Summary: Detenue Mst. Yaseena Bibi D/o Gul Zareen was produced by the SHO concerned and her statement was recorded wherein she negated the allegations contained in the instant petition and stated that she was never married or engaged to the petitioner and she was residing with her parents with her free-will and consent who are taking care of her. She further stated that she also filed a complaint against the petitioners before the learned Illaqa Magistrate Mansehra for extending threats to her and her statement was also recorded before the said Court.Proceedings under Section 491 & 491-A Cr.P.C are summary in nature and are not intended to go beyond the summary consideration of the questions essentially relevant to the alleged detention i.e. whether a detenue is to be set at liberty and as a consequence thereof, be permitted to go with the person of his or her own choice, or to drop the proceedings when the detention is found legal. Court while deciding an application under Section 491/491-A Cr.P.C is not required to go into the question of status or relationship of the parties by holding full-fledged trial of the counter-claims and it should concern itself only with free will of the detenue. Petitioner claims that the detenue is his wife, however, the detenue as well as the respondent No. 4 have totally denied the said averment. It is inappropriate and undesirable, if not illegal, for the High Court to determine the fate of the couple by adjudicating the validity of marriage on the touchstone of the Injunctions of Islam, in the proceedings under Section 491 Cr.P.C.

Summary: 1. Narcotics was recovered on 26.04.2014, test samples received in FSL on 06.05.2014 after 10 days. Investigation Officer questioned regarding its safe custody, he stated that it was lying in the custody of Moharrir, but his statement was not recorded, nor abstract of Register 19 was collected and placed on file. The official who took the sample to the lab, also not examined. SO the recovery, its safe custody and its smooth transmission to Lab could not be established.3. It is turning to be a common practice with the invistigation officer that they are lacking their interest to collect the material evidence in the cases and even no heed is paid to collect the daily diaries from the police station. These are documents which can correctly explain the status of the wittnesses, their presence at the spot, the time they consume in reaching to the spot and names of police officials who accompany.4. If the two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.

Summary: The petitioner has filed this petition on the ground of shifting of her permanent abode from Charsadda to Dab Naguman, Peshawar, coupled with the fact that Domicile Certificate issued to him on 26-07-2007, contains her permanent Address as Dab Naguman, Peshawar, however, interesting aspect of the case is that in the year, 2007, the petitioner got her SSC from the Board Of Intermediate and Secondary Education Peshawar, in the Session 2007 (Annual), when she remained the student of Al-Amin Model School Shabqadar Fort Charsadda. Likewise, CNIC was issued to her on 20-12-2012,wherein her permanent address was mentioned as that of Charsadda. thereafter, till now she had never applied for change of her permanent address to NADRA authorities for issuance of CNIC with correct permanent address as that of Peshawar, which could easily be done by applying to the concerned authority under Rule 13 of National Database and Registration Authority(National Identity Card) Rules,2002. Another debatable angle of the matter in hand is the refusal of petitioner from the appointment on the plea of her being the resident of out District is based on thelegislative provision of section 3 of the ibid Act of 2011, the legality whereof were never remained inquestion either in this petition or in the earlier ones decided by this court, thus, the respondents, in strict compliance acted within the parameters of the Act (ibid), which is also the requirement of theConstitution, regarding which no plea of mala fide was taken by the petitioner. It is also settledprinciple of law that Authority must have exercised the power in accordance with law in view of Article4 of the Constitution which prescribed duty on each and every public functionary to act in accordancewith law and not in derogation of law, as Article 5(2) of the Constitution has mandated that obedienceto the Constitution and law is the inviolable obligation of every citizen wherever he may be and for every other person for the time being within Pakistan. To enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law is the inalienable right of every citizen, wherever he may be, as enshrined by Article 4 of the Constitution. Any citizen of Pakistan can change the place of residence and claim protection of law as provided either in constitution or any other law but subject to limitation as provided therein.

