Summary: Civil Revision, against dismissal of appeal wherein rejection of stay order assailed

Summary: Civil revision, against judgment and decree dated 18.12.15

Summary: Service Matter, Pension benefits (Paksitan Telecommunication Case)

Summary: Remarks/Issue/Section of lawAppeal against conviction and sentenceHeld: (1) The complainant did not come with the whole truth, rather he concealed the material facts with the sole purpose to bring is story in line to what the police demanded.(2) The supplementary statement was an attempt to create a break through so that the subsequent involvement and arrest could be justified, it was this attempt that jolted the very foundation of the case.(3) At the time of recovery the amount was not sealed into parcels, so it could not be determined that in fact the amount recovered as the snatched amount, which was put to identification after a sufficient long time. (4) The FSL report could not advance the case of the prospection, as neither the Moharrir nor the official who took the pistol and empties to the FSL were not examined, so this piece of evidence could not be relied upon.(5) The identification parade could not be relied upon when no rule and procedure was followed.(Appeal was allowed and the appellants were acquitted in the circumstances)

Summary: 1. To determine the question as to whether the appellants shared common intention, the motive was an important factor, when it failed then this Court has to see the individual liability of each of the appellant.2. This is an admitted fact that both the complainant and eye-witness are brothers inter-se, when a brother does not support the case of his brother it tells otherwise. The learned trial Court heavily swayed that it is not the quantity but the quality of evidence that determines the fate of criminal cases, but it altogether ignored that if the best available evidence is withheld it reacts upon the case of the prosecution and a negative inference is drawn.3. Surprisingly the empties and weapon were received by the FSL on 13.11.2017 i.e. after one month of its recovery, the prosecution is not absolved of the liability rather its liability to dislodge the impression begins to prove that the weapon and empties were lying in safe custody and were dispatched to the F.S.L. after observing all the legal formalities.

Summary: Sections of law; Article 199 of the Constitution, Rule 3.6 of Land Record Manual (a) Appointment of Patwaries may be made on the basis of competitive process. Mere entry in the list maintained for the purpose of Patwar passed candidates, did not cloth the petitioners with a vested right of appointment, and their plea against retrospective operation of the new rules was found misplaced.

Summary: 1. The Income/Profit and gain the individuals and the corporate entities located within the territorial limits of erstwhile PATA is exempt from the impost of income tax under the Ordinance. However, it is clarified that any income or profit or again if they derive from any source/business/activity outside the territorial limits of erstwhile PATA is neither immune nor exempt from impost of income tax in view laid down by August supreme court of Pakistan in 2008 PTD 169, 2018 SCMR 939, 2016 PTD 203.2. The very opening paragraph of section 159 envisages that this provision is applicable to that amount to which Division II or III of Part V or Chapter XII applies. Thus the income/ amount to which DIvision II or III of Chapter X or XII does not apply then in that case the provision of Section 159 envisaging for exemption certificate or lower certificate would not be applicable.

Summary: Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925) -------Ss. 372, 373 & 295---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 85 & 128---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42---Succession certificate, issuance of---Public document---Presumption of truth---Legitimacy of a child---Proof---DNA test, conducting of---Respondents being sisters of deceased filed application for conducting DNA test of minor son of deceased with the contention that he was adopted son and was not entitled for inheritance---Petition for conducting DNA test and objections were dismissed and succession certificate was issued in favour of petitioners---Validity---Documents produced on behalf of petitioners were official which had not been disputed by the respondents---Respondents should have sought declaration and cancellation of said documents before raising objections to the legal status of minor after death of his mother---Legitimacy of a child or his status as son of deceased could not be disproved by any oral evidence as against documentary evidence from official record which was a public document---Civil Court in presence of documentary evidence could not hold that the child was not born from the marriage of the parties---Father, in the present case, had not challenged that deceased was not mother of the minor son---Respondents had failed to challenge or rebut the evidence of official record of National Database and Registration Authority and other evidence before the Trial Court---DNA test could not be a sole proof of paternity of a child---Trial Court had rightly refused request of respondents for conducting DNA test, in circumstances---Respondents had made a frivolous challenge to the paternity of a child to deprive him from inheritances---Appeal was dismissed in, circumstances. 2012 YLR 1752 distinguished. Mst. Laila Qayyum v. Fawad Qayum and others PLD 2019 SC 449; Salman Akram Raja v. Government of Punjab 2013 SCMR 203 and Ghazala Tehsin Zohra v. Ghulam Dastagir Khan PLD 2015 SC 327 rel.

Summary: This constitutional petition, filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenges a letter issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Textile, Government of Pakistan. The letter rejected the claim for duty drawback by Service Industries Limited (Service) based on an alleged delay in submission after rectifying discrepancies. The dispute arised from the Drawback of Local Taxes and Levies Order, 2015, which allowed exporters to claim a drawback on specific conditions. The controversy centers around the submission timeline mentioned in the order. Service argued that its claim was not time-barred, emphasizing discrepancies in the conduct of the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP), which failed to adhere to the prescribed timeline for returning applications. The court scrutinized the events, highlighting SBP's delays and deviations from the prescribed timeline. It underscored the principle of substantive equality and condemns arbitrary and unequal treatment by government authorities. The court concluded that Service is entitled to its duty drawback claim and directs the relevant authorities to process and reimburse the claim within a specified timeframe. The court allowed the petition.

Summary: Acquittal granted---Background:Zahid, Riaz Ali, and Muhammad Nadeem were accused in FIR No. 311/2017, registered for the rape of a married woman at police station Taluka Tando Muhammad Khan.The Trial Court convicted all three accused under Section 376 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced them to ten years rigorous imprisonment each.The High Court dismissed the appeal of Zahid and Riaz Ali but acquitted Muhammad Nadeem based on the victim's testimony that he did not violate her.---Issues:Whether the delay in reporting the crime to the police affects the credibility of the victim's testimony.Whether the absence of DNA evidence undermines the prosecution's case.Whether the acquittal of one co-accused affects the culpability of the remaining accused.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The delay in reporting the crime was deemed understandable given the sensitive nature of the offense and societal pressures faced by the victim and her family.Case law, such as Hamid Khan v State, supports the view that delays in reporting such crimes may not be significant.The victim's medical examination and testimony, corroborated by the chemical examiner's report, provided substantial evidence of sexual assault.The absence of a DNA report was not considered sufficient to acquit the accused, given the other corroborating evidence.The acquittal of one co-accused did not impact the guilt of the remaining accused, as each case was considered on its own merits.The court found no reason to doubt the credibility of the victim or her husband, who lodged the complaint, and affirmed the conviction of Zahid and Riaz Ali.The leniency of the sentences imposed was not challenged by the victim or the State, so no further action was taken in this regard.The petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was declined.---Citations/Precedents:Hamid Khan v State, 1981 SCMR 448Yasmin Butt v Majid Baig, 2008 SCMR 1602The State v Abdul Khaliq, PLD 2011 Supreme Court 554