Summary: Summary pending

Summary: ICA in WP 4025/2016. Service Matter, Promotion

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Bail After Arrest in Case FIR No. 91/20 Dated 02.07.2020 Offence U/s 322/279/337/427 PPC, PS Shams Colony, Islamabad

Summary: Education matter, seeking direction for issance of registarion certificate as professional engineer

Summary: Circumstances Called for further inquiry within the meaning of S. 497(2), CrPC to prove as well as determine the guilt of petitioner (Accused) since the case falls within the ambit of further investigation for which accused is no longer required therefore concession of bail is extended to the accused for being female/women.

Summary: Section 513 of Cr.PC provided that if accused made an application the court might accord permission to accused to deposit a sum of money or bank guarantee or even promissory note of such amount as court might fix in lieu of executing such bonds. S.513 seem to be exacted in interest of accused who could be stronger in an area where case was registered against her/him. Court do have discretion to allow.

Summary: Held: (i) It is for the complainant to establish his presence on the spot and to tell that why the dead body was not taken either to the hospital or to the local police station to register the case and that why they kept on waiting till arrival of the local police to the spot, despite presence of the complainant and eye-witness at the time of incident no efforts were made to approach the local Police Station to register the case, rather the complainant kept on waiting on the spot till the police arrived.(ii) The appellant right from beginning attempted hot to bring on record his plea to which we cannot close our eyes, it beings with an application submitted to the Deputy Inspector General of Police for fair investigation in the matter where he took the plea of his innocence.(iii) could it be taken into consideration to benefit the accused/ appellant, we do not find ourselves in agreement with the learned counsel, as this Court is yet to see as to which of the theories is more probable, we cannot deny the efforts of the appellant to bring on record his plea and even he ran the risk to be examined under section 340(2) Cr.P.C and to produce defence witnesses, knowing the fact that he and his witnesses were to stand the test of cross-examination.(iv) We have before us the legality of the awarded sentence and we are to thrash it out as to whether the sentence awarded will meet the ends of justice. The overall impact of what has been stated above leads us nowhere but to hold that the occurrence was the result of free fight and that both the sides twisted the facts to their favour, hence, in such eventuality the quantum of sentence calls for interference, resultantly, we partially allow this appeal by altering the conviction awarded to the appellant under Section 302(b) P.P.C to one under Section 302(c) P.P.C.

Summary: It is manifest that by the amendment in the KP Tenancy Act, 1950 with title Khyber Pukhunkhwa Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 2014, under section 3A the right of the tenant would not be regarded as inheritable to the successor.

Summary: Acquittal granted----The appeal involved the challenging of a judgment against Riaz Ahmad, who was convicted under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Riaz Ahmad received a four-year rigorous imprisonment sentence, along with a fine of Rs. 8,000, and in default, an additional four months and fifteen days of simple imprisonment. The appellant argued that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The main contention lies in the inadequacy of the protocols mentioned in the report of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, as per the appellant's counsel. They asserted that the lack of detailed protocols raises doubts about the reliability of the evidence. Conversely, the Deputy Prosecutor General supports the trial court's decision, claiming that the prosecution successfully proved its case. The court, in its analysis, emphasized the strict construction required for cases under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act. It refers to legal precedents, such as "Muhammad Hashim v. The State" and "Ameer Zeb v. The State (PLD 2004 Supreme Court 856)," highlighting the stringent proof needed in such cases. The pivotal issue revolved around the report of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency (Ex.PE). The court finds that this report lacks essential details regarding protocols and test specifics. Relying on the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, and citing precedents like "The State through Regional Director ANF v. Imam Bakhsh (2018 SCMR 2039)," the court deems the report inconclusive, unreliable, and insufficient to support the conviction. The court ultimately allows the appeal, setting aside the trial court's judgment and acquitting Riaz Ahmad based on the benefit of doubt. Notably, the court draws attention to the precedent set in "Khair-ul-Bashar," wherein the Supreme Court acquitted an accused on similar grounds.