Summary: The Review Petition was validly decided by Member (Judicial-II), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore which was not only within the prescribed period of limitation but was also within the scope of Section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957 as it also corrected an error floating on the record, thereby, cancelling the mutation in favour of the Petitioners and restoring the mutation passed in favour of the Respondents relating to their independent claim qua allotted land in lieu of their personal unsatisfied verified claim which had no nexus with separately allotted land to Dargah.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: The Review Petition was validly decided by Member (Judicial-II), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore which was not only within the prescribed period of limitation but was also within the scope of Section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957 as it also corrected an error floating on the record, thereby, cancelling the mutation in favour of the Petitioners and restoring the mutation passed in favour of the Respondents relating to their independent claim qua allotted land in lieu of their personal unsatisfied verified claim which had no nexus with separately allotted land to Dargah. 729Misc. Writ 8508/25 Rana Zafar Ullah Vs Abdul Ghafoor etc. Mr. Justice Malik Javid Iqbal Wains 12- 02- 2025 2025 LHC 438 2025 MLD 1913 (Lahore)

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 201---Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of an offence, or giving false information to screen an offender---Appreciation of evidence---Presence of the eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence not proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---In examination-in-chief, one of the prosecution witnesses had admitted that he had not seen the appellant/convict while firing at the deceased---Said witness had also exonerated the presence of eye-witness which was his own brother---Even otherwise, eye-witness had stated that he along with the deceased were going to the house of his paternal uncle, while his brother/witness had recorded contradictory statement to that of eye-witness, as he had stated that he was coming from the house of his paternal uncle---Hence, keeping in view the facts and circumstances coupled with the conduct of eye-witness and his contradictory statement with his brother/witness, High Court reached the conclusion that the occurrence was an un-witnessed one and nobody was present at the time of murder of the deceased and as such, it would cast serious doubts on the case of the prosecution, benefit of which must be given to the appellant/convict---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Iftikhar Hussain and others v. The State 2004 SCMR 1185 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 201---Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of an offense, or giving false information to screen an offender---Appreciation of evidence---Credibility of FIR doubtful--- Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Occurrence had allegedly taken place in the presence of two witnesses, who managed the shifting of dead body of the deceased to hospital, while the report was not recorded by them rather they waited for the arrival of brother of the deceased---No doubt, the complainant had stated in his statement that the occurrence, besides others, had been witnessed by eye-witness---Said fact created doubt over the credibility of the FIR for the reason that why the real brothers-in-law, whose sister was married to the deceased, had not reported the matter at their own rather waited for the arrival of the complainant, which otherwise casted serious doubts---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 201---Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of an offense, or giving false information to screen an offender---Appreciation of evidence---No justification for the presence of witnesses at the time and place of occurrence---Chance witnesses---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Occurrence had taken place on 17.10.2019 while the pointation had been made by eye-witness on 18.10.2019 and his statement was also recorded, then question was why his report was delayed for almost 24 hours---As such, the statements of both the eye-witnesses would be considered as chance witnesses---No doubt, said witnesses had admitted in their cross-examinations that their house was situated at a distance of 700-1000 feet from the place of occurrence but they seemed to be chance witnesses, where they had to show for their presence some physical circumstance, which would suggest that they had actually seen the occurrence and were present with the deceased at the time of occurrence---However, both these witnesses seemed to be chance witnesses and a chance witness was one who should normally be where and when he professed to have been, therefore, his evidence needed strong corroboration, which in the instant case was missing---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Naveed Asghar and 2 others v. The State PLD 2021 SC 600; Mst. Anwar Begum v. Akhtar Hussain alias Kaka and 2 others 2017 SCMR 1710; Mst. Sughra Begum and another v. Qaiser Pervez and others 2015 SCMR 1142 and 2023 YLR 2024 rel. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 201---Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of an offense, or giving false information to screen an offender---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of crime empties from the place of occurrence---Inconsequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Record showed that the Investigating Officer had recovered four empties of 30 bore but astonishingly, same had not been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination to see whether the same had been fired from one and the same weapon or a different one---No doubt, Forensic Science Laboratory Report was available on the file, which had only disclosed that the empties, which were recovered from the place of occurrence, were that of 30 bore---Investigating Officer should have sent the empties recovered from the place of occurrence to the Forensic Science Laboratory with the question as to whether these empties had been fired from one and the same weapon or otherwise---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 201---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of an offense, or giving false information to screen an offender---Appreciation of evidence---Material witness not presented for evidence---Adverse presumption---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---In the instant case, the uncle of eye-witnesses was an important witness, he should have been examined by the prosecution as he met with one of the eye-witnesses on the day of occurrence regarding a certain complaint---Non-examination of the said witness would give rise to an adverse inference in the circumstances of the case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Muhammad Rafique and others v. The State and others 2010 SCMR 385 and Riaz Ahmed v. The State 2010 SCMR 846 rel. (f) Criminal trial--- ----Motive---Scope---Motive is not the requirement of law but it is also equally a settled rule that once a motive is set up by the complainant, then he is bound to prove the same through evidence---In case of failure to do so, the prosecution must suffer the consequence and not the defence. Pathan v. The State 2015 SCMR 315 rel. (g) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Principle---When a simple circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of an accused, then he would be entitled to such benefit not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right. Ayub Masih v. The State PLD 2002 SC 1048 and Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345 rel. Rashid Ali Khan for Appellant/ Convict. Haq Nawaz, A.A.G. for the State. Shah Faisal Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 13th February, 2025.

