Summary: Customs Act (IV of 1969)-------Ss.196 & 168---Customs Baggage Rules, 2016, R. 17---SRO No.574(I)/2005, dated: 06-06-2005---SRO No.499(I)/2009, dated 13-06-2009---SRO No.886(I)/2012, dated: 18-07-2012---Seizure of things liable to confiscation---Treatment of goods brought in commercialquantity---Option to pay fine in lieu of confiscated goods---Scope---Bus entered intoPakistan was found loaded with foreign origin goods in commercial quantities while thenumber of pilgrims in the bus were not more than five---Validity---Recovered goods were incommercial quantity, therefore, R.17 of Customs Baggage Rules, 2016, was applicable to thecase---Goods recovered could only be released on payment of the duty and taxes subject toredemption fine at the rate of 30% in terms of SRO No.574(I)/2005, dated: 06-06-2005 andthereafter, at the rate of 20% in terms of SRO No.499(I)/2009, dated 13-06-2009---CustomsAppellate Tribunal was not justified to remit the entire amount of fine and penalty as SRONo.886(I)/2012, dated: 18-07-2012 was not attracted in the facts and circumstances of thecase---Reference was accepted, impugned judgment passed by Customs Appellate Tribunalwas set aside.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Procured eyewitness negate the motive advance by complaint.

Summary: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S.24---Transfer of case, application for---Sufficient/reasonable cause---Scope---Occurrence of a criminal incident---Applicants (plaintiffs) sought transfer of the case on theground that the respondents (defendants), becoming inimical towards them, had attackedupon their aunt (one of the respondents) and were also threatening them with direconsequences---Held, that the applicants had made an attempt to tag the criminal incidentwith civil litigation and to base the same for transfer of the civil case to another place just tocreate trouble and inconvenience for the respondents (defendants), which, prima facie,seemed to be creation of mala fide intention---Transfer of case from present place tosomewhere else would create inconvenience for both the parties and their witnesses---Partieswere close to each other and also residing in the same city and there was no history ofprevious enmity between them---Minor incident could not be the base for transfer of case forwhich a criminal case had already been registered and law was put into motion---Applicantshad failed to bring on record any "sufficient cause" for transfer of case ---Record revealedthat the counsel of the applicants was also one of the plaintiffs (applicants), High Courtobserved that, in civil litigation he could make an alternate arrangement of an advocate toproceed with their case---Even otherwise, the criminal incident had taken place between therespondents and taking advantage of the same, the applicants had joined hands with one ofthe respondents to avail sympathies of her in their favour---Parties could not be allowed toseek transfer of the case from one court to other without showing "sufficient cause"---Inabsence of any valid ground, such practice tended to frustrate and cause delay in lawfulproceedings pending before the Court of competent jurisdiction and also causedinconvenience to the other party---Applicants had failed to show any "reasonable cause" orvalid ground for seeking transfer of the case from the Trial Court, which was the requirementof S.24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908---Application for the transfer of the case wasdismissed, in circumstance.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Jurisdiction of Revenue official in matter of partition under Sec: 141 of the land Revenue Act.

Summary: The petitioner, who is the plaintiff, initiated a suit against the respondent/defendant for the specific performance of an agreement concerning a 10-acre land in Tehsil Karor, District Layyah. The petitioner contended that the parties willingly entered into the agreement, and he paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.60,00,000 to the respondent. The petitioner further argued that if the respondent is not restrained from alienating the property, it would cause irreparable loss. The petitioner claimed that the lower courts committed a material irregularity by refusing to grant a temporary injunction. The respondent, however, vehemently opposed the petition, denying the execution of the agreement and receipt of the money. The respondent argues that the agreement is fabricated and does not create any enforceable rights. After hearing the arguments and reviewing the records, the court observed that the petitioner's claim is based on a written agreement, and prima facie, the petitioner has a good arguable case. The court noted that the respondent has not provided any material to substantiate the claim of being a tenant. The court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned orders.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 462-K & 462-O---Interference, improper use or tampering with electric meter byindustrial or commercial consumer---Cognizance---Scope---Sub-Division Officer (SDO)lodged FIR with the FIA containing allegations of theft of electricity by the accused fromnear boshes of transformer for running his tube-well and service station---Offences relatingto Chapt. XVII-B of P.P.C. were covered by the provisions of S. 462-O, P.P.C. which oustedthe applicability of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 or any other law for the time beingin force relating the assumption of jurisdiction by the Court---Court could not takecognizance of any offence under Chapter XVII-B, P.P.C., except on a complaint made withreasons to be recorded in writing along with full particulars of the offence committed underthe chapter, by duly authorized officer (not below Grade 17) of the Government or thedistribution company---Proceedings were carried out in violation of the provisions of S. 462-O, P.P.C.---Appeal against conviction was accepted, in circumstances.Muhammad Mohsin Ghaman and others v. Government of Punjab through HomeSecretary Lahore and others 2013 SCMR 85 rel.(b) Administration of justice-------When the law requires a thing to be done in a particular manner it must be done in thesame manner as provided under the law, as deviation from the prescribed procedure amountsto violation of law.(c) Administration of justice-------Mandatory pre-requisites of law, if not followed, then the entire proceedings would benullified in the eyes of law