Summary: [Custom Act, 1969 (147)] These reference applications have been filed belatedly on 11.05.2019, along with applications for condonation of delay, on the premise that the applicants counsel did not communicate the impugned order to the applicants within time on account of a disconnect between with the parties their counsel. This could hardly be grounds for condonation of delay as the applicants are supposed to be vigilant in respect of their case and cannot claim any indulgence on account of their own indolence . In addition thereto, it appears that the copy of the impugned order was delivered on 21.01.2019, and not in May 2019 as claimed by the applicants. It was further alleged that the impugned order is void and no limitation would arise in such regard. Merely alleging that an order is void does not preclude a person from the ambit of limitation and it is settled law that shelter cannot be taken behind such assertions to vitiate the statutory requirements in respect of limitation.

Summary: Background: The petitioner challenged two judicial orders. The first was the trial court’s order dated 06.07.2022, dismissing the petitioner's application under Order XIV Rule 5, 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), seeking to add an issue of estoppel in a suit for declaration, permanent, and mandatory injunctions. The second was the appellate judgment dated 08.04.2023, passed by the Additional District Judge, affirming the trial court’s decision. The petitioner was one of the defendants, while the respondents were the plaintiffs who claimed ownership of land. During the trial, one of the plaintiffs recorded a statement, withdrawing her claim against some of the defendants after receiving a monetary settlement. The petitioner argued that this statement estopped the plaintiff from pursuing her claim. -----Issues: 1- Whether the plaintiff is estopped from claiming relief due to her statement of settlement with some of the defendants. 2- Whether the trial court and appellate court erred in dismissing the petitioner’s application to frame an additional issue of estoppel. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The trial court and appellate court both dismissed the petitioner’s application, holding that: The petitioner had not raised the issue of estoppel in his original pleadings, nor had he sought to amend his written statement to include this defense. The issues framed during the trial were based on the pleadings of both parties, and the estoppel defense was not included. The trial court framed issues based on the substantive controversies raised in the pleadings, as required under Order XIV Rule 1 of CPC. The court found that the plaintiff’s withdrawal of her claim against some defendants did not affect her primary claim or the overall suit. Thus, the principle of estoppel did not apply in this case. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s ruling, finding no irregularities or illegality in its decision. The petitioner’s constitutional petition was dismissed, and the impugned orders were upheld. -----Citations/Precedents: 1988 SCMR 4: Failure to frame one or more issues during the trial does not nullify the proceedings. PLD 2008 Supreme Court 85 (Rana Muhammad Hayat Khan vs. Rana Imtiaz Ahmad Khan): Courts can consider the effect of statements made during the trial while deciding a case. PLD 2007 Supreme Court 52 (Hafiz Hamdullah vs. Saifullah Khan and others): Statements recorded during the trial can influence the final decision. PLD 1978 Supreme Court 220 (Mst. Amina Begum and others vs. Mehar Ghulam Dastgir): Courts must consider all relevant matters in the final adjudication to meet the ends of justice.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, an outstanding student with a strong educational background, completed his higher secondary education with high marks and appeared for the Medical & Dental College Admission Test (MDCAT) for admission to the Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) program. He secured a high rank in the merit list and chose Rawalpindi Medical University, where he deposited his admission fee. However, he was later denied admission and replaced by lower-ranking students. The petitioner sought judicial intervention to secure his admission. -----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner was wrongly denied admission to Rawalpindi Medical University despite his high merit ranking. 2- Whether the petitioner's exclusion from admission due to the late submission of original documents was justified. 3- Whether the petitioner's fundamental right to education was violated. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome The court held that the petitioner, having met the merit requirements and deposited the admission fee, was unjustly denied admission due to administrative delays and miscommunication by the university. The court found that the petitioner was informed about the submission of original documents at the last moment, making it impossible for him to comply within the stipulated time. This was deemed a fault of the university's administrative process, not the petitioner. The court emphasized that judicial restraint is generally exercised in academic matters, but exceptions exist when actions are ultra vires, mala fide, or against fundamental rights. Given the circumstances, the court directed the university to grant the petitioner admission to the first year of the MBBS program for the 2022-23 session. -----Citations/Precedents: Yasir Nawaz and others v. Higher Education Commission and others (PLD 2021 Supreme Court 745): Courts generally refrain from interfering in academic policy decisions unless there's a clear case of injustice. Muhammad Ilyas v. Bahauddin Zakariya University (2005 SCMR 961): Courts can intervene to ensure compliance with principles of natural justice in educational matters. Noor Muhammad Khan Marwat v. Vice-Chancellor (PLD 2001 SC 219): Judicial intervention is warranted to interpret, apply, or enforce principles of law related to education. Maharashtra State Board v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and others (AIR 1984 SC 1543): Courts may step in to address grave injustices in educational policies. Fakheryar Khan v. Agriculture University, Peshawar (PLD 2016 Peshawar 266): Judicial restraint in educational policy matters has exceptions, especially when fundamental rights are violated. Fatima Nadeem v. Province of the Punjab and others (2022 MLD 1922): Emphasizes the protection of fundamental rights in education. Tariq Mahmood v. Vice-Chancellor, University of the Punjab, Lahore and another (2022 MLD 155): Supports the intervention of courts in cases where educational institutions' actions are unreasonable.

Summary: Background: The petitioner applied for the superdari (custody) of a Toyota Corolla vehicle that had been taken into custody by the police under Section 550 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) as it was suspected to be stolen property. The petitioner claimed to be the legitimate owner, having purchased the vehicle from a Colonel in the Pakistan Army. However, the police reported that the vehicle appeared to be tampered with, particularly the chassis and engine numbers, prompting the Magistrate to deny the superdari. The petitioner’s revision before the Additional Sessions Judge was also dismissed. The petitioner then approached the High Court under Section 561-A of the Cr.P.C., seeking custody of the vehicle. ----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner was entitled to the custody (superdari) of the vehicle despite allegations of tampering with the chassis and engine numbers. 2- Whether the previous orders of the Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge, denying the petitioner’s request for superdari, were lawful. 3- Whether a vehicle with tampered identification numbers can be handed over on superdari in the absence of a counter claimant. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Tampering Allegations: The Punjab Forensic Science Agency (PFSA) report confirmed that both the chassis and engine numbers of the vehicle were tampered with and could not be restored to their original state. Given the tampered state of the vehicle, the court held that allowing the petitioner to retain custody of the vehicle would be contrary to law. Lack of Bona Fide Purchase: The court noted that the petitioner failed to exercise due diligence when purchasing the vehicle. As the vehicle was found to have tampered identification numbers, the petitioner was not considered a bona fide purchaser and, therefore, was not entitled to superdari. Instead, the petitioner could pursue legal remedies, such as seeking damages from the seller. Judicial Precedents: The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa vs. Sarfraz Khan (2020 SCMR 1410), which held that vehicles with tampered chassis numbers cannot be handed over to any party, even if the owner has registration documents. The court also cited Ch. Maqbool Ahmad vs. Customs, Federal Excise, and Sales Tax, Appellate Tribunal (2009 SCMR 226) to further support its decision that tampered vehicles cannot be returned on superdari. The petition was dismissed, upholding the orders of the Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner was not granted custody of the vehicle due to its tampered condition. ----Citations/Precedents: Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa vs. Sarfraz Khan and another (2020 SCMR 1410) Ch. Maqbool Ahmad vs. Customs, Federal Excise, and Sales Tax, Appellate Tribunal (2009 SCMR 226) Muhammad Zada vs. The State (2021 YLR 1415) Sultan Muhammad vs. Collector Customs and another (2015 PTD 570)

Summary: Indeed under section 62(9)(c) of the Elections Act, 2017 the Returning Officer may reject the nomination papers if he is satisfied that statement is false or incorrect in any material particular. However, omission in the statement of assets and liabilities of candidate himself or his dependent children, cannot be equated and treated at par with the omission of assets and liabilities of his spouse/wife. There is no law under which the wife is obliged to disclose all her assets and liabilities to husband and similarly there is no enactment under which husband can compel/force the wife to inform him about all her assets and liabilities. The spouse (in this case wife) is an independent person with all fundamental rights granted under the Constitution, including right of privacy and she may not want to disclose all her assets and liabilities to husband specifically those not acquired through him or not directly related to husband. Even if the assets were originally acquired through husband, she is not obliged under law to inform him before further transferring/alienating of those assets. Therefore, any omission of assets/liabilities in the statement regarding assets/liabilities of spouse/wife may not be alike or of same gravity as of omission in respect of assets and liabilities of the candidate himself or the one acquired by him for his dependent children. In case of incorrect and false statement of candidate's own or his dependent children's assets/liabilities the same may be fatal but in case of statement regarding assets/liabilities of wife/spouse, the omission may not be fatal unless same is not bonafide and some undue benefit/purpose was achieved or likely to be achieved by candidate for making such incorrect and false statement.

Summary: Acquittal --- Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Appeal (set aside the conviction and sentences, Contradiction in evidence, Recovery of dead body and iron rod doubtful).-----In the case presided over by Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, two accused individuals, Suleman Shah alias Sunny (son of Zahoor Ahmed) and Naveed Khan (son of Muhammad Anwar), were tried in Special Case No. 80/2009 under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The prosecution's case alleged that the complainant's brother, Muhammad Naeem, went missing and subsequently, the complainant received a call stating that his brother had been injured in an accident involving the accused individuals' vehicle. The complainant suspected foul play and illegal confinement of his brother by the accused. Following investigation and trial, the appellants were convicted and sentenced by the Anti-Terrorism Court No. I, Karachi, to life imprisonment and fines for offenses under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and the Pakistan Penal Code. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of the victim's body and alleged ransom demands. Upon review of the evidence and arguments presented by both the defense and prosecution, the appellate court found significant doubts regarding the guilt of the appellants. It noted several inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, including contradictions in witness testimonies regarding the recovery of the victim's body and the recovery of an iron rod allegedly used in the crime. The court highlighted the absence of direct evidence linking the appellants to the kidnapping and murder of the victim, as well as doubts regarding the recovery of crucial evidence and the credibility of the complainant's testimony about ransom demands. Consequently, the appellate court acquitted the appellants of all charges, granting them the benefit of the doubt. In summary, the court's decision was based on the lack of sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to their acquittal.

Summary: Land Acquisition Act,1894 (Section 11), Land Acquisition Act,1894 (Section 12) Law Discussed: Land Acquisition Act, 1894-----Standing Order of the revenue department No.12, subsection 31 regarding land acquisition provides that if the land was not required for the purpose it was acquired, it should be relinquished and should be offered to the original occupant/owner on payment of compensation received by them and in case of their refusal to have it back on the said terms, it should be considered as a government property in the record.The proceedings of acquiring land could only be ended once the compensation is deposited and the possession was taken over by the acquiring agency. Thus, this would be in severe violation of Articles 23 and 24 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, depriving the land owner not only from enjoying the property but also from its compensation. Thus, there is no justification that he (the owner/private respondent) may be granted interest now after almost three decades of litigation when the value of the property multiplied several hundred folds, as against the compensation, the value of which was determined three decades before and grant of interests under Land Acquisition Act, under the circumstances has no justification.

Summary: Acquittal---The appellant was convicted and sentenced for offenses including murder and terrorism-related charges. The incident in question involved the killing of three individuals and injuring another in a firing incident. The trial court convicted the appellant based on his alleged confession, despite the absence of his name in the initial FIR. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Sindh, where the appellant's counsel argued that there was insufficient evidence to link the appellant to the crime. They emphasized that the prosecution's main witness, who could have provided an eyewitness account, did not appear in court. The appellant's alleged confession was also challenged on grounds of voluntariness and truthfulness. The High Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court highlighted discrepancies in the case, such as the inconsistent date and time provided in the appellant's confession compared to the actual incident. Furthermore, doubts were raised regarding the voluntary nature of the confession. As a result, the High Court acquitted the appellant, determining that the benefit of doubt should favor the accused.

Summary: Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Appeal (Conviction Upheld, In U/s 4/5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, All Witness are Police Official , No ill Will and enmity Proved)

Summary: Background: The petitioner, who is an accused in a criminal case challenged the rejection of his application for a re-examination by a provincial medical board. The petitioner had earlier sought bail on medical grounds, claiming paralysis on the left side of his body. The medical board constituted by the DHQ Teaching Hospital, Gujranwala, ruled that the petitioner was not suffering from a stroke or cerebrovascular accident (CVA). The petitioner then filed for the constitution of another medical board, which was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner subsequently challenged this order through a writ petition. -----Issues: 1- Whether the rejection of the petitioner's request for a re-examination by a provincial medical board was legally justified. 2- Whether the petitioner can seek re-evaluation of the medical report or rely on other avenues for relief, such as a bail application. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that: The petitioner’s request for the constitution of another medical board was rightly rejected by the Judicial Magistrate, as the existing medical board's report was adequate, and no compelling reason was provided for further examination. The petitioner could still pursue his claim of medical incapacity through the pending bail application, where such arguments could be presented and considered. The three-tier medicolegal mechanism introduced by the Punjab Government in 2003 applies to medicolegal cases, not to the petitioner’s health condition as a prisoner. Therefore, there was no basis for constituting a provincial medical board under this framework. The petitioner’s medical condition could be adequately managed within the prison, following the applicable prison rules. The decision of the Judicial Magistrate was not found to suffer from any legal, factual, or jurisdictional errors. -----Citations/Precedents: Pakistan Prison Rules, 1978 Rule 197: Deals with the transfer of prisoners to civil hospitals in case of serious illness. Rule 982: Allows the Medical Officer to report to the Superintendent if a prisoner’s health is affected by prison conditions. Rule 146: Allows for the premature release of prisoners suffering from serious illness upon recommendations from medical authorities. The Prisons Act, 1894 Section 14: Obligates the Medical Officer to report if a prisoner’s health is negatively affected by prison discipline or treatment. The Prisoners' Act, 1900 Section 30: Provides for the removal of prisoners of unsound mind to specialized institutions for treatment.