Summary: Service/Repatriation

Summary: FAO: Second round over Injunction Jurisdiction Appellant impungns refusal of Trial Court to grant temporary Injuction.

Summary: Specific Relief Act, 1877 (I of 1877)------Ss. 39, 42 & 54--Exchange of Property--Dismissal of suit for declaration cancellation of mutation entries andpermanent injunction-Acceptance of appeal--Non-production of oral or documentary evidence regardingfraudulently mutation entries--Silence of agreement regarding description of property and mutation numbers--Nocause of action--Challenge to--Nothing specifically was brought on record through any oral or documentaryevidence to suggest that mutation entries in question have fraudulently been carried out by petitioners in theirfavour--Witnesses have not mentioned a single word with regard to fraudulent transfer of disputed property--Agreement is silent with regard to description of property, its mutation numbers etc, thus does not disclose anycause of action in favour of plaintiffs--Defendants produced as many as ten (10) witnesses and also recordedstatement of their attorney and all of them deposed possession of cultivation of defendants--Defendant Nos. 3 to6 remained alive for more than twenty (20) years after transfer of property in question in revenue record, butthey kept silent, even plaintiffs and Defendant Nos. 3 to 6 also kept mum since longtime--Respondent have Failed to prove their case through confidence inspiring evidence, main issue No. 3 hasbeen resolved against plaintiffs they have failed to prove issue--It is now well settled principle of law thatlacunas of defendants cannot be extended in favour of plaintiffs--Revision petition allowed.

Summary: (a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)-------Ss.32, 156(1)(14), 156(1)(86), 156(1)(95-A), 156(1)(96) & 211---Customs Rules, 2001,Rr. 101 & 102---Mis-declaration---Failure to give information regarding offence---Dishonestly issuing a security---Failure to maintain record---Appreciation of evidence---Delayed FIR---Scope---Department assailed the acquittal of respondents by the SpecialJudge Customs---Alleged forgery was committed in the month of July 2008 but the FIR waslodged with a delay of four years---Entire case of the prosecution rested upon GoodsDeclarations and E-Forms, wherein allegedly forgery and tampering was committed by theaccused in their capacity as Exporters/Clearing Agents, but the prosecution had failed toproduce the documents in the trial court in order to establish charges of forgery andtampering---Investigating Officer had admitted that it was the duty the Customs Authoritiesto keep original documents in the office---Non-production of relevant and essentialdocuments in the trial court had rendered the entire case of prosecution as doubtful andnothing was left to make reliance for awarding conviction and sentence to the accused---Prosecution had failed to establish the charge through concrete and solid evidence, whichfact itself was admitted by its own witnesses---Appeals against acquittal were dismissed, incircumstances.(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S.154---Information in cognizable cases---Scope---Main purpose of lodging FIR is to setcriminal law in motion and to bring on record firsthand information about the occurrence of acrime and to provide a sound basis for carrying out investigation in the right directionexcluding the possibility of fabrication of any false story.(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S.154---Information in cognizable cases---Delayed FIR---Condonation of delay---Scope---Delay in lodging the FIR can only be condoned when such delay has been adequatelyexplained.(d) Appeal against acquittal-------Once the accused is acquitted of the charge by the Court of competent jurisdiction, doublepresumption of innocence is attached with such order, which cannot be reversed until andunless it is proved that the order of acquittal is perverse, fanciful, capricious or contrary torecord.

Summary: Acquittal granted ---- Facts: Muhammad Abid was murdered on June 9, 2009, and Muhammad Shoaib was injured in the same incident. The prosecution accused Ishtiaq Hussain and his sons of the crime, alleging they ambushed the victim and his companions. The trial court convicted Ishtiaq Hussain under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, sentencing him to death, while acquitting his sons. Both the conviction and the acquittals were challenged, with the High Court altering the death penalty to life imprisonment for Hussain but upholding the acquittals.Issue(s):Whether the evidence against Ishtiaq Hussain was sufficient for conviction.Whether the acquittals of co-accused were justified.Holding: The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment and acquitting Ishtiaq Hussain due to inconsistencies and doubts in the prosecution's case. The criminal petition seeking reversal of acquittals and reinstatement of the death penalty was dismissed.----Reasoning:The Court found discrepancies between the ocular accounts and medical evidence, notably regarding the nature of Muhammad Shoaib's injury, which was testified as a stab wound but medically recorded as a gunshot wound.The collective accusation against Ishtiaq Hussain and his sons, with the fatal assault described as involving only a single gunshot, was viewed skeptically by the Court, suggesting an overzealous attempt to implicate the entire family.The prosecution's narrative, including the positioning of the accused during the shooting, was found implausible and inconsistent with the initial crime report and autopsy findings.The Court concluded that the prosecution's case was fraught with doubts, leading to the failure to meet the required standard of proof for criminal conviction.----Judgment: The criminal appeal was allowed, resulting in the acquittal of Ishtiaq Hussain due to insufficient and unreliable evidence. The criminal petition seeking to challenge the acquittals and restore the death penalty was dismissed.

Summary: Bail granted---Background:Khair Muhammad and another petitioner were booked under FIR No. 488/2020 for offenses under sections 302/324/34, PPC, registered at Police Station Gadai, District DG Khan.The incident arose from a dispute over crop destruction, resulting in a scuffle where one individual was fatally shot and another sustained minor injuries.---Issues:Whether the petitioners' involvement in the incident was substantiated.Whether the injuries and roles attributed to the petitioners were supported by evidence.Whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 497(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC).---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Court considered the delay between the incident and police report registration, suggesting the possibility of deliberation.The role attributed to the petitioners was not supported during the investigation.Medical evidence contradicted the injury ascribed to one of the victims.The Investigating Officer confirmed that one petitioner was not present at the scene.No incriminating evidence was recovered from the petitioners.Given the circumstances, the Court invoked Section 497(2) of the Cr.PC and granted pre-arrest bail.The Court emphasized the purpose of pre-arrest bail to prevent innocent individuals from false charges and malicious prosecution.The decision did not prejudice the case and left the authenticity of the accusation to be resolved during trial.---Citations/Precedents:Meeran Bux Vs. The State and another (PLD 1989 SC 347) - Scope of pre-arrest bail widened to include touching upon the merits of the case.Section 497(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Summary: PLJ 2020 Karachi 65 (DB) [Sukkur Bench] Present Salahuddin Panhwar and Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui JJ KHADIM HUSSAIN and 18 others - - Petitioners versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary Irrigation Department Sindh and 4 others - - Respondents CP No D - 1043 of 2018 decided on 1362018 Constitution of Pakistan 1973 - - - - - - Arts 9 190 199 - - Water rotation program - - Installation of unauthorized lift machines - - Discharge of Nara Canal - - Short fall of water in River Indus - - Distribution of water as per entitlement - - Discharge of water through theft - - Submission of report by magistrate regarding illegal lift machines - - Fundamental right - - Obligation of irrigation authorities - - Principle of equity - - Every citizen has fundamental right as enshrined in Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 which is guaranteed and state is responsible to ensure such guarantee - - Pure drinking water is right of every single citizen but regretful to admit that in tail - end areas and remote areas their priority is to have water regardless of its suitability for drinking standard or otherwise - - Any breach or tampering with design discharge always results in effecting rights of those to follow therefore supply of water by way of construction maintenance and regulations of canals has been made prime rather sole obligationduty of Irrigation Authorities - - None would complain even on rotation Programme if object and intention thereof is to ensure equity - - Legally irrigation officials cannot come forward with plea of being helpless rather would be required to justify any such failure or negligence else to face consequences ie payment of compensation - - At one hand irrigation authorities admit position so critical that they seem to have become incapable to provide water but at same time their conduct is quite negligent as admittedly illegal lift machines and illegal electric connections are being usedcontinued - - Irrigation authorities would never be justified in claiming themselves helpless towards performing their obligations which shall always include a legal action against any person if his acts or omissions appear to be resulting in hamperinginterference in supplyflow of water from top to endtail - - Department always represents Government hence representative of a department would not be justified while complaining about non - co - operation by law enforcing agencies or statushigh position of guiltyviolator of law and obligations - - Despite a categorical undertaking by Chief Engineer Irrigation that no violation of Act shall go un - noticed but things remained otherwise therefore same opens a room of involvement of all judicial authorities to play their roles not only to get compliance of observation of honourable Apex Court but also to protect fundamental rights as was insisted in referred case - - Judicial propriety demands that Chief Secretary with consultation of Secretary Irrigation shall constitute five members committee comprising on three Irrigation Officers (retireserving) not below rank of superintendent engineer and two irrigation experts working in private sector who shall visit Nara Canal examine sanctioned private lift machines approved by Chief Minster and Secretary Irrigation as well use thereof as per specification or otherwise and submit report whether such approval is against interest of tail - end khatedars and whether same is justified or otherwise - - The committee shall also point out any violationbreach of Act as well negligence of irrigation officials of concerned point - - The committee would also ensure getting such violationtampering with module etc repaired (restored at its sanctioned design) by seeking assistance of local police and irrigation officials - - Committee shall examine period of huge increase in command area approval of lift machines up - to Mundh Jamrao and legality thereof - - Since a challenge in petition was made with reference to water rotation programme for which it would suffice to say that since application of Section 28 of Act is vailable with Irrigation authority hence petition seems to have found its answer - - Further it is added that such exercise (water - rotation Programme) may be continued if circumstances so demands - - However this shall not be exercised at cost of rights of other khatedars - - A proper publication of water rotation programme shall however be made in advance - - Petition disposed of [Pp 70 71 73 75 78 81] A B C D E F G H I Mr Irfan Ahmed Baloch Advocate for Petitioners Mr Ahmed Ali Shahani Assistant Advocate General Sindh along with Aftab Ali Talpur Executive Engineer and Imdad Hussain Assistant Engineer for RespondentsJudgement Result:Petition disposed of

