Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)- -Ss. 272, 269, 299, 300 & 384-Appeal-Probate, grant of-Ownerless property-Application for grant of probate under S.272 Succession Act, 1925, was filed by appellant but Trial Court dismissed the application-Validity-Once it was found that none was available to claim ownership of immovable property in question in his own right or by way of inheritance, such property should be treated as an ownerless property-Once Court was satisfied that the property was rendered ownerless, it was the duty of Court to protect it from being misappropriated or wasted or damaged-Court could appoint Curator under S.195 of Succession Act, 1925, to takeover possession of the property pending final determination of fate of proceedings-Court could have also taken prompt action under S.269 of Succession Act, 1925, for protection of such property-Jurisdiction of High Court under S.300 of Succession Act, 1925, was concurrent with District Judge in exercise of power under Succession Act, 1925-High Court appointed its official as a Curator to protect the property in question and directed him to take over the possession immediately-High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Trial Court-Appeal was dismissed in circumstances. 1993 CLC 1552 ref.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of abouttwo hours and fifteen minutes in lodging the FIR---Effect---Accused was charged forcommitting murder of his wife inside his matrimonial home---Motive behind the occurrencewas stated to be strained relationship between the spouses---Record showed that theoccurrence had taken place during a night in the month of May, inside the house of accused,which remained unwitnessed---Accused, who happened to be the son-in-law of complainant,along with co-accused had been nominated in the FIR on the basis of suspicion---Place ofoccurrence was at a distance of about three kilometres from Levies Thana---FIR in respect ofthe incident in question had been lodged after about two hours and 15 minutes---Possibilityregarding deliberation and cooking-up a false story could not be ruled out of consideration,in circumstances---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302(b)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation ofevidence---Benefit of doubt---Confessional statement of accused---Infirmities---Accused wascharged for committing murder of his wife inside his matrimonial home---Motive behind theoccurrence was stated to be strained relationship between the spouses---Bare perusal ofconfessional statement revealed that it was made on oath---Confession should be recorded inthe manner provided for statement of an accused and not in the manner provided forrecording evidence---If confessional statement was recorded in the manner provided forrecording evidence by administering oath then it would loose its character insofar the makerwas concerned---Fact of administering oath at the recording of confession virtually meantthat the maker was compelled to give evidence against him, placing him in the status of awitness at the stage of investigation in violation of Art.13(b) of the Constitution read with S.5 of the Oaths Act, 1873---Administering oath in recording confession would mean therecording of evidence of the maker for use in subsequent stage against the maker which wasprohibited under the law---Proceedings of recording of the judicial confession deposed by the Judicial Magistrate also showed that it had never been mentioned in those proceedings thatbefore recording the confession the handcuffs of the accused had been removed or for anytime reflection was provided---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed toprove its case against the accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed, incircumstances.Muhammad Bakhsh v. The State PLD 1956 SC (Pak) 420; Azeem Khan v. MujahidKhan and others 2016 SCMR 274 and Manzur v. The State PLD 1973 Lah. 714 rel.(c) Criminal trial------Confession----Confessional statement, retraction of---Scope---In absence of independentcorroboration, retracted judicial confession could not suffice by itself for recording orupholding the conviction.(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S.302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Confessionalstatement of accused and medical evidence---Contradictions---Effect---Accused was chargedfor committing murder of his wife inside his matrimonial home---Medical evidence furnishedby Lady Police Surgeon was contrary to the alleged confession as well as prosecution case---Said witness deposed that on 29-5-2019, dead body was brought by Tehsildar and she afterconducting post-mortem prepared her report---Said report showed that the cause of deathwould be given after receiving the chemical analysis report---Report of Chemical Analysiswas only to the effect that no drug/poisons were detected in blood, liver and stomachcontents---In such view of the matter, there was no occasion with the said witness to opinethat the cause of death was due to asphyxia, smoothling and homicidal in manner---Appealagainst conviction was allowed, in circumstances.(e) Criminal trial-------Witness---Reliance---Scope---Reliance upon evidence of witnesses disbelieved to theextent of co-accused---If a set of witnesses was disbelieved to the extent of some accused,the same could not be believed in respect of remaining accused facing the same trial withoutthere being any independent and strong corroboration.(f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S.302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Wife dying an unnatural death in the house of husband---Presumption---Burden of proof---Prosecution was bound to prove its case against accused(husband) beyond reasonable doubt at all stages of a criminal case---In a case where theprosecution asserted presence of some eye-witnesses and such claim of the prosecution wasnot established by it then the accused person could not be convicted merely on the basis of apresumption that since the murder of his wife had taken place in his house, therefore, it mustbe he and none else who would have committed that murder. Abdul Majeed v. The State 2011 SCMR 941 and Nasrullah v. The State 2017 SCMR724 rel.

Summary: Conviction upheld---Background:The petitioner, Irfan Ali Sher, was charged under sections 365-B and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) for the sexual assault of a fifteen-year-old minor girl on September 15, 2014. The FIR was lodged on September 16, 2014, and the petitioner was convicted for rape under section 376 PPC by the trial court. He was sentenced to fourteen years of rigorous imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine. On appeal to the Lahore High Court, his sentence was reduced to ten years.---Issues:Whether the delay in reporting the sexual assault to the police affects the credibility of the victim's testimony.Whether the failure to obtain a DNA forensic report or the victim's clothes affects the prosecution's case.Whether the investigation conducted by a male police officer instead of a female officer impacts the case.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court held that the delay in reporting the assault does not necessarily undermine the credibility of the victim's testimony, considering the trauma victims may experience. Past cases have established that such delays do not materially affect the case.The absence of a DNA forensic report or the victim's clothes does not invalidate the prosecution's case, especially when medical examination findings corroborate the victim's testimony. The court emphasized that obtaining a DNA report is not mandatory under the law.Despite the investigation being conducted by a male police officer instead of a female officer, the failure to obtain the victim's clothes was noted as a procedural shortcoming. However, this did not materially affect the case's outcome, given the substantial evidence supporting the prosecution's case.The court also highlighted the leniency shown by the trial court and the High Court in sentencing the petitioner, considering the minimum punishment prescribed by law for the offense.As no grounds for leave to appeal were established, the petition was dismissed, affirming the decision of the High Court.---Citations/Precedents:Yasmin Butt v Majid Baig (2008 SCMR 1602)The State v Abdul Khaliq (PLD 2011 Supreme Court 554)Zahid v State (unreported judgment dated 3rd March 2020 in Jail Petition No. 712/2018)

Summary: Background:The case involves Civil Appeals No. 323-325 of 2018, originating from an order dated 16.12.2016 by the Federal Service Tribunal (FST). The respondents were initially appointed on contract as Marketing Officers in a project under the Ministry of Food, Agricultural and Livestock Products Marketing and Grading Department. Subsequently, they were transferred to the Central Directorate of National Savings, Government of Pakistan. The respondents sought upgradation and re-designation of their posts, which was declined by the departmental authority, leading to an appeal before the FST.---Issues:Whether the respondents, appointed on contract, could be considered civil servants.Whether the directions given by the FST regarding upgradation and re-designation of the respondents' posts were valid.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that the respondents, despite being initially appointed on contract, were considered civil servants upon their permanent absorption into government service, as per the recommendations of the Cabinet sub-Committee. The Court refused to entertain arguments challenging the respondents' absorption into regular service, as it was a decision made by the highest executive authority and affected numerous government employees. Therefore, the Court upheld the FST's directions for upgradation and re-designation of the respondents' posts.---Citations/Precedents:Ali Azhar Khan Baloch and others vs. Province of Sindh and others (2015 SCMR 456): Cited regarding the qualifications required for being considered a civil servant.Section 11-B of the Civil Servants Act, 1973: Referenced in relation to the assessment of qualifications required for a civil servant.Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 2010: Referred to in the context of the reorganization of ministries and the absorption of employees affected by the amendment.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- -S. 151-Inherent powers of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of Court, exercise of-Nature and scope of jurisdiction of civil courts under S.151, C.P.C.-Appropriate or specific provision if available for a relief being claimed under C.P.C.; then said relief could as a matter of right had to be granted and entertained necessarily under S.151, C.P.C.-Civil Procedure Code, 1908, was not exhaustive; and did not lay down rules for guidance in respect of all situations nor did it seek to provide rules for decision for conceivable cases-Civil Courts were authorized to pass such orders as may be necessary for ends of justice, or to prevent abuse of the process, but where an express provision was made to meet a particular situation such express provision of C.P.C. must be observed, and departure therefrom was not permissible-Inherent jurisdiction of court to make order ex debito justitiae was undoubtedly affirmed by S.151, C.P.C., but such jurisdiction could not be exercised so as to nullify other provisions of C.P.C.-Where provision of C.P.C. dealt with expressly with a particular matter, then such provision should normally be regarded as exhaustive-Inherent powers of the Court were in addition to the powers specifically conferred by C.P.C. and were complementary to such powers and therefore it must be held that the Civil Courts were free to exercise same for purposes mentioned in S. 151 when exercise of such powers was not in any way in conflict with what had been expressly provided in C.P.C.-Civil Courts could not make use of special provisions of S.151, C.P.C. where a party had remedy provided elsewhere in C.P.C. and neglected to avail himself of the same and furthermore power under S.151, C.P.C. could not be exercised as appellate power. Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal MANU/SC/0056/1961; Subho Ram Kalita v. Dharmeswar Das Koch AIR 1987 Gau. 73 and Nain Singh v. Koonwarjee and others AIR 1970 SC 997 rel. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- -O. XXXVII, R. 5-Attachment of property/funds before judgment-Scope-Application for attachment of property/funds of a defendant was rarely to be granted-For grant of such application averments, at a bare minimum, were required to be so convincing that Court could consider same to be prima facie in nature-Relief of attachment before judgment was a very harsh order to be made against a particular defendant and in granting such relief Court had to be satisfied that plaintiff's case was of prima facie nature and based on an unimpeachable claim (s) in plaint-Furthermore Court must have reasons to believe on basis of material before it, that unless jurisdiction was exercised and orders as solicited were not passed, then there existed a real danger that defendant may remove itself from territorial jurisdiction of Court and an intent to avoid passing of a decree must be clearly shown with reasonable clarity. (c) Company- -Principles of corporate governance-Adjudication by courts on matters of shareholder grievance/corporate governance-Judicial oversight on conduct of company's affairs-Scope-For a court dealing with company matters, if the thing complained of before it by minority shareholder(s), was a thing which in substance majority of company was entitled to do, or if something had been done irregularly which majority of the company was entitled to do regularly, or if something had been done illegally which majority of company was entitled to do legally, then there existed no use for litigation with regards to such matter as ultimate end of such matter was only that a meeting had to be called, and then ultimately majority got its wishes-Individual shareholder could not bring an action before courts to complain of an irregularity (as distinct from an illegality) in the conduct of the company's internal affairs provided that such irregularity was one which could be cured by a vote of company in general meeting. Foss v. Harbottle (1843) 67 ER 189; Mosley v. Alston (1847) 41 E.R. 833; KASB Corporation Limited v. Bank Islami Pakistan Limited 2019 YLR 345; Macdougall v. Gardiner [1875] 1 Ch.D.13 (L. J. Mellish) and Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Newman Industries Ltd. and others [1982] 1 All ER 354 rel. Syed Amir Hussain Shah v. Progressive Papers Ltd. and others PLD 1969 Lah. 615; Naveed Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi and 3 others v. Central Cotton Mills Limited, S.I.T.E. Kotri District Dadu and 2 others PLD 1997 Kar. 432; Nizam Hashwani v. Hashwani Hotels Limited and 14 others 1999 CLC 1989; Kohinoor Raiwind Mills Limited through Chief Executive v. Kohinoor Gujar Khan Mills and others 2002 CLD 1314; Muhammad Suleman Kanjiani and 3 others v. Dadex Eternit Ltd. through Chief Executive and 4 others 2009 CLD 1687; Babri Cotton Mills Ltd.'s case 2009 CLD 541; Mst. Sakina Khatoon and 6 others v. S.S. Nazir Ahsan and 17 others 2010 CLD 963; Golden Arrow Selected Stock Funds Ltd. and another v. Clariant Pakistan Ltd. and 9 others PLD 2016 Sindh 50; Foss v. Harbottle (1843) 67 ER 189, Re Lee, Behrens & Co, Ltd. 1932] All ER Rep 889; Edwards and another v. Halliwell and others [1950] 2 All ER 1064 and Re Halt Garage (1964) Ltd. [1982] 3 All ER 1016 rel. Jaffer Raza and Rabia Khan for Plaintiffs. Khalid Jawed Khan along with Umer Akhund and Hanif Kamal Alam for Defendants Nos. 1 to 9. Imran Shamsi for SECP. Dates of hearing: 16th April, 18th September, 2019, 13th January and 3rd February, 2020.