Summary: Background:The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Multan, initiated proceedings against Sh. Muhammad Amin Arshad, a Commission Agent/Broker, for allegedly under-declaring income. The Deputy Commissioner detected substantial payments through bank cheques exceeding the declared amount. Subsequently, proceedings were initiated under sections 122(5)(9) and 111(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The tax liability was determined, leading to an appeal by Arshad, which was initially rejected but later reversed by the Appellate Tribunal. The Department challenged this decision through Tax Reference No.26 of 2013, which led to the Lahore High Court's judgment dated 9.6.2016.----Issues:Whether the detection of payments exceeding the declared amount constitutes "definite information" under section 122(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.Whether the High Court erred in declining to interfere in the absence of "definite information" and a factual controversy involving the assessee.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that the detection of payments through bank transactions constituted "definite information" under section 122(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The respondent failed to substantiate their business activities with M/s Shujabad Oil Mills Private Limited in light of these banking transactions. Consequently, the Department's determination of income under section 39 of the Ordinance, along with associated tax and penalties, was upheld. The High Court's decision was deemed slipshod and lacking appreciation of the law, leading to the restoration of orders passed by the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) and the Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue. The petition was converted into an appeal and allowed.----Citations/Precedents:Income Tax Ordinance2001Section 122(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance2001Section 39 of the Income Tax Ordinance2001Section 182(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Summary: Any piece of evidence, which is essential for just decision of the case, has to be brought on record irrespective of the fact that either it favours one party or goes against other; filling lacuna in the case is also immaterial if said piece of evidence is otherwise necessary for securing ends of justice.---he petitioner contested that the prosecution's application sought to correct oversights rather than introduce new evidence. The court upheld the impugned orders, emphasizing the inquisitorial nature of criminal justice and the obligation to ensure a just decision. Citing legal precedents, including "Abdul Latif Aasi v. The State" (2001 P.Cr.R 548) and "Muhammad Azam v. Muhammad Iqbal" (PLD 1985 Supreme Court 95), the court affirmed its authority to summon essential evidence, even if not formally admitted, under Section 540 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It highlighted that the court's duty is to elucidate facts and secure justice, regardless of delays or omissions by the parties. The petitioner's contention that the impugned orders favored the prosecution over the defense was dismissed, with the court emphasizing that criminal justice requires an inquisitorial approach. The court concluded that the impugned orders were valid, well-reasoned, and in accordance with the law, thus dismissing the petition.

Summary: [Safe custody and safe transmission in narcotics case--Acquittal] The appellant, Mst. Sakina Ramzan, had been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of one million rupees for an offense under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The case originated from an incident in November 2014 when customs officers discovered 45kgs charas (a form of cannabis) hidden in the body frames of three LCD TVs, two room heaters, and one washing machine in a vehicle stopped on the RCD Highway in Karachi. Upon review of the case, the Supreme Court examined the evidence and found several discrepancies in the chain of custody of the seized narcotics. The warehouse in-charge, who could confirm the safe custody of the narcotics after their recovery, was not produced as a witness. Additionally, the statement regarding the delivery of the samples to the office of the Chemical Examiner was unclear and contradictory. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining an unbroken and secure chain of custody for the reliability of the Chemical Examiner's report, which plays a crucial role in justifying the conviction of the accused under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act. Based on these concerns and relying on precedents set in previous cases, including Imam Bakhsh and Ikramullah, the Supreme Court concluded that the chain of custody had been compromised and was no longer safe and secure. Therefore, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction.

Summary: Bail granted----Background:During a routine check on the RCD Highway in Karachi, Customs officers intercepted a vehicle carrying three LCD TVs, two room heaters, and one washing machine. Abdul Ghaffar was the driver, and Mst. Sakina Ramzan was the sole passenger. The officers discovered 45 kilograms of charas hidden in these items. Both individuals were charged under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (CNSA). Abdul Ghaffar was acquitted as he was deemed only a taxi driver uninvolved in the crime, while Mst. Sakina Ramzan was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rupees One million. The Sindh High Court upheld her conviction, prompting her appeal to the Supreme Court for a reappraisal of the evidence.----Issues:Was the chain of custody for the seized narcotics properly maintained and documented by the prosecution?Can the conviction of Mst. Sakina Ramzan be upheld in light of potential breaks in the chain of custody?----Holding/Reasoning/OutcomeHolding: The Supreme Court held that the chain of custody of the narcotics was compromised, making the Chemical Examiner's Report unreliable.Reasoning:The prosecution failed to produce key witnesses, such as the warehouse in-charge and the officer who allegedly delivered the narcotics to the Chemical Examiner.There were discrepancies in the testimonies regarding the handling and delivery of the narcotics and their samples.The proper chain of custody is essential to ensure the integrity and reliability of the narcotics' samples and the Chemical Examiner's Report.Outcome: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside Mst. Sakina Ramzan's conviction and sentence, and ordered her immediate release unless she was required in another case.----Citations/Precedents:Imam Bakhsh, 2018 SCMR 2039Ikramullah, 2015 SCMR 1002----Quote:Safe custody and safe transmission in narcotics case.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Bail After Arrest: FIR No. 287/20, dated 12 -10 -2020, U/s 376/511/382/506/342/337 -J/34 P.S Shahzad Town, Islamabad.

Summary: ICA in WP 3924/2020: Against dismissal of appeal and suit

Summary: (Defamation----Damages and Apology allowed) The petitioners had published a news item in the newspaper Daily Sama, making derogatory allegations against the respondent. As a result, the respondent filed a suit claiming damages of Rs. 15 million for injury to his body and soul, injury to his career and reputation, and loss to his reputation, prestige, and esteem. The petitioners failed to file their defense despite several opportunities, and their right to file the defense was struck off. The suit was ultimately decreed in favor of the respondent. The petitioners later filed an application seeking to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree, but it was dismissed. They then filed an appeal before the Islamabad High Court, which was also dismissed. The Supreme Court noted that the petitioners had failed to avail themselves of the opportunities to file their defense, justifying the striking off of their defense and the ex parte proceedings. However, the Court found that the lower courts had mechanically decreed the suit without assessing the quantum of damages according to the evidence and settled principles. The Court pointed out that the respondent had failed to provide evidence of bodily injury or injury to his career, for which substantial damages had been claimed. The Court explained that special damages, which refer to actual losses, should be proven with reference to the evidence. In this case, the respondent failed to demonstrate the evidence supporting his claim of special damages. The Court further emphasized that even in cases of ex parte decrees, the courts must exercise their discretion judiciously and examine the credibility of each claim. In this case, the courts had failed to do so. While the Court recognized that the respondent had suffered mental torture and inconvenience due to the defamatory statement, it found that the decree passed by the lower courts without assessing damages and applying judicial principles could not be sustained. Instead of remanding the case, the Court accepted the respondent's proposal to award the minimum amount of general damages provided under Section 9 of the Defamation Ordinance, 2002, which was Rs. 300,000. The Court also ordered the petitioners to publish an apology in a similar manner and with the same prominence as the defamatory statement. In conclusion, the Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, modifying the decree and reducing the compensatory damages awarded to the respondent to Rs. 300,000. The case highlights the importance of properly assessing damages and applying judicial discretion in defamation cases.