Summary: Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)--- ----Ss. 126-A, 129 (4) & 133(1)---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.6---Forum of appeal---Pecuniary jurisdiction---Continuing operation of repealed law---Principle---Dispute was with regard to determination of forum of appeal regarding matters where value of assessment of tax or refund of tax did not exceed Rupees 20 million---Held: Principle of continuing operation of a repealed law can only be applied where Legislature does not give the amending Act retrospective effect---Where Legislature gives retrospective effect to provisions of amending Act by express words or necessary intendment, then principle enshrined in S.6 of General Clauses Act, 1897 does not apply and express intention of Legislature in new enactment has to be given effect---High Court declared that cases where value of tax or refund, as the case may be, was less than Rupees 20 million, appeal against order would lie to Commissioner Appeals, and in cases exceeding such amount, appeal would lie to Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, if the order had been communicated to affected parties after the date of commencement of Finance Act, 2024---High Court further declared that appeals having assessment value of tax, or refund of tax, as the case may be, pending before Commissioner appeals on 31-12-2024, stood transferred to Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue by operation of law and were supposed to be decided by the Tribunal; that appeals having value of Rupees 20 million or less and pending before Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue on or before 31-12-2024 would continue to be decided by Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue; that reference against order of Commissioner Appeals filed on communication of the order after commencement of Tax Law (Amendment) Act, 2024 would be entertainable by High Court and would be decided in accordance with amended law; that all cases pending before High Court or sent back to Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue would be dealt in accordance with the declaration made by High Court---High Court directed the parties to approach Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue for seeking sending back of those tax references which had been filed before High Court after Tax Law (Amendment) Act, 2024 and were sent to Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue for re-transfer to High Court in accordance with the declaration so made by High Court, and Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue would be at liberty to send back the cases, despite the earlier directions of High Court in those cases---Reference was disposed of accordingly. Manzoor Ali and 39 others v. United Bank Limited through President 2005 SCMR 1785 and Badshah Gul Wazir v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary and others 2015 SCMR 43 rel. Ghulam Shoaib Jally for Petitioner. Abdullah Shah for Respondent. WIQAR AHMAD, J.--- Through this single judgment, this Court proposes to resolve a preliminary question relating to maintainability of this and connected Tax Reference No. 88/P/2024, Tax Reference No. 129-P/2024, Tax Reference No. 91-P/2024, Tax Reference No. 113-P/2024, Tax Reference No.136-P/2024, Tax Reference No. 142-P/2024, Tax Reference No. 117-P/2024 and Tax Reference No. 118-P/2024, which question is common in all these petitions. (a) In those cases where value of the tax or refund, as the case may be, is less-than twenty million rupees an appeal against the order Commissioner of Appeals shall lie to the Commissioner Appeals and in cases exceeding said amount appeal shall lie to the Appellate Tribunal if the order has been communicated to the effected parties after the date of commencement of the Finance Act, 2024; (d) Reference against order of Commissioner Appeals filed on communication of the order after commencement of tax law (amendment) Act, 2024, shall be entertainable by High Court and shall be decided in accordance with the amended law.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 9(c)--- Possession of narcotic substance---Bail, refusal of---Allegations against the petitioner was that 1070-grams charas was recovered from his possession---Evidently, the contraband recovered comprised of two substantial pieces and seven smaller pieces of charas found in the exclusive possession of the applicant---Material seized was subjected to chemical analysis, confirming it narcotic nature--- Witness statements under S.161 Cr.P.C, substantiated the prosecution narrative---Absence of enmity or malice between the applicant and the complainant underscored the credibility of the recovery---Given the gravity of the offence, which jeopardized public welfare and posed substantial harm to society, the Court emphasises that bail could not be claimed as a matter of right in cases involving narcotics of this magnitude---Furthermore, the prosecution submission regarding the applicant's prior criminal record strengthened the assertion of habitual delinquency, as evidenced by antecedents involving offences---Bail application being devoid of merit was dismissed, in circumstances. 2024 SCMR 934; 2001 MLD 1731 and 2021 PCr.LJ 443 ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Bail Orders---Observations of the Court---Scope---Observations recorded in bail orders are tentative which are confined to the adjudication of bail application and should neither i nfluence the Trial Court's determination on the merits of the case nor prejudice its final verdict. Talat Hussain Laghari for Applicant. Siraj Ahmed Bijarani, Assistant Prosecutor General, Sindh for the State. Date of hearing: 3rd February, 2025. Order Abdul Hamid Bhurgri, J .