Summary: We have also observed that in case in hand the prosecution has failed to prove the safe custody of the recovered charas and its safe transmission to Chemical Examiner. The recovery of charas was allegedly affected on 20.10.2017 and the sealed samples were sent for chemical analysis on 23.10.2017; however, it is not known as to where and in whose possession the alleged samples were kept during intervening period. PW-1 Excise Inspector Gul Muhammad Bhutto, the complainant/ I.O has not furnished in his evidence any detail regarding safe custody of the alleged samples, therefore, no evidence is available in record to prove the safe custody of the recovered substance at the Excise police station and its safe transmission from said place to the office of Chemical Examiner. It has been held by the Apex Court in the cases of Abdul Ghani and others v. The State and others (2019 SCMR 608), Faizan Ali v. The State (2019 SCMR 1649), The State through Regional Director ANF v. Imam Bukhsh and others (2018 SCMR 2039), Ikramullah and others v. The State (2015 SCMR 1002) and Amjad Ali v. The State (2012 SCMR 577) that in a case where safe custody of the recovered substance or safe transmission of sample of the recovered substance is not proved by the prosecution through any independent evidence, it cannot be said with any degree of confidence that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case against an accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Summary: The appellants' main arguments were centered around the requirement of obtaining insurance as a condition for availing the bank's facility. They asserted that the loss caused by a riot was covered by insurance policies, with the premiums paid by them. Instead of utilizing the insurance, the bank had filed a recovery suit against them. The appellants contended that the plaint filed by the bank was inconsistent with Section 9 of the Ordinance. They stated that the insurance provisions did not override other aspects of the finance agreement and security documentation, which maintained the obligation to repay despite insurance arrangements. They noted that the application raised issues concerning insurance arrangements and non-compliance with Section 9 of the Ordinance. The judges emphasized that the Banking Court should thoroughly consider the arguments and documents submitted by both parties when deciding on a leave to defend application, as established by legal precedents. The judges found that the Leave Dismissal Order had not adequately addressed the arguments and objections raised by the appellants. The court ruled that the order was rendered in haste and failed to meet the requirements set by previous court decisions. As a result, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the Leave Dismissal Order and the Impugned Judgment, and remanded the case back to the Banking Court for a fresh determination of the leave to defend application in accordance with the law. The judges emphasized that their observations should not prejudice the proceedings before the Banking Court during the fresh adjudication.

Summary: Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (Delay in Identification Parade)----For an identification parade to be properly held, it is essential that it must be conducted soon after the arrest of the accused and that accused is not shown to the witnesses before the identification parade. However, the said guidelines were not followed.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, the Chief Minister of Punjab, challenged two orders dated 19.12.2022 and 22.12.2022 issued by the Governor of Punjab. In these orders, the Governor invoked Article 130(7) of the Constitution, declaring that the Chief Minister no longer commanded the confidence of the Punjab Assembly, thereby ceasing to hold office and dissolving the Provincial Cabinet. The Governor required the Chief Minister to continue in office until a successor took charge under Article 133 of the Constitution. The petitioner argued that the Governor’s orders were premature and unreasonable as they provided only two days for a vote of confidence, while procedural norms require a more extended period. The petitioner also contended that the Governor’s orders were based on an incorrect assessment of the situation and that no Assembly session had been held to confirm the alleged loss of confidence. -----Issues: 1- Whether the Governor's decision to direct the Chief Minister to seek a vote of confidence under Article 130(7) of the Constitution was legally valid. 2- Whether the two-day period provided for the vote of confidence was reasonable and in line with constitutional and procedural norms. 3- Whether the dissolution of the Provincial Cabinet without holding a vote of confidence was legally justified. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Governor’s Direction for Vote of Confidence: The court held that the Governor could only invoke Article 130(7) of the Constitution if there was a reasonable basis to believe that the Chief Minister had lost the confidence of the Assembly. The petitioner argued that the Governor’s satisfaction must be based on objective criteria, and mere assumptions or differences of opinion between the Governor and the Speaker of the Assembly were not sufficient to justify invoking Article 130(7). ---- Reasonableness of Time for Vote of Confidence: The court noted that the Governor had given only two days for the vote of confidence, which the petitioner argued was unreasonable compared to the ten days provided in previous judgments, such as Pir Sabir Shah vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1994 SC 738). The petitioner claimed that more time was required under constitutional and procedural rules. Dissolution of Provincial Cabinet: The court recognized that dissolving the Provincial Cabinet without an actual vote of confidence had significant legal implications, particularly in light of the Messrs Mustafa Impex vs. Government of Pakistan (PLD 2016 SC 808) case, which emphasized the need for a functioning cabinet to conduct government affairs. ----- Undertaking by Petitioner: During the hearing, the petitioner provided a written undertaking not to dissolve the Assembly if the court suspended the Governor’s orders and restored the Chief Minister and Cabinet to their original positions. Interim Relief: The court suspended the Governor's orders, holding them in abeyance until the next hearing. The petitioner and the Provincial Cabinet were restored, but the petitioner was not precluded from voluntarily seeking a vote of confidence. -----Citations/Precedents: Pir Sabir Shah vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1994 SC 738) Mian Manzoor Ahmad Wattoo vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1997 Lahore 38) Messrs Mustafa Impex vs. Government of Pakistan (PLD 2016 SC 808)

Summary: The Punjab Protection of Women against Violence Act, 2016 is most dynamic and comprehensive piece of legislation which not only deals with domestic violence but violence as a whole against women. The Provincial Government shall take every measure for its strict compliance and implementation in an earnest manner to play its role to 'orange the world'.

Summary: Appellant/defendant in FAO No.59/2019 entered into a Joint Venture Agreement dated 06.09.2008 regarding the property owned by the respondents/plaintiffs, and for the purpose of development and management of the same, exclusive control whereof was given to the appellant/defendant and pursuant to the same, the tenant was inducted in the property after the same was developed, who is appellant in connected FAO No.64/2019, through a separate Tenancy Agreement. The Joint Venture Agreement contained arbitration clause which was invoked when the suit for cancellation of the Joint Venture Agreement as well as the Tenancy Agreement was instituted by the respondents/plaintiffs and in pursuance thereof, arbitration was conducted and award dated 31.12.2018 was made in terms of TORs settled between the parties and it was held that the appellant/defendant committed breach of the Joint Venture Agreement as well as the Tenancy Agreement, therefore, the same were cancelled and the tenant was also declared as illegal occupant. Objection petitions filed by the appellant/defendant as well as the tenant were rejected and the award was made Rule of the Court. Held: Learned Arbitrator has rightly appreciated the evidence and found the appellant/defendant to be in material breach of terms of the Joint Venture Agreement by not maintaining the proper accounts of the Joint Venture including the payments received from the tenant and sharing the said income with the respondents/plaintiffs and also by not getting the accounts audited that were material terms of the Joint Venture Agreement and findings of the learned Arbitrator to that extent cannot be looked into by the Trial Court or by this Court in appeal inasmuch as it is settled law that the Courts have supervisory jurisdiction in arbitration matters and the award made therein cannot be set aside on the ground that it was erroneous or that the Arbitrator could possibly have reached some other decision. However, the tenant/appellant in connected FAO No.64/2019 though was defendant in the suit instituted by the respondents/plaintiffs was prevented from nominating the arbitrator and was otherwise not bound by the arbitration proceedings, therefore, the award to his extent is liable to be modified in terms of Section 24 read with Section 21 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Connected Appeal No.64/2019 was accordingly allowed.

Summary: Background: The petitioners filed constitutional petitions challenging the validity of Section 8(2)(b) of the Finance Act, 2022. This section imposed a capital value tax on the foreign assets of resident individuals. The petitioners argued that the legislation exceeded the Parliament's territorial jurisdiction and legislative competence, particularly concerning the taxation of immovable property located outside Pakistan. They claimed that taxing foreign assets, including immovable property, violated the constitutional limits set for the Parliament, as the authority to tax immovable property falls within the exclusive domain of provincial legislatures. -----Issues: 1- Legislative Competence: Does the Parliament have the authority under Entry 50 of the Federal Legislative List to impose a tax on the capital value of foreign assets? ---- 2- Territorial Jurisdiction: Is taxing foreign immovable property outside the territorial scope of the Parliament's legislative power? ---- 3- Exclusion Clause in Entry 50: Does the exclusion of taxes on immovable property in Entry 50 of the Federal Legislative List prevent Parliament from taxing foreign immovable property? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Legislative Competence: The court upheld the constitutionality of Section 8(2)(b) of the Finance Act, 2022, concluding that the tax was on the capital value of assets, not directly on immovable property. This distinction allows the Parliament to impose the tax under Entry 50 of the Federal Legislative List. The exclusion of taxes on immovable property did not restrict Parliament's authority to impose a tax on the capital value of foreign assets. Territorial Jurisdiction: The court reasoned that the tax was imposed on the resident individual and not the foreign assets themselves, making it valid within the territorial scope of Parliament’s jurisdiction. The court rejected the argument that the legislation unlawfully extended to foreign territories, as the tax was on the total capital value of assets, including foreign assets, owned by residents of Pakistan. Exclusion Clause in Entry 50: The court interpreted the exclusion clause in Entry 50 to mean that the Parliament could not impose taxes directly on immovable property. However, it emphasized that a tax on the capital value of assets is distinct from a tax on immovable property, allowing Parliament to impose the tax in question. The court found no merit in the arguments related to international treaties or double taxation regimes, as these were beyond the scope of the judicial review jurisdiction in this case. All petitions were dismissed, and Section 8(2)(b) of the Finance Act, 2022, was declared constitutional and intra vires. -----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Khalid Qureshi v. Province of Punjab (2017 CLC 523) Pakistan Mobile Communication Ltd. & others v. Pakistan/Federation of Pakistan & others (2022 125 Tax 401 H.C. Kar.) Pakistan International Freight Forwarders ASSN v. Province of Sindh & others (2016 114 Tax 413 H.C. Kar.) Haji Farman Ullah v. Latif-ur-Rehman (2015 SCMR 1708) Haji Muhammad Shafi & others v. Wealth Tax Officer, Circle IV, Karachi (PLD 1989 Karachi 15) Messrs I.C.C. Textile Ltd. & others v. Federation of Pakistan (2001 SCMR 1208) Federation of Pakistan & others v. Shaukat Ali Mian & others (PLD 1999 SC 1026) Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (2018 SCMR 802) Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Dr. Karan Singh & others (1993 SCR (1) 560) Sudhir Chandra Nawn v. Wealth Tax Officer, Calcutta ([1969] 1 S.C.R 108)

Summary: Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Appeal (Appeal dismissed. During encounter PC was killed, accused Confessed before Magistrate ,and admitted in Statement U/S 342)----The prosecution relied on witness testimonies, medical reports, and forensic evidence to establish the guilt of the accused individuals. The defense contested the charges, alleging police misconduct and insufficient evidence.The court ultimately found the prosecution's evidence to be credible and compelling, supporting the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. It dismissed the defense's claims of innocence and upheld the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court. The judgment referenced various legal precedents and emphasized the importance of deterring offenses against law enforcement personnel.In its decision, the court highlighted the reliance on witness testimonies, forensic reports, and the absence of mitigating circumstances to justify its ruling. The judgment underscored the need to maintain the integrity of law enforcement efforts and uphold accountability for criminal acts. Therefore, the court rejected the appeals filed by the appellants and affirmed the lower court's decision in its entirety.

Summary: Scope of Arbitration Act,1940 Section 34-----The case involves a plaintiff, a public limited company engaged in the manufacturing, selling, and distribution of gases, seeking recovery of Rs. 65,76,233 from the defendant. The plaintiff had supplied various gases to the defendant as per agreements, but the defendant ceased payments in March 2009, leading to a dispute.Despite repeated demands for payment, the defendant issued post-dated cheques, which were subsequently dishonored due to insufficient funds. The plaintiff filed a suit under Order XXXVII Rule 1 & 2 CPC and also lodged an FIR for the dishonored cheques. The defendant, after being declared ex parte, filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, claiming the suit should be stayed as per the arbitration clause in the agreements.The court deliberated on precedents and arguments presented by both parties. The defendant argued for a stay based on the arbitration clause, while the plaintiff emphasized the absence of a genuine dispute and the defendant's default in payment.After considering the submissions, the court dismissed the defendant's application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The court found that the defendant failed to demonstrate any genuine dispute warranting arbitration. It highlighted that the dishonor of cheques constituted an independent cause of action, not subject to arbitration under Section 34. The court also distinguished previous cases cited by both parties based on their specific facts and circumstances.Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, denying the defendant's request for a stay and affirming the continuation of the suit proceedings.

Summary: Bail Cancellation (Bail order Maintained) Application has sought for cancellation of bail which was granted to the private respondents by learned Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court. It is alleged that the private respondents after having formed an unlawful assembly and prosecution of their common object demanded Bhatta of rupees five lac from the applicant to cultivate his landed property, the firingallegedly made at the applicant and his witnesses proved to be ineffective one; no Bhatta was paid by the applicant; the parties are already disputed over landed property and the very case on investigation was found to be false by the police and recommended to be cancelled under Cclass. Criminal Miscellaneous Application is dismissed.