Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Confessional statements of accused/petitioners available on file, which reveal that petitioner were arrested on 10.03.2020, and produced before the competent Court on the next day i.e on 11.03.2020, who granted 07 days police custody/remand of petitioners till 18.03.2020. On 18.03.2020 accused/petitioners were again produced before the Court and their further police custody was sought by submitting that on 18.03.2020, the accused/petitioners have confessed their guilt before Superintendent of Police CTD, Hazara Division, Abbottabad. The said confessional statements reveal that same were recorded during police custody and before the police and all were written down in the same pattern and only 10+10 minute time provided to the accused/petitioners to think over and make confessions, which aspect of the case makes the entire process of admitting guilt by the accused/petitioners doubtful. Perusal of confessional statements also reveals that the control of Madrassas, to whom the accused/petitioners were managing, had already been taken over by the provincial government and even their employees are also being paid by the government. Furthermore, the record as well as the confessional statements nowhere reveal that when, how and by whom the accused/petitioners used to get aid/donations etc and through what source same were being transferred to the banned organizations and used for terrorist activities.

Summary: It is significant to mention the despite of the fact that respondent/vendee has categorically denied from receipt of Notices of Talb-i-ish'had but even then the petitioner has not produced the concerned postman, it also appears from record that PW 1, Post master while appearing before the trial court deposed that registered post letters were received by one sher Afser who also signed the receipt. PW 3 was postman who deposed that prior to his posting in Post Officer Yar Hussain, one Hidayat Ali was posted there, who is he resident of Sur Dher, but the petitioner has not opted to produce the concerned postman, which was one of the requirements of law. it was sine qua non for Pre-Emptor to produced Postman as witness, as held by the Hon`ble Supreme Court in case titled SULTAN Versus NOOR ASGHAR (2020 SCMR 862) The findings of learned appellant court to the extent of imposition of cost on term of section 35-A of C.P.C was not within its domain, thus imposition of cost of Rs. 20,000/- by the learned appellate court is held to be without jurisdiction, as such, to this extent the findings are modified.

Summary: Bail granted---Background:Sami Ullah and another (petitioners) sought leave to appeal against the order of the Peshawar High Court, Mingora Bench (Dar-ul-Qabza), Swat, dated 14.02.2020, in Cr.MBCA No.45/46-M/2019.The petitioners were implicated in FIR No.62/2019 dated 08.06.2019 under Sections 316/452/337-A(ii), 337 F(iv)/34 PPC registered at Police Station Sheringal, District Dir Upper.The incident involved the petitioners entering the house of the complainant armed with sticks and stones, resulting in injuries to several individuals, one of whom later succumbed to the injuries.---Issues:Whether the Peshawar High Court erred in recalling the trial court's bail order.Whether the injuries sustained by the deceased, not mentioned in the medical report, justified the recall of bail.Whether the principles governing cancellation of bail were appropriately applied.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The petitioners contested the High Court's decision to recall the trial court's bail order, arguing that it lacked legal justification.The High Court's decision was based on the injury sustained by the deceased, despite not being explicitly mentioned in the medical report.The court outlined principles for the cancellation of bail, emphasizing the need for strong and exceptional grounds.It noted the reluctance of superior courts to interfere with bail orders and highlighted the importance of safeguarding liberty.Citing precedent, the court found the recall of bail unjustified and granted leave to appeal, converting the petition into an appeal and allowing bail subject to the furnishing of surety bonds.The court clarified that its observations were tentative and had no bearing on the trial court proceedings.---Citations/Precedents:Tariq Bashir and 5 others versus The State (PLD 1995 SC 34)SHAHID ARSHAD versus MUHAMMAD NAQI BUTT AND 2 others (1976 SCMR 360)

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan- -Art. 45-President's power to grant pardon-Executive function-Under Art. 45 of the Constitution, the President enjoyed unfettered powers to grant remissions in respect of offences-Clog stipulated in piece of subordinate legislation could not abridge said power of the President-When the Notification by itself had been categorized the availability of remission to a particular class of prisoners and withheld its application to another class then the Court could not add or omit to the said Notification unless the same was contrary to law and discriminatory-Intelligible differentia and considerable distinction between the two categories of convicted prisoners was available-President could exclude the applicability of remissions to those convicted prisoners who were involved in heinous crimes and they could not claim at par treatment with rest of the prisoners-Presidential remission under Art. 45 of the Constitution was not applicable to the prisoners who had been specifically excluded by the Notification granting remissions. Haji Abdul Ali v. Haji Bismillah and 3 others PLD 2005 SC 163 and Haji Abdul Malik and others v. The State and others PLD 2006 SC 365 ref. Nazar Hussain's case PLD 2010 SC 1021 rel. (b) Prisons Rules, 1978- -Chap. 8, Rr.201-A & 214-A-Grant of remission to prisoner-Scope-Remission being granted under the Prison Rules, 1978-Chap. 8 of Prisons Rules, 1978 catered for the remission system, wherein, Rr. 201-A & 214-A of the said Rules placed embargo to the grant of ordinary and special remissions to person convicted under the charge of espionage/anti-state activities-Said remission had been left to the discretion of the concerned Provincial Government. (c) Interpretation of statutes- -Punitive law-Principle-While interpreting the provision of punitive law, Court was required to strive in search of an interpretation, which preferred the liberty of a person instead of curtailing the same and that too unreasonably and unfairly unless the statutory law clearly directed otherwise-Law which curtailed the liberty of a person was to be construed very strictly-Even if two equal interpretations were possible then the one favourable to the accused and his liberty must be adopted and preferred upon the contrary one.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: ----Evacuee Property Displaced Case, against dismissal of application u/s (2)(5) of Evacuee Property in displaced person by Chief Commissioner (a) Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 – Sec. 2(3): Evacuee Property – Cancellation of Allotment – Validity of Transfer of Claim – Fraudulent Transfer – Inheritance Rights The petitioners, legal heirs challenged the order dated 03.12.2013, passed by the Chief Commissioner, Islamabad Capital Territory, dismissing their revision petition against the cancellation of land allotments under claim No.7941. The transfer of Mst. Sakina Bibi’s claim from Montgomery (Sahiwal) to Rawalpindi was alleged to be fraudulent, as it was carried out by Mst. Fazal Begum, who was not entitled to inherit under Islamic law. The court noted that the mutation and subsequent allotment of land in District Rawalpindi were irregular and lacked legal foundation. Furthermore, the petitioners failed to challenge the findings of Memorandum No.93 dated 06.07.1960, which highlighted the irregularity of the transfer and inheritance claims. The principle of lis pendens did not apply as the initial order canceling the allotments (dated 28.09.1960) remained unchallenged. The petitioners could not establish the legality of the transfer, and the allotments made in their favor were declared void. -----Cited Cases: Syed Abbas Taqi Mehdi v. Syeda Sabahat Batool (2010 SCMR 1840) Messrs Evernew Agencies v. Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore (2006 PTD 207) Water and Power Development Authority v. Messrs Bhatti Ice and Rice Mills (2004 YLR 1263) Disposition: Petitions dismissed. The transfer of claim No.7941 from Montgomery to Rawalpindi was held fraudulent, and the allotments based on this claim were declared invalid. (b) Islamic Law of Inheritance – Rights of Legal Heirs – Fraudulent Claims: Under the Islamic law of inheritance, the property of Mst. Sakina Bibi was to devolve in specific shares. Three separate inheritance mutations recorded in different districts resulted in conflicting claims. The court observed that only Sardar Muhammad Khan, as a residuary heir, was entitled to three-fourths (3/4) of the property, while his sisters, Mst. Fazal Begum and Mst. Shah Bibi, were excluded under the rules of inheritance. The fraudulent nature of the transfer was underscored, and subsequent mutations were held illegal. ----Disposition: The transfer of claim was invalidated, and the rights of inheritance were to be governed strictly by Islamic law. (c) Administrative Law – Presumption of Correctness of Official Documents – Burden of Proof: The petitioners failed to rebut the presumption of correctness attached to official documents, particularly Memorandum No.93 dated 06.07.1960. The burden was on the petitioners to prove that the transfer of claim No.7941 was lawful and in accordance with regulations, which they failed to do. The court emphasized that an official memorandum, unless proven incorrect, holds evidentiary value. -----Disposition: The findings in Memorandum No.93 dated 06.07.1960 were upheld, and the challenge by the petitioners was dismissed. (d) Civil Procedure – Lis Pendens – Principle of Finality of Orders: The petitioners contended that allotments made in favor of the respondents during pending proceedings were hit by the principle of lis pendens. The court rejected this argument, holding that the cancellation order dated 28.09.1960 was never successfully challenged and remained valid. Therefore, subsequent allotments to the respondents were not affected by the principle of lis pendens. -----Disposition: The petitioners' reliance on lis pendens was rejected, and the subsequent allotments remained valid.

Summary: Service Matter, Upon Dismissal from Service.