--- Through instant criminal bail application, the applicant/accused above named seeks his post-arrest bail in Crime No.153 of 2024, under section 9-C of CNS Act, 1997 at P.S. Tando Ghulam Ali. This follows the rejection of his bail application by the learned Sessions Judge, Badin vide order dated 08.11.2024. 2. The Prosecution outlines that on 20.10.2024, the complainant ASI Muhammad Rafique of PS Tando Ghulam Ali, alongside his subordinate staff, intercepted the applicant during the patrol. It is alleged that 1070 gram of Charas were seized from his possession, with the seizure meticulously documented through a Mushirnama in the presence of witnesses. The confiscated contraband and the accused were subsequently transported to the relevant Police station, where the FIR was lodged. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegations are fabricated, concocted by the police to demonstrate their efficiency to higher authorities. The applicant challenges the validity of the seizure, citing the absence of independent witnesses and asserting that the recovery was foisted upon him. Additionally, it is argued that the investigation is complete, and the applicant is no longer required for further inquiry. The counsel emphasis the lack of photographic evidence corroborating the recovery site, ascertaining, that such procedural lacunae necessitate further Inquiry. Reliance has been placed on precedents, including 2022 PCr.LJ Note-86, 2024 SCMR 934, 2001 MLD 1731 and 2021 PCr.LJ 443 to substantiate the request for bail. 4. Conversely, the learned Additional Prosecutor General (APG) contends that the substantial quantity or Narcotics seized renders the applicant's plea untenable The APG highlights that 1070 gram Charas, inherently dangerous to human lives, were recovered directly from the Applicant's possession. He further argued that applicant is habitual offender, which is evident from his criminal record. It is further argued that such heinous crime warrant stringent approach to bail. 5. After hearing the argument and meticulous perusal of the case record, it is evident that the contraband recovered comprising two substantial pieces and seven smaller pieces of Charas was found in the exclusive possession of the applicant. The material seized was subjected to chemical analysis, confirming his Narcotic nature. Witness statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C, substantiate the prosecution narrative. The absence of enmity or malice between the applicant and the complainant underscores the credibility of the recovery. 6. Given the gravity of the offence, which jeopardize public welfare and poses substantial harm to society, the Court emphasis that bail cannot be claimed as a matter of right in cases involving narcotics of this magnitude. Furthermore, the prosecution submission regarding the applicant's prior criminal record strengthens the assertion of habitual delinquency, as evidenced by antecedents involving offences 7. In view of the foregoing this application bail is devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. Though, the facts of case laws so relied upon by the learned counsel for applicant are quite distinguishable from the facts of present case. However, it is expected that the learned trial court to expedite the proceedings and endeavor to conclude the trial, preferably within shortest possible time. The observations recorded herein are tentative which confined to the adjudication by this bail application. They shall neither influence the Trial Court's determination on the merits of the case nor prejudice his final verdict. Bail application is disposed of accordingly. JK/A-33/Sindh Application dismissed.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 436, 427, 504, 147, 148 & 149---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, mischief by fire and explosive substance, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Bail, cancellation of---Record reflected that after registration of case the accused moved an application for grant of pre-arrest bail before the Trial Court, which granted ad-interim pre-arrest bail to him and later on his interim pre-arrest bail was confirmed vide order dated 19.07.2024, which was impugned---Admittedly, there was a dispute between the parties, as disclosed in the memo of FIR as well as Trial Court's order---Furthermore, the strong and cogent reasons were required for recalling of bail granting order, if the bail granting order was perverse or disregarded to the principle regulating grant of bail---Applicant/complainant was unable to demonstrate the principles governing the cancellation of bail---As per tentative assessment, the grounds for cancellation of bail as agitated by the complainant could only be thrashed out at the time of recording evidence of the parties---Since the trial was yet to begin thus no fruitful result would come out to recall the pre-arrest bail order as impugned---No cogent grounds had been established by the applicant to warrant the cancellation of bail---Order granting bail was founded upon settled legal provisions, and thus, no interference was justified---Application for cancellation of bail was dismissed in limine, in circumstances. Muhammad Azhar v. Dilawar 2009 SCMR 1202 rel. Abdul Rasheed Abro for Applicant/Complainant. Date of hearing: 13th February, 2025. Order Abdul Hamid Bhurgri, J .--- The applicant / complainant through the captioned Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 497(5), Cr.P.C seeks cancellation of bail granted to respondent 1 by the learned Sessions Judge, Badin in Cr. Bail Application No.1007 of 2024 (Re-Maqsood v. The State), arising out of Crime No.356 of 2024 registered at Police Station Badin, under Sections 324, 436, 147, 148, 149, 504, 427, P.P.C vide order dated 19.07.2024. 2. The facts of the case are already stated in the memo. of this application, therefore, there is no need to reproduce the same for the sake of brevity. 3. The learned counsel contended that the grant of bail to the accused/respondent No.1 contravenes established principles of law, as a specific role has been explicitly assigned to the respondent/accused. He further argued that there exists compelling evidence on record, which unequivocally links the respondent to the alleged offense. He urged that the respondent / accused after granting bail by the trial Court is misusing the concession of bail by issuing threats to the applicant / complainant. He further submitted that the respondent / accused was nominated in the promptly lodged FIR with specific role, however, the learned trial Court by ignoring the same and without considering the record has granted bail to the accused. Additionally, he submitted that following the grant of bail, the accused resorted to intimidatory tactics, coercing the complainant into withdrawing from the case. He requested that bail of the accused may be recalled. 4. Having meticulously considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, thoroughly examined the case material, and scrutinized the impugned order issued by the Trial Court, the learned Sessions Judge delivered the following operative findings: "Apparently, applicant/ accused person is nominated in FIR with the role that he made fire which hit to tractor. The main contention of learned defence counsel that no any person sustained any injury; apparently from perusal of FIR, no any person sustained any injury. The other main plea of learned defence counsel that there is civil nature dispute between the applicant's father and one Shakoor; such version was not rebutted by learned complainant's counsel. The other main plea of learned applicant's counsel that as per FIR, only one tire of tractor was shown to have been burnt. As per photographs provided by complainant, one cot was shown to have been burnt. S-far plea of learned complainant's counsel that applicant/ accused is involved in two other cases; admittedly, each case is to be decided on its own facts and circumstances. When as per FIR no any person sustained any injury and no photograph showed the tractor was burnt. Moreover, when during the course of arguments the complainant was asked which tire of tractor either front or rear was damaged, he failed to reply satisfactorily. Moreover there is apparently dispute between the parties over the land, therefore, case of the applicant/ accused needed further inquiry." 5. Record reflects that after registration of case the accused moved an application for grant of pre-arrest bail before the learned trial Court, who granted ad-interim pre-arrest bail to him and later on his interim pre-arrest bail was confirmed vide order dated 19.07.2024, which is impugned. Admittedly, there was a dispute between the parties, as disclosed in the memo of FIR as well as trial Court's order. Furthermore, the strong and cogent reasons are required for recalling of bail granting order. For instance if the bail granting order is perverse or disregard to the settled principle regulating grant of bail. The learned Counsel for the applicant / complainant is unable to demonstrate the above settled principle governing the cancellation of bail. The Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Azhar v. Dilawar (2009 SCMR 1202) has observed as under:- "6. It needs no reiteration that considerations for the grant of bail are quite distinct from the consideration for cancellation of bail. Once bail has been granted by a competent Court of law strong and exceptional grounds are required for cancelling the same, as held by this Court on a number of occasions. It is to be seen as to whether order granting bail is patently, illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect and has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Considering the case of the respondent for grant of bail on the above touchstone, we are of the view that learned High Court has rightly reached the conclusion and no exception can be taken to it. The respondent is on bail since 26-1-2009 and he is not shown to have misused the concession of bail. He is entitled to remain on bail " 6. In my tentative assessment, the grounds for cancellation of bail as agitated by learned Counsel for the complainant could only be thrashed out at the time of recording evidence of the parties. Since the trial is yet to begin thus no fruitful result will come out to recall the pre-arrest bail order as impugned. 7. Upon careful deliberation, it is concluded that no cogent grounds have been established by the applicant to warrant the cancellation of bail. The order granting bail, issued by the learned Sessions Court, was founded upon settled legal provisions, and thus, no interference is justified. In such circumstances, the instant application for cancellation of bail is dismissed in limine. JK/A-36/Sindh Application dismissed.