Summary: Against judgement and decree dated 29.07.2019 passed by the Learned ADJ Islamabad

Summary: The Petitioners hold 14.45% shares in respondent Company and are aggrieved by the notice as well as the proceedings of the impugned Meeting dated 19.10.2019 and the resolutions passed thereon, whereby, related party transactions were approved in respect of 2 Companies, which have certain common Directorship. It is their case that they hold more than 10% of the shareholding and are, therefore, qualified to institute present proceedings, under s.136 of the Companies Act, 2017 which according to them has seriously prejudiced their interests. According to them statement of material facts under Section 134(3) of the Act, annexed with the impugned notice of meeting, failed to include the minimum information required under Regulation-5 of the Company (Related Parties Transactions and Maintenance of Related Records) Regulations, 2018, whereas, the meeting was also conducted without following proper procedure and has deprived the Petitioners from exercising their rights. However, the Petitioners have failed to make out a case for indulgence; hence, this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with pending applications.

Summary: The precise controversy involved is that whether the Plaintiffs industry (beverage industry) is an agro-based industry, being entitled for exemption and benefits allowed vide SRO No.575(I)/2006 dated 05.06.2006 (SRO 575); and whether, can the Plaintiffs seek protection under the doctrine of departmental practice whereby in the past their industry has been recognized as an agro based industry. It has been held by the Court that the Plaintiffs have not been able to make out a case in their favor, in that the beverage industry cannot be called or classified as an agro-based industry for the purposes of exemption claimed under SRO 575; nor they are protected under the doctrine of past practice, once it is held that such practice was a wrong practice.

Summary: Mst. Sughran Mai has filed a petition under Section 497 Cr.P.C. seeking post-arrest bail in relation to FIR. The charges against her included offenses under Sections 302 and 34 PPC, related to the murder of Rana Shaukat Ali, the complainant's father. The court, after hearing both parties and reviewing the evidentiary material, emphasizes that in considering a bail application, it must assess whether reasonable grounds exist to believe that the accused committed a non-bailable offense. The court noted the absence of an eye-witness and highlights that suspicion alone cannot be considered proof. Additionally, no recovery was made from the petitioner during the investigation, and there is no evidence indicating a motive for the alleged crime. Considering the petitioner's gender and age, and her status as a previous non-convict, the court grants post-arrest bail. The court deems the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Cr.P.C., leaving the determination of the petitioner's liability to the trial court. The petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail upon furnishing bail bonds in the specified amount. The court stressed that its observations are tentative and should not influence the trial court.

Summary: Bail granted---Background:Dr. Atif Muhammad Khan, the petitioner, has been in custody since January 1, 2020, accused by his former wife, Ms. Fozia Anwar, of distributing explicit photographs of her through a WhatsApp profile. The pictures were sent from a cell phone number issued by a United Kingdom service provider, accompanied by threatening/abusive messages, and circulated among family members. The petitioner seeks bail.---Issues:Whether there is sufficient evidence to prima facie frame charges against the petitioner.Whether the petitioner's incarceration is justified pending further evidence and trial.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The petitioner led to the recovery of various items during the investigation, including a mobile phone handset with SIMs and a memory card. However, a forensic examination by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) yielded negative results, failing to link the petitioner to the alleged dissemination of explicit material. The Investigating Officer exonerated the petitioner based on this report.The court found that although there may be animosity between the petitioner and the complainant, independent evidence is required to sustain the charge. The failure of forensic evidence casts doubt on the petitioner's culpability. The court converted the Criminal Petition into an appeal and granted bail to the petitioner upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 500,000/- with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial court/Duty Magistrate.---Citations/Precedents:Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

Summary: Background:Muhammad Waseem Raza was murdered on March 22, 2018, and the crime was reported to the police the same day. The petitioner, Muhammad Bashir, filed FIR No. 96 at Police Station Ustarzai, District Kohat, naming four individuals, including Rukhsar and Suhail, as the perpetrators.---Issues:Whether the petitioner, Muhammad Bashir, should be subject to cross-examination by Rukhsar, one of the accused, when he has already been cross-examined jointly by the counsels representing Rukhsar and Suhail.Whether the right to cross-examine is fundamental to ensuring a fair trial and due process as guaranteed by the Constitution.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court emphasized the importance of the right to cross-examine in ensuring a fair trial, as guaranteed by the Constitution. The accused have the fundamental right to cross-examine witnesses who depose against them.Despite the petitioner being previously cross-examined jointly by the counsels of Rukhsar and Suhail, this concept of joint cross-examination is not recognized by law. Therefore, Rukhsar was deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the petitioner, which violates the principles of fairness in criminal trials.The court cited Chapter X of the Qanun-e-Shahdat Order, 1984, which outlines the methodology for examining witnesses, including examination-in-chief, cross-examination, and re-examination. The right to cross-examine is a valuable right of the adverse party, which cannot be waived or deprived.The presiding officer should clearly mention the name of the accused and/or their lawyer who is cross-examining a witness in cases involving multiple accused individuals to avoid confusion and ensure clarity in the proceedings.As no grounds for granting leave were established, the petition was dismissed.---Citations/Precedents:Muhammad Murad Abro v the State (2004 SCMR 966)Ansar Mehmood v Abdul Khaliq (2011 SCMR 713)Muhammad Amjad v the State (PLD 2003 Supreme Court 704)Noor Ahmed v State (PLD 1964 Supreme Court 120)

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -S.497-Extradition Act (XXI of 1972), Ss. 7 & 12-Extradition to a foreign country to stand trial-Bail, grant of-Medical grounds-Advanced age of accused-Inability of authorities from foreign country to take custody and transfer accused abroad due to COVID-19 ('Corona virus') concerns-Accused was alleged to have been involved in offences related to corruption in a foreign country (U.S.A.) and was wanted in said foreign country to stand trial-Held, that there was nothing preventing the Federal Government to extradite the accused to the foreign country in question-Matter regarding the extradition of accused had been placed before the Federal Cabinet but no decision was taken because the agenda item had been dropped-Ministry of Interior requested the Director General, F.I.A. to take the accused's custody from jail and hand him over to authorities from the foreign country-Warrant for custody of accused and his removal under the provision of the Extradition Act, 1972 was also sent-However, an email from the Embassy of the foreign country was brought on record, according to which, there would be a delay in the ability of the foreign country to take accused into custody and transfer him abroad due to COVID-19 ('Corona virus') concerns-Furthermore accused was 70 years of age and suffered from cardiac ailment-Persons of advanced age, such as the accused, were more susceptible to contract COVID-19 due to their low immunity-Prima facie, the intent behind section 12 of the Extradition Act, 1972 was that a fugitive offender should be discharged if he was not conveyed out of Pakistan two months' after he had been taken into custody to await his surrender-In view of such circumstances and in particular the position taken by the Embassy of the foreign country that there would be a delay in their ability to take the accused into custody and transfer him abroad, the application filed by accused for post-arrest bail was allowed with the directions that he shall appear before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court on a fortnightly basis and shall not leave Islamabad Capital Territory without the permission of the High Court; that the accused shall tender appearance before the High Court on every date of hearing, and in the event he violated any of the said conditions, the Ministry of Interior and/or the F.I.A. may apply for the recall of present bail granting order. Muhammad Nadeem Khan Khakwani, Assistant Attorney-General. Shoukat Ali Khan, Section Officer (F.I.A.), Ministry of Interior. Taha Bhatti, S.I., F.I.A./A.H.T.C.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending