Summary: Show cause notice u/s 17 of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963 is mandatory, to be given to respondents soon after institution of the application and also before striking off defence, in terms of S. 17(3) CPC

Summary: Civil Procedure Code CPC (100), Appeal (Appeal) Through the instant second appeal Appellants/Plaintiffs challenged the concurrent findings of fact of the courts below.Section 100 of CPC has been discussed in the case.It was observed that concurrent findings of facts by the Courts below cannot be disturbed by the High Court in second appeal, unless the Courts below while recording the findings of fact have either misread the evidence or have ignored the material piece of evidence on record from the findings recorded by the two Courts below is perverse.

Summary: (Conviction Upheld) Mazhar Nawaz was charged under Sections 302 (murder) and 338 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The case was registered at Police Station Saddar Lodhran. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302(b) of the PPC and ordered to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- under Section 544-A Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of the deceased. In case of default, he would undergo simple imprisonment for six months. He was also granted the benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C.The case revolved around Mazhar Nawaz, the appellant, who was accused of murdering his wife, Mst. Shabana Aslam, with a brutal attack involving an axe. The motive behind the murder was believed to be a dispute over a valuable 5-marla plot in Multan City, which the deceased had inherited. The appellant allegedly intended to sell the plot and take the proceeds. However, when the deceased refused, he committed the murder.Multiple witnesses, including the complainant, Muhammad Jafar Aslam, and Mst. Riffat Aslam, testified to witnessing the murder. The medical evidence supported their testimonies, as the deceased suffered several incised wounds, with two of them being the primary cause of death, according to the postmortem examination.The appellant denied the charges but did not produce any witnesses in his defense. After hearing arguments from both sides, the trial court found the appellant guilty and sentenced him accordingly. The Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, upheld the conviction, citing that the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the witnesses' accounts and the motive for the crime, was compelling. The recovery of the murder weapon was questioned but was not enough to discredit the entire case against the appellant.In summary, the appellant Mazhar Nawaz was convicted for the murder of his wife, Mst. Shabana Aslam, and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine. His appeal was dismissed, and his conviction upheld by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 342 & 364(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation ofevidence---Certificate on statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C., non-availability of---Defence hadalleged that certificate of statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C. was not given under own hand of theTrial Court and only typed written statement was signed, thus provision of S. 364(2), Cr.P.C.were not complied with, which vitiated the trial---Validity---Record showed that at the end of thestatement of accused, certificate signed by the Trial Court showed that statement was recorded inpresence and hearing of the court, therefore, provision of S.364(2), Cr.P.C. had been compliedwith---Mere fact that such certificate was typed and signed by the Trial Court would not vitiatethe trial as it would neither prejudice the accused nor affected the case of prosecution.PLD 2005 Kar. 177 rel.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Ocular accountsupported by medical evidence---Allegation against the accused was that he stabbed the deceasedwith dagger and injured him who succumbed to the injuries---Ocular account was furnished bytwo witnesses---Eye-witnesses had narrated that there was exchange of hot words between theaccused and deceased, who were relieved---Accused in rage went to his shop and brought a knifeand hit on the left thigh of the deceased, as a result of grievous injury, deceased fell down andbecame unconscious---Said witness with the help of inhabitants of the area had taken thedeceased to hospital but he succumbed to the injury on way---Other eye-witness supported theversion of the witness, who narrated the ocular account---Defence objected that said witnesseswere chance witnesses and failed to justify their presence at the spot---Incident took place atpublic place, therefore, attraction of inhabitants of the area could not be termed by chance---Admittedly, murder was not committed with previous notice to the witnesses for their presence---Evidence of said witnesses could not be rejected on the ground that they were partisanwitnesses, however their evidence had to be carefully scrutinized---Both the said witnessesremained consistent on all material particulars of the prosecution case; their testimony wascorroborated by the post-mortem report of the deceased, which was consistent with the ocular account as to the weapon, locale of injury and the time of occurrence---Veracity and credibilityof said witnesses had been tested through lengthy cross-examination, but nothing came on recordto discredit their evidence or their testimony in any manner---Post-mortem report of the deceasedshowed that deceased had received single stab incised wound on the left thigh---Wound wasdeep and femoral artery was found cut in two halves---Death of deceased was homicidal innature and was caused by means of sharp weapon, which damaged vital blood vessels---Circumstances established that medical evidence had fully supported the ocular accountfurnished by witnesses---Conviction of accused was maintained and sentence of death wasaltered to imprisonment for life, in circumstances.Muhamams Ashraf and another v. The State PLD 1977 SC 538 rel.(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Non-mentioning the name of witnessesin FIR---Effect---Names of eye-witnesses were not mentioned in the FIR but their statementsunder S. 161, Cr.P.C. were recorded soon after the incident---No motive or enmity for falseimplication of the accused had been attributed to the said eye witnesses---Circumstancesestablished that said persons were natural witnesses and they had brought the true facts of theincident---Evidence of said witnesses could not be discarded merely on the ground that theirnames were not mentioned in FIR---Occurrence took place at public place when the complainantarrived at the place of incident, there was crowd of people and it was not proper for complainantto mention the names of said eye-witnesses in the FIR, which was an omission and would notdiscredit the testimony of eye-witnesses---Conviction of accused was maintained and sentence ofdeath was altered to imprisonment for life, in circumstances.Muhammad Mushtaq v. The State PLD 2001 SC 107 rel.(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence reduction in---Mitigatingcircumstances---No background of previous enmity or deep rooted hostility existed between theaccused and deceased---Evidence of eye-witnesses revealed that the act of inflicting single knifeblow by accused at deceased was preceded by a dialogue between accused and complainantfollowed by scuffle---Accused inflicted only single blow of knife and did not repeat---Prosecution case was silent with regard to motive---Such factors cumulatively made out a casefor mitigation of sentence---Accused was awarded death sentence for murder, which wasundoubtedly a normal penalty for the offence, but benefit could be extended in presence ofmitigating circumstances---Conviction was maintained, death sentence of accused was altered toimprisonment for life, in circumstances.

Summary: A person, proceeded against under a special law, would be dealt with according to the procedure of enquiry/investigation and trial as laid down in the said special law. The accused persons were tried, convicted and sentenced under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, a special law, and the Supreme Court cannot assume jurisdiction in the matter of compromise between the accused persons and the legal heirs of the deceased----The petitioners, including Ex-Lance Naik Mukarram Hussain and Ex-Gunner Muhammad Mushtaq, sought review of their convictions by the Field General Court Martial. They had exhausted remedies available under the Army Act and had filed petitions for leave to appeal, which were dismissed earlier. The main contention of the applicants was that a compromise had been reached with the legal heirs of the deceased, and thus, the applicants should be acquitted based on this compromise. However, the Deputy Attorney General (DAG) argued against the jurisdiction of the Court, citing Section 143 of the Army Act and legal precedents like Javed Iqbal Vs. The S.H.O. and others (2013 P Crl.LJ 1394), Muhammad Rawab Vs. The State (2004 SCMR 1170), and Muhammad Sharif alias Baggu Vs. Home Secretary (1986 MLD 1767). The Court deliberated on the applicability of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and concluded that since the petitioners were tried under the Army Act, the procedures of the Army Act applied to their cases. The Court emphasized the limited scope of its review jurisdiction and cited legal precedents where it had ruled on jurisdictional matters concerning the Armed Forces. It also noted that the death sentences of the petitioners had been converted to life imprisonment. Ultimately, the Court dismissed all the listed matters as meritless, including the Miscellaneous Application, emphasizing that the Cr.P.C. did not apply to cases under the Army Act.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending