Summary: Summary pending

Summary: It transpires from the record that initially the complainant has charged Sharafat Khan alias Titu along with another unknown person, who was later on traced as Zahihd son of Ali Astan, for abduction of his daughter Mst. Sawaira Bibi. However, this version was subsequently changed by the complainant in his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C recorded on 03.06.2019, wherein, he charged once Faizan and present accused/petitioner for abduction of his daughter. Sharafat Khan and Zahid were released on bail by this Court vide orders dated 20.09.2019 and 01.10.2019, respectively. Now, again the present accused/petitioner along with his co-accused Faizan were charged by the complainant on the basis of his satisfaction but no source has been disclosed by him in this respect.

Summary: According to the complainant, the accused/petitioner fired at him with his pistol. As per site plan, the complainant was at the mercy of the accused/petitioner, however, he fired at non-vital part of body of the complainant and as such the question as to whether the accused/petitioner had intention and attempted to commit Qatl-e-Amd of the complainant and applicability of Section 324 PPC requires further probe.To curtail the liberty of a person was a serious step in law, therefore, the judges should apply judicial mind with deep thought for reaching at a fair and proper conclusion albeit tentatively. Such exercise should not be carried out in vacuum or in a flimsy and casual manner as that would defeat the endsof justice because if the accused charged, was ultimately acquitted at the trial then no reparation or compensation could be awarded to him for the long incarceration, as the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code and the scheme of law on the subject did not provide for such arrangements to repair the loss, caused to an accused person, detained in jail without just cause and reasonable grounds.

Summary: 1. This is again surprising that only the deceased was targeted and the complainant was spared when both of them were the easiest targets.2. when the co-accused Rashid Khan was known to him then why the assailants asked his introduction from his brother being from the same locality.3. The learned Judicial Magistrate, stated that while conducting identification parade the respondent complained that the complainant was provided an opportunity to visit him in Central Jail, Bannu before the identification parade, when this is the status of the identification parade then it cannot be relied.4. The principle to be followed by this Court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is, to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so.

Summary: Acquittal --- Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Appeal (set aside the conviction and sentences, Contradiction in evidence, Recovery of dead body and iron rod doubtful).-----In the case presided over by Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, two accused individuals, Suleman Shah alias Sunny (son of Zahoor Ahmed) and Naveed Khan (son of Muhammad Anwar), were tried in Special Case No. 80/2009 under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The prosecution's case alleged that the complainant's brother, Muhammad Naeem, went missing and subsequently, the complainant received a call stating that his brother had been injured in an accident involving the accused individuals' vehicle. The complainant suspected foul play and illegal confinement of his brother by the accused. Following investigation and trial, the appellants were convicted and sentenced by the Anti-Terrorism Court No. I, Karachi, to life imprisonment and fines for offenses under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and the Pakistan Penal Code. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of the victim's body and alleged ransom demands. Upon review of the evidence and arguments presented by both the defense and prosecution, the appellate court found significant doubts regarding the guilt of the appellants. It noted several inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, including contradictions in witness testimonies regarding the recovery of the victim's body and the recovery of an iron rod allegedly used in the crime. The court highlighted the absence of direct evidence linking the appellants to the kidnapping and murder of the victim, as well as doubts regarding the recovery of crucial evidence and the credibility of the complainant's testimony about ransom demands. Consequently, the appellate court acquitted the appellants of all charges, granting them the benefit of the doubt. In summary, the court's decision was based on the lack of sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to their acquittal.

Summary: Conviction upheld---Background:Munir Ahmad, along with 12 others, was indicted for his involvement in a murderous assault against a police contingent. The incident occurred when the petitioner resisted the police, resulting in the fatal shooting of a guard named Shafqat Ali.---Issues:Whether there was sufficient evidence to support Munir Ahmad's conviction.Whether the darkness at the time of the incident hindered witness identification and affected the credibility of testimonies.Whether the negative forensic report on the gun used in the shooting supported the petitioner's innocence.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court found that the prosecution's case was supported by the consistent and corroborative testimonies of key witnesses, including police officers present at the scene. Despite attempts by the defense to challenge the witnesses' credibility, their accounts remained credible. The court also noted that the petitioner's prolonged absence from the law and involvement in previous criminal cases weakened his defense. Ultimately, the court rejected the petitioner's arguments and refused to grant leave, affirming the guilty verdict against Munir Ahmad.

Summary: Background:The case arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore, dated 28th February 2019.The Respondent, a Postal Clerk, was proceeded against under the Government Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973, on allegations of misappropriation and embezzlement of government funds.The departmental authorities dispensed with a regular inquiry and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service on the Respondent.---Issues:Whether the Tribunal's conversion of the penalty from dismissal to compulsory retirement was legally justified.Whether the Tribunal erred in its application of precedents regarding penalties for proven misappropriation.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Tribunal upheld the findings of misappropriation against the Respondent but converted the penalty from dismissal to compulsory retirement, citing the Respondent's length of service.The Appellant contended that leniency was unjustified for proven misappropriation and that the Tribunal acted arbitrarily.Precedents cited by the Appellant argue against leniency when misappropriation is proven.The Tribunal's decision lacked cogent reasoning for reducing the penalty.The penalty of dismissal should have been maintained given the established charges of misappropriation.---Citations/Precedents:Assistant Director (Admn.) National Savings Centre and others v. Muhammad Anwar (1990 SCMR 1214)Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Government of Pakistan and others. v. Khalid Javed (2009 SCMR 720)Chairman Dr. A.Q. Khan, Research Laboratories and another. v. Malik Muhammad Hamid Ullah Khan (2010 SCMR 302)

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending