Summary: Background: Two appeals, granted leave by the Court, challenged a single judgment from the High Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir, dated October 6, 2020, in Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2019. These appeals were consolidated for a joint decision. On March 17, 2019, a police report was filed after routine checking at Brarkot barrier led to the discovery of 3 kg of charas in a car driven by a young boy, with a woman seated in the front. The accused were arrested and charged under sections 9(c) and 15 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, as adopted in Azad Jammu & Kashmir. ----Issues: 1- Whether the prosecution's evidence was sufficient and credible to convict the appellants. 2- Whether the procedural delays and discrepancies in handling the evidence compromised the prosecution’s case. 3- Whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt due to inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court reviewed the appeals and found multiple contradictions and discrepancies in the prosecution's case, including: Delayed dispatch of the contraband for chemical examination beyond the 72-hour legal requirement. Missing witness testimonies that were crucial for establishing the chain of custody. Discrepancies in the weight and color of the contraband sample. These issues created reasonable doubt regarding the appellants' guilt. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of an unbroken chain of custody and adherence to procedural rules in narcotics cases. The Court held that the benefit of doubt should go to the accused if the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. As a result, the convictions were overturned, and the appellants were acquitted. ----Citations/Precedents: Kamran Shah & others vs. State & others [2019 SCMR 1217] Mst. Razia Sultana vs. The State & others [2019 SCMR 1300] Zahir Shah vs. The State [2019 SCMR 2004] Mst. Sakina Ramzan vs. The State [2021 SCMR 451] Noor Aga vs. State of Punjab [2008 16 SCC 417] Sudheer Shah alias Kaka Shah vs. The State & another [2016 SCR 1653] Muhammad Rafique vs. Aurangzeb & others [2015 SCR 974] State through Advocate-General vs. Talib Hussain & others [2013 SCR 192] Wazir Muhammad vs. The State [1992 SCMR 1134] Fazal Dayan vs. The State, etc. Criminal Appeal No. 975-P/2019 Zeenat Ali vs. The State [2021 PCr.LJ 1294]

Summary: Acquittal granted---Background: Two appeals, both filed on February 6, 2020, challenged a single judgment from the High Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir, dated October 6, 2020, in Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2019. The appeals were heard together and decided collectively. The case originated on March 17, 2019, when a routine police check at Brarkot barrier led to the discovery of 3 kg of charas in a car driven by a young man with a woman seated in the front. The contraband was found under the front seat, leading to the arrest and subsequent conviction of the occupants under sections 9(c) and 15 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, as adapted in Azad Jammu & Kashmir. ----Issues: 1- Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient and credible to uphold the conviction. 2- Whether procedural delays and discrepancies in handling the evidence compromised the prosecution’s case. 3- Whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt due to inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court reviewed the appeals and identified multiple contradictions and discrepancies in the prosecution's case, including: The delay in sending the contraband for chemical examination, which was done eight days after the seizure, exceeding the 72-hour requirement. Missing witness testimonies crucial for establishing the chain of custody. Discrepancies in the weight and color of the contraband sample. These issues created reasonable doubt regarding the appellants' guilt. The Court emphasized the importance of an unbroken chain of custody and adherence to procedural rules in narcotics cases. The Court held that the benefit of doubt should go to the accused if the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the convictions were overturned, and the appellants were acquitted. ----Citations/Precedents: Kamran Shah & others vs. State & others [2019 SCMR 1217] Safe custody of the recovered substance was not established by the prosecution, leading to acquittal. Mst. Razia Sultana vs. The State & others [2019 SCMR 1300] Failure to prove safe transmission of the sample resulted in the report of the Chemical Examiner losing its reliability, leading to acquittal. Zahir Shah vs. The State [2019 SCMR 2004] Emphasized the necessity of establishing safe custody and transmission of narcotic samples. Mst. Sakina Ramzan vs. The State [2021 SCMR 451] Discussed the importance of an unbroken chain of custody from seizure to testing. Noor Aga vs. State of Punjab [2008 16 SCC 417] Highlighted discrepancies in sample weight as a reason to question the prosecution's case. Sudheer Shah alias Kaka Shah vs. The State & another [2016 SCR 1653] Reinforced that even a slightest doubt should benefit the accused. Muhammad Rafique vs. Aurangzeb & others [2015 SCR 974] Stressed that the benefit of every possible doubt should be extended to the accused. State through Advocate-General vs. Talib Hussain & others [2013 SCR 192] Emphasized that the benefit of doubt always favors the accused. Wazir Muhammad vs. The State [1992 SCMR 1134] Stated that the accused only needs to create doubt in the prosecution's case to be acquitted. Fazal Dayan vs. The State, etc. Criminal Appeal No. 975-P/2019 Highlighted the importance of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: The Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP), filed the petition against Dalda Foods Limited Karachi. The case revolved around a notice issued by the CCP under Section 37(1) of the Competition Act, 2010, calling for information related to a breach of obligation by an undertaking under Section 3 or Section 4 of the Act.During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel argued that the impugned judgment contained certain weaknesses. The petitioner's counsel highlighted that the obligation imposed under Section 37(2) of the Act for confronting the respondent with material before forming an opinion about a breach of law applies to complainants and not to suo moto actions taken by the CCP. They also contested the notion that the notice violated the rule against self-incrimination as stated in Article 13(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan.The respondent's counsel, on the other hand, referred to paragraph 36 of the impugned judgment, which allowed the CCP to undertake an inquiry on available material without necessarily passing a reasoned order.The Supreme Court noted the weaknesses in the impugned judgment, particularly in regards to the interplay between Section 37(1) and Section 37(2) of the Act. The Court granted leave to examine these issues further and suspended the impugned judgment. The Court also mentioned the possibility of the petitioner providing the respondent with the necessary material for the inquiry through a fresh notice.In conclusion, the Supreme Court addressed certain concerns raised by the petitioner's counsel, highlighted issues with the impugned judgment, and granted leave to examine these matters more closely.

Summary: The petitioner had filed a suit for declaration, seeking a decree that its CNG station was a consumer under a specific number and had no outstanding arrears due to regular monthly bill payments. The petitioner also sought a mandatory injunction to prevent the respondents, including the General Manager of SNGPL, from disconnecting its gas supply. However, the respondents had filed a separate suit for the recovery of a substantial amount against the petitioner due to alleged tampering of their gas meter.Both suits were consolidated, and the trial court dismissed the petitioner's suit and granted relief to the respondents. An RFA was filed against this judgment, but it was dismissed by the High Court. The petitioner then sought leave to appeal in the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court examined the case and noted several critical points. Firstly, the petitioner's suit was filed against the officials of SNGPL without impleading SNGPL itself as a defendant. The Court pointed out that a company is a separate legal entity distinct from its officials and employees, and a company must be sued in its own name. This defect was considered fatal to the case.Secondly, the Court highlighted that the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 had established the exclusive jurisdiction of the Authority to determine matters within its scope. The Court referred to a precedent to emphasize that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred in such cases.Furthermore, the Court found that the petitioner had wrongly filed the appeal in the High Court instead of the District Court, where the jurisdictional value of the suit lay. This incorrect filing, along with other defects, led the Court to conclude that the petition for leave to appeal was not maintainable.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: PLJ 2021 Quetta 18 Present Rozi Khan Barrech J MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and 17 others - - Petitioners versus ABDUL HAMEED and 4 others - - Respondents CR No 48 of 2017 decided on 1072019 Civil Procedure Code 1908 (V of 1908) - - - - - - Ss 115 151 OXLIII R 3 - - Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) Ss 42 31 54 - - Suit for declaration perpetual injunction and correction of mutation entries - - Dismissed in default - - Application for restoration of suit - - Dismissed - - Filing of another application - - Dismissed - - Appeal - - Dismissed - - Period of limitation - - Direction to - - Perusal of record reveals that after conclusion of trial case was fixed for final arguments as per order sheets maintained by trial Court - - On said date attorney for petitioners along with counsel appeared before Court but Presiding Officer was on leave therefore case was adjourned through note of reader of Court - - On said date counsel for respondents was present but none appeared on behalf of petitioners therefore suit was dismissed for non - prosecution - - Three main questions have cropped up before this Court which are (i) whether case adjourned by note of Reader of Court can be termed as a date of hearing (ii) whether suit can be dismissed in default when same was fixed for final arguments and (iii) whether application filed by petitioners for restoration of suit was barred by time - - Period of limitation for application for restoration of suit in such eventuality is governed by Article 181 and not by Article 163 of Limitation Act 1908 - - After dismissal of application for restoration of petition petitioner filed another application under Section 151 CPC for restoration of suit which was within three years period prescribed under Article 181 of Act thus same could not be held as barred by law of limitation - - It is stated that case was fixed for final arguments and entire evidence of parties has been recorded - - Thus case was ripe for judgment - - For sake of arguments if it is presumed that when trial Court itself fixed case for hearing then it could have taken action under Order XVII Rule 3 CPC and should not have dismissed case under Order IX Rule 8 CPC - - Dismissal of suit for non - appearance at such a stage was held wholly not warranted and entire labor and expense of many years could not be allowed to go waste - - Only proper course in such circumstances was either to fix another date for hearing of final arguments or to decide suit on merits on basis of available evidence produced by both parties without hearing arguments - - Revision petition was accepted [Pp 20 21] A B C D E PLD 1960 WP (LHR) 129 ref Mr Muhammad Gauhar Advocate for Petitioners Mr Shai Haq Baloch AAG for StateJudgement Result:Revision petition accepted

Summary: Summary pending