Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: The petitioner in this case is Digicom Trading (Pvt.) Ltd., and the respondents are the Federation of Pakistan and another party. The petitioner is challenging a Show Cause Notice dated 28.5.2014 issued by the second respondent under Section 11(2) & (3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 ("the Act"). The petitioner claims that the notice is without lawful authority and jurisdiction. The petitioner is engaged in importing cellular mobile phones under the brand name "Q Mobile" and pays sales tax at the import stage as per the relevant government orders. The impugned Show Cause Notice demands an additional tax of 1% (later increased to 2% through the Finance Act 2015) under Section 3(1)(A) of the Act, in addition to the sales tax already paid by the petitioner. The petitioner argues that they have fulfilled their tax liabilities according to the relevant government orders and should not be required to pay further tax. The court examines the relevant sections of the Sales Tax Act, including Section 3, Section 8, and Section 13. They conclude that SRO 460(I)/2013, a government order fixing the rates of sales tax, has been issued in terms of specific provisions of the Act, including Section 13(2)(a), and therefore, it overrides the chargeability of tax under Section 3(1) and Section 3(1)(A) of the Act. The court explains that once the government has prescribed a specific mechanism and rate for sales tax through SRO 460(I)/2013, no additional tax should be demanded based on Section 3(1)(A) for supply to unregistered persons. In light of these considerations, the court holds that the impugned Show Cause Notice was issued without lawful authority and jurisdiction and quashes it. The petition is allowed in favor of the petitioner.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: S.302,148,149 PPC 15 AANight occurrence,six charged for three injuries,wants further inquiry(Bail allowed)

Summary: (a) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)--- ----S. 18---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.79---Land acquisition---Reference to court, rejection of---Appeal---Limitation---Void order---Reference to court was rejected on the ground that beneficiary of acquisition had no right to file a reference or appeal---Validity---Referee Court refused to entertain the reference filed by the beneficiary of the award under the misconception of law---Impugned order was without jurisdiction---Jurisdiction vested in the Referee Court had not been exercised properly---Reference was maintainable in circumstances---Bar of limitation was not applicable to the appeal as impugned order was void ab initio and nullity---Beneficiary of acquisition could file a reference or appeal if he was a party before the Referee Court---Reference was not hit by S.79, C.P.C.---Case was remanded to the Referee Court for deciding the same in accordance with law within a specified period---Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Summary: The appellant was convicted under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for possession of heroin. The case revolved around the recovery of heroin from Imran's house, with allegations that the evidence may have been planted due to previous legal disputes between Imran and the police. The prosecution presented police witnesses and a chemical analysis report as evidence, while Imran claimed innocence, alleging malicious prosecution. During the trial, the chemical analysis report was found to lack details about the tests conducted, raising doubts about the evidence's reliability. Furthermore, the room where the contraband was discovered was accessible to others, making the recovery questionable. The court noted that even a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case is enough to benefit the accused. Ultimately, the court accepted Imran's appeal, overturning his conviction, and acquitting him due to the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Imran was ordered to be released from custody unless required in another case.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular evidence---Two eye-witnesses hadfurnished a forthright and confidence inspiring eye-account duly supported by medical evidence,recovery of three empties from the place of incident, blood stained earth and blood stainedclothes of the deceased as well as pointation of the accused---Witnesses remained firm to the testof cross-examination---Said witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination, but nothingadvantageous could be extracted rendering any assistance to the case of accused, who was fullyimplicated by them---No serious enmity was alleged against the said eye-witnesses---Accusedcame prepared, armed with deadly weapon---Appeal against conviction was dismissed.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302---Qatl-i-amd---Abscondance of accused---Effect---Corroborative evidence---Accusedremained absconder for about seven months---Such a long unexplained abscondance of theaccused was a corroboratory factor, which could not be ignored as the same had indicated theguilt of accused---Appeal against the conviction was dismissed.Inayat Ali v. The State PLD 2002 SC 77 rel.(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302---Qatl-i-amd---Chance witness---Testimony of chance witness---Reliance---Scope---Defence had objected that eye-witnesses were chance witnesses, thus their statements were notreliable---Eye-witnesses had explained the occurrence reasonably, as such, they weretrustworthy---If the chance witness reasonably explained his presence at the spot, he could not besaid to be a chance witness---Appeal against conviction was dismissed.Anwar Shamim v. The State 2010 SCMR 1791 rel.(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302---Qatl-i-amd---Related witness---Testimony of closely related witness---Reliance---Scope---Defence had objected that prosecution eye-witnesses being nephews of the deceased,were interested witnesses, thus their statements were not reliable---Relationship of witnessesinter se or with the deceased, alone, could not be made basis to disqualify them from beingtruthful witnesses---Mere relationship of witness with the deceased did not make him/herinterested, because an interested witness was the person who had motive to falsely implicate theaccused---Appeal against the conviction was dismissed.Iqbal v. The State 1994 SCMR 1 rel.(e) Criminal trial-------Minor contradictions or improvements in the statement of prosecution witnesses---Effect---Minor contradictions or improvements in the statements of witnesses were to be overlooked andonly material contradictions were to be considered.Ranjha v. The State 2007 SCMR 455 rel.(f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Case of two versions---Defence had allegedthat murder of the deceased was committed by some unknown persons as there was enmitybetween father of the deceased and other persons---Where the case was that of two versions, oneversion was to be believed in toto and not in piecemeal---Court was duty bound to review theentire evidence that had been produced by the prosecution and the defence---In the present case,versions of both the parties were considered and the version put forth by the prosecution seemedto be trustworthy, based on unimpeachable and tangible evidence---FIR had been promptlylodged and accused was nominated in the FIR with specific role; prosecution eye-witnesses hadimplicated the accused in the commission of offence; incident was of daylight and the defencehad failed to establish false implication or substitution; oral and medical evidence were in lineand accused remained absconder for seven months---Appeal against conviction was dismissed.Safdar Ali v. Crown PLD 1953 FC 93 rel.(g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Motive, not proved---Effect---Failure toprove motive was not fatal to the prosecution---Appeal against conviction was dismissed.Syed Hamid Mukhtar Shah v. Muhammad Azam 2005 SCMR 427 rel.

Summary: Summary pending