Summary: The judgment discusses various aspects of the case, including the facts, evidence presented, contradictions in witness testimonies, the reliability of identification parades, and other legal arguments. The judge ultimately arrives at the conclusion that there are enough doubts and inconsistencies in the case to warrant the acquittal of the appellant. As a result, the judgment concludes by acquitting Ayaz Ahmed Siddiqui of the charges and ordering his release.

Summary: In this legal case, the petitioner challenged the inclusion of their name in the Electronic Credit Information Bureau (eCIB) by Standard Chartered Bank (SCB), alleging that SCB violated the terms of a Settlement Agreement. The petitioner had settled a financial dispute with SCB, and the agreement required SCB to clear the petitioner's name from eCIB. However, the petitioner claimed that SCB reported their name to eCIB without justification, hindering their ability to obtain financial assistance. The court found in favor of the petitioner, stating that the State Bank of Pakistan's action in placing the petitioner's name on eCIB without proper notice and verification was without lawful authority and had no legal effect. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to settlement agreements and ensuring fairness in financial reporting.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 9(c)---Recovery of narcoticsubstance---Bail, refusal of---Driver of vehicle---Chars weighing 2 kilograms and heroinweighing 100 grams were recovered from beneath the driving seat of vehicle which wasbeing driven by accused---Effect---Driver could not be absolved from the liability, ifcontraband was transported in the vehicle being driven by him---High Court declined to grantbail on merit lest it could cause prejudice to other side---On tentative assessment of recordthere existed prima facie case against accused---Bail was refused, in circumstances.Haroon Khan v. The State 2017 PCr.LJ 438 rel.(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 497(2)---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 9(c)---Recovery ofnarcotic substance---Bail, grant of---Passenger of vehicle---Case of further inquiry---Charasweighing 2 kilograms and heroin weighing 100 grams were recovered from beneath thedriving seat of vehicle in which accused was sitting on front---Effect---When accused wasarrested he was not driving the car nor any narcotics was recovered from his exclusivepossession rather he was sitting on the front seat of the car---Case of accused was one offurther inquiry---Bail was allowed, in circumstances.Hussain Ullah v. The State 2019 SCMR 1651 rel.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 161---Statement of witness---Unexplained delay---Effect---Delay of even one or twodays without explanation, in recording statements of witnesses is fatal for prosecution caseand such statements were not worthy of reliance.Muhammad Asif v. The State 2017 SCMR 486; Muhammad Sadiq v. The State PLD1960 SC 223; Tariq Gul v. Ziarat Gul 1976 SCMR 236; Muhammad Iqbal v. The State 1984SCMR 930; Haroon alias Harooni v. The State and another 1995 SCMR 1627 andMuhammad Khan v. Maula Bakhshah 1998 SCMR 570 rel.(b) Criminal trial-------Evidence---Corroborative evidence---Scope---Where direct evidence fails, thecorroborative piece of evidence is of no avail.Ghulam Akbar and another v. The State 2008 SCMR 1064 rel.(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 147, 148 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qatl-i-Amd,rioting armed with deadly weapons---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Defective investigation---Injured prosecution witness, evidence of---Scope---Accusedpersons were alleged to have made indiscriminate firing, set ablaze 6-7 vehicles and shopsresultantly one person was murdered and others were injured---Prosecution failed to establishthat the vehicles and shops belonged to complainant party and Investigation officer also didnot inquire about from any independent witness despite the fact that alleged occurrence hadtaken place at a thickly populated area---Neither statements of owners of vehicles nor ofshops which were set on fire were recorded by investigation officer---Crime empties werenot sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and it could not be determined as to how manyaccused persons made firing---Investigation was not conducted diligently and investigation officer failed to associate any independent person from the locality other than the relativesand tribesmen of the complainant to dig out the truth---Witnesses of ocular account thoughhad a stamp of injuries on their persons yet they failed to prove their truthfulness duringtrial---Complainant took sufficient time in lodging crime report after going through thereports of postmortem examination as well as medico-legal reports of injured witnesses andalso after consultation and deliberation---Dead body and injured witnesses were examinedprior to registration of FIR---Prosecution had managed eye-witnesses as well as prosecutionstory---Prosecution failed to prove charge against accused persons beyond shadow of doubtand benefit of doubt favoured accused persons---High Court set aside conviction andsentence awarded by Trial Court and both the accused persons were acquitted of the charge---Appeal was allowed in circum-stances.Muhammad Khan and another v. The State 1999 SCMR 1220; Bashir Ahmed v. TheState 2019 SCMR 1417; Munir Ahmed v. The State 2019 SCMR 2006; Allahyar v. The State1990 SCMR 1134; Mahmood Ahmad and 3 others v. The State and another 1995 SCMR 127;Imran Hussain v. Amir Arshad and 2 others 1997 SCMR 438; Muhammad Rafique v. TheState 2014 SCMR 1698 and Altaf Hussain v. The State 2019 SCMR 274 ref.Shahidullah v. Eid Marjan and 2 others 2014 PCr.LJ 1684 and Amin Ali and anotherv. The State 2011 SCMR 323 rel.(d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 161---Police Rules 1934, R.25.2 (3)---Recording of statements of witnesses---Mode---Investigation officer is not supposed to record statements of prosecution witnesses whileacting as 'stenographer' rather he is obliged, as required under S.161, Cr.P.C., to 'examine'the person whose evidence / statement he is going to record.(e) Criminal trial-------Abscondence--- Relevance--- Scope---Abscondence of accused is a relevant fact and canbe used as corroborative piece of evidence but such fact cannot be read in isolation, as thesame had to be read along with substantive piece of evidence.Asad Ullah v. Muhammad Ali PLD 1971 SC 541; Rasool Muhammad v. AsalMuhammad 1995 SCMR 1373; Muhammad Sadiq v. Najeeb Ali 1995 SCMR 1632;Muhammad Khan v. The State 1999 SCMR 1220; Gul Khan v. State 1999 SCMR 3004;Muhammad Arshad v. Qasim Ali 1992 SCMR 814; Pir Badshah v. State 1985 SCMR 2070and Amir Gul v. State 1981 SCMR 182 rel.(f) Criminal trial-------Court, duty of---Scope---Mere heinous or gruesome nature of crime should not detractCourt of law in any manner from the due course to judge and make appraisal of evidence in alaid down manner and to extend benefit of reasonable doubt to accused person beingindefeasible and inalienable right of an accused. (g) Criminal trial-------Benefit of doubt---Principle---Even a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt issufficient for acquittal of accused.Sahibzada v. The State and 2 others 2015 PCr.LJ 554 rel.

Summary: Background:The petitioners, including Sana Khan and his sons, along with Mir Amal Khan, filed a civil revision petition against the judgment dated June 24, 2019, passed by the District Judge Gilgit. The District Judge had set aside the trial court's decision and remanded the case for a decision on merits. The trial court had earlier dismissed the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), stating that the plaintiff, Iqbal, had not exhausted the necessary revenue forums.----Issues:Whether the trial court was correct in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.Whether the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities or the civil court.-----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the judgment of the District Judge. The key points considered were:Jurisdiction and Exhaustion of Remedies:The respondent/plaintiff (Iqbal) had filed a suit for declaration, perpetual injunction, and cancellation of certain land mutations.The trial court dismissed the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, asserting that the plaintiff had not exhausted the revenue forum, necessary for matters involving land mutations.However, the appellate court found that the trial court had prematurely rejected the suit without proper examination of the merits or framing of issues.Improper Rejection of the Suit:The trial court's rejection was found improper as it was based on an application under Order 39 Rule 1, 2 CPC (temporary injunction), rather than a proper hearing on the maintainability of the suit.The appellate court held that the suit involved substantial questions that required examination through evidence and proper framing of issues.----Legal Precedents:The Chief Court referenced a judgment of the Lahore High Court (2003 MLD 109), emphasizing that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC if it requires examining the merits of the case.Order Summary:

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Seeks direction against respondents to drop re-investigation of inquiry proceedings