Summary: Acquittal granted----A criminal appeal involving Muhammad Amjad Ali, who was previously accused in a case related to offenses under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and certain sections of the Pakistan Penal Code. The respondent was acquitted by the trial court in 2001. Subsequently, he filed an application for the release of his frozen assets, including a bank account and shares in certain properties. The appeal argued against the release of the respondent's assets based on Sections 19 and 37 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. However, the court noted that Section 19 only allows forfeiture of assets if the accused is sentenced to imprisonment exceeding three years, which was not the case for respondent No.5. Additionally, Section 37 allowed freezing of assets during an ongoing trial, but since the respondent has been acquitted, this provision is not applicable. The court dismissed the appeal, stating that no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order has been identified, and there is no substance in the appeal.

Summary: MANZOOR BAQAI and others-Respondents Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975)- -S. 3-Forged and bogus Permanent Transfer Deed (PTD)-Patwari and record room, incharge of Settlement Department and senior clerk Revenue Department, testified against the petitioners and categorically stated that the PTD of the petitioners was not genuine and all relevant records established that it was bogus and forged-Further, there were entries and interpolations in the record which clearly showed tampering of the relevant registers and records going to the extent of replacing pages from the relevant registers and forging signatures-Superintendent Record, Board of Revenue, a witness summoned by the petitioners, testified against the petitioners and supported the case of respondents-Record indicated that in the Settlement record produced before the Court the entry in favour of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners on CSC-V Register contained the words bogus written on it-Note on the said Register written by the Competent Authority confirmed the said fact-Said note stated that the entry appeared to be bogus and on the basis of examination of the pages and signatures of the officer in question, it could safely be concluded that the entry was prima facie made subsequently which was also indicated by the fact that the page had been torn off and a fresh page had been inserted in its place which contained writing in different ink, and a different handwriting-Further a categorical statement was made that even the signatures on the PTD and related documents in favour the petitioners were bogus and forged-Departmental functionaries had no personal interest in favour or against either of the parties-No allegation of bias or collusion was raised against any functionary of the department-Predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners admitted that he was not aware when he was dispossessed, he did not initiate any proceedings before the Board of Revenue/Settlement Department and did not approach any competent forum to recovery/restoration of possession for ten long years-Suit filed by respondents had rightly been decreed in their favour by the fora below-Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.

Summary: Application for post arrest bail. Held: (i) It is a broad daylight occurrence, so no question of mistaken identity or false implication arises inasmuch as the parties are known to each other.(ii) Acquittal of co-accused would not benefit the accused/petitioners for the reason that evidence collected by the investigating agency against the petitioners is yet to be analyzed by the trial Court.(iii) Fugitive from law loses some of the normal rights granted by the procedural and substantive law and noticeable abscondence disentitles the absconder to the concession of bail. (Bail petition was dismissed in the circumstances)

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Complainant on 25.12.2007 had lodged report regarding theft of his vehicle from Lady Garden Park, which was shown to be recovered on 28.12.2007 by the local police of Police Station Cantt, Abbottabad from Muslim Abad barrier vide recovery memo Ex PW-2/1. Accused Zaheer Gul, Shoaib and Naseeb Gul were also shown arrested on the same day, however, it is very important to mention here that a local newspaper named as Naway-e-Hazara, before two days of said recovery and arrest of accused Naseeb Gul, Zaheer Gul and Shoaib i.e on 26.12.2007 had published a news on front page, wherein, it has been clearly mentioned that the above Naseeb Gul was arrested by the local police of Police Station Kot Najibullah District, Haripur and the above stolen vehicle was also recovered from his possession on 26.12.2007 and then accused Naseeb Gul alongwith stolen car were handed over to the local police of Police Station, Cantt, Abbottabad.Two versions regarding mode and manner of arrest of accused and recovery of vehicle make the case of the accused/respondents highly doubtful. As, if the above news was not correct, then the police concerned might had denied the same or any other action might had been taken against the said newspaper for publishing false news and if the said news was correctly published in the newspaper, which is obviously correct, then recovery memo dated: 28.12.2007 was fake as accused Naseeb Gul was already arrested by District Police of Haripur on 26.12.2007 or 25.12.2007 and except recovery of stolen vehicle there is nothing with prosecution to connect the accused with commission of offence.

Summary: Background:The petitioner, Government of KPK through Secretary Excise & Taxation Department, Civil Secretariat, Peshawar, challenged the judgment dated 14.11.2019, of the Peshawar High Court, in W.P.362-P/2019. The High Court had set aside the orders of the authorities seizing a vehicle, leading to this appeal.---Issues:Legality of the seizure of the subject vehicle.Compliance with legal requirements for alteration of vehicle particulars.Ownership rights of the respondent vis-a-vis alteration made to the vehicle.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The High Court's decision was overturned as it failed to consider the legality of the seizure properly.Section 33 of the Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 mandates reporting of any alterations in a vehicle's particulars within fourteen days. Failure to comply renders the alteration unlawful.The respondent's claim of innocence regarding the alterations made to the vehicle was insufficient to establish bona fide purchase status.The responsibility for alterations lies with the person effecting them, and the respondent cannot claim ignorance of the law.The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment was set aside.---Citations/Precedents:Sultan Muhammad v. Collector Customs and another (2015 PTD 570)

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending