Summary: Against order of acquittal under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. criminal revision under section 439, Cr.P.C. is not competent. Similarly, writ petition against order of acquittal is also not competent in the light of section 417(2), Cr.P.C.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)--- ----S. 130---Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, jurisdiction of---Adjudication of matter-in-issue---Passing judgment without giving reasons---Effect---Department filed Reference contending that the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (ATIR) dismissed their appeal in a mechanical way and failed to consider the applicability and scope of various/relevant provisions of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, in the context of issue-in-question(gains bagged through sale of properties)---Validity---Relevant/operative paragraph of the impugned order showed that the ATIR abdicated its jurisdiction and allowed appeal simplicitor while referring to an earlier order having been previously passed by it (ATIR) ,without extending reasons to establish alleged similarity of facts / causes giving "considered opinion that the ATIR had already decided the same issue of two members of AOP through a very well-reasoned and speaking order---Thus, impugned order was devoid of plausible reasoning and patently ambiguous; no explanation was found to understand the meaning or rational of the expression "two members of AOP"---Evidently, effect of various provisions of law, in the context of allegations, was not dilated upon, let alone considered---ATIR was required to consider the scope of various sections of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Fair and proper adjudication of matter-in-issue was missing---High Court set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and remanded the matter for decision afresh on the Appeal of the taxpayer---Reference application, filed by Department, was allowed accordingly. Muqtedir Akhtar Shabir and Mirza Shahryar Beg for Applicant-department.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Petitioners are consultants who have worked under different agreements with NHA. They are aggrieved that post conclusion of the agreement, NHA has affected recoveries from and on their dues on basis of internal audit paras.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Background: The petitioners, filed a petition challenging the order dated 30.10.2023, passed by the Sessions Judge (East), Islamabad. The Sessions Judge's order set aside a previous order by the Judicial Magistrate, which had released the accused under Section 63 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in FIR No. 367/2023, registered under sections 302, 109, 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) at Police Station Shahzad Town, Islamabad. The FIR involved charges related to a murder that occurred on 30.06.2023. ----Issues: 1- Whether the Sessions Judge was correct in exercising revisional jurisdiction to set aside the Judicial Magistrate's order under Section 63 CrPC. 2- Whether the Judicial Magistrate's order releasing the accused was administrative or judicial in nature. 3- Whether the Judicial Magistrate had sufficient grounds to release the accused under Section 63 CrPC. 4- Whether the petitioners' challenge to the Sessions Judge's order is maintainable. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ---Nature of the Magistrate's Order: The court examined whether the Judicial Magistrate's order was administrative or judicial. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in "Bahadur and another v. The State and another" (PLD 1985 SC 62), the court noted that administrative orders are not subject to revisional jurisdiction under sections 435/439 CrPC. The Magistrate’s order under Section 63 CrPC, being administrative, should not have been subject to revision by the Sessions Judge. ---Error in Judicial Magistrate’s Decision: The court identified that the Judicial Magistrate released the accused based on a preliminary assessment of evidence, which included a video attempting to establish an alibi. This assessment was beyond the Magistrate's jurisdiction, as such determinations should be made by a competent trial court after a thorough evaluation of all evidence. ---Relevance of Evidence and Legal Procedure: The Magistrate should have either granted or denied the physical remand based on the police's request and left the determination of guilt or innocence to the trial court. The court emphasized that the investigation's progress, including recoveries and the deceased's statement, necessitated further investigation and judicial scrutiny. ---Sessions Judge’s Revision: The Sessions Judge's order setting aside the Magistrate's decision was held to be unsustainable, as it improperly exercised revisional jurisdiction over an administrative order. ---Inherent Powers of the High Court: The court referenced several precedents, including "Shahnaz Begum v. The Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Sindh and Balochistan and another" (PLD 1971 SC 677) and "Muhammad Ali v. Additional I.G. Faisalabad and others" (PLD 2014 SC 753), to underscore the High Court’s authority under Section 561-A CrPC to correct errors and prevent abuse of the judicial process. The court set aside both the Sessions Judge’s order dated 30.10.2023, and the Judicial Magistrate’s order dated 04.10.2023. The Magistrate was directed to reconsider the police's request for physical remand of the accused strictly in accordance with the law. The petitioners/accused were ordered to appear before the Magistrate on 22.12.2023 for further proceedings. ----Citations/Precedents: Bahadur and another v. The State and another (PLD 1985 SC 62) Muhammad Sharif v. The State and another (1997 SCMR 304) Hidayatullah and others v. The State through Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P. Peshawar High Court, Peshawar (2006 SCMR 1920) Shahnaz Begum v. The Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Sindh and Balochistan and another (PLD 1971 SC 677) The State through Deputy Prosecutor-General, NAB v. Tariq Mohsin and others (2004 SCMR 1892) Altaf Hussain v. Abdul Samad and 3 others (2000 SCMR 1945) Asfundyar and another v. Kamran and another (2016 SCMR 2084) Muhammad Ali v. Additional I.G. Faisalabad and others (PLD 2014 SC 753) Arif Ali Khan and another v. The State and 6 others (1993 SCMR 187) Ali Gohar and others v. Pervaiz Ahmed and others (PLD 2020 SC 427) Younus Abbas and others v. Additional Sessions Judge, Chakwal and others (PLD 2016 SC 581)

Summary: 1) The Lahore High Court held that if the accused refuses to sign the charge sheet, he cannot be convicted under section 180 PPC. [Reliance was place on The State VS Sardar Ahmed PLD 1967 Karachi 75] --- 2) The Additional Session Judge cannot directly convict the accused under section 195 of the Code if there is a breach of section 180, in the light of legal provisions under Sections 480 and 482, the ADJ has to first impose a fine of Rs.200, after that the court shall sent a report to the Magistrate under Section 482, only after following the due procedure can the court pass a conviction. 3) When an offender is punished under section 180 PPC, pursuant to section 480 of the Code then appeal against such order is provided under section 486 of the Code --- The appeal contested the conviction under section 180 PPC (Pakistan Penal Code) and a fifteen-day simple imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs.500/- each.The appellants argued that they were convicted because they sought time for their counsel when asked to sign a charge sheet related to a separate case. The defense contended that obtaining signatures on a charge sheet is not a legal requirement and cited precedent to support their case --- The judgment analyzed sections 480 and 482 of the Cr.P.C., highlighting that the learned Additional Sessions Judge lacked the authority to directly pass a sentence under section 180 PPC. The court concluded that the impugned order was a nullity in the eyes of the law.The contention that no appeal lies in petty offenses under section 413 of the Cr.P.C. was rejected, as the court pointed out that when an offender is punished under section 180 PPC pursuant to section 480 of the Code, an appeal is allowed under section 486 of the Code.Considering these circumstances, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence --- according to provisions of sections 154 and 200 of theCode the complainant is required to sign the statement, whereas, sections342 and 364 of the Code require obtaining the signatures of the accused butthere is no such requirement under sections 243 or 265-E of the Code.Obtaining signatures of the accused on the charge sheet is not the legalrequirement but it is in practice since long, therefore, obtaining signatureson the plea of an accused plainly conforms to his admission to charge orotherwise, therefore, it cannot be considered as an illegality; however, ifthe accused does not sign the charge sheet he cannot be convicted undersection 180 of PPC. Reliance in this respect is placed on the case cited supraas ?THE STATE versus SARDAR AHMED? (PLD 1967 Karachi 75) --- The contention of learned Prosecutors that in petty offences no appeallies as per mandate of section 413 of the Code is also repelled because when Criminal Appeal No.531/2023.4an offender is punished under section 180 PPC pursuant to section 480 ofthe Code then appeal against such order is provided under section 486 ofthe Code; therefore, this appeal is competent against the impugned orderpassed by learned Additional Sessions Judge.