Chiniot. The three offences for which the petitioner is
charged were under: (a) section 7 read with section 9 of the Punjab Holy
Quran (Printing and Recording) Act, 2011, (b) under section 298-C of the
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (‘PPC’), and (c) under section 295-B of the PPC.
2. It was alleged in the FIR that the petitioner was
distributing/disseminating a proscribed book – Tafseer-e-Sagheer. Learned
counsel submits that distributing/disseminating a proscribed book was
made an offence by the Punjab Holy Quran (Printing and Recording)
(Amendment) Act in the year 2021 whereas the FIR alleged that the
Criminal Petition No. 1054-L/23 etc.
2
petitioner had done this in 2019. We have examined the original law and
the changes made to it, and the contention of the learned counsel that the
said offence was incorporated into the law in 2021 is correct.
3. The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (‘the
Constitution’) stipulates that a person cannot be charged for something
which was not an offence when it was done. Article 12(1) of the
Constitution stipulates that:
‘12. (1) No law shall authorize the punishment of a person-
(a) for an act or omission that was not punishable by law at
the time of the act or omission; or
(b) for an offence by a penalty greater than, or of a kind
different from, the penalty prescribed by law for that
offence at the time the offence was committed.’
Therefore, since in the year 2019 the distribution/dissemination of a
proscribed book was not an offence, the petitioner could not have been
charged for it.
4. As regards the offences under sections 298-C and 295-B of the PPC
for which the petitioner is also charged his learned counsel submits that
neither the FIR nor the police report (challan), submitted after investigation
by the police, allege that the petitioner had done any of the acts mentioned
therein to constitute these offences.
5. The learned counsel representing the complainant read out the FIR,
but nothing is stated therein to constitute the offences under sections 298-
C and 295-B of the PPC. The challan is also silent in this regard. The
Charge framed on 24 June 2023 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lalian
to the extent of charging the petitioner for the offences under sections 298-
C and 295-B of the PPC did not accord with the provisions of Chapter XIX
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (‘the Code’), which pertain to
Charge. The instant case is also not one wherein the charge could be
altered or where the petitioner could have been convicted of a lesser offence
to those under sections 298-C and 295-B of the PPC. Therefore, the
offences under sections 298-C and 295-B of the PPC are removed from the
Charge framed against the petitioner.
6. Courts must exercise extreme caution when dealing with matters of
faith. The Islamic faith is based on the Holy Qur’an which, in its surah AlCriminal
Petition No. 1054-L/23 etc.
3
Baqarah (chapter 2), verse 256 reproduced hereunder, expounds that there
must not be any compulsion in religion.
لَاا لِِْ هََ اََ اِِهدِّينِاقَدْاتَبَ ن يََّاهل شَُّْدُامِنَااهلغَِّافَمَنْايَكْفُ اَْبِال ن طاغُاوتِاوَيُؤْمِنْا
بِا ن للَِّافَقَدِااهسْتَمْسَكَابِالْعُ وََْةِاهلْوُثْقََالَااههفِ اََ اََلَ اََاوَه ن للَُّاسَمِع ا عََِِ اٌ ا
7. Religious compulsion also violates the Divine scheme of
accountability in the Hereafter. Even Prophet Muhammad (peace and
blessings of Almighty Allah be upon him) was told by the Creator that he is
required to only convey the Message and should not compel people to
believe, as stipulated in surah Ar-Ra’d (chapter 13), verse 40 and in surah
Yunus (chapter 10), verse 99 of the Holy Qur’an. Freedom of faith is one of
the fundamental tenets of Islam. But sadly, in matters of religion tempers
flare up and the Qur’anic mandate is forsaken.
8. The Holy Qur’an requires that all matters of significance should be
pondered over and reflected upon (surah An-Nahl (chapter 16), verse 44 and
surah Yunus (chapter 10), verse 24). All those concerned with this case
should have done so, instead they were eager to demonstrate that the Holy
Qur’an was desecrated and that God’s Last Messenger (peace and blessings
of Almighty Allah be upon him) was denigrated. They should also have
considered verse 9 of surah al-Hijr (chapter 15) where Almighty Allah says:
هِِناانََۡنُااهَ ن زلَۡۡااٱلِّلۡ اََاوَإِهناالَُا اۥلَحََٰفِظُونَا
The translation of the above verse is, ‘We have, without doubt, sent down
the Message; and we will assuredly guard it.’
9. The principle of there being no compulsion in religion mentioned in the
Holy Qur’an is enshrined in the Constitution as a Fundamental Right.
Clause (a) of Article 20 of the Constitution stipulates that, ‘every citizen
shall have the right to profess, practice and propagate his religion’ and
clause (b) of Article 20 states that, ‘every religious denomination and every
sect thereof shall have the right to establish, maintain and manage its
religious institutions’. Article 22 of the Constitution requires and prescribes
that, ‘no religious community or denomination shall be prevented from
providing religious instruction for pupils of that community or denomination in
any educational institution maintained wholly by that community or
denomination’. These Fundamental Rights cannot be derogated from,
circumvented or diluted.
Criminal Petition No. 1054-L/23 etc.
4
10. If only the functionaries of the State had heeded the Holy Qur’an,
considered the Constitution and examined the law then the FIR would not
have been registered in respect of the abovementioned offences. Therefore,
Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1054-L of 2023 is converted into
an appeal and allowed by setting aside the impugned order and by deleting
section 7 read with section 9 of the Punjab Holy Quran (Printing and
Recording) Act, 2011 and section 298-C and 295-B of the PPC from the
Charge framed against the petitioner.
11. Criminal Petition No. 1344-L/2023: Through this petition the
petitioner seeks bail. On the last date of hearing the following order was
passed:
‘Learned counsel states that the petitioner was arrested on 7
January 2023 and if at all the offence is made out it would be
under section 5 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, as
the allegation against him is that he distributed a proscribed
book, that is, Tafseer-e-Sagheer, which section attracts a
maximum imprisonment of six months. Learned counsel further
states that the FIR was registered on 6 December 2022 whereas
the alleged offence was stated to have been committed on 7
March 2019 without explaining the delay and the petitioner has
remained incarcerated since 7 January 2023. Issue notice for 6
February 2023.’
12. We enquired from the learned Additional Prosecutor General, Punjab
(‘APG’) whether the above contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner was incorrect and the learned APG stated that it was not.
13. Though the petitioner has not been charged under section 5 of the
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, however, it could be contended that
its ingredients were mentioned in the FIR and in the Charge, therefore, the
charge could be altered under section 227 of the Code and the trial could
continue as the alteration would not prejudice the petitioner. Therefore, we
proceed to consider whether the petitioner should be granted bail in respect
of the said section 5.
14. The petitioner was arrested on 7 January 2023 and has remained
incarcerated for thirteen months, which is more than double the
permissible punishment under section 5 of the Criminal Law Amendment
Act, 1932. Trials in respect of offences where the maximum sentence of
imprisonment is relatively short must be conducted promptly or the
accused should be granted bail. However, bail was declined to the
Criminal Petition No. 1054-L/23 etc.
5
petitioner by the Additional Sessions Judge on 10 June 2023, without
considering that the petitioner had already served out the maximum
prescribed imprisonment for the said offence. The learned Judge of the
High Court also dismissed the petitioner’s bail application, through the
impugned order dated 27 November 2023, by overlooking this crucially
important aspect of the case.
15. Therefore, since the petitioner has already served out the maximum
imprisonment of six months prescribed for the offence if he is found to be
guilty of having committed it, keeping him incarcerated would violate a
number of his Fundamental Rights. Article 9 of the Constitution stipulates
that a person shall not be deprived of his liberty save in accordance with
law; the law no longer permits his detention. And, Article 10A of the
Constitution guarantees right to a fair trial and due process, which too the
petitioner is now being denied. In addition to the violation of these two
Fundamental Rights is the overarching right stipulated in Article 4 of the
Constitution, ‘To enjoy the protection of law, and, to be treated in accordance
with law is the inalienable right of every citizen.’ The petitioner is no longer
being treated in accordance with law because while waiting for the
conclusion of his trial he has remained imprisoned for a period much
longer than what he could have been punished for if he is found guilty.
16. We regretfully note that in dealing with cases pertaining to offences
against religion facts give way to emotions, as seems to have happened in
this case too, and individual complainants supplant the State, even though
the very nature of these offences is not against an individual or with regard
to personal property.
17. Therefore, Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1344-L of 2023 is
converted into an appeal and allowed by setting aside the impugned orders
and it is ordered that the petitioner be immediately released upon provision
of a personal bond in the sum of five thousand rupees in respect of the
case arising out of the abovementioned FIR No. 661/22.
Chief Justice
Judge
Islamabad:
06.02.2024
(M. Tauseef)
Approved for Reporting