Summary: Section 540 of Cr.P.C? re-examination and recalling of a witness?. Submission of second report of PFSA. The prosecution cannot be allowed to fill in the lacuna. under section 540 Cr.P.C. Second PFSA report,

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Background: The petitioner faced trial for an alleged offense under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) in connection with FIR No. 321, registered on July 5, 2021, at Police Station Qadir Pur Raan, District Multan. The case was initiated following allegations that the petitioner had committed rape, leading to the pregnancy and birth of a child, who subsequently passed away. After the initial investigation and submission of evidence, the prosecution sought to introduce additional forensic reports and recall a key witness for re-examination, which the petitioner challenged. -----Issues: 1- Whether the trial court erred by allowing the prosecution to submit a supplementary forensic report and re-examine the lady doctor (PW.8). 2- Whether these actions amounted to filling the lacunas in the prosecution’s case, which had been exposed during cross-examination. 3- Whether the prosecution's delay in submitting the forensic reports and seeking re-examination undermined the fairness of the trial. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Trial Court's Discretion (Section 540 Cr.P.C.): The court emphasized that Section 540 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) gives trial courts the power to summon, recall, and re-examine witnesses at any stage of the trial if their evidence is deemed essential for a just decision. However, the court noted that this power should not be used to fill gaps or correct deficiencies in the prosecution's case caused by negligence or inefficiency. The High Court found that the prosecution’s request to introduce a supplementary forensic report and re-examine the lady doctor was an attempt to fill lacunas. The prosecution sought these actions in response to issues raised by the defense during cross-examination, which the court viewed as an improper use of Section 540 Cr.P.C. The court expressed concern over the significant delay in submitting the supplementary forensic report, particularly given that the first report explicitly mentioned the need to recover evidence within 15 days. The supplementary report, requested more than a year after the first, raised doubts about its legitimacy. The court reiterated the principle that a trial judge must act as a neutral arbiter, ensuring fairness without actively assisting either side. Allowing the prosecution to submit the supplementary report and recall the witness would give the prosecution an unfair advantage, compromising the impartiality of the trial process. The High Court set aside the trial court’s decision, ruling that the actions of the prosecution amounted to filling the gaps in their case. The applications for recalling the witness and introducing the supplementary report were dismissed. -----Citations/Precedents: Shah Jahan and another v. Raheem Shah and others (2022 SCMR 352) Muhammad Afzal v. The State (2001 PCr.LJ 72) Muhammad Khan v. The State (2003 PCr.LJ 1178) Abdul Khalid v. Ansar Mehmood (2009 YLR 486) Mian Manzoor Ahmed Watto v. The State (2002 YLR 2362) Liaquat Ali and others v. The State (2000 SCMR 1455) Dildar vs. The State through Pakistan Narcotics Control Board, Quetta (PLD 2001 Supreme Court 384) Qaisar Javed Khan v. The State through Prosecutor General Punjab, Lahore and another (PLD 2020 Supreme Court 57) ----Quote: Section 540 of CrPC ----- re-examination and recalling of a witness ----- Submission of second report of PFSA. The prosecution cannot be allowed to fill in the lacuna ----- under section 540 Cr.P.C. Second PFSA report

Summary: Background: The appellant, Syed Asad Ali Shah, filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 05.04.2017, passed by the Additional District Judge-West, Islamabad, dismissing his defamation suit for damages of Rs. 9.9 million under the Defamation Ordinance, 2002. The defamation suit was filed following a news item published in the Daily Jang on 01.04.2014, which alleged that the appellant's degree was forged and proposed action against him. ----Issues: 1- Whether the news item published by the respondents was defamatory. 2- Whether the respondents published the news item in good faith and under qualified privilege. 3- Whether the trial court's dismissal of the appellant's suit was justified. 4- The appropriate amount of damages to be awarded for defamation, if any. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ---Defamatory Nature of the News Item: The court found that the news item published in the Daily Jang was defamatory. The item accused the appellant of possessing a forged degree, which was widely circulated and damaged his reputation. Despite the respondents' claim of qualified privilege, the court concluded that the publication lacked verification and was not published in good faith. ---Qualified Privilege and Good Faith: The respondents claimed that the news was published in public interest and without malice. However, the court noted that the allegations were not verified by the respondents. The Assistant Director (H.R) PHA, Abdul Qadir, testified that the appellant's degree was genuine and verified by the HEC. The court held that the respondents failed to prove their defense of qualified privilege and good faith. ---Trial Court's Dismissal: The trial court's decision to dismiss the appellant's suit was found to be incorrect. The trial court did not properly consider the evidence and admissions made by the respondents. The appellate court set aside the trial court's judgment, finding that the defamatory publication caused harm to the appellant's reputation. The appellant sought Rs. 9.9 million in damages but failed to prove special damages. The court awarded Rs. 500,000 as general damages, recognizing the injury to the appellant's reputation and the mental agony suffered. The court also directed the respondents to publish an apology in the newspaper in the same manner as the defamatory news item within 30 days. ----Citations/Precedents: Faqir Muhammad vs. Muhammad Shakil (2013 CLC 2284 Lahore) Munawar Ahmed, Chief Editor Daily Sama vs. Muhammad Ashraf (PLD 2021 [SC] 564) Abdul Majeed Khan vs. Tawseen Abdul Haleem (PLD 2012 [SC] 80) Qazi Dost Muhammad vs. Malik Dost Muhammad (1997 CLC 546) Muhammad Zaman Tabbasum vs. Mehmood (2017 CLC [Azad Kashmir] 1221) Jalil Khan Dostani vs. Dawood Ahmed (2010 CLC [Balochistan] 1434) Mst. Akhtar Sultana vs. Major Retd. Muzaffar Khan Malik (PLD 2021 Supreme Court 715) State vs. Ahmed Omer Sheikh (2021 SCMR 873)

