Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Criminal Appeal, against death sentence

Summary: Criminal appeal, against conviction of life imprisonment, having offense u/s 302/109/34 PPC

Summary: 1. No doubt Substitution in case of single accused is a rare phenomenon, but it never relaxes the court to take it for granted and awarded convictions that too on capital charge. It is bounden duty of the courts of law to assess and reassess the material on file so to avoid injustice having been committed.2. It is astonishing that why the deceased was chosen as the target, when the complainant being the prime target was present on the spot. The complainant admitted in his court statement that the deceased had no ill will with the accused, rather it was the complainant who was at the daggers drawn.3. Mere promptness of report is not a guarantee to success and it alone cannot certify the wittness as truthful, rather the court is to see the accumulative effect of what the prosecution has collected.4. True that abscondence of accused is relevant factor, but alone it cannot be considered as conclusive proof of a crime as the prosecution has to independently prove the charge on the basis of strong and cogent evidence.

Summary: Payment of 6% Interest.

Summary: Bail granted --- (Post-Arrest bail Granted u/s 353/324/302/34 PPC. ) Factual Background:The case arose from an incident reported on February 12, 2019, where police officers, while on patrol, were attacked by a group of individuals in Karachi, leading to the death of PC Muhammad Farooq. Sheeraz, among others, was implicated in this incident.Legal Arguments:For Petitioner: Advocated for Sheeraz's innocence, highlighting the lack of specific evidence or recovery of crime weapon, the general nature of accusations, and absence of any independent witnesses. Relied upon the judgments in Nadeem Burney v. The State (1999 MLD 1259), Fazil Khaliq alias Hafiz v. The State through Advocate-General, N.W.F.P. Peshawar and another (1996 SCMR 364), and Muhammad Shakeel v. The State and others (PLD 2014 S.C 458) to support the bail application.Against Petitioner: Asserted Sheeraz's direct involvement in the attack based on the FIR, recovery of a weapon at his arrest, and his previous criminal involvements to argue against the bail.Judicial Analysis:The Court noted the generalized nature of the accusations and the absence of specific evidence tying Sheeraz to the crime. It emphasized the legal principle that mere naming in an FIR does not constitute sufficient grounds for guilt and stressed the importance of independent identification for named individuals in FIRs.Holdings:The Court allowed Sheeraz's bail application, requiring a solvent surety and personal recognizance bond each set at Rs.2,00,000/-, citing the principle of consistency as applied in similar cases where co-accused were granted bail, notably Moundar and others v. The State (PLD 1990 S.C. 934) and Muhammad Rafique v. The State (1997 SCMR 412).

Summary: Background:The Supreme Court of Pakistan, in its original jurisdiction, convened to address the government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Various government officials, including Attorney Generals, Secretaries, and representatives from different provinces and territories, were present. Opinions from religious scholars and the Council of Islamic Ideology were considered.---Issues:Adequacy of government measures in combating the pandemic.Utilization of Zakat and Bait-ul-Mal funds.Legality of provincial taxation activities conflicting with federal laws.Treatment of medical staff and police actions against doctors.Transparency and efficacy of business reopening policies.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Court expressed concern over the closure of Haji Camp Quarantine Center due to inadequate facilities and instructed the NDMA to provide an explanation.The Court emphasized the need for a comprehensive national policy for COVID-19 instead of ad hoc decisions, expecting consensus among government stakeholders.Irregularities in the utilization of Zakat and Bait-ul-Mal funds were noted, and the Auditor General's report was requested for further action.The Court questioned the legality of provincial taxation activities conflicting with federal laws and directed the Attorney General and Advocate Generals to argue on this point.The Court instructed the Secretary (Health) of KP to investigate reported maltreatment of doctors by police officials and to take appropriate action.Concerns were raised about the transparency and efficacy of business reopening policies, and the Court urged for a more systematic approach.The Court directed government stakeholders to formulate and enforce a uniform national policy for COVID-19 within a week, with a report on policy implementation expected before the next hearing.---Citations/Precedents:Noor Ahmed v. State (PLD 1964 Supreme Court 120)Federal Legislative List (Constitution of Pakistan)Sindh Epidemic Diseases Act, 2014Fundamental Rights (Constitution of Pakistan)Muhammad Murad Abro v. The State (2004 SCMR 966)Ansar Mehmood v. Abdul Khaliq (2011 SCMR 713)Muhammad Amjad v. The State (PLD 2003 Supreme Court 704)

Summary: Background:Asmat Ali, the petitioner, was intercepted while driving a truck by the police from Police Station Cantt. Kohat. Upon search, 9600 grams of contraband identified as cannabis were found in the tool box of the vehicle. Following a trial, Asmat Ali was convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 100,000/-. The High Court upheld this decision, which is now being challenged by Asmat Ali before the Supreme Court.---Issues:The key issues before the court include the legality of the search and seizure, the sufficiency of evidence, and the correctness of the judgments rendered by the lower courts.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:After considering the arguments and examining the evidence, the court declined to interfere with the judgments of the lower courts. The statements of the recovery witnesses, including Muhammad Ali, SHO (PW-1), and Anwar Ali, Head Constable/Incharge Check Post (PW-2), were found consistent and credible. The substantial quantity of contraband discovered rules out any suspicion of a manipulated recovery. Asmat Ali's attempt to disprove the charge by admitting most parts of the transaction, except for the possession of contraband, was deemed insufficient. The defense witness presented by Asmat Ali failed to contradict his interception at the check post. Moreover, the alleged insufficiency of "protocol" mentioned in the forensic report was considered irrelevant, as the report conclusively established the narcotic character of the substance with sufficient details regarding the conducted tests. Since the conclusions reached by the lower courts were in accordance with the principles of fair administration of criminal justice, the petition was dismissed, and leave was declined.---Citations/Precedents:Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.

Summary: Background:This appeal stems from the judgment dated 13.2.2018, issued by the Islamabad High Court in RFA No. 166/2013. The case involves a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement dated 4.10.2004 filed by Respondent No. 1 against the Appellant (Defendants No. 2 and 3) before the Civil Judge, Islamabad. The defendants contested the suit, claiming that the agreement was canceled due to the plaintiff's failure to pay the balance consideration within the stipulated period. The trial court directed the respondent to deposit the balance sale consideration within one month, which was not complied with. The suit was subsequently dismissed, and the dismissal was upheld by the High Court.---Issues:Whether the appellant was in breach of contract by failing to pay the balance sale consideration within the stipulated period.Whether the direction to refund the earnest money by the High Court was justified.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The High Court held that the appellant's failure to pay the balance sale consideration within the stipulated period amounted to a breach of contract. The court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, directing the appellants to return the earnest money to the respondent along with profit. However, the court also noted that the appellants were not served notice regarding the forfeiture of earnest money, and therefore, directed the return of earnest money with profit only to the extent mentioned in the agreement. The court relied on the case of Mst. Gulshan Hamid v. Kh. Abdul Rehman to establish that time was of the essence of the contract.---Citations/Precedents:Mst. Gulshan Hamid v. Kh. Abdul Rehman (2010 SCMR 334)Abdul Hamid v. Abbas Bhai- Abdul Hussain (PLD 1959 (WP) Karachi 629)Space Telecommunication (Pvt) Ltd. v. Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (2019 SCMR 101)

Summary: Summary pending