Summary: Sentence Reduction---Narcotics---The case originated from a raid conducted at the petitioner's house based on a spy's information. During the raid, the petitioner was apprehended with a sack containing 15 kg of "bhukki/poast." A chemical analysis confirmed the presence of narcotics in the sample. The prosecution presented six witnesses to support their case, including a constable and an Assistant Session Judge. After hearing the arguments and examining the case record, the court concluded that the petitioner was caught with 15kg of bhukki/poast, and the prosecution witnesses remained consistent in their statements. The court acknowledged that minor discrepancies might exist due to the time gap between the registration of the FIR in 2007 and the recording of evidence in 2009. The court also noted that police officials can be reliable witnesses and should not be discarded solely because of their profession. Regarding the punishment, the court analyzed the definition of "opium" under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The court cited previous judgments and stated that not all poppy straw is considered "poast." The term "poast" specifically refers to the natural pouch or bulb containing the seeds of a poppy plant. The court found no evidence regarding whether only the pouch or the entire plant was recovered from the petitioner. Considering the mitigating circumstance that the petitioner had already spent over 13 years in jail and that the remaining sentence was less than two years, the court reduced the petitioner's sentence to the time already served. The petitioner was ordered to be released unless detained in any other case.

Summary: Background:The petitioner, Zulfiqar @ Zulfa, was convicted under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for possession of 15 kilograms of bhukki/poast. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 30,000. The Lahore High Court upheld the conviction and sentence. Zulfiqar appealed to the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging the High Court's decision.----Issues:Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to uphold the conviction of the petitioner for possession of narcotics.Whether the sentence of life imprisonment was appropriate given the nature of the substance and the circumstances of the case.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Sufficiency of Evidence:The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, including testimonies from six prosecution witnesses, and noted that key witnesses, Constable Ghazanfar Ali (PW-4) and Khawaja Imran Manan, ASC (PW-6), remained consistent during cross-examination. The Court affirmed that police officials are competent witnesses whose testimony can be relied upon if it remains unshaken during cross-examination.The Court noted that the FIR was registered promptly and the chemical analysis confirmed the presence of narcotic substance in the seized material.Appropriateness of Sentence:The Court examined the definition of "opium" under Section 2(t) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which includes all parts of the poppy plant except seeds. The Court also referred to prior judgments clarifying that "poast" refers to the poppy capsule or doda, which contains narcotic substances.The Court found mitigating circumstances in the absence of clear evidence specifying whether the seized material was solely poppy capsules (doda) or included other parts of the plant. The Court noted the medicinal uses and agricultural significance of the poppy plant.Given that the petitioner had already served over 13 years in prison and considering the ambiguity regarding the exact nature of the seized substance, the Court deemed it appropriate to reduce the sentence.Outcome:The Supreme Court maintained the conviction of Zulfiqar @ Zulfa but reduced his sentence from life imprisonment to the period already served. The petitioner was ordered to be released immediately unless detained in another case. The jail petition was converted into an appeal and partly allowed.----Citations/Precedents:Salah-ud-Din Vs. State (2010 SCMR 1962): Recognized the competence of police officials as witnesses.Taimoor Khan Vs. State (2016 SCMR 621): Defined "poast" and clarified that not all parts of the poppy plant necessarily constitute narcotic substances.Muhammad Imran v. The State (2011 SCMR 1954): Discussed the narcotic content in different parts of the poppy plant.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Banking Case. Seeking direction for decision of objection petition pending before Banking Court. previously FAO 17 -11 decided by Hon'ble DB Comprising Mr Justice Riaz Ahmed Khan & Ex Justice Muhammad Azim Khan Afridi

Summary: The plaintiffs suit based on the gift deed, allegedly made on 12.09.1996, so in order to prove the same, the petitioners produced stamp vendor PW-1, who in his cross examination deposed that stamp papers worth of Rs.4+4 were sold by him on 22.09.1996, however, by whom these were purchased is neither mentioned nor signed on the overleaf of it. The reasons for non-production of register were shown as the same was submitted by him to the Treasury office. Ex.PW-4/1 is the deed, which is an affidavit by which allegedly vendor has made of gift of the suit house in favour of Mst. Noor Sanam, however, it appears from it that the same was written on 12.09.1996 on the stamp paper which was purchased on 22.09.1996. In such circumstances, scribe, Abdul Saleem, Advocate could better explain it, however, he was not produced by the plaintiffs and the reasons for his non production was given as mental disorder / psychopathic but no proof in this respect was advanced either documentary or otherwise to prove this aspect. Now whether the deed was written on 12.09.1996 or 22.09.1996 remained shrouded in mystery.

Summary: Dismissed from the post of Director Anti-Quackery Sindh Health Care Commission (`SHCC`)--In view of the above discussion, the petition is not maintainable either on facts or in law. However, before parting with this case, it may be observed that every person has a right to approach a Court of law for redressal of his grievance, whether such grievance is against a private party or a public functionary. Article 199 of the Constitution restricts such right only to an aggrieved person, as contemplated in the said Article, who is aggrieved by any action or order of a public functionary or department or the Provincial or Federal Government. A person coming to Court must be fully aware of his right i.e. whether he is entitled to such right or not. We are constrained to observe that despite the legal position established in view of the plethora of pronouncements by the Honble Supreme Court as discussed above, the present petitioner filed this petition seeking a relief to which he was not entitled under the law. In other words, the petitioner wanted this Court to grant a declaration contrary to the law settled by the Honble Supreme Court. Not only this, he obtained an ad-interim injunction order in these proceedings against the respondent- SHCC. Such conduct on his part is not acceptable as he has consumed and wasted valuable time of this Court which could have been utilized to decide genuine and urgent matters. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.

Summary: In circumstantial evidence, each circumstance should be so connected to make one complete chain without any broken link. In case of any broken link conviction cannot be passed against the accused.----In this case, the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, primarily the testimony of witnesses and the alleged extra-judicial confession made by the accused. The defense argued against the credibility of the witnesses and the validity of the confession, pointing out inconsistencies and lack of corroborating evidence. The court evaluated the prosecution's evidence, including the testimony of witnesses and the alleged confession, against the arguments presented by the defense. It noted the absence of direct evidence and emphasized the necessity of establishing a continuous chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused. Upon review of the record and arguments, the court found that the prosecution had not sufficiently established a continuous chain of circumstances linking the accused to the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. It observed weaknesses in the prosecution's case, including shaky witness testimony and lack of clarity regarding the alleged confession. Considering these factors, the court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, it acquitted the appellants of the charges brought against them, overturning the judgment of the trial court and allowing the appeal in their favor.

Summary: The appeal arises from a case where the Lahore High Court dismissed a suit filed by the appellant against the respondents seeking the setting aside of certain orders and the cancellation of a registered sale deed. The Supreme Court, in its judgment, concluded that the cancellation of the sale mutation by the Deputy District Officer was illegal and without jurisdiction. The court emphasized that proceedings before revenue authorities are summary in nature and should not involve complex legal or factual issues. It held that the sale deed in favor of respondents No. 2 to 9 automatically becomes void once the mutation in favor of the appellant is revived. The court also noted that the respondents had notice of the cancellation and failed to establish themselves as bona fide purchasers. Therefore, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the judgments of the lower courts.

Summary: [A company could authorize any person to sign pleadings on its behalf, and in this case, the Chief Executive Officer's signature on the appeals should be regarded as ratification by the company] The petitioner had filed wealth tax returns declaring 'nil' wealth for the years 1993-94 to 1997-98, but the Wealth Tax Officer issued a notice regarding the market value of the car parking attached to the plaza owned by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that as the car parking area was leased from the Lahore Development Authority (LDA), they were not liable for wealth tax.The petitioner subsequently filed Wealth Tax Appeals before the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the appeals on the grounds that they were not accompanied by a resolution of the Board of Directors authorizing the Chief Executive to file the appeals. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had dismissed the appeals on technical grounds without addressing the substantive issue of whether the petitioner was liable for wealth tax. The Supreme Court referred to a previous judgment stating that a company could authorize any person to sign pleadings on its behalf, and in this case, the Chief Executive Officer's signature on the appeals should be regarded as ratification by the company. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the case back to the High Court for a fresh decision on the appeals, emphasizing that the appeals should be decided on their merits and in accordance with the law.

Summary: [A company could authorize any person to sign pleadings on its behalf, and in this case, the Chief Executive Officer's signature on the appeals should be regarded as ratification by the company] The petitioner had filed wealth tax returns declaring 'nil' wealth for the years 1993-94 to 1997-98, but the Wealth Tax Officer issued a notice regarding the market value of the car parking attached to the plaza owned by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that as the car parking area was leased from the Lahore Development Authority (LDA), they were not liable for wealth tax.The petitioner subsequently filed Wealth Tax Appeals before the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the appeals on the grounds that they were not accompanied by a resolution of the Board of Directors authorizing the Chief Executive to file the appeals. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had dismissed the appeals on technical grounds without addressing the substantive issue of whether the petitioner was liable for wealth tax. The Supreme Court referred to a previous judgment stating that a company could authorize any person to sign pleadings on its behalf, and in this case, the Chief Executive Officer's signature on the appeals should be regarded as ratification by the company. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the case back to the High Court for a fresh decision on the appeals, emphasizing that the appeals should be decided on their merits and in accordance with the law.