Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- Syed Ali Bepari v. Nibaran Mollah and others PLD 1962 SC 502 and Ali Raza alias Peter and others v. The State and others 2019 SCMR 1982 ref. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -S. 302(b)-Qatl-i-amd-Reappraisal of evidence-Distance between assailant and victim-Medical jurisprudence-Burning/blackening of gunshot wound-Scope-Burning/blackening, though a predominant factor to determine distance inter se the assailant and the victim, nonetheless, was not a conclusive indicator; it depended upon factors more than one, such as, quality of munition and process of combustion that may possibly vary the impact of combusted gun powder-Smudging shot may cause deceptive appearance as well, therefore, in the absence of other qualifying evidence, hypothesis of inter se distance could not be constructed with empirical exactitude on the presence of burning alone. Parikh's Text Book of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 1989 Edition, Pages 280/282 ref. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -S. 302(b)- Qatl-i-amd-Reappraisal of evidence-Site plan-Scope-Site plan was never considered as a substantive piece of evidence nor any benefit may be extracted therefrom unless the witnesses were duly confronted with the purported anomaly or discrepancy therein.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: -----Seeking direction to set aside the awarding the project through PPRA mode instead of PPA (a) Constitutional Law – Outsourcing of Pension Disbursement – Fundamental Rights of Pensioners ----Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4, 9, 14 & 25 – Outsourcing of Pension Payments by Pakistan Post – Deduction of Service Fee from Pensioners Petitioner challenged the outsourcing of pension disbursement services by Pakistan Post to a private bank (Habib Bank Limited) and the deduction of service fees from pension payments. The court observed that Pakistan Post failed to justify its legal authority to outsource pension services, deduct fees from pensioners, and assume functions traditionally assigned to the Accountant General of Pakistan and Controller of Military Accounts. The court expressed concern that such deductions violate constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights and impose an unnecessary financial burden on the exchequer. -----Key Questions Raised by the Court: i. Under what legal authority does Pakistan Post disburse pensions? ii. Why are retired armed forces employees (grades 1–16) treated differently from higher grades? iii. Why cannot pensions be disbursed directly by established institutions like the Accountant General of Pakistan? iv. Can Pakistan Post lawfully deduct service fees from pension payments? v. If deductions are unlawful, should the deducted amounts be refunded, and by whom? vi. Is outsourcing pension disbursement services to a private bank legally permissible? -----Disposition: The Accountant General of Pakistan and Controller of Military Accounts were appointed as amici curiae to submit a joint report addressing the raised queries. Pakistan Post and the Ministry of Communication were directed to provide comments justifying their actions.

Summary: Apeal u/s 410 Cr.P.C. against the judgement dated 13.02.2010 passed by Mr. Masroor Zaman, Special Judge Central, Rawalpindi., 7 year

Summary: Chapter VI of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides the mechanism for issuance of process tocompel appearance of an accused person or anybody else through issuance of summonses and warrants and procedure by Magistrate before whom person arrested is brought when any persons is arrested in execution of warrant issued under Chapter-VI, the Judicial Magistrate before whom person arrested is brought, shall, at the first instance, under clause (1) of section 86, issue direction for his removal of custody to the relevant Court, if such direction is not issued, under first proviso, if the offence is bailable or direction has been made under section 76 of the Warrant, shall takebail bonds from him by forwarding the same to the court which issued the warrant and if the offence is not bailable or no direction has been endorsed under section 76 of the warrant, in that case, under second proviso, the Sessions Judge concerned, subject to the provisions of section 497 Cr.P.C and for sufficient reasons, release the person on an interim bail on such bond or security as thinks fit and direct the person to appear by a specified date before the Court which issued the warrant and forward the bond to that Court. In the instant case, neither the petitioner, as per contents of the FIR No. 820/20, referred to above, is nominated as an accused, nor warrant has been issued against him under sections 75/87 Cr.P.C and he has been arrested under section 54 Cr.P.C, therefore he was to be dealt with under the provisions of section 60 Cr.P.C, according to which a police officer makingan arrest without warrant shall, without unnecessary delay and subject to the provisions herein contained as to bail, take or send the person arrested before a Magistrate having jurisdiction in the case. When the petitioner has been arrested by the local police under section 54 Cr.P.C and is behind the bars since 08.06.2020 but neither any warrant has been issued against him nor there is correspondence in black and white have been made regarding shifting of the petitioner-accused to Punjab, as depicted from the comments submitted by the Superintendent, Central Prison, Peshawar, therefore, in the present scenario, the petitioner-accused cannot be kept in Jail and that too for indefinite period.

Summary: A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Abdul Maalik Gaddi, has pronounced the judgment on 06.08.2020 in the case of Dewan Motors (Pvt) Ltd. and others v. Federation of Pakistan & others (along with connected petitions), wherein, the Hon'ble bench of Sindh High Court has been pleased to dispose of all the petitions in the following terms:-"(i)The impugned sub-section (2) of Section 221-A of the Customs Act, 1969, as added vide Finance Act, 2018, is ultra vires to the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, as through impugned amendment the legislature has attempted to validate constitutional defect while making amendment in sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1969, and issuance of SRO 1035(I)/2017 dated 16.10.2017, through Finance Act, 2017, however, without making the required constitutional amendment.(ii)The Regulatory Duty charged and collected pursuant to amendment in sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1969, and issuance of SRO 1035(I)/2017, through Finance Act, 2017, has already been declared by the Divisional Bench of this Court in the case of Premier Systems (Pvt) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2018 PTD 861), as illegal and unconstitutional in the light of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Mustafa Impex, Karachi & others vs. The Government of Pakistan & others, (PLD 2016 SC 808), therefore, in the absence of any constitutional amendment, cannot be validated through subsequent amendment in law, while giving it retrospective effect in respect of past and closed transaction, therefore, no Regulatory Duty can be charged, collected or recovered for the period starting from the date of commencement of Finance Act, 2017 till the date of commencement of Finance Act, 2018. .

Summary: Bail granted---Background:The case involves a criminal petition (No. 500 of 2020) brought before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging an order dated 15.4.2020 passed by the Peshawar High Court Bannu Bench in Crl. Misc. No.BA No.142-B/2020. The petitioner, Kamran Ullah, sought relief against his detention in connection with a murder case.---Issues:Whether the evidence collected by the prosecution is sufficient to establish the petitioner's culpability in the murder.Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under subsection 2 of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court noted the absence of digital proof linking the petitioner to the crime, particularly regarding the connection between the deceased and the recovered cell phone handsets. The prosecution lacked evidence to establish a definitive link between the petitioner and the deceased. Therefore, the evidentiary value of the prosecution's evidence was yet to be determined in a trial court.Despite the seriousness of the allegations, the court found that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of subsection 2 of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which pertains to bail. Therefore, the court allowed the petitioner's appeal and ordered his release on bail upon furnishing bonds in the specified amount.Citations/Precedents:Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, Section 497, Subsection 2