Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: S. 497 CrPC. S. 18-B and 22-B Immigration Ordinance, 1979.Sections provides for imprisonment or fine. Detention of accused in lockup would amount to double jeopardy if on conclusion of trial accused is sentenced by the trail Court with fine only.

Summary: Background:In this civil appeal, Commissioner Inland Revenue, Karachi, is the appellant, while Pakistan Beverages Limited, Karachi, is the respondent. The appeal stems from a judgment dated 13.8.2015, issued by the High Court of Sindh at Karachi in C.P.No.D-3977 of 2014. The appellant challenges certain observations made by the High Court regarding the interpretation and application of section 40B of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 ("1990 Act"). The impugned judgment raised the issue of whether the power granted by section 40B required a specific timeframe for its exercise, a matter disputed by the appellant.----Issues:Whether the exercise of the power conferred by section 40B of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, requires a specific timeframe for its duration.Whether the High Court erred in interpreting and applying section 40B by imposing a time limit on the exercise of the power granted therein.----Holding/Reasoning:The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that discretionary statutory power, including that conferred by section 40B, must be exercised within the parameters of established principles of administrative law. While section 40B grants the authority to "monitor" the production, sale of taxable goods, and stock positions, it must be exercised for purposes legitimately within the contemplation of the 1990 Act. The High Court correctly concluded that such monitoring cannot be indefinite and must be time-bound to align with the principles governing discretionary powers. Therefore, the imposition of a timeframe or period for the exercise of the power under section 40B was deemed appropriate. Any contention that the timeframe is solely at the discretion of the relevant authority and need not be specified in the order was rejected as contrary to law. The Court affirmed the High Court's observations and dismissed the appeal.----Quote:Power under Section 40B of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 has been granted to ?monitor? the ?production, sale of taxable goods and stock positions? of a registered person or class of such persons, by posting Inland Revenue officers at the relevant premises but the monitoring can only be for some object, ground or purpose that is legitimately and lawfully within the contemplation of the 1990 Act. The proviso to the section itself identifies two such situations, namely sales tax evasion and tax fraud, but this monitoring is not for indefinite period. When the purpose is served it should end.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: S. 18 of The Family Court Act, 1964--- Appearance through agents--- Pardanasheen Lady--- Authorized--- when the Family Court permit a Pardanasheen lady to be represented by a duly authorized agent then no embargo could be imposed on recording her statement through Special Attorney. Writ Petition allowed.

Summary: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 365-A---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6(2)(e) & 25---CriminalProcedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417---Kidnapping for ransom---Appeal against acquittal---Appreciation of evidence---Death of abductee---Forensic evidence---Authorities assailedorder passed by Trial Court under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C. where accused were acquitted ofcharge of murder of abductee after kidnapping---Authorities contested that extra-judicialconfession of accused as well as recovery of dead body of abductee upon pointing ofaccused were sufficient grounds for conviction---Validity---Extra-judicial confession aswell as confession of accused persons revealed discovery of new facts as well asdiscovery of remains of abductee---Forensic Science Laboratory report received innegative had diminished evidentiary value of both extra-judicial confession andconfessional statement of accused---Such statements were not recorded voluntarily,otherwise accused could have pointed out exact grave of deceased and discovered remainswhich could have matched with blood relations---Case of prosecution was doubtful andTrial Court while delivering order of acquittal had rightly extended benefits of suchdoubts in favour of accused and rightly they were acquitted of the charge---Accused, afteracquittal earned presumption of double innocence and acquittal orders were not interferedwith until and unless it was proved on record that same was perverse, contrary to record,fanciful and not sustainable---High Court declined to interfere in judgment passed byTrial Court as same was neither perverse, fanciful nor ridiculous or contrary to recordrather same was based on proper appraisal of material available on record---Appeal wasdismissed in circumstances.

Summary: Background:This civil appeal arises under Section 67(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 (RoPA) and challenges the judgment of the Election Tribunal, Rawalpindi, dated 18.02.2015. The appellant, Sh. Azmat Saeed, contested the election of Respondent No.1 and filed Election Petition No. 242/2013/RWP/11/2013, which was dismissed by the Election Tribunal.----Issues:Whether the decision on the appeal should be deferred until certain questions raised by a justice are adjudicated by the Full Court?Whether the questions raised extend beyond the scope of the appeal and encompass broader issues such as the jurisdiction of the court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution and matters relating to the qualifications and disqualifications of Members of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies?Whether the legal principles governing electoral disputes have been settled through previous judgments of the court, rendering further clarification unnecessary?Whether there is a need for prompt resolution of the issues raised to avoid legal uncertainty, especially given the imminent General Elections?Whether a Full Court or bench should be constituted to address the questions raised and seek input from relevant legal authorities?----Holding/Reasoning:The court rejects the suggestion to defer the decision on the appeal, arguing that it could delay the resolution of other election disputes and potentially jeopardize the validity of the upcoming General Elections.The court acknowledges that the questions raised extend beyond the specific appeal and touch upon broader issues of jurisdiction and qualifications of elected representatives.The court emphasizes that the legal principles governing electoral disputes have been established through previous judgments and do not require further clarification on hypothetical considerations.The court asserts the importance of resolving the issues promptly to avoid legal uncertainty, especially given the imminent General Elections.The court requests the Chief Justice to constitute a Full Court or bench to address the questions raised and seek input from relevant legal authorities, including the Attorney-General and the Election Commission of Pakistan.-----Citations/Precedents:Muhammad Jibran Nasir and others v. The State and others (PLD 2018 SC 351)Muhammad Hanif Abbasi v. Jahangir Khan Tareen and others (PLD 2018 SC 114)Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi v. Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, Prime Minister of Pakistan/Member National Assembly, Prime Minister?s House, Islamabad and 9 others (PLD 2017 SC 265)Khawaja Muhammad Asif v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2014 SC 206)Sher Alam Khan v. Abdul Munim and others (Civil Petition No.3131 of 2017)----Quote:Respondent No. 1 has perhaps declared a little more land than as alleged by the Appellant, thus, he can hardly be accused of concealing any asset. The conclusion drawn by the Election Tribunal that there was no concealment of agricultural land in the Nomination Papers filed by Respondent No. 1 is based on a correct and judicious appreciation of the evidence available on the record and in accordance with the law as laid down by this Court. Appeal is dismissed.