Summary: Customs: Seeks direction for release of detained consignment alongwith release of detention certificate.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 152---Amendment of judgments, decrees or orders---Scope---Section 152 of C.P.C.provides a speedy and inexpensive relief without resorting to other remedies that may beavailable under the law---Section 152, C.P.C. has limitations which have been providedtherein---Scope of S.152, C.P.C., is limited to 'clerical', 'arithmetical mistakes' or "errors"arising from any "accidental slip" or "omission"---Where the order or judgment is deliberate,having been passed after application of mind, it will be outside the scope of S.152, as anerror or omission in such an order would not be construed as an accidental slip or omission---Not every mistake by a Court can be termed as an error resulting from an 'accidental slip' or'omission'---Questions involving contentious issues cannot be considered or corrected underS.152, C.P.C.Baqar v. Mohammad Rafique and others 2003 SCMR 1401 rel.(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 152---Amendment of judgments, decrees or orders---Scope---Court cannot rectify adecree, judgment or order on the grounds that it was wrong or unfair---Section 152, C.P.C.does not authorize the Court to supplement its judgment passed after application of mind andhaving effect of taking away rights accrued to any party---Errors as contemplated by S.152,C.P.C. are those which may have crept into the order or decree inadvertently orunintentionally---Mistakes which do not go to the merits of the case and not substantiallyaffecting rights of the parties can always be corrected by exercising jurisdiction under S.152,C.P.C.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S.24---Transfer of case---Bias of Judge---Types of bias listed.Pakistan Newspaper Society and others v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2012 SC 1 ref.(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S.24---Transfer of case---Grounds---Bias of Judge---Assumption / apprehension of party---Scope---Petitioners (applicants under S.24, C.P.C, 1908) sought transfer of case on the basisof alleged statement/utterance made by the opposing side that they would get favour from theCourt---Held, that contention of the petitioner did not constitute sufficient ground for transferof case as they had failed to establish the bias in judge which was not supported by any sortof evidence or some act or expression of judge visible on ground adversely affecting thecase---Mere assumption and apprehension could not be entertained as a tangible evidence,therefore, a mere statement could not be made basis for transfer of case---Case would not betransferred as a matter of routine or at the whims of the parties---No illegality or infirmitywas found in the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court rejecting application ofpetitioners to transfer their civil suit to another civil court---Revision petition was dismissed,in circumstances.(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S.24---Application for transfer of a case---Scope---Litigants should have confidence inthe judicial system---Although application for transfer of a case could be filed but (only)when a party had sufficient reasons, grounds and evidence in his/her possession regardingpecuniary interest, bias of judicial officer etc.

Summary: (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)-------S. 9(c)---Possession of Narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Prosecution case was thatfive kilograms hashish and a cash of Rs.535,000/- were recovered from the vehicle of theaccused persons---Record showed that all the witnesses were consistent on all materialaspects---No distinct discrepancy was noticed to spoil the credibility of the testimony of thewitnesses---Said witnesses were subjected to cross-examination by the defence, but theirtestimony was not shattered---From the evidence, the mode and manner of arrest of accusedleading to the recovery of narcotic had been proved---Prosecution evidence inspiredconfidence, while recovery of the narcotic from the vehicle which was driven by the accusedwas also proved by the prosecution---Accused was found responsible for transporting ofhuge quantity of the narcotic having a prior knowledge of the narcotic substance in hisvehicle---In rebuttal to overwhelming prosecution evidence, the accused had failed toproduce any tangible, trust-worthy and confidence inspiring evidence of the prosecutionwitnesses---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against theaccused---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.(b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)-------S. 9--- Possession of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Transporting of narcotic---Liability of driver---Scope---Person who is on driving seat of the vehicle shall be heldresponsible for transportation of narcotics.Kashif Amir v. State PLD 2010 SC 1052 rel.(c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)-------Ss. 9(c) & 25---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103---Possession of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Search and arrest, mode of ---Search to be made in presence ofwitnesses---Non-association of private witnesses---Effect---Five kilograms hashish and a cashof Rs.535,000/- were recovered from the vehicle of the accused persons---Contention of theaccused was that no private person was joined in recovery proceedings except Police Officials, which was a violation of S. 103, Cr.P.C.---Such contention of accused had no forceas the application of S.103, Cr.P.C. had been excluded by S.25 of the Act---Reluctance of thegeneral public to become a witness in such like cases was a judicially recognized fact andthere was no option left but to consider the statement of official witness as no legal bar hadbeen imposed in that regard---In the present case, no proof of enmity with the complainantand the prosecution witnesses had been brought on record, thus, in the absence thereof, thecompetence of prosecution witnesses being officials was rightly believed---Witnesses werenot at all questioned about any previous ill-will or enmity with the accused whereby theycould have been falsely nabbed and charged for the possession of five kilogram hashish---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.Zafar v. The State 2008 SCMR 1254 rel.(d) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)-------S. 9(c)--- Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, R.6---Possession of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of about three days in sendingsamples of recovered material to the Forensic Science Laboratory---Chain of safe custody---Prosecution case was that five kilograms hashish and a cash of Rs.535,000/- were recoveredfrom the vehicle of the accused persons---Record showed that samples were sent to the officeof the Chemical Examiner within seventy two hours of the recovery---Even otherwise,dispatching of sample beyond 72 hours was not a sine qua non---Mere delay in sending thesample to the laboratory was not at all fatal to the prosecution case because Rr. 4 & 5 of theControl of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001,did not place any bar onthe Investigating Officer to send the samples beyond 72 hours of seizure or recovery of thecontraband---Said provisions in that respect were directory and not mandatory---Nothing wason record to establish that the sample parcel was ever tempered with rather the evidence ledby the prosecution established that when the parcel was received by the said agency,remained intact---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case againstthe accused---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.(e) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)-------S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Prosecution case was that five kilograms hashish and a cash of Rs.535,000/- were recoveredfrom the vehicle of the accused persons---Record showed that the prosecution had failed toprove any link of the co-accused persons with that of the accused---No recovery, whatsoever,was affected from the co-accused persons and the contraband was recovered from the trunk(dikki) of the vehicle---Prosecution had failed to establish that the co-accused were inknowledge of the narcotic or that the same was exposed to them---Co-accused werepassengers and having no link either with the accused or the vehicle which was used in thecrime---If the contraband was lying open within the view of the co-accused persons or theyknew the placement of the same in the secret cavities, then the situation would have beendifferent---Prosecution had simply proved presence of the co-accused persons in the vehicle---Mere presence of the co-accused persons in the vehicle would not involve them in the case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the coaccused persons---Appeal against conviction to the extent of co-accused was allowed, incircumstances.Qaisarullah v. State 2009 SCMR 579 rel. 3

Summary: NAB appeal ---- for grant of impugned judgement ---- bail granted.

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------S.35(c)---Rescission of agreement---Suit for specific performance---Execution petition---Decree holder was directed to make payment of balance consideration amount---Petitioner/judgment debtor contended that respondent/decree holder had failed to makepayment of balance consideration amount within two months of passing of judgment/decreeand agreement ceased to exist---Validity---If condition of the depositing amount mentionedin the decree was not fulfilled, then the said agreement would cease to exist or rescind,however, certain exceptions were there including the circumstances beyond the control of thedecree holder or due to stay of proceeding by some court---Petitioner/judgment debtor filedobjection and lingered on the matter from one pretext to another---Respondent/decree holderon various dates produced cheque for making payment of sale consideration which eithercould not be paid due to absence of the petitioner or he was reluctant to receive the same---Execution application was also consigned to record due to stay order---Executing Court wasrequired to direct the decree holder to deposit the sale consideration amount in the CCDaccount of the Court, but had not ordered---Decree holder could not be prejudiced due to theact of Court---Decree holder was directed by High Court to deposit balance considerationamount within 15 days---Revision petition was disposed of accordingly.(b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)-------Ss.4 & 5---Specific performance---Execution petition for deposit of amount---Twentyseven (27) days' delay in registration---Closure of Courts---Summer vacation---Respondent/decree holder filed execution application on 5th June, but at that time thebusiness of the Court was closed due to summer vacation, therefore, said petition wasregistered on 8th July---Courts remained closed during summer vacation for one month andDistrict Court mainly conducted criminal cases and stay matters in civil cases---Section 4 ofthe Limitation Act, 1908 was attracted---Application could not be termed beyond the periodof limitation.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: The excerpt delves into the legal scrutiny of SRO 115, a notification by the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) granting powers to officers of the Directorate General (Intelligence and Investigation), Inland Revenue, under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. Drawing parallels with the precedent set by the case F.M. Textile Mills v. Federal Board of Revenue, particularly the striking down of SRO 116 under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, the challenge posits that both notifications suffered from similar flaws. The court's rationale in F.M. Textile Mills, where the creation of a parallel agency without proper regulation resulted in unbridled exercise of power, serves as a basis for the current challenge. The argument underscores the necessity for well-defined powers, structured authority, and explicit delineation of officers' jurisdiction and functions to curb arbitrary actions. Emphasizing the principle of legality and the rule of law, the analysis asserts that the absence of such clarity renders SRO 115 ultra vires, echoing the court's decision to set aside the notification in line with the precedent.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 18---Freedom of trade, business or profession---Cultivation of crops with sewagewater---Scope---Petitioners, being agriculturalists, assailed the act of respondents wherebythey had blocked the supply of black/grey water to an area of 1000 acres---Validity---Reportsprepared by the representatives of different departments showed that the petitioners wereusing sewage water for cultivation of crops which contained household waste, hospital wasteas well as waste material eliminated from food points and factories, etc---Sewage watercultivation was a point of grave concern---Mixing of unpurified water with purified made theentire water contaminated and carcinogenic---Vegetables (leafy/non-leafy) fodder cropsirrigated by such contaminated, arsenic rich water absorbed the chemicals and metals fromthe water which became hazardous for human health, causing various fatal diseases---Around3000 acres of land was under cultivation with leafy crops by sewage water that was beingsold in the local market and was used for salad and foods---High Court observed that onlytreated water should be used for fruit and vegetable production---Cultivation of crops withcontaminated water was declared to be an unlawful business and the respondents weredirected to ensure stoppage of such business.Ms. Shehla Zia v. WAPDA PLD 1994 SC 693 rel.(b) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction---Enforcement of Fundamental Rights---Scope---Jurisdiction of High Court while exercising power under Art. 199 of the Constitution isrestricted to making an order directing a person performing within the territorial jurisdictionof the Court, functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a province or a localauthority, to refrain from doing anything he is not permitted by law to do, or to do anythinghe is required by law to do; or declaring that any act done or proceeding taken within theterritorial jurisdiction of the court by a person performing functions in connection with theaffairs of the Federation, a province or a local authority has been done or taken withoutlawful authority and is of no legal effect---However, when dealing with constitutionalpetitions for the enforcement of fundamental rights, the jurisdiction of High Court is notcontrolled by any limitation---Such fact finds mentioned in clause (c) of sub-Article (1) of Art. 199 of the Constitution.(c) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 199(1)(c)---Constitutional jurisdiction---Enforcement of Fundamental Rights---Scope---High Court, in exercise of the constitutional jurisdiction for enforcement offundamental rights, has unlimited powers to issue appropriate directions to the functionariesof the State for securing the fundamental rights or to avoid their violation---Act which isrequired to be done by the public functionaries by the Court under the clause (c) of SubArticle (1) of Art.199 may not normally be allowed to be taken by them under specificlaw/rules or in normal circumstances, they may even be not permitted specifically to performsuch acts under the existing law or rules---In pursuance of the direction given by the courtunder said sub-clause (c), the person/authority/government so commanded by the High Courtshall be bound to perform the act so that the fundamental rights of citizens are enforced---Reasons behind granting such powers for issuing appropriate direction are that every otherlaw/rule/instruction have to yield to the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.(d) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 18---Freedom of trade, business or profession---Scope---Article 18 of theConstitution declares in unequivocal terms freedom of occupation, trade and business but itis equally true that such right is subject to qualifications, if any, as may be prescribed by lawand that the profession, occupation, trade or business in which a citizen is entitled to engagemust be a lawful profession, permitted by law or at least not forbidden by law---Concept ofdangerous and offensive trades and civil defence is not that the candle should not be lit---Candle must be lit to remove darkness and make the things more productive but care mustalso be taken not to let the candle burn everything around.

Summary: Summary pending