Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Against impugned act of inviting bid date 7.1.19 being contrary to the provisioins of PPRA Ordinance 2002

Summary: Misc Matter: Challanging the impunged order dated 13-09-2018 of Assistant Commissioner under the authority of payment of wages Act.

Summary: FAO: Appeal u/s 30(A) of PEMRA and against order dated 20-01-2020

Summary: Held:(1) Men may tell lies but circumstances do not.(2) Non-production of witnesses who tell as to whether it was the accused who reported the matter or otherwise, the report loses its worth. Had they been produced, they would not have supported the prosecution case, therefore, an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-shahadat order, 1984 would come into play.(3) The report loses its significance when its maker resiles.(Appeal was dismissed in the circumstances).

Summary: 1. The story narrated by the complainant depicts that the purpose was only and only to see the grandson of PW Gul Shaheed as the deceased had some personal work, the complainant and deceased reached to the spot baithak, where they met PW-07 and took their seats on the ground, the anxiety of this Court increased that if the purpose was to see the grandson of the eye-witness then why it was not demanded and that why PW Gul Shaheed did not call for his grandson.2. The accused/ appellant was shown at point No.4 who fired from a distance of 12-feet on the deceased and the deceased received five inlet wounds where injuries No.2 and 5 were caused from the back, whereas one of the injury was having blackening around, if the statement of the witnesses is taken to be correct then, we are confronted with a situation that how the two entry wounds were received from the back, when the assailant and deceased were facing each other and that how blackening could be caused from a distance of 12-feet, but the prosecution failed to answer.3. It is an element of surprise that when the deceased and complainant were empty handed, why the complainant was left unhurt, as he too was within the firing range.4. The time of occurrence has been given as 10.49 hours whereas the matter was reported at 13.00 hours, despite the fact that the spot and the Police Station are lying at a distance of 7/8 kilometers, after realizing the fact that if the delay is not explained, it would cost a lot, so an attempt was made to explain the same.5. Dilfaraz happens to be the brother of the deceased, who was examined as PW-01, who stated that on the day of occurrence he left for Sabir Abad to purchase vegetable where he felt unwell so he went to the hospital to consult a doctor and that it was after some time that the dead-body was brought to the hospital.6. The Court while dealing with the case of a single accused has to take great care and caution and to judge the available evidence coupled with circumstances of the case and if it comes to the conclusion that the witnesses were interested or chance witnesses then the concept of single accused and his substitution should not be a clog in the way to acquittal.7. The recovered empties were sent to FSL on 09.02.2017, whereas these were received on 15.02.2017, but nothing was brought on record that where these empties were lying in the intervening period neither the Moharrir of the Police Station was examined nor abstract from register number 19 was collected.

Summary: Admittedly, respondent No.1 was lawful owner of the disputed property, who entered into anagreement to sell with respondent No.2 and settled the matter with him, as a result thereof, theconsent decree was passed in favour of respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 never entered intoany transaction or agreement to sell with the petitioner. The alleged agreement to sell on the basisof which petition under section 12 (2) CPC was instituted by the petitioner, was executed betweenthe alleged general attorney of respondent No.1 and the petitioner during pendency of the suit on06.01.2016, when restraining order of the Court regarding further alienation of the disputedproperty was in the field. Thus, no fraud or misrepresentation was committed by respondent No.1with the petitioner or with the Court.

Summary: Sections of law; Article 199 of the Constitution, sections 35 , 382-B and 397 Cr.P.C and Rule 140 of Prison Manual.(a) Ordering the sentence to run concurrently or consecutively is normally taken by the trial Court or appellate Court as provided in sections 35, 397 Cr.P.C but where such a direction is not given then a High Court is fully competent to exercise its powers in constitutional jurisdiction, in the interest of justice.(b) When law vests powers in some authority, it is always with a purpose and object. If such a discretion or power is not exercised in appropriate and deserving cases, the very purpose of law may be defeated.