Summary: Petitioners are father and sisters of a deceased government employee. They are aggrieved that they are not being allowed to retain the government accommodation allowed to the deceased and now post demise their entitlement

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Though a statement can be recorded by a Magistrate under Section: 164 Cr.P.C. yet during the course of an investigation under Chapter XIV of Cr.P.C. or at any time thereafter, but before commencement of an inquiry or trial and it goes without saying that investigation always commences after registration of the case. However, under Section: 174-A Cr.P.C., statement of a person, who has sustained grievous burn injuries, can be recorded immediately even before registration of case or commencement of the investigation.

Summary: It is observed with all clarity that a decree for declaration is not executable in terms of Order XXI CPC. It is trite law that whenever a Civil Court passes a decree for declaration, the revenue authorities are under obligation to act upon the same while considering it as a primary obligation. A decree for declaration cannot be put to execution in ordinary manner as prescribed under Order XXI CPC and instead such a decree is to be presented to the revenue officer for attestation of mutation and its incorporation in the revenue record in the mode prescribed under section 42 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: For an agreement required to be proved by the parameters of section 68 of the Evidence Act-1872, one witness would have sufficed to support the Seller, provided the Seller's own evidence is credible and plausible, and then the produced marginal witness has some logical flow and consistency; otherwise, it militates against the proof of disputed documents.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---Case property---Interim release of mobile phone---Digital evidence---Mobile phone recovered during investigation, documented through recovery memo and subjected to forensic examination---Forensic report disclosed relevant defamatory and incriminating material---Device consequently assumed character of case property as well as material piece of evidence for investigation and trial---Release before determination of its evidentiary value could create reasonable apprehension of tampering, alteration, deletion or loss of digital evidence. (b) Criminal procedure---Electronic device---Positive forensic report---Effect---Where incriminating material was recovered from a digital device during lawful forensic examination, mere claim of ownership did not entitle claimant to immediate return of device---Requirement to preserve integrity and availability of electronic evidence prevailed until Trial Court had examined its relevance and evidentiary worth. (c) Criminal procedure---Interim custody of property---Claim of lawful ownership---Ownership and evidentiary necessity---Even where petitioner asserted that recovered property belonged to him or his family, release could be declined where article had direct relevance to pending criminal proceedings and constituted material evidence---Temporary retention of such property did not amount to permanent deprivation of ownership. (d) Criminal revision---Scope of revisional jurisdiction---Order refusing release of case property---Revisional Court would not interfere unless impugned order suffered from illegality, material irregularity, jurisdictional defect or perversity---Trial Court had considered nature of recovered mobile phone, positive forensic result and relevance of device to pending proceedings---No ground warranting revisional interference was established. (e) Digital evidence---Preservation---Chain of custody---Where electronic device was retained as case property, Investigating Officer was under obligation to preserve both physical device and its digital contents in accordance with law---Proper chain of custody was required to be maintained so that integrity of evidence remained intact and no prejudice was caused to either prosecution or accused during trial. (f) Criminal procedure---Gold ornaments and cash allegedly taken by investigating agency---Absence of recovery record---Petitioner sought release of five tolas of gold and cash amounting to Rs.350,000, but record did not establish that such articles had been recovered by Investigating Officer during investigation---No direction for their release could be issued in absence of documented recovery or custody. Disposition---Criminal revision dismissed as devoid of merit---Order declining release of iPhone 13 Pro Max maintained---Investigating Officer directed to preserve mobile phone and its digital contents in accordance with law and maintain proper chain of custody. Humayun Rind Baloch v. The State, Criminal Revision No.44 of 2026, Islamabad High Court, decided on 08.06.2026.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending