Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, sought bail in a case registered under section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C.) at Police Station Shalimar, Islamabad. The case stemmed from allegations by the complainant, who accused the petitioner of dishonestly issuing cheques towards repayment of a loan or fulfilling an obligation, which were subsequently dishonoured by the bank. ----Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the allegations against him. Whether the offences charged fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), thereby allowing bail. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court deliberated on the nature of the offences and the punishment prescribed under sections 489-F and 406 of the P.P.C. It noted that while section 406 provides for imprisonment up to seven years for criminal breach of trust, section 489-F offers imprisonment up to three years, a fine, or both, for dishonestly issuing a dishonoured cheque. Given the potential punishment and the provision for evidence to absolve the accused in section 489-F, the court concluded that imprisonment was unlikely, and the accused might only face a fine. The court also emphasized the principle that bail is the rule when an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., citing relevant precedents. Moreover, the court found no exceptional circumstances to deny bail to the petitioner, noting his lack of criminal history and the absence of any previous FIRs against him. Therefore, the petitioner was granted bail upon furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. ----Citations/Precedents: Zafar Iqbal v. Muhammad Anwar and others (2009 SCMR 1488) Shameel v. The State and others (2009 SCMR 174) Riaz Jaffar Natiq v. Muhammad Nadeem Dar and others (2011 SCMR 1708) Sikandar Zaman v. The State and others (2011 SCMR 870) Muhammad Jamil v. The State (PLJ 2011 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1087) Kshif Khan v. The State (2009 PCr.LJ 418)

Summary: Section 115 CPC. Powers conferred under this section extend to final decision of the case including interlocutory orders against which no appeal is provided---(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)------S. 115---Revision---Term "case decided "---Scope---Power of revision is conferredupon High Court and the same is required to be exercised within the ambit of section 115,C.P.C.---Language used in section 115, C.P.C. empowers a court to exercise jurisdictionin "any case which has been decided"---Terms suit, judgment, order or decree have notbeen used in section 115, C.P.C., rather the term "case"has been used, thus the meaningcannot be restricted only to a final decision of a case---Term "case decided" is to be seenin broader concept and it can be extended to the orders made, while proceedings with thecase by Trial Court, which only determined a part of the case and such determination hadan effect on the rights of parties, while proceeding to ultimate decision of the case---Interlocutory order, which deals with a substantial question in controversy betweenparties and affect their right comes within the ambit of `case decided'---Powers conferredunder section 115 C.P.C. cannot be restricted only to the extent of final decision of thecase, rather it includes interlocutory orders also against which no appeal is provided.Messrs National Security Insurance Company Limited v. Messrs Hoechst PakistanLimited 1992 SCMR 718 and Haji Sakhi Dost Jan v. Pakistan Narcotics Control Board 1998 SCMR 1798 rel.(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------0. XIII, Rr.1 & 2 & S.115---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss-42 & 54---Suit fordeclaration and injunction---Documentary evidence, production of---Delay in seekingpermission---Defendants resisted he suit on the plea of being owners in possession of suitproperty---Defendants claimed that half portion. of the property was already in theirownership, while remaining half portion was gifted to them by the owner---Defendantsfiled application under O.XIII, Rr.1 and 2 C.P.C. to produce will/gift deed executed bythe donor in favour of defendants, which application was dismissed by Trial Court---Validity---Mandatory for the parties to file all documents relied upon at the first date ofhearing of the suit and in case of failure they were restrained from producing the same atlater stage---Exception to such rule was provided under O.XIII, R.2, C.P.C. wherebydiscretion lay with the court to allow production of a document, subject to the conditionthat a good cause was shown to the satisfaction of the court for non production of thedocument at required stage---If at the time of filing of written statement, defendants werenot in custody of the document but they were surely in knowledge of it, there was noexplanation that what restrained them from obtaining copy of the same from concernedoffice during all those years---Defendants failed to show any reasonable cause to allowthem for production of a document, which surely was in their possession and shown to befiled along with written statement---Jurisdiction vested in court, under section 115, C.P.C.was limited to the extent provided therein and the party aggrieved had to make out a casewithin the provided ambit to get an order by High Court under section 115, C.P.C.-Defendants did not establish any illegality or material irregularity committed by the courtbelow, while exercising its discretion under 0.XIII, Rr. 1 and 2, C.P.C.---High Courtdeclined to interfere in the order, as Trial Court had properly assessed the application andrecorded findings, which did not suffer from any illegality or irregularity---Revision wasdismissed in circumstances.Muhammad Afzal v. Khushal PLD 2004 Azad (J&K) 43; Muhammad Hanif v. Mst.Parsan Bibi 1996 MLD 1158; Mian Muhammad Luqman v. Farida Khanam 1994 SCMR991; Haji Baz Muhammad v. Mst Humera alias Shireen Taj PLD 2003 Quetta 128;Nawabzada Malik Habibullah Khan v. The Paki Cement Industries Limited 1969 SCMR965 and Muhammad Umar Mirza v. Waris Iqbal 1990 SCMR 964 ref.(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)------S. 115 & 0.XIII, Rr.l & 2-Non-production of document in time---Revision---Scope. Muhammad Afzal v. Khushal PLD 2004 Azad (J&K) 43; Muhammad Hanif v. Mst.Parsan Bibi 1996 MLD 1158; Mian Muhammad Luqman v. Farida Khanam 1994 SCMR991; Haji Baz Muhammad v. Mst Humera alias Shireen Taj PLD 2003 Quetta 128;Nawabzada Malik Habibullah Khan v. The Paki Cement Industries Limited 1969 SCMR965 and Muhammad Umar Mirza v. Waris Iqbal 1990 SCMR 964 ref.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.