Summary: Provisions of Section 2(s), 156 (89) and 187 of the Custom Act, 1969, alongwith the Provisions of Section 3(3) Imports and Exports Act, 1950 are discussed.

Summary: For roads, bridges, gas/oil line etc. most precious lands were/are being acquired or intercepted in between to have a shortest distance to minimize the cost of that project, but we do not realize that while doing so we are not only destroying fertile/ agriculture land but so also risking our future. This acquisition is normally based on feasibility report of that particular project but there is no realization that for providing some convenience or low cost project, precious land is being destroyed, which is far more important for our future than the convenience and low cost project. The project may cost less but consequences would be detrimental. We are living in a world where natural resources such as fertile land is being vacuumed up by development of concrete structure and this would count a lot in future and no one would come for our rescue when we have to yield our own food for our own consumption. In this case land was attached with the research based agriculture department of Sindh which caters for not only fruit crop but other agri products as well. The authorities responsible for identifying this land have not applied their mind at all and in an attempt to please, the most fertile land of the province had been provided for an object which could conveniently be achieved on non-agriculture land, subject to law. Blanket recommendation was forwarded by the Committee constituted for the aforesaid purpose and without identifying the reasons of disassociating the land with the agriculture based research department, they have made this land available for a scheme called Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Town. The recommendation of the Committee and the action of the authority is neither transparent nor lawful but in fact a mala fide attempt to usurp the most precious and fertile land of district Mirpurkhas where research is being conducted. The provincial government should have emphasized to uplift the research system of the agriculture department and steered the progress by maintaining it rather than to ignore the research based system. They could always find the land anywhere else and provide resources and amenities for dwellers where the land could be developed by land developers. The performance of Ministry of Agriculture to save the land was half-hearted and they only presented themselves as marionette since they have not taken action against usurpation of their land. If we really want to protect the agricultural lands and to promote sustainable agrarian growth for the future, large scale basic reforms and legislation are needed.

Summary: The petitioner, Punjab College, established in Lahore, filed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus against the Director Public Instructions (DPI) Colleges Punjab. The petitioner alleged that it applied for a registration certificate to offer BS(IT), B.F.A., and B.Ed. classes for a 4-year program. The petitioner argued that the cut-off date is illegal, and the refusal to issue a registration certificate is without proper authority. The court, after considering the arguments and examining the record, observes that the cut-off date fixed by the Higher Education Department is not consistent with the Punjab Private Educational Institutions (Promotion & Regulation) Ordinance, 1984. The court emphasized that the Ordinance allowed institutions to function without registration until their application is decided. Since the petitioner's application was processed and no time frame was given for filing the application, the court deems the cut-off date as coram non judice (without proper authority). The court rules in favor of the petitioner, allowing the writ petition and directing the DPI to issue the registration certificate without further delay.

Summary: Background:Fateh Sher, the petitioner, was the sole individual among a group of accused prosecuted through a private complaint after the complainant expressed dissatisfaction with the investigative process. Fateh Sher was found guilty of homicide by an Additional Sessions Judge in Pindi Bhatian and was initially sentenced to death under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. However, this was later commuted to life imprisonment by the Lahore High Court. The judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 12.3.2018, is being challenged by Fateh Sher on various grounds, particularly emphasizing the wholesale failure of the prosecution case.The incident occurred at night on the fringe of the village Abadi when, according to the complainant, Fateh Sher and his brothers, along with three unknown individuals, confronted them with firearms, resulting in the death of one individual and injury to another. Despite the identification of co-accused and specific roles assigned to them in a supplementary statement, the investigative conclusions led to the exoneration of the co-accused, leaving Fateh Sher as the only convicted individual.---Issues:The primary issues include the failure of the prosecution case against the majority of the accused, the question of assailant identity in low light conditions, the unexpected encounter between the victims and assailants, and the inconsequential forensic report.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:After examining the case, the court granted leave for a reappraisal of the evidence to ensure the safe administration of criminal justice. The court noted the failure of the prosecution case against the majority of the accused, leaving Fateh Sher as the only convicted individual. The identification of assailants in low light conditions and the inconsistencies between the investigative conclusions and the crime report warrant a fresh examination of the evidence. Given these circumstances, the court found grounds for a review to ensure a fair and just resolution of the case.

Summary: Background:Owais Shams Durrani and others (the petitioners) filed a civil petition seeking leave to appeal against an order dated 12.04.2018 passed by the Peshawar High Court in Writ Petition No. 5210 of 2017. The impugned order dismissed a constitutional petition filed by the petitioners.---Issues:Whether the petitioners were entitled to regularization of their services and were discriminated against compared to employees of Abdul Wali Khan University.Whether the initial appointments of the petitioners were made in accordance with the law and whether their subsequent appointments on fixed pay were valid.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The petitioners were initially appointed as Upper Division Clerks (UDCs) on a contract basis for a period of six months, which was extended from time to time. Subsequently, their contract employment was converted to fixed pay for a period of one year, after which their services were terminated. However, the petitioners claimed entitlement to regularization based on their length of service and alleged discrimination compared to employees of another university.Perusal of the relevant provision, Section 11(5)d of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Universities Act, 2012, revealed that the power of the Vice Chancellor to create temporary posts and make appointments was limited to a maximum of three years. The petitioners' contracts expired after three years, and their subsequent appointments on fixed pay were valid. There was no denial of the fact that their appointments were made directly without following the required process of advertisement and open competition.The petitioners' argument of discrimination was not accepted as each university has its own criteria for appointment and regularization. Additionally, there was no evidence to show that employees of both universities were similarly placed and governed by the same law.The petition seeking regularization of the petitioners' services was dismissed as their initial appointments were made on a contract basis, and subsequent extensions were subject to the limitations prescribed by law.

Summary: Background:Najam-ul-Hassan alias Irshad (Petitioner/Accused) filed a petition under Section 497 Cr.P.C seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No.02/2020, registered under Sections 364-A, 377, and 511 PPC at Police Station Sikandarabad, District Nagar. The allegations against the petitioner were that he committed sodomy with Qamar Abbas, a 14-year-old boy, on 10-01-2020. The complaint was lodged by the victim's brother, Arfan Hussain, who claimed to have witnessed the occurrence. The petitioner's initial bail request was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge Nagar on 03-03-2020.-----Issues:Whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail under Section 497 Cr.P.C.Whether the petitioner's alleged involvement in the offense falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.Whether the absence of a Medico Legal Report and the lack of recovery of a pistol from the petitioner warrant further inquiry into the case.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court dismissed the bail petition, stating that the petitioner is directly nominated in the promptly lodged FIR, with the complainant himself witnessing the occurrence. The victim's statement corroborated the FIR.The court noted that the offense under Section 377 PPC falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C, which generally precludes bail.The court found that the Medico Legal Report, which noted abrasive wounds on the victim, provided prima facie evidence connecting the petitioner to the offense.The court rejected the petitioner's argument of false implication due to prior civil litigation between the families, finding no evidence of enmity that could lead to such a false accusation.The court emphasized the moral turpitude of the offense and deemed the petitioner undeserving of bail under discretionary powers.---Citations/Precedents:The decision relied on principles regarding the prohibitory clause under Section 497 Cr.P.C and the discretionary powers of the court in granting bail for offenses of moral turpitude. Specific case laws or precedents were not mentioned in the judgment.

Summary: 1. There is no cavil with the proposition that when best available evidence is with held it is the prosecution to suffer and that is what Article 129 (g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 caters for. 2. None of the two i.e. the complainant and the eye-witness identified the dead-body before the police when the inquest report was prepared and before the doctor at the time of post mortem examination, all this tell nothing but that the witnesses are chance and interested witnesses.3. The complainant stated that both the deceased and the accused were standing at the time of firing but to the contrary the doctor stated that the direction of injuries was from down to upward and all the entry wounds were having blackening around, that too do not support what the witnesses stated.4. Old age or physical deformity has never been the determining factor for awarding lesser sentence, while convicting an accused under section 302(c) P.P.C, it was not the age but the circumstances of that particular case that steers the wheel, the trial Court went astray in awarding two different sentences to accused who were similarly placed.

