Summary: ABDUL MAJEED-Respondent (Against the judgment dated 28.05.2015 passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in C.R. No. 392 of 2010) Benami transaction- -Proof-Ostensible owner-Legatees of ostensible owner claiming ownership of property-Plaintiff, who was a foreign national, contended that he had supplied the funds to his deceased brother for the purchase of plot as well as construction thereon-Held, that transfer of funds for the purpose of purchasing subject property had been mentioned by the plaintiff in his cross-examination, wherein he admitted that he had remitted the money to Pakistan through 'hundi' system-Plaintiff was a person of sound financial means, whereas legatees of the deceased brother could not present any evidence relating to any substantial source of income of their father to purchase a costly residential unit such as the subject property-Testimony of deceased brother's widow suggested that the plaintiff had arranged the funds for his deceased brother to manage a residence for his family; that plaintiff's brothers jointly resided in the subject property, and that subject premises was the permanent residential address in plaintiff's National Identity Card-Totality of circumstances, reflected from the evidence unambiguously suggested a joint possession over the premises that included the plaintiff, who stayed therein on his visits to Pakistan-Plaintiff's foreign residency and his admitted financial status appeared to have been a dominant consideration behind his delegation of the task to his deceased brother to conveniently transact the deal on his behalf-Deceased brother had also executed a stamp paper in his life wherein it was acknowledged that plaintiff had provided the funds for the subject property and that it was a benami transaction in favour of the deceased brother-Stamp vendor appeared as a witness to confirm purchase of stamp paper by the deceased brother, which was executed in plaintiff's favour-Another real brother of the deceased as well as the plaintiff testified about the execution of the stamp paper as well as provision of funds by the plaintiff for the subject property-Burden had satisfactorily been discharged by the plaintiff to establish that his deceased brother was merely an ostensible player, with resources assigned by the plaintiff to conveniently manage the purchase of land for construction of a house thereon-Declaratory suit filed by the plaintiff had been rightly decreed in his favour by courts below-Appeal was dismissed. Abdul Majeed and others v. Ameer Muhammad and others 2005 SCMR 577 and Muhammad Sajjad Hussain v. Muhammad Anwar 1991 SCMR 703 ref.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Seeks direction upon SHO PS Tarnol for registering FIR on Complaint of petitioner

Summary: S. 60 and 99 (2) (f) of the Cantonment Act, 1924, alongwith the provisions of KP Waqf properties Ordinance, 1979 and, Article-165 and 165-A of the Constitution are discussed.

Summary: (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)-------S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Scope---Accused was alleged to have been found in possession of 1500 grams ofcharas---Report of Forensic Laboratory did not give the details of full protocols andthe test applied at the time of analysis of sample of narcotics rather it simplymentioned that certain tests were conducted and contraband material recovered inthe case was charas---Appeal was allowed and the impugned judgment was set aside,in circumstances. The State through Regional Director ANF v. Imam Bakhsh and others 2018SCMR 2039 and Khair-ul-Bashar v. The State 2019 SCMR 930 rel.(b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)-------S. 9---Possession of narcotics---Scope---Provisions of the Control of NarcoticSubstances Act, 1997, provide stringent punishments, therefore, their proof has to beconstrued strictly and the benefit of any doubt in the prosecution case must beextended to the accused. Muhammad Hashim v. The State PLD 2004 SC 856 and Ameer Zeb v. TheState PLD 2012 SC 380 ref.(c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)-------S. 36---Report of Government Analyst---Scope---Any report failing to describetherein the details of full protocols and the tests applied would be inconclusive,unreliable, suspicious and untrustworthy and will not meet the evidentiarypresumption attached to a report of the Government Analyst under S.36(2) of theControl of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.(d) Criminal trial-------Benefit of doubt---Scope---Single circumstance creating reasonable doubt wouldbe sufficient to cast doubt about veracity of prosecution case and the benefit of saiddoubt has to be extended in favour of the accused not as a matter of grace orconcession but as a matter of right.

Summary: Bail denied---Background:The case involves a double murder incident that occurred on 05.02.2016 in Rashid Amin Chowk, where members of one criminal group were fired upon by their opponents, resulting in the deaths of two individuals. The assailants, including the petitioner, allegedly conspired to commit the murders as part of a plan to retaliate against the opposing group.---Issues:Whether the petitioner, along with others, committed a heinous act of double murder with the intention to create a false counter-narrative.Whether the petitioner is eligible for bail under section 497(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) considering the delay in the trial proceedings.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The petitioner, along with co-accused, allegedly committed the double murder with the intention to create a false counter-narrative against the opposing group. The attack was characterized by its brutality and premeditated nature, aiming to silence the victims and manipulate the situation in favor of the assailants.The trial proceedings were significantly delayed due to the accused party's repeated absences from court hearings, demonstrating their attempts to manipulate and delay the judicial process. Despite efforts by the complainant to seek police protection, the accused party continued to evade the legal process, indicating their disregard for the law.The court interpreted section 497(1) of the Cr.P.C., which provides for bail in cases of non-bailable offenses. While the provision allows for bail under certain circumstances, including trial delays, it also imposes restrictions, such as denying bail to previously convicted offenders and individuals deemed hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminals.In this case, the court concluded that the petitioner falls within the category of a hardened, desperate, and dangerous criminal, based on the nature of the offense and the petitioner's actions during the trial proceedings. As a result, the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of bail under section 497(1) of the Cr.P.C., and the petition was dismissed.Precedents:MUHAMMAD HANIF versus THE STATE (PLD 1986 Karachi 437) MOUNDER and others versus THE STATE (PLD 1990 Supreme Court 934)

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending