Summary: Civil Revision Petition against interim order dated: 03.05.2017, where application for leave to appear and defend has been dismissed.

Summary: Crl Appeal: Life Imprisonment: Offences U/s 302/34 PPC

Summary: Bail Cancellation in Case FIR No. 240/19 dated 30.07.2019 offence U/s 365/493/494 PPC, PS Aabpara, Islamaabad

Summary: This legal document filed by the petitioner against Respondents No. 1 to 6, who are allegedly attempting to forcibly recover a disputed investment/concealed amount. The petitioner argued that the matter was already resolved through a Settlement Agreement in October 2019, but the Respondents are persisting in their actions. The petitioner's counsel contended that the jurisdiction of the Punjab Overseas Pakistanis Commission, invoked by Respondent No. 7, should first determine whether he qualifies as an Overseas Pakistani under the law. The legal officer representing Respondents No. 1 to 4 argued against the maintainability of the writ petition, citing a prior disposed writ petition on similar grounds. The Assistant Advocate General questions the petitioner's locus standi and argued that the Commission has the competence to handle such matters. The court emphasized the importance of determining the Overseas Pakistani status of Respondent No. 7 under the Punjab Overseas Pakistanis Commission Act, 2014. It criticized the actions of the Government Agencies, stating they exceeded their authority in addressing a civil dispute and emphasized that the determination of third-party rights is a judicial function. The court concluded that the Commission should decide the matter within four weeks, ensuring a fair hearing and adherence to the law. It directed the Commission to determine the Overseas Pakistani status of Respondent No. 7 and whether the dispute involved third-party rights or concerns Government Agencies. During this period, no adverse action is to be taken against the petitioner.

Summary: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 320, 337-A (i) (ii) (iii), 337-F, 337-G & 279---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898),S.342---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 117 & 120---Qatl-i-Khata, Shajjah-i-Khafifa,Shajjah-i-Hashimah, Shajjah-i-Mudihah, Ghayr-Jaifah, rash and negligent driving---Appreciation of evidence---Rash and negligent driving---Onus to prove---Plea of accused---Effect---Accused while driving a vehicle caused accident which resulted into death of threepersons---Trial Court convicted the accused for Qatl-i-Khata and causing injuries by drivingrash and negligently---Trial Court did not discuss statements of prosecution witnesses andconvicted accused on the basis of his reply to a question put to him under S. 342 Cr.P.C.---Prosecution was to prove guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt---Judgment of TrialCourt was based on statement of accused recorded under S.342 Cr.P.C. and that on physicalexamination of the vehicle of which tie-rod was not found broken---First Information Reportwas registered on 6.1.2016 while vehicle was produced by prosecution witness in Court on3.10.2016, which remained parked with concerned police station---No report of Motormechanic was produced to prove that vehicle was checked after accident---High Courtobserved that when law had provided a thing to be done the same had to be done in thatparticular manner---Trial Court was to first discuss the case in order to come to anindependent conclusion with regard to truthfulness of prosecution witnesses then to examinestatement of accused under S. 342 Cr.P.C.---If the Court had disbelieved prosecutionevidence then it should have accepted the statement of accused as a whole with certainty---None of the ocular witnesses supported prosecution case---Mere driving in high speed didnot constitute the offence where element of negligence was lacking---High Court set asideconviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court and he was acquitted of thecharge---Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Summary: Acquittal ---- Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 182, 211, 409, 380 & 454---False information with intent to cause public servant touse his lawful power to the injury of another person, false charge of offence made with intentto injure, criminal breach of trust by public servant, theft in dwelling house, lurking housetrespass or house-breaking in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment---Appreciation of evidence---Absence of mens rea---Effect---Complainant/police constable gotlodged FIR that his official Kalashnikov was stolen from his house---Prosecution case wasthat the complainant had failed to deposit the Kalashnikov with the department; that he hadembezzled the official Kalashnikov; that he got lodged a false FIR and that duringinvestigation no signs of theft were observed---Prosecution case was based uponpresumptions and assumptions---Complainant himself had reported to police station withregard to missing of official Kalashnikov from his house, thus, he discharged his liability andapparently no mens rea existed on this part---Petition was accepted, judgments passed byMagistrate and Sessions Judge were set aside and the complainant, was acquitted of thecharge.

Summary: Background:Mohammad Saleem Khan (appellant) filed a Civil First Appeal against the judgment/order dated 23-08-2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit. The trial court dismissed his application under Section 12(2) CPC, which challenges judgments and decrees obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. The case involves a property dispute where respondent No. 6, Tahir Ashraf, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against respondents No. 1 to 5, which was initially dismissed. However, during the appeal, a compromise was reached and made a rule of the court.----Issues:Whether the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit erred in dismissing the application under Section 12(2) CPC as time-barred without giving the appellant an opportunity to prove his case.Whether the compromise decree was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Civil First Appeal was allowed.The court held that the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit should have admitted the application under Section 12(2) CPC and framed issues, including the issue of limitation, before making a decision.The court reasoned that limitation is a mixed question of law and facts, requiring the production of evidence. It referenced Section 18 of the Limitation Act, which states that if a decree is obtained by fraud or misrepresentation, the limitation period starts from the date the decree became known to the appellant.The case was remanded back to the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit with instructions to frame issues and record evidence to decide the matter on its merits.Citations/Precedents:1986 SCMR 1496: Discusses the principle that limitation is a mixed question of law and facts, which requires evidence.2001 MLD 1265: Supports the principle that if a decree is obtained by fraud, the limitation period begins when the fraud is discovered.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending