Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Against judgment dated 27.3.19 passed by the Learned ADJ whereby appeal against ex parte judgment dated 25.5.18 passed by the Learned Civil Judge has been dismissed. (suit for declaration, cancellation mandatory and permanent injunction)

Summary: Crl Revision: Against conviction order dated 21-11-2019 whereby Learned ASJ is modified the conviction awarded to convict. Offences U/s 489-F PPC

Summary: Remarks/Issue/Section of lawWrit petition seeking quashment of FIR.Held: (1) The provisions of Section 154, Cr.P.C. are mandatory in nature and when an FIR is registered, the under Section 156, Cr.P.C. the local police has statutory rights to investigate the case and interference by the Court with duties of police is not permissible under the law.(2) If an accused is found blameless during investigation, he can be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of sections 169/173(3) Cr.P.C. read with section 249-A/265-K, Cr.P.C.(3) High Court has no jurisdiction to take the role of investigating agency.(writ petition was dismissed in limine)

Summary: It is settled law that ocular account in such cases plays a decisive and vital role and once its intrinsic worth is accepted and believed then the rest of the evidence, both circumstantial and corroboratory in nature, would be required as a matter of caution. Conversely, once the ocular account is disbelieved then no other evidence, even of a high degree and value, would be sufficient for recording conviction on a capital charge, as such, the probative value of the ocular account in light of the facts and circumstances of the case would be seen.The delay of about four and a half hours in lodging the report could not be explained satisfactorily by the prosecution during evidence and what would be the significance of such delay in the circumstances of the case. In the repot, nothing was mentioned about the said delay, however, thecomplainant PW-7 in her statement attempted to justify the delay by stating that her father in law went to the police station to inform the police about the occurrence, who consumed three hours and when police came to the spot, she lodged the repot. Anyhow, the explanation furnished for such delayis not plausible because the police station is situated just at a distance of 3/4 kilometers from the spot. Moreover, it is not explained by the complainant that whey her father-in-law had not lodged the report to the police when he went to the police station to inform them about the occurrence. The factsnarrated by the complainant in her report at the spot could be disclosed by her father-in-law to the police in the police station.Delay of four and a half hours in lodging the F.I.R in the particular circumstances of the case had assumed great significance as the same could be attributed to consultation, taking instructions and calculatedly preparing the report and that too without mentioning the names of the eyewitnessestherein. Non-explanation of the delay in making the report to the police coupled with the improvements and contradictions made by the eyewitnesses in their statements had rendered their testimony doubtful and unreliable which did not inspire confidence.Secondly, the very presence of the alleged eyewitness, Mst. Sobia on the spot at the relevant time was not established because as per evidence of DW-1, Sultan Ahmad, Head Master GPS Makra Miana produced by the accused/respondent in his defence, both Mst. Sobia Bibi (PW-7) as well as Mst. Sidra Bibi, abandoned PW, were present in school on the eventful day i.e. 17.04.2015. Thus, in such circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly held that neither Mst. Sobia Bibi (PW-7) alleged eyewitness of the occurrence was present at the spot nor she witnessed the occurrence.Thirdly, the prosecution has failed to produce other major female inmates/women folks i.e. Mst. Hussan Bano etc. of the house, who were stated to have present at the relevant time, and they were abandoned being won over. However, the obvious inference which could be drawn in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case is that the occurrence was an unseen occurrence, as such, other female inmates of the house refused to stand as a witness to depose falsely against the accused/respondent.

Summary: International Child Abduction----The case involved a South African Muslim petitioner who got married to Respondent No.3 from Pakistan in 2010. In 2016, the family came to Pakistan for a visit, and after the petitioner returned to South Africa, Respondent No.3 stayed in Pakistan with the children on the pretext of his father's illness. The petitioner alleged that he deceived her, keeping the children in Pakistan. In April 2019, when she came to Pakistan, Respondent No.3 mistreated her, leading to the filing of a writ petition for the recovery of the children.The court noted the increasing international disputes involving child custody due to globalization. The court referred to international conventions like the Hague Convention and the need for prompt decisions in abduction cases. However, due to the complex nature of the case, the court decides that a detailed inquiry is required to determine factors like the family's intention to settle in Pakistan, acquiescence, and the children's development of roots in the country. The court advised the petitioner to seek remedies before the Guardian Court, considering the Guardianship Certificate's legal standing. The court also highlighted the petitioner's obligation to obtain a court order before taking the children out of Pakistan. The jurisdiction of the Guardian Court is acknowledged, given the children's status as citizens of Pakistan by descent. The court emphasized the need for an in-depth inquiry and redirected the petitioner to the Guardian Court for a comprehensive resolution of the custody dispute.

Summary: Conviction upheld---Background:Muhammad Yaqoob, the petitioner, was convicted in a case registered under FIR No. 10/2013 for possession of explosives.During a raid, four hand grenades and four detonators were recovered from the petitioner's premises, leading to his arrest and subsequent trial.The trial court convicted the petitioner under the Explosive Substance Act 1908 and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, sentencing him to life imprisonment and five years of rigorous imprisonment, respectively.The petitioner filed a criminal appeal before the Lahore High Court, which was dismissed, leading to the present jail petition before the Supreme Court.---Issues:Whether the recovered articles constitute explosive substances under the law.Whether the petitioner's conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act is justified.Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to prove the petitioner's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.---Holding/Reasoning:The raid conducted by the police led to the recovery of hand grenades and detonators from the petitioner's premises, establishing the connection between the petitioner and possession of explosives.The definition of "explosive substance" under the Explosive Substance Act includes materials used for making explosives or causing explosions, encompassing the recovered items.The petitioner's failure to present evidence in his defense or to refute the prosecution's evidence weakens his case, especially since he did not testify under section 340 Cr.P.C.The evidence presented by the prosecution was deemed credible and sufficient to establish the petitioner's guilt.As a result, the jail petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.

Summary: PLJ 2020 SC (AJK) 25 [Appellate Jurisdiction] Present Ch Muhammad Ibrahim Zia CJ and Ghulam Mustafa Mughal J MUHAMMAD HANIF MUGHAL and 15 others - - Appellants versus SECRETARY FOREST AZAD GOVERNMENT OF STATE OF JAMMU KASHMIR SECRETARIAT MUZAFFARABAD and others - - Respondents Civil Appeal No 115 of 2019 decided on 10102019 (On appeal from the judgment of the High Court dated 29012019 in Writ Petition No 1302 of 2017) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act 1974 (VIII of 1974) - - - - - - Art 42 (10) - - Petitioners were working as Forest Guards - - Seniority list - - Quota for promotion - - Direct appointments - - Determination of promotional quota - - Filling of writ petitions - - Dismissed - - Principle of law - - Consequential relief - - Challenge to - - Service rules according to their spirit fall within definition of a departmental order of authority thus in view of peculiar facts of this case appellants deeming these rules favorable to them and feeling that same are not being implemented without just cause approached High Court for implementation of same - - In this state of affairs writ petition is competent and same does not fall within purview of terms and conditions of service relating to which any right of appeal is provided before Service Tribunal in exclusive jurisdiction - - Appellants have prayed for issuance of direction for promotion is concerned it is also misconceived - - Prayed direction is subject to implementation of quota reserved for promotion and it does not mean that High Court has to determine suitability or right of promotion of any individual civil servant rather it is consequential relief that if High Court issues direction to departmental authority for implementation of service rules relating to determination of quota for promotion in that case direction for processing case of promotion of persons falling in cadre has to be issued - - Appeal was accepted [P 28] B C Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act 1974 (VIII of 1974) - - - - - - Art 47 - - Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal Act 1975 S 4 - - Right of appeal - - According to Article 47 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution 1974 read with Section 4 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal Act 1975 right of appeal has been clearly provided to civil servants against any final order of authority aversely affecting terms and conditions of service but in rest of matters neither service appeal is provided nor Service Tribunal is competent to issue direction for implementation of any favorable departmental order [P 28] A 1999 SCR 204 ref Ch M Manzoor Advocate for Appellants Mr M Hanif Khan Minhas Advocate for RespondentsJudgement Result:Appeal accepted