Summary: In the case of honour killing the act of murder is well thought, calculated and pre-mediated while in case of grave and sudden provocation the act is committed onthe spur of moment without any pre-planning or deliberation. Sudden provocationdeprives a person of self-control and results in an act without previous notice couldnot be saddled (equated) with immorality. The incident when a person kills hiswife immediately after having found her in compromising position with a personstranger to her would not amount to honour killing rather the same would fallunder the category of grave and sudden provocation and hence the offence wouldnot attract the barring provision of section 345 (7) Cr.P.C prohibiting thecompounding of the offence. Hence, compromise effected between the legal heirsof the deceased and accused was accepted.

Summary: The applicant, was seeking bail in response to allegations of the rape of a fourteen-year-old girl. The judge, referred to as Agha Faisal, J., provides an analysis of the case based on the evidence and arguments presented. The judge discussed various factors, including the age of the victim, the alleged occurrence of sexual intercourse, the legal definition of statutory rape, the issue of consent, and the timing of the registration of the First Information Report (F.I.R.). The judge concluded that the applicant has not demonstrated sufficient grounds for the grant of post-arrest bail. The judge cited the existence of tangible evidence that, if unrebutted, could lead to the inference of guilt, and points out that reasonable grounds exist linking the applicant to the alleged offense, which carries a punishment of ten years or more. As a result, the judge dismisses the current bail application. The judge emphasized that the observations made in the document are of a tentative nature and will not influence or prejudice the case of either party during the trial.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit ofdoubt---No justification available for presence of witnesses at the place of occurrence---Unnatural conduct of eye-witnesses---Effect---Accused was charged that he along with coaccused committed murder of cousin of the complainant by firing---Ocular account of theincident had been furnished by three witnesses including complainant---Medical Officerstated that the injured was brought by the general public---Said witness further confirmedduring cross-examination that the deceased was accompanied by twenty persons when hewas brought to the hospital---Neither the name of complainant and other eye-witnesses wasmentioned in the medical certificate nor Medical Officer stated a single word in his statementthat the injured was brought by the complainant or eye-witnesses themselves---High Courtobserved that if it was presumed that the complainant and eye-witnesses were accompanyingthe deceased when he was brought to hospital then why the Police Officials did notrecord/register the complainant's report at the hospital promptly but despite that thecomplainant went to the police station at 1:00 in that two hours after the alleged occurrence---Said aspect of the matter created serious doubt in the prosecution story as to why the reportwas not lodged promptly---If the eye-witnesses were present at the spot at the time ofoccurrence, they would have taken the deceased either to hospital or to the police station,which admittedly was not done---Presence of said witnesses on the spot was unnaturalbecause had they been present on the spot they would have received some injuries by theshots fired by the accused and absconding accused---Said fact showed that witnesses tried tosuppress their interestedness---All the eye-witnesses stated that they were present at adistance of four to five feet to each other at the time of occurrence---Eye-witnesses statedthat the accused persons fired repeated shots (burst firing)---If indiscriminate firing wasmade by two persons upon six persons from a short distance and the witnesses were standingat a distance of four to five feet each other but none of them received injuries and only oneperson i.e. the deceased received only one firearm injury---If the statement of the eyewitnesses was believed to be true then the question arose as to why and how the accusedspared said witnesses and did not even try to kill them, when he could have easily killedthem because they were empty handed and at his mercy coupled with the fact that they coulddepose against him as witnesses being uncle and cousin of the deceased---Mode and manner of the occurrence advanced by the prosecution witnesses was not appealable to a prudentmind---Accused had no motive to fire at the deceased, so it might be inferred that theincident did not take place in the way and manner as it was alleged---Said facts andcircumstances when evaluated on the judicial parlance reflected that the prosecution hadfailed to establish the culpability of the accused in the instant case through reliable,trustworthy and confidence inspiring evidence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, incircumstances.