Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Civil servants cannot be given liberty to invoke constitutional jurisdiction of High Court in matters relating to terms and conditions of their service in the garb of challenging laws/notifications, in presence of Article 212 of the Constitution and rider "no other adequate remedy" provided in Article 199 of the Constitution. 518STR (Sales Tax Reference)- STR (Sales Tax Reference) 41-24 RUKSHANDA ASAD VS CIR ETC Mr. Justice Asim Hafeez 29- 04- 2025 2025 LHC 2758 2025 PTD 932 [Lahore High Court (Rawalpindi Bench)

Summary: The concept of trust envisages that one person (the settlor), while relying on another (the trustee) and reposing special confidence in him, entrusts property or assets to him. There is a fiduciary relationship between the two in law. In this context, Section 405 PPC defines criminal breach of trust as follows: "405. Criminal breach of trust.? Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property, in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits criminal breach of trust." The necessary ingredients of criminal breach of trust under the above provision are, (i) the accused must be entrusted with property or dominion over it, and (ii) he must have dishonestly misappropriated the property or converted it to his own use, or disposed of it in violation of the trust. The general punishment is provided under Section 406 PPC, whereas aggravated forms of the offence are addressed under Sections 407 to 409 PPC. 5. The first condition under Section 405 PPC involves three key elements, entrustment, dominion, and property. "Entrustment" refers to the transfer of possession for a specific purpose without conferring ownership. "Dominion" implies control or authority over the property. The term "property" is used broadly and should not be confined to movable assets alone. However, the presence of "entrustment" and "dominion" must be assessed in the context of the relationship between the parties and the nature of the property allegedly misappropriated. Notably, a breach of trust can only occur if the property belongs to someone other than the accused. 6. The ingredients necessary to constitute an offence under Section 408 PPC are not reflected in the contents of the crime report. A master-servant relationship between the complainant and the petitioner, and the question of whether any entrustment of property actually took place, are factual issues that can only be determined after recording of evidence during the trial. 517Service 42822/21 Tassawar Ali Khan etc Vs POP etc Mr. Justice Malik Waqar Haider Awan 29- 04- 2025 2025 LHC 2787 2025 PLC (CS) 1051 (Lahore High Court)

Summary: The incident in this case took place on 12.06.2019, examination in chief of Muhammad Adeel (PW-2) as well as Ghulam Ali (PW-3) was recorded on 20.10.2020. However, cross-examination over Muhammad Adeel (PW-2) was recorded on 16.06.2021, whereas cross-examination upon Ghulam Ali (PW-3) was recorded on 08.06.2021. It is relevant to mention that with the passage of time human memory fails regarding any particular event and the facts cannot be reiterated in the photographic manner, particularly when in this case occurrence took place in the year 2019, examination in chief of PWs was recorded in the year 2020 and cross-examination was conducted in the year 2021. Then, mere slip of tongue of any matter by such witness cannot destroy evidentiary value of their testimony and their evidence cannot be considered unreliable on this score. 516Crl. Misc- Pre- arrest Bail 1832- B-25 DANISH RIAZ DAR VS STATE ETC Mr. Justice Malik Javid Iqbal Wains 29- 04- 2025 2025 LHC 2901 2025 MLD 1374 [Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench)]

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Availing of loan facility against mortgage of agricultural land, which loan was compulsorily got insured with the Insurance Company by the Bank against paid premium by the insured. The crops were badly affected due to heavy flood upon which it was declared calamity hit area by the government. Insurance claim filed but the Insurance Company denied payment of said claim on the ground that Insurance Policy was obtained through Bank and insured has no right to directly lodge insurance claim. Held that Bank has compulsorily got its advanced amount of loan on payment of premium by the loanee. Thus the said insured person is entitled to receive the insurance claim from the Insurance Company. The appeal of Insurance Company stood dismissed. 514Murder Reference 2561267.146-

Summary: An appellate court dealing with an appeal under Section 14 of the Act, 1964 not only is vested with the inherent power to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution but it can also restore the same on showing sufficient cause by the appellant if his appeal has been dismissed on account of default. 513Regular First Appeal (R.F.A) (Final Decree) 29992/22 Adamjee Insurance Company through Tameez ul Haq Ltd Vs Muhammad Ramzan etc Mr. Justice Ch. Muhammad Iqbal 29- 04- 2025 2025 LHC 3373 2025 CLD 1632 (Lahore)

Summary: Law does not permit the Court to pick and choose a sentence from the entire evidence and base its decision while reading only that sentence in favour of the appellant, in isolation to the remaining evidence available on record. We are sanguine that the Federal and Provincial Governments are conscious of their duty to take necessary steps for implementation of Article 251 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, in the light of directions given by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in case reported as "Muhammad Kokab Iqbal and another vs. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Cabinet Division, Islamabad and others" (PLD 2015 Supreme Court 1210). Most of the witnesses in the Province of Punjab give their evidence in Urdu, which the accused can also easily understand, for the reason, if the evidence of a witness dictated by the Presiding Officer in English is simultaneously translated in Urdu, it shall become convenient for the Presiding Officer to comply with the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. as well. This practice shall definitely reduce the chance of any violation of the right of fair trial given to the parties in terms of Article 10-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. All the learned Judges of Sessions Courts and Special Courts in the Province of Punjab shall ensure that whenever the evidence of a witness is recorded in English, its translation in Urdu shall be reduced into writing simultaneously at the same sitting as well as in the presence of witness(es), accused and the Presiding Officer and then the provisions contained in Section 360, Cr.P.C. shall also be adhered to in letter and spirit so that if any ambiguity in the evidence recorded in English comes on the surface of record, the same can be then and there removed in the light of translation of evidence in Urdu. 512Writ Petition- Family- Dissolution of Marriage 2787-19 AHMED AMIN VS DISTRICT JUDGE ETC Mr. Justice Mirza Viqas Rauf 29- 04- 2025 2025 LHC 3536 PLD 2026 Lahore 7