Summary: If it is established on record that an accused person is a sick, then on these grounds, he/she would be entitled for the concession of bail --- 1. The prime and fundamental object of all laws of the land as well as of The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is to secure the life and liberty of a person and thus the court of law while dealing with the cases pending before them should keep in mind that the main spirit of the law is to secure the life and liberty of that person and the said spirit should not be defeated on the basis of procedural laws or procedural formalities. 2. Where it is established on the record that where an accused person is suffering from a kind of disease which is threatening his life and when the treatment for such disease is not available in jail then such accused person has to be released on bail. 3. Denying treatment of his own choice to an accused person specially in life threatening disease would amount to deny his right to secure his life which denial would go a long way to defeat the fundamental right of such person as guaranteed to him under Article 9 of The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. 4. If it is established on record that an accused person is a sick or an infirm person then on these statutory and exclusive grounds too, he/she would be entitled for the concession of bail as when once an accused person succeeds to bring his case within the parameters of subsection (1) of section 497 Cr.PC to the effect that where an accused is a woman or a child under the age of sixteen years or a sick person or an infirm person or if he succeeds to bring his case as one of further enquiry then he would not be required to bring his case with in the parameters of subsection (2) of section 497 Cr.PC. 5. Grant of bail to an accused person could not be treated as an order of acquittal in his favour as even after grant of bail, the prosecution would have a level field to prove the charges against such an accused person but its only purpose is that the custody of accused person is taken from the State Agency and the same is handed over to the hands of the sureties.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, a manager of the Auqaf Department at Darbar Baba Shadi Shaheed in Bhimber, filed a writ petition challenging several orders and audit findings. The dispute arose from the awarding and subsequent cancellation of a contract for the sale of goats, their skins, and other items related to the Darbar. The contract, initially awarded to a respondent, was canceled by a government notification, leading to audit findings that pointed to financial losses. ----Issues: 1- Whether the cancellation of the contract was justified and in accordance with the law. 2- Whether the petitioner was responsible for the alleged financial loss to the government exchequer. 3- Whether the petitioner was given a fair opportunity to be heard before the adverse actions were taken. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome --Justification of Contract Cancellation: The court found that the cancellation of the contract by the Revenue Minister was arbitrary and not in accordance with the law. The Revenue Minister did not have the authority to interfere in such matters, and the contract was canceled without proper justification, causing financial loss. --Responsibility for Financial Loss: The petitioner was not solely responsible for the financial loss as the cancellation was initiated by the Revenue Minister and sanctioned by higher authorities. The petitioner was executing orders from his superiors and had no role in the decision to cancel the contract. --Opportunity to be Heard: The petitioner was not provided with a proper opportunity to be heard before the adverse decisions were made. This violated the principles of natural justice as established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, which mandates that no one should be condemned unheard. The court held that the petitioner should not be penalized for actions beyond his control and annulled the impugned orders and audit findings against him. The writ petition was accepted as prayed for, with no order as to costs. ----Citations/Precedents: Commissioner of Income Tax and others vs. Fatima Sharif Textile Kasoor and others [2009 PTD 37] Emphasized the necessity of providing notice to concerned parties before proceeding against them, upholding principles of natural justice. Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897 Mandates that any authority exercising power under an enactment must do so reasonably, fairly, justly, and for the advancement of the purposes of the enactment, providing reasons for their actions.

Summary: Background: In this case, the petitioner, a professional athlete, seeks to vacate an arbitration award that denied their appeal of a disciplinary decision made by a league's commissioner. The commissioner had suspended the athlete for six games after finding them in violation of the league's personal conduct policy. The athlete challenged the arbitration award, arguing that the commissioner exceeded his authority and that the arbitration process was fundamentally unfair. ----Issues: 1- Did the commissioner exceed his authority in issuing the suspension? 2- Was the arbitration process fundamentally unfair? ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court upheld the arbitration award, denying the petitioner's request to vacate it. The court found that the commissioner acted within his authority as outlined in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the league and the players' association. The CBA granted the commissioner broad discretion to discipline players for conduct detrimental to the league. The court also determined that the arbitration process was fair, as the petitioner was given ample opportunity to present their case and was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings. The petitioner's request to vacate the arbitration award was denied, and the six-game suspension was upheld. ----Citations/Precedents: Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984): Established the principle of judicial deference to administrative agencies' interpretation of their governing statutes. Major League Baseball Players Ass’n v. Garvey, 532 U.S. 504 (2001): Emphasized the limited scope of judicial review of arbitration awards. Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp., 559 U.S. 662 (2010): Held that arbitrators derive their powers from the agreement of the parties and cannot exceed those powers. Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 569 U.S. 564 (2013): Reinforced the principle that courts must uphold an arbitrator’s decision if it arguably construes the parties' contract. National Football League Mgmt. Council v. Nat’l Football League Players Ass’n, 820 F.3d 527 (2d Cir. 2016): Supported broad deference to the commissioner’s disciplinary authority under the CBA.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending