Summary: Acquittal upheld --- The right of fair trial is an integral limb of safe administration of criminal justice to avoid erroneous verdicts. ---- The doctrine of presumption of innocence is structured on the fundamental principle that every person is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty. --- The High Court had acquitted Khurram Shehzad, the respondent No.1, in Criminal Appeal No. 89/2011, where he was initially convicted for the murder of Umar Farooq. The incident, as per the complainant Riaz Ahmed's FIR, involved a motorbike with two unknown assailants who shot and killed Umar Farooq.The petitioner argued that there was sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the respondent No.1, emphasizing the recovery of a .30 bore pistol and positive forensic reports. However, the Deputy Prosecutor General contended that the High Court had appropriately evaluated the evidence, leading to the acquittal.The judgment, delivered by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar on October 27, 2023, scrutinized the evidence and upheld the High Court's decision. It highlighted various shortcomings in the prosecution's case, such as delayed implication of the respondent No.1 and contradictions in the witnesses' statements. The court emphasized the high standard of proof required in criminal cases, stating that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.The judgment also cited principles from previous cases, affirming the narrow scope of interference in appeals against acquittals and the importance of the presumption of innocence. It concluded that the High Court's decision was not illegal or perverse, and accordingly, the Criminal Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.---Quote:(1) Why accused is the ?favourite child of law? and why victim is not the ?favourite child of law?. (2) The right of fair trial is an integral limb of safe administration of criminal justice to avoid erroneous verdicts. (3) The doctrine of presumption of innocence is structured on the fundamental principle that every person is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty.

Summary: Acquittal upheld ---- Issue:Whether the High Court erred in acquitting the respondents based on the evidence of identification parade and recovery of ransom amount. Held: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, upholding the High Court's acquittal of the respondents. ---- The Court found several flaws in the prosecution's case, notably:The identification parade was deemed a nullity due to its joint nature and lack of proper procedure, which failed to ensure the secrecy and reliability of witness identification.The recovery of the ransom amount after two years was deemed implausible and lacked specific evidence linking the recovered money to the ransom, making it unreliable for conviction.The overall lack of corroborative evidence beyond the flawed identification parade and dubious recovery weakened the prosecution's case.Furthermore, the Court emphasized the importance of fair trial, timely justice, and the fundamental rights of individuals. It highlighted systemic issues such as poor investigation, lack of modern investigative techniques, and delays in the judicial process, urging reforms to ensure justice and protect fundamental rights. ''It is the basic duty of the state under Article 37(d) of the constitution to ensure inexpensive and expeditious justice. When the legal machinery fails to deliver justice within a reasonable time, it not only violates the constitutional mandate, but also leads to frustration. The basic duty of the judges is to protect the fundamental rights of every person in all circumstances. Judges are under obligations to discharge their duty and perform their functions with open mind, without any influence or pressure. The government must also take steps to curb the trend of registration of false and frivolous litigation; and to ensure that the frivolous litigants are not let off scot-free for such acts.''

Summary: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- -O. VII, Rr. 11 & 13-Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 3-Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54-Suit for declaration and injunction-Rejecting of plaint-Limitation-Fresh plaint, filing of-Principle-Plaint filed by respondent/plaintiff was rejected by Trial Court but Lower Appellate Court set aside the order of Trial Court-Validity-Mere rejection does not preclude presentation of fresh plaint, provided the underlying defect remains uncured or is incapable of being cured-Rejection on account of limitation and/or res judicata is prima facie incurable defect, which precludes de novo agitation if the infirmity subsisted-Order passed by Lower Appellate Court addressed glaring defects in plaintiff’s case in a perfunctory manner and then proceeded to allow appeal in absence of defects having been justifiably disapplied, cured or distinguished-Law required Court to first determine whether proceedings filed there before were within time and Courts were mandated to conduct such exercise regardless of whether or not any objection had been taken in such regard-Proceedings barred by even a day could be dismissed-Once time began to run, it would run continuously and bar of limitation created vested rights in favour of other party-Matter barred by time had to be dismissed without touching upon merits and once limitation had lapsed, door of adjudication was closed irrespective of pleas of hardship, injustice or ignorance-Provisions of O. VII, R 13, C.P.C. did not merit relief in presence of bar of limitation-Lower Appellate Court disregarded underlying facts and overriding interpretation of law, while rendering order in question and had exercised jurisdiction with manifest irregularity-High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside order passed by Lower Appellate Court and restored that of Trial Court-Revision was allowed, in circumstances. Haji Abdul Karim and others v. Florida Builders (Private) Limited PLD 2012 SC 247; 2009 SCMR 1079; 2007 SCMR 945; 2016 CLC 663; 2010 CLC 1393; 2014 YLR 1082; 2013 YLR 407; Awan Apparels (Private) Limited and others v. United Bank Limited and others 2004 CLD 732; 2001 PLC 272; 2001 PLC 143; 2001 PLC 156; 2020 PLC 82; Shafaatullah Qureshi v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2001 SC 142; Khizar Hayat v. Pakistan Railways 1993 PLC 106; Dr. Anwar Ali Sahito v. Federation of Pakistan 2002 PLC (C.S.) 526; DPO v. Punjab Labour Tribunal 1987 CLC 1397; Muhammad Tufail Danish v. Deputy Director FIA 1991 SCMR 1841; Mirza Muhammad Saeed v. Shahabudin PLD 1983 SC 385; Ch Muhammad Sharif v. Muhammad Ali Khan 1975 SCMR 259; WAPDA v. Aurangzeb 1988 SCMR 1354; 2006 CLC 303; PLD 1980 Pesh. 87 and PLD 1973 Lah. 495 rel. Wali Muhammad Jamari, A.A.G. for the Official Respondents

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Requirements of Rules 16, 17 & 19 of Order V of the CPC qua service of the process clarified.

