Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 46---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Dying declaration---Doubtful---Accused was charged for committing murder of the daughter of the complainant by administering her poisonous tea---Case in hand mainly hinged upon the dying declaration attributed to deceased, which had allegedly been made by her before four witnesses and also before the Medical Officer, who conducted her medical examination in injured condition---Medical Officer before whom the patient is brought or if such incident is reported to the Officer-in-Charge Police Station, both the Medical Officer on duty and the Officer-in-Charge Police Station are bound down to give the intimation in that regard to a nearest Magistrate and at the same time, the Medical Officer shall record the statement of the injured person immediately on arrival, so as to ascertain the circumstances and cause of his injuries and on arrival of the Magistrate, if the patient is still in a position to make a statement, would also record his statement---Machinery of law was set into motion in this case by father of the deceased, but he not only stayed away from the dock but also did not file the private complaint and it was in fact filed by his other daughter---Alleged dying declaration was made by deceased in critical condition, when she was taken to hospital by four witnesses, out of whom, two were not produced by the prosecution, whereas only two witnesses appeared before the Trial Court---While deposing before the Trial Court, both the said witnesses had reiterated their earlier stance that the declarant apprised them that it was appellant, who had served her poisonous tea---Sister of deceased also deposed before the Trial Court that the injured was firstly taken to Police Station and a witness “RMA” also reached there and the injured, stated that she had been served poisonous tea by her co-teacher/appellant---Surprising enough neither said “RMA” appeared before the Trial Court nor there was any statement of any Police Official to the effect that injured had made any declaration before him---Similarly, another witness “MS” deposed before the Trial Court that he along with his nephew reached at Police Station on motorcycle and “RMA” had also reached there---Injured and her brother and sister also arrived there---Sister of injured sat outside the main gate of Police Station and brother of injured called two Police Officials there and on asking by the Police Officials, sister of injured told them that due to strained relationship appellant had administered poisonous tea and the AEO had already reconciled in between her and appellant---So, according to that witness the alleged declaration was made by injured in presence of two Police Officials but as observed earlier, the entire case was silent at the end of the police, where no Police Official had written/recorded that statement, nor any Police Official while deposing before the Trial Court had admitted the factum that any statement was ever made by injured in front of them---Perusal of the contents of the Medico Legal Certificate revealed that in the relevant column of history, it was neither alleged that said statement was in fact made by injured to the Medical Officer nor it was mentioned that who had prepared the tea or made the injured drink it---Medical Officer, while deposing before the Trial Court, did not speak a word about any such statement by the deceased (in injured condition)---In cross-examination, while admitting that, she had not named the appellant in her statement to the effect that at any point of time, the deceased had claimed that it was the present appellant, who had administered her the poisonous tea---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case 'beyond reasonable doubt'---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Majeed v. The State 2010 SCMR 55; Farmanullah v. Qadeem Khan and another 2001 SCMR 1474 and Abdul Razik v. The State PLD 1965 SC 151 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of 12 hours in lodging the FIR---Consequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of the daughter of the complainant by administering her poisonous tea---Alleged occurrence as per relevant column of FIR took place at 09:30 a.m. on 12.11.2019, whereas the same was reported to the police with a noticeable delay of about twelve hours at 09:15 p.m. (night) on the same day and no plausible explanation whatsoever had been rendered by the complainant regarding this inordinate delay, while lodging the same---According to Medico Legal Certificate, the injured arrived in hospital at 09:30 a.m. on 12.11.2019, whereas her medical examination was conducted at 11:27 a.m., meaning thereby that till 11:27 a.m. her Medico Legal Certificate had already been issued by the Medical Office and that factor was sufficient to raise eyebrows in this context---So, this delay should have been explained being inordinate but surprisingly no explanation had been furnished at all---Unexplained delay in lodging FIR coupled with the fact that at least four closely related persons including sister of deceased were present with her led to an inescapable conclusion that the FIR was lodged after consultation and due deliberation and at the same time possibility of fabrication of prosecution story and false implication could not be excluded altogether---Perusal of the postmortem report revealed that in its relevant column, time of death of the deceased was mentioned as 4:00/5:00 p.m.---Complainant on the FIR claimed that deceased had apprised the witnesses about the factum of administering poisonous tea by the appellant, while they were on the way to hospital and it was about 9:30 a.m. and as per Medico Legal Certificate, the injured arrived in hospital at 9:30 a.m.---So, in this background, unexplained and inordinate delay in lodging FIR was an intriguing circumstance, which tarnished the authenticity and also casted a cloud of doubt on the entire prosecution case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case 'beyond reasonable doubt'---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Muhammad Akram Qureshi for Appellant with Appellant. Miss Noshe Malik, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State. Rana Arfan Ali and Rana Furqan Hussain for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 11th June, 2025. Muhammad Waheed Khan, J .--- This judgment shall decide the instant appeal (Cr. Appeal No.16811 of 2021) filed by appellant, Kiran Ehsan (against her conviction and sentence) and Cr. Revision No.21349 of 2021 filed by complainant, Rehana Kauser, for enhancement of sentence of respondent No.1/appellant. As both the matters have arisen out of the same judgment dated 26.02.2021 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Pasrur, in private complaint filed under section 302, P.P.C by complainant, Rehana Kauser, regarding case FIR No.303/2019 registered under section 302, P.P.C at Police Station Sabazpir, District Sialkot, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302(b), P.P.C and sentenced to Imprisonment for life. She was also held liable to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the legal heirs of deceased Farzana Kauser, which shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue and in case of default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. (v) In order to prove such declaration, the person by whom it was recorded should be examined.

Summary: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.III, R.1, O.VI, Rr.14, 15 & O.XLI, R.1---Memorandum of appeal, signing and authorization of---Filing of appeal through unauthorized signatory---Nature and effect---Whether such defect fatal or curable---Board resolution and Articles of Association---Production at appellate stage---Permissibility---Irregularity in signing and verification of appeal, rectification of---Power of court to allow rectification at any stage of the proceedings---Scope---Briefly, present appeal arose from an order passed by the Insurance Tribunal, however, the memorandum of appeal was signed by an advocate who was not shown to be duly authorized through a specific board resolution or instrument, while the company’s authorized officer had only verified the contents by affidavit---During proceedings, an application was moved to place on record the relevant board resolution and Articles of Association and to permit filing of an amended memorandum of appeal through an authorized person, which was opposed on the ground that additional documents could not be introduced at the appellate stage---The pivotal issue before the High Court was “whether the defect in signing and authorization of the memorandum of appeal was a fatal irregularity or a curable procedural defect that could be rectified at any stage without affecting the merits or jurisdiction of the Court?”---Held: Memorandum of appeal or are vision petition should be signed by appellant and a duly appointed pleader as per R.1 of O.XLI, C.P.C. and same could be presented by the appellant or pleader as per R.1 of O.III, C.P.C.---Rules 14 & l5 of O.VI as well as R.1 of O.XXIX C.P.C. as to signing and verification of pleadings like plaint and written statement, was not applicable to memorandum of appeals and revision petition---Any defect or omission in signing, verifying or presenting a pleading or memorandum of appeal or revision would not affect merits of the case or jurisdiction of a Court and should therefore be taken as a curable irregularity of proceedings---Regarding legal proceedings on behalf of a corporation, any defect in the authority of a person to sign or verify the pleadings in a suit(by or against Corporation) or in instituting or defending such a suit (by presenting appropriate pleadings) or in signing or filing of memorandum of appeal or revision petition by a corporation, could also be curedat any stage of proceeding---Mere technicality unless offering an unsurmountable hurdle, could not be allowed to defeat the ends of justice and that the trivial issue of non-signing of written statement could have been allowed to be remedied by allowing the party to sign the written statement---Documents annexed with application were allowed to be placed on file and appellants were allowed to file an amended memorandum of appeal---For compensating the other party cost ofRs.100,000/- (one hundred thousand) were imposed on the appellant---Present application was allowed, in circumstances. SDO/A.M. Hasht Nagri Sub-Division, PESCO, Peshawar and others v. Khawazan Zad PLD 2023 SC 174; Muhammad Anwar Khan and 5 others v. Chaudhry Riaz Ahmad and 5 others PLD 2002 SC 491 and Manager, Jammu and Kashmir State Property in Pakistan v. Khuda Yar and another PLD 1975 SC 678 rel. Syed Hamid Ali Shah for Petitioner. Arshad Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 11th June, 2025.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Invalidity of possession orders passed in a complaint under Section 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, lacking specificity and proper procedural consideration.

Summary: 396ICA (Writ)- ICA Land 1-21 HAJI LASHKAR KHAN ETC VS PROVINCE OF PUNJAB ETC Mr. Justice Jawad Hassan 10- 06- 2025 2025 LHC 8118 2025 CLC 1926 [Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench)

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Invalidity of possession orders passed in a complaint under Section 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, lacking specificity and proper procedural consideration. 393Civil Revision 197736/18 Muhammad Babar Shah Vs Muhammad Nadeem Etc Mr. Justice Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi 11- 06- 2025 2025 LHC 4382