Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Compromise with one accused can be considered as a factor to release an other accused with whom no compromise has been effected.

Summary: Attachment and sale of property U/S 85 & 88 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967.

Summary: (Bail Allowed) The petitioners, Naeem Qadir Sheikh and Muhammad Zaigham Ali, sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered against them under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners, along with co-accused officials of the Excise and Taxation Department, were involved in the misappropriation or non-scanning of records related to 4,397 vehicles, which were suspected of having bogus registrations. The petitioner's counsel argued that the allegations were false and that the offenses mentioned in the FIR did not apply to the petitioners. They claimed that the scam occurred between 2015 and 2018, while petitioner Naeem Qadir Sheikh was posted as an Excise and Taxation Officer in 2019. They also argued that the petitioners did not receive any monetary advantage, and the co-accused had already been granted bail. The State defended the impugned order but admitted that there was no material against the petitioners on record. However, they argued that the co-accused, including the petitioners, were involved in the bogus registration of vehicles and should not be granted leniency. After hearing the arguments and examining the available record, the court found that there was no evidence connecting the petitioners to the scam under investigation. The petitioner Naeem Qadir Sheikh had approved the printing of 80 registration certificates, of which 14 were found to be bogus. The court noted that petitioner Muhammad Zaigham Ali was a data entry operator entrusted with entering data into the system. The court also observed that the co-accused of the petitioners had been granted post-arrest bail by the trial court, and the department's petition to cancel the bail had been dismissed. Considering these factors and the principles of consistency, the court allowed the petitions, converted them into appeals, and set aside the impugned order. The petitioners were granted bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.200,000 each with one surety each to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020 ----Ss. 4 & 5---Inheritance---Deceased father’s estate---Jurisdiction---Complainants (daughters) alleged that their brothers deprived them of ownership and possession of inherited property situated partly in Islamabad and partly in Rawalpindi—Respondents objected to forum’s jurisdiction on ground that part of the property was outside Islamabad—Held, Ombudsman had jurisdiction over properties situated within Islamabad Capital Territory, but not over immovable property located in Rawalpindi District. (b) Women’s right to inheritance---Scope of protection under the Act ----Revenue record confirmed that land measuring 5 kanal 1 marla 3 sarsai in Moza Tarlai Kalan, Islamabad remained in the name of deceased father—Ombudsman directed revenue authorities to enter and attest inheritance mutation in favour of all legal heirs, including complainants, according to their Sharia shares—Land situated in Moza Jhang Sayedan found to have been sold by deceased during his lifetime; thus excluded from inheritance. (c) Civil remedies---Challenge to alienation of ancestral property ----Where deceased transferred property during lifetime through validly attested mutations, heirs dissatisfied with such transactions may challenge validity before competent Civil Court—Ombudsman cannot adjudicate upon title disputes or declare such transfers void. (d) Property within CDA jurisdiction ----Built-up house situated in Sector I-8/1, Islamabad, found in name of deceased—CDA directed to scrutinize ownership documents and transfer the property to legal heirs according to their Sharia shares. (e) Disposition — Complaint partly allowed. Revenue Officer Moza Tarlai Kalan directed to attest inheritance mutation and restore possession to complainants as per Sharia entitlement. Properties outside Islamabad held beyond Ombudsman’s jurisdiction; challenge to prior transfers left open to Civil Court.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 4, 9, 10 & 199 Fundamental Rights—Inclusion of petitioner’s name in the Fourth Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997—Validity—Petitioner challenged the inclusion of his name in the Fourth Schedule under Section 11-EE of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, alleging a lack of justification and violation of fundamental rights—Held, the respondents failed to provide any valid reasons or material evidence justifying the placement of the petitioner’s name in the Fourth Schedule—Petitioner had not been convicted in any criminal case and had been acquitted in most of them—For a person to be included in the Fourth Schedule, it must be shown that he is involved in terrorism-related activities, or is an office-bearer, activist, or associate of a proscribed organization—Failure to meet the prerequisites for placing a person under Section 11-EE renders such inclusion unreasonable and without application of mind—Under Article 4, every citizen has the inalienable right to be treated in accordance with the law, and no action detrimental to life, liberty, or reputation shall be taken except under due process—Articles 9 and 10 further safeguard against arbitrary actions impacting life and liberty—Impugned notification was declared unreasonable and set aside by the Court. Cited Cases: • Province of Punjab v. Muhammad Rafiq (PLD 2018 SC 178) • Ghulam Hussain v. The State (PLD 2020 SC 61) • Muhammad Nadeem Arif v. Inspector-General of Police, Punjab (2011 SCMR 408) • Capital Development Authority v. Mrs. Shaheen Farooq (2007 SCMR 1328) • Mian Ayaz Anwar v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2010 Lah. 2730) • Ismaeel v. The State (2010 SCMR 27) (b) Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (XXVII of 1997) ----S. 11-EE—Scope and prerequisites for inclusion in Fourth Schedule—Burden on the State—State must demonstrate with reasonable grounds and material evidence that the person is involved in terrorism-related activities or associated with a proscribed organization—Mere registration of criminal cases without conviction does not justify inclusion—In the absence of sufficient evidence, the inclusion is arbitrary and unlawful. (c) Administration of Justice ----S. 24-A, General Clauses Act—Exercise of power by public authorities—Good faith and reasonableness—State authorities must act in good faith and in a reasonable manner while exercising discretionary powers—Failure to provide justification for actions against citizens renders the exercise of such powers unlawful and liable to be set aside by the courts. Disposition: Writ petition allowed—Impugned notification placing petitioner’s name in the Fourth Schedule set aside—Respondents directed to remove petitioner’s name from the Fourth Schedule under intimation to the Court—Writ petition converted into an appeal under Section 11-EE(3-A) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, to secure the ends of justice.

Summary: (a) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (P.O. No. 10 of 1984) ----Arts. 17(2)(a) & 79---Agreement to sell---Proof of attestation---Mandatory requirements--- In a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell, it is mandatory under Article 17(2)(a) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, that financial or future obligations must be attested by two men or one man and two women. Additionally, under Article 79, if a document is required by law to be attested, it cannot be used as evidence unless two attesting witnesses are called to prove its execution. In the present case, the plaintiffs failed to produce the attesting witnesses of the agreement to sell and instead relied on witnesses to a subsequent endorsement. Consequently, the agreement to sell was not proved in accordance with Articles 17 and 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. ----- Cited Cases: Hafiz Tassaduq Hussain v. Muhammad Din through Legal Heirs (PLD 2011 SC 241) Mst. Rasheeda Begum v. Muhammad Yousaf (2002 SCMR 1089) (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Suit for specific performance---Failure to prove execution of agreement---Discretionary relief--- Relief under the Specific Relief Act is discretionary and cannot be granted unless the agreement is proved through overwhelming and unimpeachable evidence. In the present case, the plaintiffs failed to prove the execution of the agreement, did not issue any legal notice to enforce performance during the seller's lifetime, and failed to explain the delay in initiating legal action. Additionally, contradictions in the plaintiff's evidence regarding the redemption of the property from the bank weakened their claim. The discretionary relief of specific performance was therefore rightly denied. (c) Burden of proof--- ----Suit for specific performance---Failure to produce essential witnesses and evidence--- In cases involving specific performance, the burden of proof lies heavily on the plaintiff to establish the agreement's authenticity, execution, and compliance with legal formalities. In this case, the plaintiffs failed to: Produce attesting witnesses of the agreement. Provide clarity on when and how the agreement was executed. Explain the delay in enforcing the agreement. The absence of this essential evidence rendered the plaintiffs' claim legally unsustainable. (d) Evidence Law--- ----Misreading and non-reading of evidence by lower courts---Revisional jurisdiction--- The revisional court observed material illegalities and irregularities in the findings of the lower courts, including misreading and non-reading of evidence. Both courts failed to recognize the non-fulfillment of mandatory requirements under Articles 17 and 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The appellate court's failure to address these issues resulted in a miscarriage of justice. ----- Key Legal Principles: Compliance with Articles 17 and 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, is mandatory in financial agreements requiring attestation. Relief under the Specific Relief Act is discretionary and depends on the plaintiff's ability to provide clear, convincing, and lawful evidence. Courts must exercise revisional jurisdiction to correct material irregularities and misreading of evidence. Disposition: Revision petition allowed. Judgments and decrees of the lower courts set aside. Suit for specific performance dismissed. No order as to costs.

Summary: Crl Appeal Against Conviction 7 year