Summary: The right of pre-emption is not established until thedemand be properly made in the presence of thewitnesses; and it is requisite that it be made as soonas possible after the sale is known; for the right ofpre-emption which is a feeble right, as it is disseizinganother of his property merely in order to apprehendinconvenience. It is, therefore, requisite thatpre-emptor without delay discover his intentions, bymaking the demand; which must be done in thepresence of witnesses, otherwise it cannot beafterword proved before the court. As defined byCHARLES HAMILTON in the commentary of HIDAYAby SHEIKH BURHANUDDIN ABI AL HASAN ALMARGHINANI Volume III Book XXXVIII (of SHUF AH)page 360.Moreover, Talb-i-ishhad was also not proved asthe Notice was not served upon the respondent/vendeerather the same was received by one Hazrat Umer son ofShamas-ul-Rafique, in such circumstances, when thenotice was not served upon the vendee talb-i-ish hadwould not be considered to have been proved.

Summary: Where the plaintiff/applicant establishes fraud, the defendant benefitting from the fraud and opposing the application of section 18, Limitation Act, must show that the plaintiff had clear and definite prior knowledge of the facts constituting the particular fraud and not merely clues or hints of the fraud, failing which limitation will run only from the date of actual knowledge of the fraud.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 9(c)---Transportation ofnarcotics---Bail, refusal of---Second bail application---Fresh grounds, non-availability of---Effect---Accused was apprehended while transporting 4000 grams of charas---High Courthad already rejected the bail application of accused on merits---Instant application was filedby the accused after 1 month and 20 days of the rejection of his earlier bail application---Nofresh ground was available to the accused to file the instant application---Petition wasdismissed, in circumstances.

Summary: Bail granted---Background:Muhammad Faisal, the petitioner, challenged the order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench Rawalpindi dated 20.01.2020, which rejected his bail application in connection with FIR No. 524/2019 dated 05.08.2019, registered at police station Gujar Khan, District Rawalpindi. The FIR alleged that the petitioner, armed with a pistol .30 bore, fired two consecutive shots, causing injuries to the complainant.---Issues:Whether the injuries attributed to the petitioner are exaggerated by the prosecution, and if so, whether they warrant the petitioner's release on bail.Whether the delay in the declaration of injuries and the lack of evidence regarding the seriousness of the injuries affect the authenticity of the prosecution's case.Whether the injuries sustained by the complainant fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C, justifying the petitioner's release on bail.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court found that while the FIR attributed two fire shots to the petitioner, the injuries sustained by the complainant suggested the possibility that they were in continuation of each other. Moreover, the petitioner's brief hospital stay and the lack of substantiated evidence regarding surgical intervention cast doubt on the severity of the injuries. Considering these factors, along with the delayed declaration of injuries and the feeble nature of the motive, the court concluded that the petitioner's case warranted further inquiry. Therefore, the court granted leave to appeal, converted the petition into an appeal, and allowed the petitioner's release on bail upon furnishing bail bonds.---Citations/Precedents:"Muhammad Umar vs. the State and another" (PLD 2004 Supreme Court 477)Section 497(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code

Summary: Background:Tasar Mehmood and Shahbaz Ahmed, along with two others, allegedly trespassed into a private hospital managed by Dr. Yousaf Ali on 26.11.2013 at 9:45 p.m., with the intention to commit robbery. During the attempted robbery, they opened fire when resisted by the attendants, resulting in the death of Umair Shahzad. The incident was reported to the police, leading to the arrest of Tasar Mehmood on 6.2.2014 and Shahbaz Ahmed on 5.3.2014. Both were identified in a test identification parade and their subsequent disclosures led to the recovery of firearms. They were convicted by the trial court, which was partly upheld and partly modified by the Islamabad High Court, reducing their sentences to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. Dissatisfied with the judgment, Tasar Mehmood and Shahbaz Ahmed filed separate petitions before the Supreme Court of Pakistan.---Issues:The main issues before the court include the validity of the identification process, the sufficiency of evidence, and the application of legal principles regarding fair trial and burden of proof.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court, after hearing arguments and examining the record, upheld the judgment of the Islamabad High Court and dismissed the petitions. The court noted the prompt response of the police to the incident and the integrity of the initial investigation. The petitioners were identified in a test identification parade supervised by a magistrate, and their subsequent disclosures led to the recovery of firearms. While the identification process may not have been ideal, it was deemed sufficient under the circumstances. The court emphasized that the purpose of the identification process is to enable witnesses to establish the identity of assailants, considering the challenges of urban environments. The absence of detailed descriptions of the assailants' features was not deemed crucial, as the prosecution's case was supported by other evidence, including the testimony of witnesses and the recovery of firearms. The court underscored the importance of a balanced approach to criminal justice, ensuring a fair trial for the accused while providing the prosecution with the opportunity to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the evidence, including the testimony of witnesses and the recovery of firearms, was deemed sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the petitions were dismissed, and leave was declined.---Citations/Precedents:Article 129(e) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.High Court Rules and Orders, Volume III, Part-C.Rule 26.32 of the Police Rules, 1934.

