Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Bail granted----(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---- S. 497, Bail -- Post-arrest bail -- Eligibility: Petitioner, Tariq Mahmood, sought post-arrest bail in a case involving multiple charges under the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The petitioner was accused of recording and disseminating objectionable material with the intent to blackmail and harm the complainant’s reputation. The defense argued that the petitioner was falsely implicated, with no incriminating material recovered. Further, the investigation against the petitioner had been completed, and continued incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. Held, the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail as the charges were not conclusively supported at the bail stage. No criminal history was found, and there was no risk of abscondence or tampering with evidence. The petitioner’s case was on par with the co-accused who had been granted bail. The Court emphasized that deeper evaluation of evidence at the bail stage was not permissible. Cited Case: Manzoor and 04 others v. The State, PLD 1972 SC 81. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---- S. 497(1), Bail -- Denial of bail and implications: The Court referred to the principle that unjustified incarceration is detrimental to an innocent person, and that bail should be granted unless there are substantial grounds to believe that the accused is likely to abscond or interfere with evidence. The denial of bail would have amounted to punishing the petitioner without sufficient evidence to substantiate the claims against him. Held, the Court granted bail in line with principles of justice and fairness, emphasizing that refusal of bail in this case would unjustly penalize the petitioner. (c) Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 ---- S. 10, 21, Bailable vs Non-Bailable Offences: The defense contended that the sections under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, specifically S. 10 and S. 21, were not applicable to the petitioner. The Court, however, noted that a deeper assessment of whether these sections applied would be reserved for the trial stage. Held, while the applicability of certain charges required further investigation, the Court granted bail based on the current stage of the case and lack of ongoing need for the petitioner’s detention. -----Disposition: Petition allowed. Petitioner granted post-arrest bail, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. Observations were tentative and not to prejudice the trial.

Summary: (a) Permanent Establishment in Pakistan and Double Taxation Treaty: Under the Double Taxation Treaty, an enterprise of a Contracting State is subject to tax in the other Contracting State only if it operates through a permanent establishment (PE) in that State. The term "permanent establishment" includes a fixed place of business, such as a branch, office, or factory, and may also extend to situations where an agent habitually exercises general authority to negotiate and conclude contracts or has stock of goods to fulfill orders. In the case of TD Pakistan and TD Ireland, the tax authorities determined that TD Pakistan constituted TD Ireland's permanent establishment in Pakistan based on its role as an agent exercising authority to conclude contracts and maintain stock of goods for regular sales activities. (b) Distribution Agreement and Jurisdictional Determination: The terms of the distributorship agreement between TD Pakistan and TD Ireland were scrutinized to determine whether TD Pakistan could be considered a separate and independent contractor. Despite clauses indicating independence (such as the exclusion of agent status), a conjoint reading of the agreement suggested that TD Pakistan was not fully independent, as it was under substantial control from TD Ireland, particularly in marketing, pricing, and service provisions. This finding aligned with the tax authorities' conclusion that TD Pakistan operated as a permanent establishment of TD Ireland in Pakistan. (c) Writ of Certiorari and Judicial Review: A writ of certiorari is an extraordinary remedy exercised at the discretion of the court, primarily to curb excess of jurisdiction. It is available to correct errors of law apparent on the face of the record and is not a tool for judicially reviewing factual findings unless they are manifestly erroneous. The court found no grounds to issue certiorari concerning the rejection of TD Pakistan’s application for tax exemption, as the tax authorities' findings were consistent with the legal framework governing permanent establishments. (d) Violation of Natural Justice in Tax Registration Notice: The court found that the notice issued to TD Ireland, requiring registration under Pakistani tax laws and the filing of income tax returns, was in violation of natural justice as it failed to afford TD Ireland a hearing. No legal basis was provided for demanding returns from TD Ireland concerning income not derived from the agreement with TD Pakistan. Consequently, the notice was set aside, though the Deputy Commissioner could reissue it in compliance with legal requirements and the principles of natural justice. -----Disposition: The petition is partly allowed. The notice dated 29.07.2016 issued to TD Ireland is set aside, while the petitioners' challenge to the impugned orders of 15.09.2011 and 30.06.2016 is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Summary: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)------Ss. 320, 107 & 114---Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance (XIX of 1965), Ss. 3 & 5---Qatl-i-khata by rash or negligent driving--- Abetment--- Scope--- Abettor present when offence is committed---Prohibition on driving without licence---Scope---Accused, while driving a water tanker, hit an unknown lady who received injuries and expired on the spot---Driving licence of accused was found to be fake and bogus---Investigating Officer of the case was required to have included the owner of the vehicle in investigation as co-accused for allowing the vehicle to be driven by a person who was not holding a valid driving licence or whose licence was not genuine---Owner of the vehicle was an abettor in terms of S.107, P.P.C. and his case fell under S.114, P.P.C.---Investigating Officer was directed to take action against owner of the vehicle and the prosecution was directed to expeditiously complete the trial against the owner as co-accused---Appeal was adjourned pending action against the owner of the vehicle. Atta Muhammad v. The State 2005 PCr.LJ 1648 rel.