Summary: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2 & S.104---Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act (XI of 2016), S.13---Temporary injunction against disconnection and transfer of gas meter sought---Pre-condition---Temporary injunction, refusal of---Petitioner preferred an appeal under S.13 of the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016, (Act) against the order of dismissal of application for temporary injunction passed by the Gas Utility Court---Contention of the appellant was that after dissolution of business partnership with the private respondent, the business of the shop and gas meter installed thereon was left in the ownership of the appellant through private settlement---Validity---Private respondent had remained co-partner with the appellant in the business and thereafter, their partnership was dissolved through their private settlement, however, he denied the factum of selling out the subject gas meter to the appellant and the same was still in his name---Private respondent had sold out the meter to another person against consideration---Official respondents highlighted that the appellant was not their consumer and according to their official record, the gas meter was installed in the name of private respondent---For grant of temporary injunction under O.XXXIX R.2, C.P.C., appellant was required to establish the existence of three essential ingredients i.e., a prima facie case, balance of inconvenience and irreparable loss if the interim injunction was not granted in his favour, however, he had not been able to establish the aforesaid ingredients, thus, appellant had no case for grant of temporary injunction---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Javed Iqbal and 5 others v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Local Government, Peshawar and 4 others 2022 CLC 502 and Shahzad Trade Links through Sole Proprietor and another v. MTW Pak Assembling Industries (Private) Limited through Representative and others 2016 CLC 83 rel. Shabir Ahmad Khan (Dawlatkhel for Appellant. Fazal Rabi, Supervisor, SNGPL on behalf of Respondents Nos. 1 to 7. Pukhtun Wali for Respondent No. 8. Date of hearing: 26th October, 2023.

Summary: Punjab Finance Act (XLI of 2012)--- ----Ss. 6(3) & 6(17)---Capital Value Tax on immovable property---General power of attorney---Principle "noscitur a sociis"---Petitioner was aggrieved of refusal of revenue authorities from issuing Fard Malkiat (revenue record) on the plea that Capital Value Tax ('CVT') had not been paid on general power of attorney issued in his favour---Validity---Legislature in S. 6(3) of Punjab Finance Act, 2012 talked about acquisition of immovable property and had used term "power of attorney" alongside other methods such as purchase, gift, exchange, surrender, relinquishment and lease---By applying principle of "noscitur a sociis", it could be inferred that the Legislature intended to impose CVT specifically on a general power of attorney when an individual had acquired immovable property through it and not otherwise---Transfer of ownership for immovable property involves a registered instrument, as mandated by Registration Act, 1908---Such instrument needs registration with Registrar of Documents, requiring payment of stamp duty under Stamp Act, 1899 and a registration fee---This is a straightforward process but an alternative method has emerged in recent years, moving away from the Registrar of Documents---This alternative facilitates private property transfers using documents like transfer letters, agreements to sell and power of attorneys---Provision of S. 6(17) of Punjab Finance Act, 2012 mandates that if CVT is not collected from the person liable to pay it, the outstanding amount may be recovered from him as arrears of land revenue following the procedure outlined in Land Punjab Revenue Act, 1967---Sub-Registrar was not empowered to prohibit issuance of Fard Malkiat to property owner without an injunctive order or attachment order by a Court or competent authority---High Court set aside the order of Sub-Registrar prohibiting issuance of Fard Malkiat to petitioner, as the same was without lawful authority---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. ex parte Sidebotham, (1880) 14 Ch. D. 458; ex parte Official Receiver (1887) 19 QB 174; Mian Fazal Din v. Lahore Improvement Trust and another PLD 1969 SC 223; Hafiz Hamdullah v. Saifullah Khan and others PLD 2007 SC 52; Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. Pakistan through the Commissioner of Income Tax, Lahore Range and others PLD 1978 SC 151; Fazal Karim, Judicial Review of Public Actions, Second Edition, Vol. 3, p. 1474; Sub-Registrar (Rural), Tehsil and District Rawalpindi and others v. Muhammad Ilyas C.P. No. 2926 of 2016; Bisvil Spinners Ltd. v. Superintendent, Central Excise and Land Customs Circle, Sheikhupura and another PLD 1988 SC 370; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Messrs Eli Lilly Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd. 2009 PTD 1392; N.S. Bindra's Interpretation of Statutes, 11th Edition, p. 316; Khan Bahadur Amiruddin v. West Punjab Province PLD 1956 FC 220; Muhammad Amir Khan v. Controller of Estate Duty PLD 1961 SC 119; State of Bombay and others v. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha and others AIR 1960 SC 610; Abdul Hameed v. Province of Punjab and others 2022 CLC 1083 and Pak Gulf Construction Company (Pvt.) Ltd., Islamabad v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2020 SCMR 146 rel. A.R. Aurangzeb for Petitioner. Hafiza Mehnaz Nadeem Abbasi, Assistant Advocate General for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Ch. Muhammad Azhar for Respondents Nos. 4 and 5. Mehmood Ahmad Bhatti for Respondent No. 6. Sher Hassan Pervez, Research Officer, LHCRC. Date of hearing: 26th October, 2023.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending