Summary: Crl. Rev. against order whereby application 540-A Cr. PC rejected to be marked FIR U/S 302/34 PPC

Summary: The petitioners obtained NOCs (No Objection Certificates) from various authorities and completed the necessary civil works for the installation of CNG stations. However, a moratorium on new gas connections was imposed on the directive of the Prime Minister of Pakistan, first on 18-4-2011 and later reintroduced on 04-10-2011 by the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources. Feeling aggrieved by the moratorium, the petitioners filed the present writ petitions. The petitioners argued that they had made significant investments and obtained provisional licenses before the moratorium was imposed. They contended that they should not be affected by the moratorium and requested that it be declared ineffective upon their rights. They also sought an extension of their provisional licenses. The respondents, on the other hand, defended the moratorium imposed by the government, stating that the policy matter could not be questioned. They argued that the petitioners had not applied for an extension within the specified period and, therefore, could not be issued licenses. After considering the arguments of both parties and examining the record, the court observed that the government had imposed a moratorium on new gas connections through notifications issued on LB-4-2011 and 04-10-2011. However, the court noted that provisional licenses could be extended for CNG stations that were 100% complete in terms of equipment installation and civil works, and had already been inspected by the regulatory authority (OGRA) before 30-9-2011. The court directed the respondents to conduct inspections of the petitioners' sites after completing the necessary legal formalities. If it was found that the petitioners had already installed the machinery and completed the civil works, the court ordered the renewal of their provisional licenses in accordance with the law and rules. Both writ petitions were thus disposed of based on the above terms.

Summary: Dying declaration by itself not sufficient to sustain conviction---(a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)-------Art. 46---Dying declaration---Admissibility in evidence---Scope---Dying declaration, thoughwas admissible in evidence, but by itself was not sufficient to sustain conviction---Suchdeclaration must be free from every sort of taint and be independently corroborated for safereliance to record conviction---In order to find out the truth or falsity of a dying declaration, acase was to be generally considered in all its physical environment and circumstances---Dyingdeclaration was only a corroborative piece of evidence, which would support the oculartestimony; and it was a weak type of evidence.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302(b)/34---Qatl-e-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Complainantwhile recording his statement at the trial had contradicted the contents of the F.I.R. and heimproved his statement before the court---No identification parade of accused was got conductedto identify the assailant who was following the deceased and assaulted him with axe---Prosecution witness could not identify the culprit who ran away from the spot---Said witness hadalso not identified any of the accused---Said contradictions and infirmities had badly shaken theveracity of both the witnesses---Alleged dying declaration, which otherwise was a very weaktype of evidence, could not be held free from any sort of taint, and could not be safely reliedupon to record conviction as the same lacked independent corroboration---Statement ofprosecution witness with regard to allegations of assault by a person upon the deceased with anaxe had further rendered the recovery of knife doubtful---Recovery of axe had not beenestablished from the possession of the accused---Neither there was any disclosure memo of theaccused nor his confessional statement---No report of chemical analysis was available to provethat the axe was stained with human blood---Statement of doctor though had established theunnatural death of the deceased, but same was not in conformity with the ocular testimony---Statements of witnesses were also vague with regard to the motive of the occurrence and motivedid not stand established through their testimony---Prosecution had failed to give anyexplanation for shifting the custody of accused hundred miles away for recording theirconfessional statements; whereas competent authorities to record confessional statements wereavailable at the relevant place---Magistrate while recording confessional statements of accusedhad not observed the prescribed procedure---Even the memorandum at the foot of theconfessional statements, was not in accordance with mandatory requirement of S.164(3),Cr.P.C.---Confessional statement, got recorded, was highly defective and in violation ofmandatory provisions of S.164, Cr.P.C. as well as S.364, Cr.P.C.---Prosecution, due to saidinfirmities, contradictions, illegalities and irregularity had failed to bring home the charge againstaccused beyond any shadow of doubt---Sufficient doubt existed in the case of prosecution,benefit of which had to be extended to the accused---Accused were acquitted of the charge andwere ordered to be released, in circumstances.(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss.164 & 364---Confessional statement---Evidentiary value---Procedure to be followed inrecording the confession by Magistrate---As soon as accused was produced for confession, hishandcuffs should be removed; and all the Police Officers should be turned out from the courtroom---Accused, thereafter should be informed that he was before a Magistrate; and whether hewould make any statement or not; he would not be given back to the Police, which had producedhim before the court; but would be remanded to judicial lock-up---Accused should then be givensufficient time to ponder over the matter---Accused thereafter should be warned, that he was notbound to make any statement, but, if he did so, it could be used as evidence against him---Greater duty was cast upon the Magistrate recording confession to be satisfied that suchconfession was voluntarily made; and to that end he must conscientiously devote his inquirybefore recorded the confession---Unexplained delay in recording confessional statement of accused would not render the same to be used as substantive piece and same would lose itsevidentiary value---Longer the Police custody of accused, the lesser was the evidentiary value ofthe confession---Where delayed retracted confessional statement of accused lackedcorroboration in material aspects, and was not supported by reliable evidence or strongcorroborative circumstances, intrinsic worth of the confessional statements, would remainsuspicious and for such reasons, same could not form the basis of conviction of accused.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.