Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Night timeoccurrence---Source of light---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of thedeceased by firing---Motive behind the occurrence was that the deceased entered into thehouse of his neighbour during night time upon which the mother of one of the accusedthreatened the deceased for dire consequences, later on occurrence took place---Ocularaccount of the incident had been furnished by two eye-witnesses---Complainant stated in hisstatement before the court as well as in his report that due to non-availability of electricity,the deceased and other family members were sleeping in the courtyard of the house---Boththe eye-witnesses also stated in their statements that they were sleeping in the courtyard ofthe house---Occurrence took place at 12 O'clock at night, and by such time, the darknesscompletely prevailed---Said witnesses neither in the report nor in their court statementuttered a single word about the source of light in which they identified the accused persons---Site plan was also silent about the availability of any source of light at the spot---Investigating Officer did not take any article into possession as to prove that sufficient lightwas present at the time and place of occurrence for the witnesses to make a positive identityof the assailant---Identification of the assailants at such darkness was impossible what tospeak of identifying firing of a particular person hitting the deceased---Said sole ground wassufficient for discarding the testimony of the eye-witnesses that they were not truthfulwitnesses---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its caseagainst the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, incircumstances.Gulfam and another v. The State 2017 SCMR 1189 rel.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b) & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 161---Qatl-i-amd, commonintention---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of two days in recording the statements ofwitnesses---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the deceased by firing---Occurrence took place at 12 O'clock at night while eye-witnesses claimed to have seen the occurrence, who were closely related to the deceased---Statements under S. 161, Cr.P.C. ofthe said witnesses were recorded and one of the eye-witnesses stated during crossexamination that her statement was recorded after two days of the incident---Said eyewitness further stated during cross-examination that the Investigating Officer recorded herstatement and statement of other eye-witness together---Investigating Officer of the case onthe other hand stated during cross-examination that he recorded statements of eye-witnessesunder S. 161, Cr.P.C., a day earlier---No plausible explanation whatsoever had come onrecord as to why the statements of the said witnesses were recorded with a delay of two days---Said fact rendered the case of the prosecution extremely doubtful---Circumstancesestablished that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond anyshadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.Muhammad Asif v. The State 2017 SCMR 486; Muhammad Sadiq v. The State PLD 1960SC 223; Tariq Gul v. Ziarat Gul 1976 SCMR 236; Muhammad Iqbal v. The State 1984SCMR 930; Haroon alias Harooni v. The State and another 1995 SCMR 1627 andMuhammad Khan v. Maula Bakhshah 1998 SCMR 570 rel.(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Motive notproved---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the deceased by firing---Motive behind the occurrence was that the deceased entered into the house of his neighbourduring night time upon which the mother of one of the accused threatened the deceased fordire consequences, later on occurrence took place---Record showed that no evidence hadbeen produced by the prosecution except the report of the complainant that threats wereextended by the mother of the accused to the deceased, no other corroborative piece ofevidence was available on record---Even otherwise eye-witnesses did not state a single wordin that regard---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its caseagainst the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, incircumstances.(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Recoveryof crime weapon---Reliance---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of thedeceased by firing---In the present case, the other piece of evidence was the recovery ofcrime weapon, i.e. 9 mm pistol from the accused and positive report of the Firearms ArmsExpert---Perusal of the statements of the recovery witnesses revealed that the InvestigatingOfficer, after registration of the FIR, went to the hospital and place of occurrence, and till1:35 a.m., he was present at the place of occurrence, and thereafter, he went to the policestation---On the other hand, official witness stated that recovery was affected from theaccused at 2:30 a.m.---Record showed that the place of occurrence and the place of recoveryof the alleged pistol was at a distance of about 135 kilometers---Impossible that one person,i.e. the Investigating Officer, was present at two different places at the same time, whichrendered the prosecution case doubtful---Even otherwise, official witness stated in hisstatement that the accused was alighted from the vehicle, and during his personal search, one 9 mm pistol was recovered from him---Investigating Officer did not state a single word aboutthe vehicle---Said aspect of the matter also caused reasonable doubt in the prosecution case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against theaccused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, incircumstances.(e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Delay ofabout one month and twenty two days in sending the pistol to Ballistic Expert---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the deceased by firing---Recovered pistolalong with empties was sent to the Ballistic Expert after a delay of one month and twentytwo days---Such delay was not explained by the prosecution---Circumstances established thatthe prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.(f) Criminal trial-------Recovery of crime weapon---Scope---Recovery of a crime weapon was a corroboratorypiece of evidence---In the absence of direct ocular evidence, mere recovery of a crimeweapon could not be based for conviction.Dr. Israr-ul-Haq v. Muhammad Fayyaz and another 2007 SCMR 1427 rel.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Right to confrontation is integral part of right to fair trial as guaranteed under Article 10-A of the Constitution.

Summary: Mandatory procedure encapsulated in Section 20 of the Canal & Drainage Act, 1973 regarding due notice and providing a right of hearing to all co-sharers of a water channel before altering their water rights must be adhered to as ordained by law. Impugned Orders in violation thereof, were set aside and the matter was remanded to irrigation officials for fresh determination.

Summary: (a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) ----Ss. 10(12), 9, 10(11)—Rejection of leave to defend—Mandatory duty to pass decree forthwith—Scope—Appellants challenged judgment of Banking Court which, after rejecting their leave to defend, proceeded to record plaintiff-bank’s evidence before passing decree—Held, under S.10(12), Banking Court is required to pass judgment and decree "forthwith" upon rejection of leave—Recording of evidence post-rejection of leave is a material irregularity and contravenes express statutory procedure—Decree based on such evidence is nullity in law. (b) Banking Court—Procedural jurisdiction—Limits after rejection of leave ----Banking Court has no jurisdiction to allow further evidence once leave to defend is refused—Purpose of "forthwith" decree is to ensure expeditious recovery and to prevent plaintiffs from filling gaps by adducing evidence—Court observed that any deviation from statutory mandate causes procedural prejudice regardless of actual injury. (c) Remand—Failure to follow mandatory procedure—Effect ----Where Banking Court proceeds in violation of S.10(12) by recording evidence after rejecting leave, judgment and decree must be set aside—Case remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with proper procedure under F.I.O., 2001—Leave application deemed pending and must be decided afresh. (d) Statutory Interpretation—Use of “shall” and “forthwith” in procedural laws ----Use of “shall” coupled with “forthwith” in S.10(12), F.I.O., 2001 makes it obligatory on the Banking Court to pass decree immediately after rejecting leave—Courts have no discretion to bypass this mandate—Principle reaffirmed that where a statute prescribes a method to do something, it must be done in that manner only. Disposition: Judgment and decree set aside—Case remanded to Banking Court for decision afresh in accordance with law.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: sifting grains from chaff