Summary: (a) Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (VII of 1947)-------Ss. 4, 5 & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.109---Indulging in business ofhundi/hawala---Issuance of a warrant by the court---Requirements---Before carrying out anyproceedings, a complaint in writing by a person authorized in that behalf by the FederalGovernment or by the State Bank of Pakistan supported by statement of that person on oathwas a mandatory requirement of law before issuance of a warrant by the court of competentjurisdiction.(b) Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (VII of 1947)-------Ss. 4, 5 & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.109---Indulging in business ofhundi/hawala---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Accused was charged forcarrying out foreign exchange business in an unauthorized manner---Record showed thatFederal Investigation Agency (FIA) without adopting the required procedure and withoutseeking the permission of the concerned Magistrate had carried out all the proceedings i.e.conducted the raid, entered and searched the place of occurrence, collected the Pakistan andforeign currency, other articles and also arrested the accused persons---No search warrant,either from the Tribunal/Sessions Judge or from the concerned Magistrate was obtained inview of S.23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947---Admittedly, no permissionswith regard to arrest of the accused and for search of their shop were sought or granted---Despite the fact that the raid was conducted on the basis of prior information, theInvestigating Officer had failed to associate any independent witness in the recoveryproceedings nor the local police, within whose jurisdiction the raid was carried out, wasassociated---Entire recovery proceedings carried out by the FIA appeared to be doubtful---Circumstances suggested that the FIA illegally and without any mandate of law raided theshop of the accused and thereby travelled beyond their authority as the required procedurewas not followed rather violated---Case of prosecution from its very inception was defective,not maintainable and the impugned order of conviction passed by the Trial Court liable to beset-aside, which was founded on violation of prescribed rules and laws---Appeal againstconviction was allowed, in circumstances. Alam Jan v. FIA Police Station, Gilgit and another 2017 PCr.LJ 69 and Ghani-urRehman v. The State 2015 MLD 1438 rel.(c) Administration of justice-------If law required a thing to be done in a particular manner it must be done in the samemanner as provided under the law---Deviating from the prescribed procedure amounted toviolation of law.(d) Administration of justice-------Mandatory requirements of law, which were pre-requisites, if not fulfilled, the entireproceedings, would be nullified in the eyes of law.

Summary: Bail denied ---- Background:Saima Ashiq Javed, the petitioner, was implicated in a financial scam involving embezzlement of Rs.57.6 million from the public exchequer through bogus pensionary payments. She allegedly facilitated the scam by allowing the embezzled amounts to be deposited into her bank account and making subsequent withdrawals. Despite attempts to secure bail, she faced a proclamation of absconsion and sought judicial protection in the Lahore High Court in 2019. Dissatisfied with the outcome, she appealed to the Supreme Court.---Issues:Whether Saima Ashiq Javed is entitled to judicial protection from arrest.Whether her gender should be considered a factor in determining bail.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court rejected Saima Ashiq Javed's plea for judicial protection from arrest. The court found no evidence of mala fide intent behind the intended arrest and emphasized that gender does not confer immunity from legal proceedings. Despite the arguments presented by her counsel, the court determined that she failed to establish a case for judicial protection. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and leave was declined.