Summary: (a) Jurisprudence- -Legal system-Meaning of legal system is derived from values in a given society. (b) Constitution of Pakistan- -Arts.2-A, 3, 9, 25(3), 31, 34, 35, 37 & 38-Right of wife in Islam-Responsibilities of husband-Scope-Within Islamic traditions, the first and most important right that a wife has over her husband is to be treated with respect and kindness-When a woman gets married, she has financial rights over her husband-Husband must provide her with all necessities for her to live a comfortable life-Incumbent upon husband to offer provisions of house, food, clothing, healthcare and other tools required for her subjective standard of living-Given values and keeping with Arts. 2-A, 3, 9, 25 (3), 31, 34, 35, 37 & 38 of the Constitution, the Legislatures have made special provisions to help woman in distress and for her protection against moral and material abandonment-Object of all laws is that ill-used wives and discarded divorcees should not be driven to material and moral dereliction to seek sanctuary in the streets-Islamic ethos and general sociological background for resolution of all such disputes, must be appreciated. (c) Islamic law- -Gift by husband to wife-Gift, revocation of-Collusion-Proof-Onus to prove-Special costs, imposition of-Parties were husband and wife inter se, and suit was filed by husband to revoke gift of land made in favour of his wife-Plea raised by plaintiff was that gift mutation in favour of wife was outcome of collusion of defendants and that plaintiff was not aware of the gift at the time of affixing his thumb impression-Both the Courts below concurrently dismissed suit and appeal filed by plaintiff-Validity-Type of allegations made by plaintiff upon its proof, acted as a catalyst bringing beneficiary under burden to establish validity of transaction-Allegation of collusion was made by plaintiff, who as per Art. 117 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, had burden to prove the same-Court could not proceed on the basis of weaknesses of defendants until such burden was discharged-By falsely accusing his wife, husband not only tarnished her chastity but also made a despicable attempt to seize her property-High Court declined to interfere in concurrent judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below-High Court imposed heavy costs upon husband under S.35-A, C.P.C. which would to some extent serve as "balm to relieve the wife from pain of wound inflicted by her husband"-Revision was dismissed in circumstances. M. Krishnaswami Naidu v. Secretary of State represented by Collector of Tanjore and others AIR (30) 1943 Madras 15; Muhammad Aslam v. Muhammad Tufail and 2 others 1995 CLC 1061; Inayat Ali Shah v. Anwar Hussain 1995 CLC 1906; Tahira Bibi v. Muhammad Khan and others PLD 2018 Lah. 803; Amina Bibi v. Khatija Bibi (1864) 1 Bom. H.C. 157; Ma Mi v. Kallandel Ammal AIR 1927 PC 22; Emnabai v. Hajirabai (1889) 13 Bom 352; Abdul Rehman Nachiyal v. Muhammad Nurdin Maracayer 23 IC 547; Bee Jan Bee v. Fatima Beebee 8 IC 431; Neaz Begum v. Manzur Ahmad 11 IC 534; Abdul Mateen and others v. Mst. Mustakhia 2006 SCMR 50 and Al-Muslim Shaih, Cairo, Kitab al-Hibat, P.64 rel. (d) Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)- -S. 52-Entries in revenue record-Presumption-When entries of mutation get incorporated in Jamabandi (annual record) then it is presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted therefor. Bhagwan Das v. Mangal Sain AIR 1929 Lah. 93; Abdul Ahad and others v. Roshan Din and 36 others PLD 1979 SC 890; Ahmad Ali and others v. Muhammad Iqbal and another 1986 SCMR 244; Divisional Evacuee Trust Property Committee, Hyderabad v. Deputy Commissioner and another 1989 SCMR 1610; The Evacuee Trust Property Board and others v. Haji Ghulam Rasul Khokhar and others 1990 SCMR 725; Syed Muhammad Haider Zaidi and others v. Abdul Hafeez and others 1991 SCMR 1699; Mazloom Hussain v. Abid Hussain and 4 others PLD 2008 SC 571 and Mt. Wallan v. Fazla and others AIR 1939 PC 114 rel. (e) Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)- -S. 42-Mutation of gift-Gift of property by husband to wife-Wife, possession of-Constructive possession, principle of-Applicability-Once mutation of names is proved, the natural presumption arising from relation of husband and wife existing between them is that husband痴 subsequent acts with reference to property have been done on his wife痴 behalf and not on his own-Such principle indicatestheory of constructive possession is well applicable to gifts between husband and wife. (f) Islamic law- -Gift-Revocation-Effect-Gift made by husband in favour of his wife is to made more congeniality-Islamic Law, in such like events, does not give husband any right to revoke the gift. Abdul Majid Khan and another v. Mst. Anwar Begum PLD 1989 SC 362 and Hamilton痴 Hedaya by Grady at page 486 rel.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending