Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: (a) Habeas Corpus – Military Custody – Jurisdiction under Pakistan Army Act, 1952 ----Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 (Article 199)---Pakistan Army Act, 1952 (Section 2(1)(d), 59, 73, 74, 75)---Habeas Corpus Petition---Scope and Applicability---Detention under Military Custody---A retired Brigadier can be proceeded against under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, if accused of committing offences under the Official Secrets Act, 1923, in relation to military affairs of Pakistan---Section 2(1)(d)(ii) explicitly brings such individuals under the ambit of the Pakistan Army Act, empowering military authorities to investigate, detain, and prosecute such individuals under military laws. (b) Legal Validity of Detention under Pakistan Army Act, 1952 ----Sections 2(1)(d), 59, 73, 74, 75 of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952---Validity of Custody and Detention---Under Section 2(1)(d)(ii), any individual, regardless of military status, accused of an offence under the Official Secrets Act, 1923, concerning military or defence establishments, can lawfully be detained and investigated under military laws---Sections 73 to 75 provide a procedural safeguard for detention, ensuring investigation and reporting obligations are met within specified time frames. (c) Constitutional Jurisdiction under Article 199(3) ----Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 (Article 199(3))---Judicial Review---Bar of Jurisdiction---Where an individual is lawfully detained under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, the constitutional jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 199 is barred, except where mala fide, lack of jurisdiction, or coram non judice is established---In the absence of such circumstances, detention under the Pakistan Army Act is immune from judicial scrutiny. (d) Civilian Subject to Military Laws ----Scope of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) Pakistan Army Act, 1952---A civilian, including a retired military officer, can fall under the jurisdiction of military laws if accused of offences connected to national security, military operations, or the Official Secrets Act, 1923---The legal framework explicitly allows military authorities to detain, investigate, and prosecute such civilians under military law. (e) Habeas Corpus Petition – Right to Production ----Detention of Retired Military Officer---Scope of Habeas Corpus Petition---Once it is established and admitted by the military authorities that an individual is in lawful custody under the Pakistan Army Act, the relief of production under a habeas corpus petition cannot be granted---The jurisdiction of the High Court is barred under Article 199(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan. (f) Procedural Safeguards under Sections 73–75 of the Pakistan Army Act ----Detention Process under Military Law---Compliance with Sections 73, 74, and 75 of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 ensures procedural legality of detention---Military authorities are obligated to report delays in investigation or trial beyond 48 hours and provide justifiable reasons for continued detention. (g) Availability of Remedies under Military Law ----Remedies under Pakistan Army Act, 1952---A person detained and investigated under the Pakistan Army Act retains the right to avail remedies under the military justice system, including recourse to appeals and redressal mechanisms provided under the Act. ------ Cited Cases: Allah Rakha vs. District Magistrate Sialkot (PLD 1968 Lahore 1061) Farzana Tasneem vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2005 Lahore 391) Asif Mehmood vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2005 Lahore 721) Ex. Lt.-Col. Anwar Aziz vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2001 SC 549) Mst. Naheed Maqsood vs. Federation of Pakistan (1997 CLC 13) Muhammad Mushtaq vs. Federation of Pakistan (1994 SCMR 2286) Mst. Shahida Zahir Abbasi vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1996 SC 720) ------ Disposition: The petition was partially allowed to the extent that the whereabouts of Brigadier (retired) Raja Rizwan Ali Haider were confirmed. However, relief regarding his production before the court and allegations of illegal detention were disallowed, as the custody was found to be lawful under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952. The petitioner was advised to pursue remedies available under the military justice system.

Summary: Criminal Revision against the order dated 19.02.2015 Passed by ASJ Muhammad Ajmal Khan Raja

Summary: S. 410 CrPC. Solitary confessional statement of an accused is to be accepted or rejected in whole/toto and where direct ocular account and circumstantial evidence is available, besides confessional statement of accused, in that eventuality, the portion of confessional statement, which is supporting the version of the prosecution would be taken into consideration, whereas, other portion of confessional statement, which is inconsistent with it would not be taken into consideration. .a single doubt in prosecution case is sufficient to record acquittal of an accused.

Summary: The petitioner in this case is Afzal Khaliq, known as "Double Shah," who seeks his release on bail in a reference against him by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB). The reference accuses him of cheating and deceiving the general public by luring them to invest in Mudariba, resulting in a scam amounting to Rs. 12.59 billion. He is currently facing a trial in the Accountability Court, Peshawar, and has spent around four years in jail since his arrest in 2014. The petitioner's previous attempts to obtain bail were dismissed on merits by the Peshawar High Court, and the Supreme Court of Pakistan also rejected his criminal petition with the direction to conclude the trial within four months. Considering the complexity of the case, the large number of claimants, and the reference of a significant amount against the petitioner, the court expressed genuine apprehension about the possibility of his absconding again if released on bail. However, recognizing that the petitioner cannot be detained indefinitely, the court directed the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously, adopting all necessary measures under the law, including daily proceedings, to prevent unnecessary delays. In conclusion, the writ petition was dismissed, but the trial court was directed to expedite the trial to prevent any undue prolongation of the case.

Summary: The background revealed that the petitioner was married to Mst. Robina, and the respondent was born in 1983. The parents divorced in 1987, and the respondent, a minor at the time, was handed over to her mother. In 2012, the respondent filed a suit for maintenance, leading to an interim maintenance order in 2012 and a final decree in 2015. The petitioner contended that he should only be responsible for maintenance if the respondent shows obedience. The court noted that the respondent is an adult and emphasized the need for considering relevant factors in fixing maintenance. The judgment criticized the family court's handling of the case, pointing out flaws in the order and the mechanical dismissal of the petitioner's appeal on the basis of time limitation. It highlighted the legal aspects of maintenance for adult children and emphasized the need for the Family Court to exercise its powers judiciously. The court sets aside previous orders and instructs the Family Court to proceed with the case afresh, considering relevant legal principles and ensuring a fair decision within two months.

Summary: The order sheet details the proceedings, including the initial ex-parte proceedings against the defendants, subsequent applications for setting aside ex-parte proceedings, and the contested nature of the suit. The petitioner's appeal against the trial court's order, which directed the deposit of the remaining consideration within 30 days, was unsuccessful, leading to the filing of the civil revision. The petitioner argued that the lower courts failed to consider the facts impartially, emphasizing that the order to deposit the remaining consideration within a specific timeframe was inappropriate. The petitioner contended that possession of the property is not with them, and the order for depositing the remaining sale consideration is unjustified. The judge, after hearing the arguments and examining the record, concluded that the trial court should consider the agreement to sell at the outset and order the deposit of any outstanding amount against the plaintiff. The judge noted that the petitioner failed to deposit the alleged remaining sale consideration in a timely manner, and his actions, including non-compliance with court orders, raise doubts about his sincerity in pursuing the agreement's performance. The judge cited relevant case law and concludes that the petitioner's conduct, including failure to issue notice to the defendant and non-compliance with court orders, justified the dismissal of the civil revision and the suit itself. The document concluded with an order for the dismissal of the civil revision and the suit, with a directive to transmit a copy of the judgment to the trial court for further proceedings.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary Pending