Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Family / Guardian Case, against interim order regarding custody of minor

Summary: Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)-------S. 9(c)---Recovery of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Delay in lodging F.I.R. due topractical difficulties---Charas weighing 306 kilograms was recovered from vehicle driven byaccused and Trial Court convicted and sentenced him to imprisonment for life---Plea raised byaccused was that F.I.R. and statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded with a delay of 7hours---Validity---Authorities apprehended accused along with contraband Charas on 5-5-2011at about 3-00 a.m. and due to odd hours of night, it was not possible to proceed towards policestation, therefore, F.I.R. was lodged at 8-00 a.m. on 5-5-2011---Time of few hours elapsed due topractical difficulties, even otherwise mere delay in lodging F.I.R. was not fatal nor due to suchdelay prosecution derived any undue advantage---Statements of prosecution witnesses wereworthy of credence and there was no occasion to disbelieve them---Variation in statements ofwitnesses, which were neither material nor serious enough to affect case of prosecution, were ofno avail---Statements of witnesses had to be read as a whole and Court should not pick upsentences in isolation from entire statement ignoring its proper course---Judgment passed byTrial Court was well-founded and High Court maintained conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court to accused---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.2010 SCMR 1009; 1999 SCMR 697 and 2011 YLR 1435 distinguished.S.A.K. Rehmani v. The State 2005 SCMR 364; 2011 SCMR 872 and 2013 SCMR 280rel.

Summary: The petitioner's son, Muhammad Tariq, went missing after being taken away by two acquaintances known to him. The petitioner approached the police station, where she was informed that her son was being physically tortured and threatened with dire consequences, demanding a large sum of money for his release. Subsequently, the petitioner learned that her son had been killed in a police encounter.The petitioner filed an application before the Addl. Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace at Liaqatpur, District Rahimyar Khan, seeking the registration of a criminal case against the involved police officials. However, the judicial inquiry exonerated the police officials from any criminal activity.The petitioner then filed the constitutional petition challenging the order of the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, who declined to register a criminal case, stating that the judicial inquiry was in progress. The petitioner's counsel argued that there was sufficient evidence to connect the respondents with the crime, and the refusal to register an FIR was unlawful.The Lahore High Court reviewed the application and observed that the mere pendency of the judicial inquiry did not bar the registration of a criminal case. Citing previous judgments, the court ruled that the police officer was duty-bound to register an FIR if the information disclosed the commission of a cognizable offense. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and directed the District Police Officer to register a criminal case against respondents No.3 to 7 within a week.

Summary: Contempt proceedings against Imran Khan, Chairman of Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI). The case began with a notice issued by the Chief Justice of Pakistan on July 31, 2013, in response to Imran Khan's purported statement during a press conference held on July 26, 2013. The statement was widely reported in the media and was perceived as an attempt to scandalize the court and bring judges into contempt. This move was in line with Article 204 of the Constitution and section 3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003.Imran Khan, represented by his counsel, submitted two written explanations on August 2, 2013, denying any intent to commit contempt and emphasizing his party's commitment to upholding the dignity and independence of the judiciary. He also mentioned his party's grievances related to alleged electoral rigging and requested the notice to be recalled.Subsequently, Imran Khan filed a detailed reply on August 27, 2013, in which he elaborated on the context of his statement, arguing that it referred to the conduct of District Returning Officers and Returning Officers during the general elections of 2013 rather than the judiciary as a whole.During the proceedings, Imran Khan and his counsel reiterated his respect for the judiciary and his commitment to its independence. They also highlighted instances of derogatory remarks made by other political figures against the judiciary without similar contempt proceedings being initiated against them.The Attorney General for Pakistan called for judicial restraint in contempt cases and emphasized the independence of the judiciary. He recommended a lenient view, suggesting that the notice be discharged.In line with precedents such as Masroor Ahsan versus Ardeshir Cowasjee (PLD 1998 S.C. 823), Baz Muhammad Kakar versus Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2012 S.C. 923), and Dr. Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri versus Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2013 S.C. 413), which emphasized the importance of judicial restraint and protection of freedom of speech while exercising contempt powers, the Court considered these principles. After considering all the submissions and legal principles, the Court found that Imran Khan's use of the word "???" was prima facie not intended to scandalize the judiciary but rather referred to administrative issues during the 2013 elections.The Court acknowledged that Imran Khan had promptly responded to the notice, appeared before the Court with respect, and clarified his position. The Court also noted his body language and demeanor during the proceedings, which indicated respect for the Court. In light of these considerations, the Court discharged the show cause notice without requiring an unconditional apology from Imran Khan.The judgment, delivered on October 9, 2013, concluded that there was no reason to doubt Imran Khan's bonafide and that his conduct justified the discharge of the show cause notice. It highlighted the principles of forgiveness and pardon in Islamic jurisprudence, as well as the need for judges to exercise restraint and grace in such matters. It also underscored the importance of politicians and public figures using measured language to respect national institutions and set an example for society.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.