(b) Criminal trial-------Witness---Related witness---Statement of related witness---Reliance---Scope---Evidenceof the related witnesses could not be discarded on the ground of its being related to thevictim---If it was found that the testimony of the related witness got no corroboration fromattending circumstances of the case or the conduct shown by them at the time of occurrenceor just thereafter as such, which could not be expected from a prudent person, then undersuch circumstances, the evidence furnished by related witnesses could be easily discarded.(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit ofdoubt---Delay of about one hour and fifty minutes in lodging the FIR---Scope---Accused wascharged that he along with co-accused committed murder of cousin of the complainant byfiring---Record showed that the occurrence took place at 11:10 a.m. and on the same day at1:00 p.m. the FIR was lodged---First Information Report disclosed that the place ofoccurrence was at a distance of six kilometres from the police station---Delay of two hours inlodging the FIR---Medical evidence showed that deceased was examined by Medical Officerat 11:10 a.m.---Complainant stated in his statement that he himself went to the police stationand submitted application for registration of the FIR and the said application was written byone person from the city---Complainant further stated during cross-examination that policecame to the spot at 2:00 p.m.---First Information Report was lodged with delay afterdeliberation and consultation for the reason that the prosecution waited for the medicalreports and after obtaining of same the prosecution witnesses attributed individual role toeach accused---Deceased received injuries and as per medical certificate within five minuteshe succumbed to the injuries i.e. at 11:15 a.m., then what prevented the complainant to lodgethe report, despite the fact that the distance of police station from the place of occurrencewas mentioned as six kilometres---Said delay was fatal to the prosecution case---Appealagainst conviction was allowed, in circumstances.(d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 154---Delay in lodging the FIR---Effect---Delay in lodging the report could not besimply brushed aside, as it assumed great significance, and it could be attributed toconsultations, taking instructions and calculatedly preparing the report keeping in view thenames of the assailants opened for involving such persons to whom ultimately theprosecution might wish to nominate. Mahmood Ahmad and 3 others v. The State and another 1995 SCMR 127; ImranHussain v. Amir Arshad and 2 others 1997 SCMR 438; Muhammad Rafique v. The State2014 SCMR 1698 and Altaf Hussain v. The State 2019 SCMR 274 rel.(e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b) & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 161---Qatl-i-amd, commonintention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay in recording the statement ofwitness by police---Scope---Accused was charged that he and co-accused committed murderof cousin of the complainant by firing---Record showed that the statement of eye-witnesswas recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. with delay of two days, which was confirmed byInvestigating Officer---No plausible explanation had been furnished for said delay, whichreduced its value---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.Abdul Khaliq v. The State 1996 SCMR 1553 and Sahib Gul v. Ziarat Gul and others1976 SCMR 236 rel.(f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Qatl-i-amd, commonintention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Withholding mareial evidence---Effect---Accused was charged that he along with co-accused committed murder of cousin ofthe complainant by firing---According to the eye-witnesses, at time of occurrence, oneperson who was the pickup driver, was also present at the time of occurrence, who took theinjured to the hospital in his vehicle---Said driver was neither produced before the trial courtnor his statement was recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer---Investigating Officer also did not record the statements of twenty persons from the generalpublic who were accompanying the deceased at the time when he was brought to thehospital---No impartial evidence could have come from the neighbourhood to corroborate theprosecution case, which, of course, could have been available due to gunshots---Such beingthe case, the indication and production of only interested and inter-related persons and nonproduction of driver of pickup and other person who took the injured to the hospital aswitnesses before the court further made the prosecution case doubtful under Art. 129(g) ofQanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.Pathan v. The State 2015 SCMR 315 rel.(g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b) & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 342---Qatl-i-amd, commonintention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Examination of the accused---Scope---Accused was charged that he along with co-accused committed murder of cousin ofthe complainant by firing----Record showed that while the accused was examined underS.342, Cr.P.C., the Trial Court did not put the question to the accused about his abscondance,therefore that piece of evidence could not be used against him---As substantive piece ofevidence, which was in the shape of ocular account, had been disbelieved therefore, no conviction could be based on absconsion alone---Appeal against conviction was allowed, incircumstances.