Summary: This case involved a pre-emption suit regarding land, where a compromise was reached between the parties, resulting in a decree for half of the land. The trial court made an error in recording the order and later rectified it, specifying the amount to be deposited by the plaintiff. However, another mistake regarding the deduction of zar-e-soam from the amount surfaced. The trial court refused an extension of time for depositing the corrected amount, leading to a revision petition. The petitioner argued that the revisional court erred in granting time for depositing the amount after the stipulated period. The petitioner contends that the respondents should have initially deposited the incorrect amount and later filed for correction, and the subsequent refusal of an extension was justified. The respondents argued that the correction of the decretal amount necessitated an extension of time, even without a written prayer, and the revisional court rightly granted permission for depositing the corrected amount. The court opines that the trial court committed an error in calculating the amount, and the respondents' application for correction was justified. The refusal to extend the time was not legally justified, and the revisional court rightly granted permission for depositing the corrected amount. The court cited precedents supporting the extension of time in cases of court errors and dismissed the petition, upholding the revisional court's order.

Summary: Bail denied---Background:Ghulam Abbas, the petitioner, was accused of fatally shooting Abdul Latif on 22nd December 2004.Abbas intercepted Abdul Latif's entourage and shot him while he was on his way to attend Court proceedings.The motive for the crime was cited as a previous blood feud.Abbas evaded arrest for almost 16 years and was finally apprehended on 14th January 2020.His co-accused, Iftikhar Ahmed, was acquitted during Abbas's absence.---Issues:Whether Abbas's advanced age and health condition are grounds for his release on bail.Whether the acquittal of Abbas's co-accused justifies his release on bail.Whether there are reasonable grounds for Abbas's release on bail.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Court found that Abbas's advanced age and health condition, although statedly frail, cannot justify his almost 16-year abscondance.The statements of witnesses, including an injured party, supported by medical evidence, constitute "reasonable grounds" within the contemplation of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.Abbas's prolonged absence and the serious nature of the crime stood as impediments to his release on bail, which is discretionary in nature.The view taken by the High Court was found to be within the bounds of the law and did not warrant interference by the Supreme Court.The petition was dismissed, leave was declined.

Summary: Sentence reduced---Background:Javed Akhtar, the petitioner, was the sole accused in a murder case involving the killing of Muhammad Riaz and the injury of several others.---Issues:Whether there were material contradictions in the evidence presented.Whether the petitioner's claim of acting under sudden provocation warranted a reduction in sentence.Whether the reduction of the petitioner's sentence to life imprisonment by the High Court was justified.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court of Pakistan declined to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the petitioner's appeal.The court found that the evidence against the petitioner was sufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, despite the petitioner's arguments about contradictions in the evidence.The court rejected the petitioner's claim of acting under sudden provocation, stating that the circumstances did not support this defense.The reduction of the petitioner's sentence to life imprisonment by the High Court was deemed justified, given the brutality of the crime and the evidence presented.---Citations/Precedents:Ali Muhammad v The State (PLD 1996 Supreme Court 274)Muhammad Asif v Muhammad Akhtar (2016 SCMR 2035)Gul Hassan case (PLD 1989 SC 633)

Summary: Acquittal granted---Background:In Jail Petition No. 105 of 2020, Mufti Kafayat Ullah appealed against the judgment dated 17th March 2020 issued by the Islamabad High Court Islamabad in Criminal Revision No. 20 of 2019. The petitioner was tried for a murderous assault on his estranged wife, Mst. Sabiha, and brother-in-law, Abdul Majeed, in the District Court premises on 8th February 2013. The incident allegedly occurred after proceedings before a Family Judge, where the petitioner confronted them in the parking lot and attempted to fire shots. He was subdued and disarmed by witnesses with the assistance of a police official on duty.---Issues:Whether the conviction of the petitioner was based on sufficient evidence?Whether the inclusion of the petitioner's brother in the array for being in the community of intention was justified?Whether the seizure of the pistol and bullets presented by the complainant qualified as corroboration of the prosecution's case?---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court found the complainant's narrative to be based solely on word of mouth, with inherent missing links and inconsistencies. The investigating officer did not secure missed bullets from the crime scene nor associate the police official who allegedly intervened to disarm the petitioner. The inclusion of the petitioner's brother in the array was deemed oblique and suspect. Additionally, the seizure of the pistol and bullets did not qualify as corroboration under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Given the persisting animosity and the flawed nature of the prosecution's case, the petition was converted into an appeal, and the petitioner was acquitted of the charge.

Summary: National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)- -S. 25(a)-Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.114-Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199-Constitutional petition-Voluntary Return-Coercion and fraud-Principle of estoppel-Applicability-Factual controversy-Petitioner opted for Voluntary Return before National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and returned all illegal benefits alleged to have acquired by him-Two years later, petitioner sought recovery of amount deposited by him with NAB on the plea of misrepresentation, coercion and fraud committed by NAB-Validity-Admission of petitioner pertaining to Voluntary Return application and his affidavit created a barrier for him under the principle of estoppel-Questions of misrepresentation, coercion and fraud required complete trial which could not be resolved in Constitutional jurisdiction-High Court declined to go into disputed questions of facts-Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Dr. Muhammad Javed Shafi v. Sayed Rashid Arshad and others PLD 2015 SC 212 and Fida Hussain v. Mst. Saiqa 2011 SCMR 1990 rel.

Summary: (a) Fair trial- -Conduct of judge-Unfair judicial treatment-Judge's conduct of intervening during recording of oral evidence and using ill-tempered and offensive language towards a litigant could render the trial unfair and would merit a complete retrial-Principles. The judicial authorities on an inquiry into the unfairness of a trial establish the following principles: (i) A judge's interventions should be as infrequent as possible during cross-examination of witnesses, because the very gist of cross-examination laid in the unbroken sequence of question and answer and because the cross-examiner was at a grave disadvantage if he was prevented from following a preconceived line of inquiry; M & P Enterprises (London) Ltd v Norfolk Square (Northern Section) Ltd [2018] EWHC 2665 (Ch) and Jones v National Coal Board [1957] 2 QB 55 ref. (ii) The core principle, that under the adversarial system the judge remained aloof from the fray and neutral during the elicitation of the evidence, applied no less to civil litigation than to criminal trials; London Borough of Southwark v Kofi-Adu [2006] EWCA Civ 281 and Michel v The Queen [2009] UKPC 41, [2010] 1 WLR 879 ref. (iii) The quality of a written judgment could not render a trial fair in circumstances where the judge's interventions at the hearing prejudiced the exploration of evidence; In re G (Child) [2015] EWCA Civ 834 ref. (iv) Where a transcript of proceedings existed, it was not the present practice of appellate courts to invite the judge to comment on the allegations; but the absence of his ability to comment placed upon the judge a requirement to analyse the evidence punctiliously and with great care; (v) Unrepresented litigants were unlikely to be equipped to withstand judicial pressure and so the judge must temper his conduct accordingly. In the present case, the transcript of proceedings of the trial showed that the judge directed a barrage of hostility towards the claimant's case and towards the claimant himself acting in person. In doing so the judge used immoderate, ill-tempered and at times offensive language. The judge did not allow the claim to be properly presented, therefore he could not fairly appraise it, and as a consequence the trial was unfair. Instead of making allowance for the claimant being unrepresented, the judge harassed and intimidated him in ways which surely would never have occurred if the claimant had been represented. The logical consequence of a conclusion that a trial was unfair was an order for a complete retrial. Since the justice system had failed both sides in the present case, the Supreme Court ordered a full retrial. (b) Defamation- -Libel-Defence- 'Responsible journalism'- 'Public interest' defence under common law (as developed in the judgment Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127) and that under S. 4 of the Defamation Act, 2013 (UK)-Scope and distinction. The decision in Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127 established the existence at common law of a specific defence to a claim for defamation brought in relation to publication of a statement on a matter of public interest. Where the defamatory material concerned such a matter, the defendant had to show that it had met the standard of "responsible journalism", measured by reference to a list of ten factors identified in the said judgment. Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127 ref. Section 4 of the Defamation Act, 2013 (UK) replaced the"Reynolds defence"with a new defence which, on any view, drew on the principles in Reynolds and later cases. The section 4 defence was available where the defendant"reasonably believed that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest"[section 4(1)(b)]. In assessing reasonableness, the Court must (among other things) have regard to all the circumstances of the case [section 4(2)]. Reference to the (ten)"Reynolds factors"was deliberately omitted by the legislature from section 4 and the said factors were not to be used as a checklist for purposes of section 4."Reynolds defence"(under common law) and the section 4 defence were materially different: for the elements of the two could not be equated. It was wrong to consider that the elements of the statutory defence under section 4 could be compared with those of the"Reynolds defence" under common law. Economou v De Freitas [2018] EWCA Civ 2591 ref. (Media Lawyers Association) (written submissions only) Heather Rogers QC, Romana Canneti, Jonathan Price (Instructed by Pia Sarma, Solicitor, Editorial Legal Director, Times Newspapers Limited) for Intervener. Dates of hearing: 17th and 18th March, 2020.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: [Defination of Estoppel] The admission of the petitioner pertaining to the application and the affidavit, no doubt, the same may not be out of context of contents, created a barrier for him under the principle of estoppel, which has been defined in Osborn s Legal Dictionary as the doctrine of law which precludes a person from denying the truth of statement formerly made by him , and under the provision of Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984, under Article 114 which reads as: - 114. Estoppel:- When one person has by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing. At the same time questions of misrepresentation, coercion and fraud requires complete trial which could not be resolved in writ jurisdiction. In this regard, we are supported by the decision in a case titled Fida Hussain Vs Mst Saiqa (2011 SCMR 1990), wherein it was observed by their lordships as under: - High Court was not to resolve disputed questions of fact in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution.

Summary: The State, represented by the Prosecutor General of Punjab, has filed a petition against an order by Duty Magistrate 1st Class, Karor Lal Esan. The order discharged Zafar Abbas in a case related to the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The impugned order cited reasons such as the absence of the informer's name in the FIR and failure to record statements from the locality. However, the petition argued that the informer's name is not legally required to be disclosed, and Section 103 Cr.P.C does not apply to cases under the Act. The summary further outlined the grounds on which the magistrate discharged the accused and highlights legal arguments challenging those grounds. The petition concluded by requesting the setting aside of the impugned order and directing the accused to be taken into custody for a judicial remand.

Summary: (a) Punjab Consumer Protection Act (II of 2005)- -S. 13-Liability for faulty or defective services-Scope-Appellant assailed order passed by Consumer Court whereby damages were granted in lieu of claim of the complainant-Respondent had dispatched some documents to a foreign Immigration Tribunal where an appeal for Asylum was pending disposal through appellant, a courier service (TCS) on payment of charges claimed by appellants and receipt was also issued by the appellants-Documents were not transmitted to the destination on the pretext of shortage of payment; as a result whereof immigration appeal was rejected-Validity-Appellants had received/booked the shipment after receiving the requisite charges and issued the receipt in that regard-Appellant was left with no jurisdiction to retain and not to transmit the shipment to the destination for any reason let alone deficiency of charges-Appeal was dismissed. (b) Punjab Consumer Protection Act (II of 2005)- -S. 28-Settlement of claims-Non-issuance of notice to the manufacturer or service provider-Effect-Appellant a courier service (TCS) assailed order passed by Consumer Court on the ground that the claim before it was not maintainable without issuing notice under subsection (3) of S.28 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005-Validity-Petition before Consumer Court could not be dismissed as incompetent solely for the non-compliance of procedural formalities, in that, it lost its legal significance and cast to the wind when the matter before the Consumer Court was dealt with after receiving the written reply and recording evidence of the parties-Significance of the notice was only to provide opportunity to the manufacturer or service provider to settle the dispute outside court which could even be availed on first appearance in court-Parties were heard at length and no prejudice had occasioned to the appellants for non-compliance of the provisions of subsection (3) of S.28 of Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005, therefore, the contention carried no force-Appeal was dismissed.