Summary: The applicant/appellant sought to overturn an order which dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. The crux of the application was the alleged failure to communicate the hearing dates to the appellant's counsel, leading to their non-appearance. The applicant's counsel argued that the non-appearance was a consequence of insufficient communication about the hearing dates. The counsel emphasized the reliance placed on the representation that the appellant's counsel would be duly informed, asserting that the legal system's primary role is to facilitate, not obstruct, the rights of individuals. Several legal precedents were cited to underscore the point that technicalities should not supersede the pursuit of justice. Contrarily, the respondents' counsel contended that the applicant failed to provide sufficient cause for the non-appearance, highlighting the absence of an affidavit from the appellant's counsel. During the proceedings, the court acknowledged that the appellant's counsel had filed a power of attorney and requested an adjournment, yet failed to appear on the scheduled dates. The court stressed the importance of an affidavit from the counsel to explain their absence, emphasizing that the affidavit submitted by an official of the appellant was insufficient. The court dismissed the application for restoration, asserting that the appellant had not adequately demonstrated the reliance placed on the representation of being duly informed about the hearing dates. The judgment highlighted the necessity for both litigants and their counsel to act diligently, underscoring the principle that laws favor those who are vigilant. The court also emphasized that the provision of cause lists to advocates is complementary and lacks legislative backing, placing the responsibility on the litigant and counsel to verify case listings. The court cited the case of Zahid Afzal VS Mst. Fatima Saeed and 3 others (2005 MLD 1407) to support this point. Ultimately, the court exercised its discretion against the appellant, dismissing the restoration application.

Summary: The petitioner, Muhammad Ramzan, along with his brothers, was convicted for committing the murder of Mushtaq Ahmad. The incident occurred due to a dispute over water in the precincts of Police Station Saddar Vehari. The petitioner was sentenced to death, while his brothers were given life imprisonment. The High Court altered the petitioner's penalty to life imprisonment and acquitted the co-convicts.The petitioner's counsel argued that the ocular account provided by the witnesses was unreliable, and there was no motive established for the petitioner's involvement in the murder. The counsel also pointed out discrepancies in the medical examination and crime report, suggesting the possibility of innocent proxies being involved. The Court noted that the entire family had been implicated in the crime, and the single fatal wound did not align with the array of accused individuals.Considering the uncertainty and potential errors in identifying the actual offender, the Court found it unsafe to maintain the petitioner's conviction. The jail petition was converted into an appeal, and the Court acquitted the petitioner of the charges. The impugned judgment was set aside, and the petitioner was ordered to be released forthwith

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions inthe statements of witnesses---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of fatherof complainant by firing---Ocular account of the incident had been furnished bycomplainant/son and widow of the deceased---Complainant mostly reiterated the contents ofhis fard-e-bayan, wherein he had stated that on the day of occurrence, he along with his otherfamily members were present in his house, when the door of the house was knocked by theaccused deceased was prohibited by his mother not to go to the door due to extremeannoyance of accused but despite that deceased went out of, where scuffle took place---Complainant came out from his house, after hearing fire shot and found his father lying inthe pool of blood, while the accused holding pistol in his hand escaped from the place ofoccurrence in a motorcycle---Complainant contradicted his statement as contained in thefard-e-bayan, where he mentioned that on the way to the hospital his father succumbed to theinjuries, while in his court statement he stated that doctor after examination disclosed that hisfather had died---According to complainant at the relevant time the neighbours were gatheredat the spot but neither any neighbour was interrogated nor produced in the Trial Court by theprosecution---Prosecution had failed to produce the persons who had taken the deceased tohospital---Widow of the deceased also contradicted the statement of complainant and statedthat initially her husband was being shifted to a private hospital from where he was beingtaken to civil hospital but on the way to civil hospital he succumbed to the injuries---Widowof deceased in her cross-examination stated that complainant disclosed to her that initiallythe deceased was shifted to private hospital in injured condition and thereafter he was takento civil hospital---Statements of both the said witnesses had fully been contradicted byanother witness, who claimed to be the witness of disclosure of the accused recorded duringinvestigation, wherein allegedly the accused had not only confessed his guilt but also gotrecovered the crime weapon from the roof of the house of deceased---Statements of both thewitnesses were silent that the accused had thrown the pistol on their roof rather they in aspecific terms stated that the accused while holding the pistol escaped from the place ofoccurrence on a motorcycle---Comparative study of both the statements of complainant andwidow and the statement of other witness made the presence of both the witnesses doubtfulat the relevant time and also the recovery of crime weapon on the pointation was doubtful---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against theaccused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, incircumstances.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302(b)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 40---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation ofevidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay in disclosure made by the witness---Scope--- Accusedwas charged for committing murder of father of complainant by firing---In the present case, awitness had claimed to be the witness of disclosure of the accused recorded duringinvestigation, wherein allegedly the accused had not only confessed his guilt, but also gotrecovered the crime weapon from the roof of the house of deceased---Record showed that thealleged recovery of crime weapon was effected after 20-days of incident from the roof of thehouse of complainant party, thus, it was beyond imagination that the said pistol remained onthe roof of complainant party and no one had seen it and even after 20-days its condition wasnot deteriorated---Even otherwise, the Investigating Officer admitted in his crossexamination that the alleged recovery of pistol was not effected in his presence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against theaccused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, incircumstances.(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302(b)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 40---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation ofevidence---Benefit of doubt--- Accused was charged for committing murder of father ofcomplainant by firing---In the present case, both the complainant and widow of deceased inspecific terms stated in their statements that on hearing the firing shots, when they came outfrom their house, they had seen the accused holding pistol in his hand---Admittedly both thesaid witnesses were also on the target of accused, but he let them free and escaped from theplace of occurrence---Said fact did not appeal to the logic that by killing a person in presenceof his blood relations, the accused being armed with sophisticated weapon would not attemptto cause any injury/kill the prosecution witnesses leaving them for evidence to be hanged---Ocular testimony of the related/interested prosecution witnesses and false implication of theaccused by the witnesses could not be ruled out of consideration as the accused whilerecording his statement under S.342, Cr.P.C., had taken specific plea of his false implicationby witnesses---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its caseagainst the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, incircumstances.

Summary: Background:Muhammad Tariq filed a petition before the Supreme Court, seeking an adjournment due to his counsel's elevation as Advocate General Punjab. The Court noted concerns raised by Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah regarding the involvement of the Advocate General in Bar politics, including participation in a function alongside the Prime Minister. This raised issues related to the integrity of public offices and Fundamental Rights.---Issues:Whether Muhammad Tariq should be granted an adjournment to engage another counsel.Whether the involvement of the Advocate General Punjab in Bar politics raises concerns regarding the integrity of public offices and Fundamental Rights.Whether the use of public buildings and public offices for personal or political purposes is permissible.Whether there were procedural irregularities in the use of the Convention Centre, Islamabad for a private function.Whether the broadcasting of the function on television channels violated any regulations.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Court granted Muhammad Tariq two weeks to engage another counsel but took notice of the concerns raised by Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah regarding the Advocate General's involvement in Bar politics. It issued notices to the Advocate General Punjab, the Prime Minister, and other relevant authorities to address these concerns. Additionally, notices were issued to investigate the use of the Convention Centre and the broadcasting of the function. The matter was deemed of public importance and referred to the Hon?ble Chief Justice for constitution of an appropriate Bench.---Precedents/Citations:Articles 18, 25, 26 of the Constitution of PakistanLegal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973Order XXVII-A of the Code of Civil ProcedureArticle 248 of the Constitution

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Against order dated 31.07.2019 passed by full bench of NIRC whereby appeal of respondent against order dated 29.01.2019 passed by learned Single member NIRC was accepted and grievance petition was remanded back for decision afresh

Summary: 337-C. Jaifa: Once the injury extends to body cavity of the trunk then it is Jaifa notwithstanding that any damage has been caused to any vital part of the body or not. Language of 337-C P.P.C is abundantly clear which needs no further interpretation.