Step 1 of 8
Welcome!
Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.
Step 1 of 7
Welcome!
Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.
Latest Judgments (All Jurisdictions within Pakistan)
Baz Muhammad Khan Vs The SP Chamkani Peshawar etc
Summary: We have noted in numerous cases that the provisions of Sec. 2A Cr.PC is misused; besides, frivolous litigation in the Courts have become unstoppable, unnecessarily burdening in the Courts & wasting their precious public time. It is high time for the Courts to take effective measures to curb the uncalled for & frivolous litigation & imposition of suitable cost could be one of the deterrent modes to eliminate the concocted ligation.
Muhammad Junaid Vs The State etc
Summary: There is delay of eight days in lodging the FIR; there is no exegesis qua the delay in getting medical examination and that allegation of rape was not proved
Dr. Shafi ur Rehman Afridi Vs The State etc.
Summary: Pending
IFFAT SHAHEEN VS PUBLIC AT LARGE ETC
Summary: The appellant, who is the real sister of a mentally disordered person (referred to as the "ward"), was appointed as the guardian of the person and manager of the ward's property by the Court of Protection in Multan under the Mental Health Ordinance, 2001. The appellant filed two applications seeking permission to sell the ward's vacant plot, stating that it does not generate income for the ward's financial needs. The Court of Protection dismissed both applications without conducting a proper inquiry, expressing concerns about misappropriation and lack of details about the property. The appellant challenged the decisions, arguing that the Court of Protection failed to appreciate the law and overlooked the fact that the vacant plot yielded no income. The court examined the provisions of the Mental Health Ordinance and emphasized that the court's duty is to protect the interests of mentally disordered persons. It found that the Court of Protection did not conduct a meaningful inquiry into the ward's interests or the nature of the property. The court set aside the impugned order, allowing the appellant to seek permission to sell the property, and suggested measures for the Court of Protection to ensure proper utilization of the sale proceeds for the ward's benefit. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.
Ms Premium Developers Vs Muhammad Tariq
Summary: The petitioner entered into an agreement to purchase a housing scheme from the respondent, but disputes arose regarding the fulfillment of obligations by both parties. The petitioner claims that the respondent did not provide records of already sold units and recovery amounts, while the respondent alleges non-compliance with the agreement by the petitioner. The court analyzed the terms of the agreement, emphasizing that it is a bilateral contract with obligations on both parties. It observed that the respondent had not fulfilled their part of the agreement by providing details of already sold units and recovery amounts. The court also pointed out that the order directing the petitioner to deposit the entire sale consideration was not in line with the bilateral nature of the agreement. As a result, the court set aside the impugned order, stating that it was not sustainable in the eyes of the law. The court emphasized the need for a step-by-step performance of the agreement and concluded that the petitioner cannot be directed to deposit the entire agreed sale price without the calculation of already sold units and received amounts. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the order that required the full payment of the sale consideration and emphasizing the bilateral nature of the agreement.
Sheikh Muhammad Tariq Vs Ms Premium Developers
Summary: The petitioner entered into an agreement to sell some developed and undeveloped land of the scheme to the respondent for a consideration of Rs.94 crore. The agreement specified payment terms, including a 1/4th amount upfront and the remaining in six equal installments. However, the respondent failed to deposit the remaining amount as directed by the court. Subsequently, the respondent filed an application claiming a compromise between the parties, and a partial payment was made. The petitioner initiated a suit for cancellation of documents, and after the failure of the compromise, the trial court ordered the respondent to deposit the remaining amount. Meanwhile, the respondent filed an execution petition seeking the transfer of 30 acres of land based on earlier orders. The executing court directed the petitioner to transfer the land in response to a received amount of Rs.9 crores. The court observed that the orders sought to be executed relate to the vacation of stay orders regarding certain patches of land and do not constitute executable orders. The court sets aside the impugned order and dismissed the execution petition, deeming it not maintainable.
THE STATE VS IFTIKHAR ALI
Summary: Convicted---A legal judgment related to a criminal case involving charges of rape under Sections 376 and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the trial court for committing zina-bil-jabr (rape) with Meena Fizza and Sara Fizza, both of whom are the nieces of the appellant. The trial court found Iftikhar Ali guilty and sentenced him to death under Section 376 of the PPC for committing rape. The judgment discusses the evidence presented during the trial, including the victims' statements, medical examination results, and DNA analysis. The court also addressed the defense's arguments, such as the alleged contradictions in the victims' testimonies and the delay in reporting the crime to the police. In its conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal filed by Iftikhar Ali and confirms the death sentence awarded to him by the trial court.
Muhammad Nazim Vs The State etc
Summary: Acquittal granted---- Failure to produce Memory Card on notice, secondary evidence would be the remedy to save its status as real evidence---The appellant, Muhammad Nazim, faced murder charges in the death of Rashid Mehmood, with an FIR already registered under sections 302 & 34 PPC at a police station. The complainant sought sentence enhancement for Nazim and filed a criminal revision against the acquittal of other respondents. The incident occurred during Rashid Mehmood's Mehndi ceremony, where Nazim allegedly shot him due to a personal grudge. The complainant questioned the motive, stating Nazim was in love with the lady Rashid was going to marry. The case involved discrepancies in witness testimonies, with the complainant and his son providing conflicting statements. The prosecution relied on statements from the complainant and others, but the defense challenged their credibility. Additionally, the court addressed the use of a memory card as evidence, emphasizing its admissibility for contradiction. The court questioned the authenticity of the evidence, including the recovery of a pistol, and criticized the lack of expert opinion on the postmortem report. Ultimately, the court found the prosecution failed to prove the charges, leading to the acquittal of the appellant and dismissal of the revision and appeal.
BASHIR AHMED VS SHAHID NADEEM
Summary: The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit against the petitioner/defendant for the recovery of Rs.3,502,500 based on a cheque. The petitioner/defendant sought leave to appear and defend the suit, claiming the cheque was a guarantee for diesel purchase, and filed an application for handwriting comparison, which was dismissed by the trial court. The petitioner argued the cheque is fake, while the respondent contends it was issued for fertilizer purchase. The court, after examining relevant legal provisions, dismissed the revision, stating the petitioner has yet to complete cross-examination and lead evidence, and the application for handwriting comparison was misconceived. The court emphasized the importance of direct evidence over expert opinion and concludes the revision lacks merit.
Muhammad Naeem Hassan v. The State thr. P.G. Punjab and another
Summary: Bail Allowed---The complainant's claim that he was an eyewitness to the crime, yet did not initially nominate anyone in the FIR, and only did so later through a supplementary statement, was noted. The fact that co-accused Shehzad had been granted bail without objection from the State or complainant, and that co-accused Mukhtar was deemed innocent during the investigation, cast doubts on the credibility of the supplementary statement.Considering these factors, the petition was converted into an appeal. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and overturned the High Court's order. The appellant (petitioner) was granted bail in the mentioned case, provided that a bail bond of one hundred thousand rupees and one surety of equal amount were furnished to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. It was emphasized that any observations made in this order would not adversely impact either party's case.