Summary: Art.199 constitution of Pakistan, 1973.Any order taking away right must be made in consonance with principles of natural justice.

Summary: Principles of natural justice,void ab initio order by authority & jurisdiction of High Court

Summary: In this case, the main question of law revolves around the adjustment of minimum tax paid under Section 113 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. Specifically, the question is whether the law applicable at the time of payment of minimum tax or the law at the time of adjustment of the tax credit against tax liability in subsequent years should be considered. The judgment discussed the relevant facts and the arguments presented by both the applicant (Commissioner Inland Revenue) and the respondent . The applicant contended that the law prevailing at the time of adjustment in 2010 and 2011 should apply, while the respondent argues that the law in effect at the time of payment (2005 to 2008) should govern. The court examined the relevant provisions of Section 113 of the Income Tax Ordinance, highlighting the changes made to it through Finance Acts in different years. The judgment concluded that the law at the time of payment should apply, and as such, the excess tax amount carried forward from 2005 to 2008 can be adjusted against tax liability for five years, even though the law was changed to three years in subsequent years. The judgment cited constitutional and legal principles to support its decision that changes in the law affecting substantive rights should have prospective application unless expressly stated otherwise. I The judgment affirmed that the adjustment of tax credits should be governed by the law in place at the time of payment, and in this case, the excess tax amount can be adjusted for five years as per the law prevailing during the years it was paid (2005 to 2008). Therefore, the reference applications were dismissed.

Summary: Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005)-------S. 5---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 265-K---Illegal dispossession---Complaint,withdrawal of---Petitioner was a complainant in similar complaint which was withdrawn andTrial Court declined to implead petitioner as complainant---Validity---Complaint neithercontained names of witnesses nor gist of evidence---No assertion on the part of petitioner wasavailable on record that despite providing necessary details Trial Court failed to summon thepersons intended to be produced as witnesses---Trial Court might have recorded findings inexercise of powers available under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C. instead of allowing complaint to bewithdrawn---Order of acquittal of accused was to be recorded in each case---Trial Court in thejudgment, discussed the material available before it and dismissed complaint for want of merit---Trial Court, though had not skillfully wrote the order but had arrived to a correct decision onlywith an error as it required to record an order of acquittal in favour of accused on dismissal ofcomplaint---High Court upheld the order passed by Trial Court as the same was just and properand complaint was dismissed for want of merit, while accused was acquitted of the charge---High Court directed Provincial Government to look into the affairs of education institution and to keep it on right path to save the children, who were real affectees---Revision was disposed ofaccordingly.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Acquittal allowed---In the case, appellant, he was tried for multiple offenses including sections 353, 324, 186, 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, based on an FIR filed on May 3, 2012. The incident involved a police patrolling duty where two individuals on a motorcycle failed to stop when signaled by the police, leading to a chase and a subsequent exchange of gunfire. After a trial, the court convicted Khawar Masih on various charges, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment and imposing fines. During the appeal, the defense argued that there were inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, including the timing of the appellant's arrest and contradictions in the statements of witnesses. It noted discrepancies in the evidence, including inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses and conflicts between the ocular account and medical evidence. The court also highlighted the absence of crucial information in the FIR, such as the assailants' names and the motorcycle's registration number. Ultimately, the court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, it accepted the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted Khawar Masih of the charges.

Summary: ---the right of review is a statutory right and must be explicitly conferred by law---The petitioner filed a review petition under section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957, which was accepted, reinstating him as Lumberdar. The petitioner'

Summary: Ss. 302(a)(b)(c), 304, 307, 308, 310, 331 & 338-E Penal Code (XLV of 1860) --- S.345 Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---Qatl-i-amd, qisas and diyat---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Compromise with legal heirs of the deceased in case of death as Tazir, could be considered as a mitigating factor for altering the conviction and awarding the lesser punishment of life imprisonment instead of death.