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)- -Ss. 42, 54 & 55-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXIII, R.1-Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 114-Suit for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction-Abandonment of claim-Estoppel-Scope-Plaintiff filed suit for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction seeking regularization of his services-Validity-Plaintiff had initially, in the year 2001, approached the High Court (Lahore) for regularization of his contractual service in the employer Corporation, however, subsequently he had abandoned his claim-Plaintiff was estopped from agitating his same claim in the present case-Principle of acquiescence and waiver was attracted-Plaintiff had consciously given up his right to seek permanent absorption and/or seeking any benefit of permanent employment in the Corporation on the basis of his past contractual service while accepting new contract-Suit was dismissed, in circumstances. Nabeela Ashfaq v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Defence and 3 others 2020 PLC (C.S.) 24; Shahbaz Khan v. Additional District Judge, Ferozwala and others 2017 SCMR 2005; Saima Fareed and 4 others v. Divisional Director Schools Elementary/Secondary (Female Muzaffarabad) and 24 others 2018 PLC (C.S.) 338; A. George v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation PLD 1971 Lah. 748; Mst. Rani v. Pakistan International Airline Corporation and another 2017 PLC (C.S.) Note 11, p.11; Qazi Munir Ahmed v. Rawalpindi Medical College and Allied Hospital through Principal and others 2019 SCMR 648; Messrs Malik and Haq and another v. Muhammad Shamsul Islam Chowdhury and 2 others PLD 1961 SC 531; Attiya Sehrai v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation through its President (Civil Petition No.1159 of 2018) and Mst. Rani v. Pakistan International Airline Corporation and another (High Court Appeal No.42 of 2016). ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- -O. XXIII, R. 1-Withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of claim-Scope-Order XXIII, C.P.C. provides that a party, in case of withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of a claim without the permission, shall be precluded from instituting any fresh suit/lis in respect of subject matter or such part of the claim. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- -O. XXIII, R. 1-Withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of claim-Scope-Rule 1(1) of O.XXIII, C.P.C. entitles the plaintiff to withdraw his suit or abandon his claim or a part thereof, against all or any one of the defendants at any stage of the proceedings and this is his absolute privilege and prerogative-Where the plaintiff has exercised his noted privilege he shall be precluded from instituting a fresh suit on the basis of the same cause of action in respect of the subject matter and against the same defendants-Such bar is absolute and conclusive. Muhammad Yar (deceased) through L.Rs. and others' case 2013 SCMR 464 and Shahbaz Khan v. Additional District Judge, Ferozewalla and others 2017 SCMR 2005 ref. Azhar Hayat v. Karachi Port Trust through Chairman and others 2016 SCMR 1916 rel. (d) Words and phrases- -"Waiver"and"Acquiescence"explained."Waiver"or"acquiescence"may be described as intentional relinquishment of a known right or such conduct as would warrant an inference of relinquishment of such right; implying consent to dispense with or forgo something to which a person is entitled, however to constitute waiver there must be some conscious giving up of a right and a person cannot be held bound unless he is aware of what exactly he was waving and what right he was giving up with knowledge of all the facts. Messrs Classic Marble and another v. Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Limited 2006 CLC 702 ref. (e)"Waiver", doctrine of- -Where a person in spite of having full knowledge of violation of any of his rights of personal nature remains silent and does not take any measure for safeguarding it then he would be deemed to have impliedly waived it. Messrs Dadabhoy Cement Industries Limited and others v. Messrs National Development Finance Corporation 2002 CLC 166 ref. Ms. Farkhunda Shaheen for Defendants. Dates of hearing: 21st January, 11th and 27th February, 2020.

Summary: Summary pending