Summary: (a) Inheritance-------Co-sharer, rights of---Principle---Co-sharership is result of devolution of inheritance, cosharer becomes co-sharer the moment inheritance opens---Even mutation of entries or sharein moveable property is also not necessary.2004 SCMR 392 rel.(b) Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)-------S. 383---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Successioncertificate, revision of---Suit for declaration, injunction and rendition of accounts---Compensation---Widow contracting second marriage---Husband of widow was policeconstable who died in bomb blast and Government announced compensation package andother facilities to bereaved family---Deceased was issueless, therefore, succession certificatewas issued in favour of widow and parents of the deceased---Parents of deceased assailedsuccession certificate in favour of widow on the plea that she had contracted second marriageand got revised succession certificate issued in their favour---Civil suit filed by parents ofwidow was decreed in their favour---Validity---Widow could not be deprived of her share inview of first succession certificate issued by Trial Court as on such date she was widow ofthe deceased; her second marriage could not operate retrospectively but Trial Court withoutconsidering such aspect of matter passed decree in favor of parents of deceased which couldnot be sustained except share of salary she received during subsistence of second marriage---Deceased was issueless and parents of deceased who were living with deceased and weredependents were included in the family---Revised succession certificate was issued by TrialCourt with consent of both the parties and thereafter, separate certificate was issuedrespectively---High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction set aside judgment passed byTrial court but maintained order regarding salary of deceased received by widow to extent ofher share during subsistence of second marriage---Appeal was allowed accordingly.PLD 1991 SC 731; PLD 2010 Kar. 153; PLD 2019 Sindh 1 and PLD 2013 Pesh. 1 ref.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: The criminal courts have been conferred on jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure quite in line with command contained in Article 175(2) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The criminal courts have been constituted under a law known as the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The civil courts on the other hand have been constituted under the Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance (W.P. Ordinance II of 1962) and had been conferred jurisdiction in line with the above quoted Constitutional provisions also. The Code of Civil Procedure regulates the proceedings before the civil courts for the decision of the lis. The civil courts and not the criminal courts, Rule 10 CPC are empowered to add or strike any person as a party in the lis before them. The application of the petitioner in absence of any provision of law enabling it to pass such order illegally has been accepted by the trial court.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Background:Ali Johar, the petitioner, filed a writ petition under Article 86(2) of the Gilgit-Baltistan Order 2018, read with Section 561-A Cr.P.C., against the judgment/conviction order dated 30-10-2019. The petitioner was convicted by the appellate authority/Secretary Forest and Wildlife Gilgit-Baltistan for possession of an Ibex head, under the Northern Areas Wildlife Protection Act 1975.----Issues:Whether the judgments/orders passed by the lower forums were contrary to law and facts.Whether the confessional statement of the petitioner was admissible as evidence.Whether the trial magistrate complied with the mandatory provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) regarding admission of guilt by the petitioner.Whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction.Whether there were procedural irregularities in the trial process.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court reviewed the submissions of both parties and examined the record. It found that the lower forums had not strictly followed the law. Specifically, the trial magistrate failed to properly record the confessional statement of the petitioner under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 243 Cr.P.C. regarding admission of guilt. Moreover, there was no independent marginal witness present at the time of the Ibex head's recovery. Therefore, the court concluded that the judgments/orders of the lower forums were not sustainable. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and both the judgment/order dated 28-09-2019 passed by the DFO Wildlife/Magistrate and the judgment/order dated 30-10-2019 passed by the appellate authority/Secretary Forest and Wildlife Gilgit-Baltistan were set aside. The petitioner was acquitted.----Citations/Precedents:Gilgit-Baltistan Order 2018Northern Areas Wildlife Protection Act 1975Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), particularly Sections 164 and 243

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 ----S. 8(1) & Code of Conduct—Jurisdiction—Complaint by ex-employee—Maintainability—Scope of relief—Sexual and workplace harassment—Termination—Respondent bank conducted an internal inquiry following complaint of harassment made by the Appellant against a senior officer—Inquiry Committee concluded that while no sexual harassment or physical pestering was proven, the accused was found guilty of workplace harassment corroborated by witness testimony and findings of the investigating team—Penalties of stoppage of 2017 performance bonus and letter of reprimand were recommended—Accused did not challenge the imposition of said penalties—Allegations of workplace harassment thus stood established and proved—However, Appellant's plea for reinstatement was declined as S.8(1) of the Act of 2010 does not envisage such relief for ex-employees—Principle laid down in 2018 MLD 327 applied—Harassment at workplace found to have caused psychological distress, including anxiety and panic attacks, impacting Appellant’s ability to return to work—Respondents as employers failed to provide psychological counseling or a suitable alternative posting environment, despite offer of departmental transfer—Held, appeal partially rejected as to reinstatement but allowed to the extent that Respondent no.1 was directed to fully implement Inquiry Committee’s decision and file compliance within 15 days. Cited Case: • 2018 MLD 327

Summary: [Admiralty (Attachment before Judgment in Admiralty law)] Admiralty Jurisdiction - Mode of action in Rem and in personam - Arrrest of Ship and Sister ship - what is an "offending ship" - Arrest of Vessel under Rule 731 of Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S) read with Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. --- The core issue is the plaintiff's claim for unpaid hire charges for the chartering of a utility boat "M.V. Osam Jumbo-5" to Defendant No.2, which was then engaged for services to Defendant No.3. Due to non-payment, the plaintiff sought the arrest of Defendant No.1 vessel "M.Y. Bofors" and an order for attachment before judgment against Defendant No.3, aiming to secure the claim amount.The court's order, delivered by Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar, confirms the arrest of the vessel "M.Y. Bofors" as justifiable under Admiralty Jurisdiction, given the ownership and operation linkages. However, the request for attachment before judgment against Defendant No.3 was declined due to the lack of direct involvement with the plaintiff's claim. Furthermore, the plaintiff's application for a judgment and decree based on purported admissions by the defendants was dismissed, with the court finding the alleged admissions not unequivocal or unconditional to warrant such a judgment.This case underscores the complexities of Admiralty Law, particularly in matters involving charter agreements, vessel arrests, and claims against assets under maritime jurisdiction.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 320 & 279---Qatl-i-Khata, rash driving on public way---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Prosecution case was that accused-respondent, driver of oil tanker,had collided with Frontier Constabulary Post, resultantly, five persons died at the spot, theofficial vehicle and official weapons were damaged and driver and conductor fled away fromthe scene---Prosecution, in order to establish the charge had produced nine witnesses, whichwere not consistent and confidence-inspiring---Complainant of the case mostly reiterated thecontents of his fard-e-bayan---Evidence of said witness was not helpful to the case ofprosecution for the reasons that he himself had not witnessed the crime rather at the time ofalleged occurrence he was 80 kms. away from the place of occurrence and receivedinformation through wireless set---Entire statement of said witness was silent to the effect asto who had told him the story of the incident in such a sequence---Admittedly, the statementof said witness was hearsay and the same was only to the extent of setting criminalmachinery into motion---Statements of both the alleged eye-witnesses were contradictorywith each other on certain counts---Both the witnesses had unanimously brought on recordthat they witnessed the crime directly---Both the said witnesses had admitted in their crossexamination that their statements under S. 161, Cr.P.C. were recorded after delay of 13-daysof the incident, though they were very much present in the area---Admission of both theprosecution witnesses depicted the complete failure of the Investigating Officer to record thestatements of both the said witnesses immediately---No explanation was available on therecord as to why such statements were delayed for 13-days and till that the accused-appellanthad voluntarily surrendered him before the police---No solid or concrete evidence wasavailable against the accused/respondent connecting him with the commission of allegedoffence---Trial Court after proper appreciation of evidence in its true perspective had rightlyacquitted the accused-respondent of the charge---Appeal was dismissed accordingly.(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 161---Delay in recording the statement of witnesses under S. 161, Cr.P.C.---Effect---Such evidence could not be given that sanctity as was generally given to the evidence of awitness whose statement had been recorded promptly soon after the occurrence---Statements of prosecution witnesses under S. 161, Cr.P.C. recorded after the arrest of the accusedcreated reasonable doubt in the case of prosecution---Witnesses appeared to have beenplanted by the prosecution subsequently after the arrest of the accused/respondent.(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 320 & 279---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 22---Qatl-i-Khata, rash driving onpublic way---Appreciation of evidence---Identification parade---Scope---Identification of theaccused/respondent in the Trial Court was doubtful---According to the case of prosecution,soon after the occurrence the culprits decamped from the place of occurrence---InvestigatingOfficer arrested five persons on the basis of suspicious, who were subsequently dischargedfrom the case under the provisions of S. 169, Cr.P.C.---Circumstances suggested that theInvestigating Officer as well as the alleged eye-witnesses were not sure about the culprit---First Information Report was silent with regard to physique and personal appearance of theescaped accused persons---Investigating Officer after the arrest of the accused/respondentwas supposed to have conducted the identification parade of the accused/respondent whichwas not done---Material dent caused to the case of prosecution due to failure to holdidentification parade during the course of investigation, which was not curable.Khawar v. The State 2014 YLR 2120 rel.(d) Criminal trial-------Benefit of doubt---Principle---Single circumstance if creating reasonable doubt in aprudent mind was sufficient for acquittal of accused not as a matter of grace, but as a matterof right.Ghulam Qadir and 2 others v. The State 2008 SCMR 1221 rel.(e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 417--- Appeal against acquittal--- Presumption--- Double presumption of innocencewas attached to the order of acquittal---Interference in acquittal was unwarranted unless thesame was arbitrary, capricious, fanciful or against the record.