Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 497---Grant or refusal of bail---Considerations---Importance of individual's personalliberty and the society's interest---Society had a vital interest in grant or refusal of bail, becauseevery offence was the offence against the State---Order, granting or refusing bail, must reflectperfect balance between the conflicting interests; viz, sanctity of individual's liberty and theinterest of the society---While granting or refusing bail, two conflicting interests, namely therequirement of shielding the society from the hazards of those committing crimes andpotentiality of repeating the same crime while on bail; and the absolute adherence offundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence regarding presumption of innocence of anaccused until he was found guilty.(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 345(7) & 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302(c), 392 & 396---Qatl-e-amd, robbery,dacoity with murder---Compromise effected between the parties---Human life was the mostvaluable of all the things---Islam as a religion of humanity attached utmost sanctity to humanlife---Murder of a human being was the greatest sin after the sin of 'shirk' (Assigning partnerswith Almighty Allah), and was unpardonable, particularly when committed during the course ofdacoity in view of the bar under S.345(7), Cr.P.C.---Islamic Sharia had divided the punishmentsfor crimes into three categories; Hudood; Qisas; and Ta'zir---Said punishments, which had beendetermined by the Holy Quran and the Sunnah for crimes, were called Hudood---Punishmentsfor crime, involving the rights of individuals, were called as Qisas; and the punishments forcrimes, which had not been fixed by the Holy Quran or Sunnah, but had been left to discretion ofthe rulers and the Judges, were called as Tazir---Where compromise between the parties hadbeen reached in non-compoundable offences during pendency of the appeal, the courts had takenthe compromise as a ground for reduction in the quantum of sentence only, but in the matters ofbail, same could only be considered as one of the facts, alongside the facts and circumstances ofthe case, for determining whether bail be granted or not---Any person, who was an accused of anon-compoundable offence, was not entitled to claim bail as a matter of right on the sole strengthof compromise---Offence of murder, punishable with death under S.302(a), P.P.C., and underS.302(b), P.P.C. as Tazir, though was compoundable under the law, but where murder had takenplace during the course of committing a dacoity, punishable with death under S.396, P.P.C., oran offence under S.392, P.P.C., was not compoundable.Al-Qur'an; Muhammad Rawab v. The State 2004 SCMR 1170; Ghulam Farid alias Faridav. The State PLD 2006 SC 53 and Jamshed alias Javed v. The State 2001 PCr.LJ 1493 ref.Muhammad Rawab v. The State 2004 SCMR 1170 rel.(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 497 & 345---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302 & 392---Offences Against Property(Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(3)---Qatl-e-amd, robbery, Haraabah---Bail, refusal of---Accused was caught red-handed with crime weapon, while snatchingmotorcycle from the complainant, who was student of F.Sc.---Besides committing murder,accused also made murderous attempt upon the complainant who sustained a fire-arm injury---Offence under S.392, P.P.C., did not find its mention in S.345(1), Cr.P.C. in the category of theoffences which were compoundable---Offences under Ss.302 & 392, P.P.C., as well as anoffence under S.17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, were also not bailable---Merits of the case did not justify the grant of bail to accused; andcompromise allegedly, effected between the parties, neither could be taken into consideration norit entitled accused for the concession of bail.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Concurrent findings of Courtsbelow---Setting aside of such findings of fact by High Court in revisional jurisdiction---Validity---Both the Courts below after attending each and every aspect of the matter by referring to theocular account as well as documentary evidence available on record had discussed andconsidered the same keeping in view the established principles of law---Conclusions drawn bythe Courts below had been perfectly based on proper appreciation of facts, correct appraisal ofevidence and did not suffer from any infirmity---Petitioner had not pointed out any piece ofevidence either to have been misread or omitted from consideration---Concurrent findings offacts arrived at by both the Courts below had based on proper appraisal of evidence and had notsuffered from any misreading or non-reading of evidence, therefore could not be interfered witheven if on re-appraisal of evidence another view might be possible---Revision petition wasdismissed. Abdul Hakeem v. Habibullah and 11 others 1997 SCMR 1139 rel.(b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------S. 9---Suit for possession of immovable property---Title of plaintiff was not clear---Suit inquestion was dismissed---Validity---Meaningful analysis and purposeful perusal of the entirecase of the petitioner reflected that no title had vested in the plaintiff on account of illegal,invalid, inadmissible sale---Plaintiff having no perfect title was not entitled to file the suit inquestion---Suit for declaration, without perfect title was incompetent, therefore liable to beburied at its very inception---Revision petition was dismissed.S.M. Shafi Ahmad Zaidi through Legal Heirs v. Malik Hassan Ali Khan (Moin) throughLegal Heirs 2002 SCMR 338 rel.(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. XIII, Rr. 3 & 4---Document not brought on record through witness or duly exhibited---Validity---Such document could not be taken into consideration by Court---Petitioner hadproduced a copy of lease deed/document, which was neither tendered in evidence nor hadexhibited, therefore the same had not been taken into consideration by both the Courts below---Suit filed by plaintiff was not based on the lease deed/document nor any reference of the saidlease deed/document had appeared in the pleadings---Document/lease deed beyond the pleadingswas entertained.Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence and another v. Jaffar Khanand others PLD 2010 SC 604 and Abdul Haque and others v. Shaukat Ali and 2 others 2003SCMR 74 rel.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. XLI, R. 27---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42---Suit for declaration---Production ofadditional evidence in Appellate Court---Requirements---Suit was dismissed against whichappeal alongwith application for additional evidence were filed---Said application was dismissedby the Appellate Court---Validity---One of the documents sought to be produced had alreadybeen tendered in evidence whereas other document was neither relied upon nor said documentcontained any reference in the plaint---Plaintiff had failed to show as to how such document wasnecessary for just decision of the case---Document in question had been produced for the firsttime before the Appellate Court---Reason mentioned in the application for production ofevidence was of no avail---Document sought to be produced seemed to have been obtained fromthe Revenue Record and such Revenue Record was always available---Said document appearedto be tampered which required another enquiry which was neither warranted nor advisable---Ifproper explanation was not offered for not tendering the document in evidence before the TrialCourt then Appellate Court would be reluctant to entertain the request for production ofevidence---Material already available on record had not been held/treated insufficient by the Appellate Court to warrant a decision of the case on merits---Document sought to be producedwas not required by the Appellate Court to enable it to pronounce judgment---Evidence must berequired by the court itself and such power was exercisable in the interest of justice and not forthe purpose of patching up of weak case or to allow to fill in the gaps---Provisions of O. XLI, R.27, C.P.C. were not attracted to the present case---Any interference by the High Court wouldamount to pre-empt the powers of the Appellate Court which was neither aim of law nor therequirement of justice---Appellate Court had rightly passed the impugned order---Said order wasneither open to any exception nor it suffered from any illegality, irregularity, perversity,impropriety and invalidity---Revision was dismissed in circumstances.Muhammad Ramzan and others v. Niaz Ali and others 1988 SCMR 1652; Sm. KrishnaSubala Bose and others v. Dhanapati Dutta and others AIR 1957 Cal. 59 and Bashir Ahmed v.Ahmad-ul-Haq Siddiqui 1985 SCMR 1232 rel.(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. XLI, R. 27---Powers of the Appellate Court to record additional evidence---Conditions---Conditions for recording additional evidence were that the evidence sought to be produced hadbeen refused by the Trial Court to admit which ought to have been admitted and that theAppellate Court required any document to be produced or witnesses to be examined in order toenable itself to pronounce the judgment and for any substantial cause.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.