Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Para-II. Contradiction between in the statements, in the statements and site plan, and procedural irregularity, create reasonable doubts ,benefit of the same must go to the accused

Summary: Para-6. Once the matter patched up between the parties by administering special oath, subject to the condition of delivery of possession, in the court the parties cannot resile from the same latter on

Summary: Acquittal upheld --- Facts: The petitioner, Niaz Ahmed, challenged the Lahore High Court's judgment which upheld the acquittal of respondents No. 1 to 3 in a murder case. The case was initially based on suspicion and later pursued through circumstantial evidence, including last-seen evidence, motive, and an extra-judicial confession. Both the trial court and the High Court found the prosecution unable to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the respondents.Issue: The petitioner argued that the trial court erred by consolidating the complaint case with the Challan case for a joint trial, contrary to the precedent set by the Supreme Court in various cases.Holding: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, upholding the acquittals.Reasoning: The Court found no deviation from the concurrent findings of the courts below upon their own evaluation of the evidence. Regarding the procedural issue raised by the petitioner about the consolidated trial, the Court referred to the legal position that when the same incident results in cross-cases with different versions and accused, simultaneous trials are recommended. However, when the same party files an FIR and a private complaint against the same accused with identical allegations, the complaint case should ideally precede the Challan case. Despite this procedural irregularity, Section 537 of the Cr.P.C. dictates that no judgment should be reversed unless such an irregularity has caused a failure of justice. The Court noted that the petitioner did not object to the trial's mode during the proceedings and concluded that the mode of trial did not cause any miscarriage of justice, as the prosecution's evidence was inherently weak.Rule: The Court reiterated the legal principles regarding the trial of cross-cases and the impact of procedural irregularities on the trial's outcome, emphasizing the necessity of demonstrating a failure of justice due to such irregularities for appellate intervention.Conclusion: The Supreme Court found no substantial ground to interfere with the lower courts' judgments, given the lack of objection during the trial and the insufficiency of the prosecution's evidence. The petition was dismissed, and the respondents' acquittal was upheld.

Summary: Key Legal Issues:1)Interpretation of Section 27(2)(e) of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013.2)Impact of being deemed a public servant under Section 23 of the Zakat and Ushr Ordinance, 1980, in conjunction with Section 21 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, on eligibility to contest local body elections.---Judgment: The Supreme Court, after reviewing the relevant legal provisions and precedents, concluded that:The petitioners, by virtue of their roles in the Local Zakat and Ushr Committee, were not "in the service of" a statutory body, thus not disqualified under Section 27(2)(e) of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013.The status of being deemed "public servants" for specific legal purposes under Section 23 of the Zakat and Ushr Ordinance, 1980, does not inherently disqualify an individual from contesting local body elections.Key Precedents Cited:Shahid Nabi Malik and another vs. Chief Election Commissioner, Islamabad and 7 others (PLD 1997 SC 32): Clarified the interpretation of being "in the service of Pakistan" and its implications for election eligibility.Inayatullah vs. C.C.-Cum-Chairman, District Zakat Committee and 2 others (PLD 1993 SC 426): Discussed qualifications for Zakat Committee membership.Raja Bahadur K. C. Deo Bhanj vs. Raghunath Misra and others (AIR 1959 SC 589): Examined the relationship between governmental control and service, specifically in the context of a Sarpanch's role.Ch. Liaqat Ali and another vs. Election Appellate Authority/District and Sessions Judge, Lahore/District Returning Officer, Lahore and 3 others (2001 YLR 953): Addressed the eligibility of individuals associated with statutory bodies to participate in elections.Conclusion: ''The qualifications and disqualifications imposed by section 27 of the Punjab Local Government Act 2013 for a candidate to contest the election and even to hold office should be construed and applied strictly, and a person can only be debarred from contesting elections or holding an office if the case falls squarely within the strict scope of the qualifications and disqualifications stipulated by law.''The Supreme Court allowed the petitions, reversing the Lahore High Court's judgment and the appellate authority's decision, thereby enabling the petitioners to contest the local body elections. This decision emphasizes a nuanced understanding of what constitutes "service" in a statutory body and reaffirms the principle that disqualifications for electoral candidacy must be strictly construed.