Summary: [Banking matter: The purpose of proclamation of sale by public auction in terms of Rule 66 & 67 of Order XXI C.P.C is to give wide publicity in order to fetch the best price and to attract maximum number of persons (the more the merrier) for participation in the auction proceedings] The petitioner had filed a suit for recovery of funds against the respondents, and an ex-parte decree was passed in favor of the petitioner. The matter was then converted into execution proceedings, and the property was put up for auction. The respondents filed objections to the auction proceedings, alleging irregularities and favoritism. The Lahore High Court allowed the respondents' appeal and set aside the sale of the property through auction. The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that certain provisions cited in the impugned judgment were not applicable to the case and that the respondents failed to deposit the required amount while filing objection petitions. The petitioner also claimed that the auction proceedings were properly advertised but had no participants. The Supreme Court considered the arguments and examined the record of the case. It noted that the respondents had alleged irregularities in the auction proceedings, including the lack of participation by any prospective buyers other than the petitioner. The Court referred to relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) regarding auction proceedings and the proclamation of sale. It emphasized the importance of proper publicity and wide participation in auctions to ensure fair prices for the property. The Court held that the Executing Court should have exercised its authority under Rule 67(2) of the CPC to order the publication of the auction proclamation in widely circulated newspapers. It found that the failure to do so had caused injustice to the respondents, as no participants other than the petitioner were present at the auction. Based on these findings, the Supreme Court upheld the Lahore High Court's decision to set aside the sale of the property through auction. The case was remanded back to the Executing Court for further proceedings.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Acquittal granted --- Background: Rashid and Saqib, sons of Riaz, were tried for the murder of Muhammad Aslam and his son, Zohaib Aslam. They were accused of committing the murders on September 11, 2016, with two others, Riaz and Mustansar (both acquitted). The prosecution alleged that the motive behind the crime was the defendants' suspicion that Aslam had been involved in the abduction of their female relatives. Both Rashid and Saqib were convicted and sentenced to death by the trial court. ----Issues: 1) Whether the prosecution’s eyewitnesses were credible given their relationship to the deceased and the lack of independent corroboration. ---2) Whether the circumstantial evidence (recovery of weapons, forensic evidence) supported the conviction of Rashid and Saqib. ---3) Whether the trial court was justified in acquitting co-accused Riaz and Mustansar. ----4) Whether the delay in conducting post-mortems and presenting key evidence undermined the prosecution’s case. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Credibility of Eyewitnesses: The court found that the main eyewitnesses, Sohail Aslam (PW-2) and Abdul Saeed (PW-3), were related to the deceased and considered "chance witnesses" as they were not residents of the area where the crime occurred. The witnesses failed to provide a convincing reason for their presence at the scene, which raised doubts about their credibility. Circumstantial Evidence: The court observed that the recovery of weapons from Rashid and Saqib and the forensic reports were insufficient to link them definitively to the crime. There was no independent corroboration of the recoveries, and procedural errors in the collection of evidence, such as the absence of witnesses from the locality during recovery, further weakened the prosecution’s case. Acquittal of Riaz and Mustansar: The court upheld the acquittal of Riaz and Mustansar, noting that the prosecution had failed to prove the motive alleged against them, specifically the claim that the murders were related to the abduction of two women. The court emphasized that the prosecution did not produce the women, Naziran and Rimsha, as witnesses or provide concrete evidence regarding the motive. Delay in Post-Mortem: The significant delay (16.5 hours) in conducting the post-mortem examinations of the deceased raised doubts about the integrity of the investigation. The court ruled that this delay was used to manipulate the evidence and bring in witnesses who did not see the occurrence. Outcome: The convictions of Rashid and Saqib were overturned, and they were acquitted on the grounds of reasonable doubt. The criminal appeal filed by the complainant, Sohail Aslam, against the acquittal of Riaz and Mustansar was dismissed. The murder reference for confirmation of the death sentence was answered in the negative. -----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Azad v. Ahmad Ali (PLD 2003 SC 14) Mst. Shamim v. The State (2003 SCMR 1466) Muhammad Rafiq v. The State (2014 SCMR 1698) Usman alias Kaloo v. State (2017 SCMR 622) Nasrullah alias Nasro v. The State (2017 SCMR 724) Gulfam v. The State (2017 SCMR 1189) Hameed Gul v. Tahir (2006 SCMR 1628) Basar v. Zulfiqar Ali (2010 SCMR 1972) Azhar Mehmood v. The State (2017 SCMR 135) Arshad Khan v. The State (2017 SCMR 564) Khalid alias Khalidi v. The State (2012 SCMR 327) Mian Sohail Ahmed v. The State (2019 SCMR 956) Muhammad Rafiq alias Feeqa v. The State (2019 SCMR 1068) Muhammad Mansha v. The State (2018 SCMR 772) Najaf Ali Shah v. The State (2021 SCMR 736)

Summary: Quashment of FIR in Case FIR No. 329/21 Dated 06.07.2021 Offence U/s 188 PPC, PS Kohsar, Islamabad

Summary: Contempt Proceedings Against Mr. Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi, for contemptuous, threatening and demeaning speech against the learned Sessions Judge (Ms. Zeba Chaurdhry).