Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 249-A & 265-K---Acquittal of accused---Scope---Order of acquittal of accused underS.249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C. in appeal or revisions proceedings has not the same sanctity as ordersof acquittal on merits---Principles which are to be observed and applied in setting aside findingsof acquittal or principles relating to presumption of double innocence, when accused is acquittedafter full-fledged inquiry and trial to acquittals under S.265-K, Cr.P.C., are not applicable---Paramount consideration of court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented, which mayarise from acquittal of guilty and is no less than from conviction of an innocent---Whereadmissible evidence is ignored, duty is cast upon appellate court to re-appreciate evidence incase, where accused has been acquitted for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of theaccused committed any offence or not.(b) Evidence-------Circumstantial evidence---Scope---Such evidence is not direct to point in issue but consists of evidence of various other facts, which are so closely associated with fact in issue, if takentogether they form a chain of circumstances, from which existence of principal fact can belegally inferred or presumed.(c) Administration of justice-------Law favours disposal of cases on merits---Interest of justice demands that both parties beprovided opportunity to prove their versions by producing evidence---Duty of court is not only toprotect innocent but also to punish the guilty.(d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 249-A & 265-K---Acquittal of accused---Object, scope and purpose---Object of exerciseof powers under S.265-K & 249-A, Cr.P.C. available to Trial Court is to prevent abuse of law---Where sufficient prima facie evidence is available, powers may not be exercised as to throttleprocess of justice---Main consideration to be kept in view is whether continuance of proceedingsbefore court would be futile exercise, wastage of time and abuse of process of court or not---If onthe basis of facts admitted and patent on record no offence can be made out, then it wouldamount to abuse of process of law to allow prosecution to continue with trial.(e) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)-------Ss. 9(a), 25 (b) & 32---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.249-A & 265-K---Corruption and corrupt practices---Acquittal of accused---Availability of incriminating evidence---Scope---Accused were acquitted by Trial Court under S.265-K, Cr.P.C.---Plea raised byauthorities was that there was sufficient evidence against accused which could have resulted inconviction of accused---Validity---In case of corruption and misappropriation of public money,court was required to act with extreme care and caution in deciding such case and should notproceed hastily in acquitting accused persons involved therein either under S.249-A or 265-K,Cr.P.C., as the cases might be---Prosecution should provide every possible opportunity to proveits case and establish guilt of accused after a full-fledged trial---Besides evidence of twowitnesses, record was also indicative of the fact that two accused who were holders of publicoffice while taking benefit of S.25 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, voluntarilyreturned embezzled amount acquired by them---Most of bogus claims were submitted by employees of accused and whole embezzled amount of Rs.52 million along with interest wasalso deposited by co-accused, who happened to be nephew of principal accused---Such evidencerequired explanation from accused without which it could not have been ignored or discardedfrom consideration---Orders of acquittal passed by Trial Court were set aside and cases ofaccused were remanded to Trial Court to proceed from the stage at which the case stood whenapplication of accused persons under S.265-K, Cr.P.C. were decided.The State through Advocate General, Sindh High Court of Karachi v. Raja AbdulRehman 2005 SCMR 1544 rel.

Summary: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)-------Arts. 72, 78, & 79-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.2---Proof of document---Author of the document despite being alive was not produced nor any plausible reason for hisnon-production was offered---Document in question was liable to be registered and for want ofregistration such document did not operate to create, extinguish any right---Document in originalwas neither tendered in evidence nor produced on record and only a photo copy was availablewhich neither could have been tendered in evidence nor could be taken into consideration---Evidence and the contents of the plaint were irreconcilable in nature and ran contrary to eachother---No misreading or non-reading of evidence having been noticed, appeal was dismissedwith costs.

Summary: Difference between Hiba and gift---When decree is based on Tamleek then, Rs.500/- can be claimed by the Revenue Authorities as mutation fee---However, when the mutation entries to be recorded pursuant to a Court decree, the person concerned is bound to pay the fees etc. as per schedule---Since the petitioner failed to establish execution of Tamleek in his favour, the matter regarding payment of mutation fee was to be considered as per entry at serial No.3 of the schedule attached with notification dated 30.06.2010 issued by the Senior Member Board of Revenue---Fees etc. are leviable according to the document and not the transaction---Constitutional petition was dismissed and the petitioner was directed to pay the mutation fee as claimed by the revenue authorities according to aforesaid notification.

Summary: Powers of the administrative authorities---According to the Recruitment Policy 2011 in case the successful candidate failed to join his service or resigned therefrom within 190 days of the recruitment, the competent authority was under obligation to offer the same to the person next in the merit list---As the EDO (Education) failed to exercise said power despite application submitted by the petitioner, the act of respondents regarding non-consideration of the petitioner despite having come on merit cannot be let unnoticed merely on the ground that a considerable period has already elapsed---Public functionaries cannot be allowed to play with the fate of the masses while exercising their discretion---In the circumstances writ petition was accepted and respondent No.3 (EDO Education) was directed to issue appointment letter to the petitioner after approval by respondent No.1 (DCO) with the observation that the Secretary Education would hold an inquiry against the EDO concerned.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.