Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: PLJ 2020 SC (AJK) 43 [Appellate Jurisdiction] Present Ch Muhammad Ibrahim Zia CJ and Ghulam Mustafa Mughal J MUHAMMAD MUNIR and 4 others - - Appellants versus INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AZAD GOVERNMENT OF STATE OF JAMMU KASHMIR and 125 others - - Respondents CA No 70 of 2018 decided on 932019 (On appeal from the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 27122017 in Service Appeal No 2702009) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution 1974 (VIII of 1974) - - - - - - Art 42 (10) - - Issuance of promotion orders - - Communication of orders - - Departmental appeal - - Dismissed - - Appeal before service tribunal - - Dismissed - - Celebrated principle of law - - Limitation - - Challenge to - - Neither the appellants have specifically averred the date of communication of the impugned orders nor any other documentary proof has been brought on record - - Limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal shall be computed from the date of order aggrieved from whether original or appellate irrespective of pendency of any departmental appeal representation - - It is very astonishing that neither the counsel for the parties nor the Service Tribunal has bothered to apply judicial mind to scrutinize the record In the appeal before the Service Tribunal the order book No 186 dated 28012009 was also challenged through which the Respondents No 116 to 126 have been promoted To the extent of order dated 28012009 the appeal has been filed within time therefore dismissal of the appeal to this extent is un - warranted against law and facts - - Appeal partially accepted [Pp 45 46] A B C Mr M Maqsood Ahmed Sulehria Advocate for Appellants Sardar Karam Dad Khan Advocate - General and Sardar M R Khan Advocate for RespondentsJudgement Result:Appeal partially accepted

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 103--- Recovery proceedings---Associating of witnesses---Scope---Provision of S.103,Cr.P.C. enjoins officer or other person, who wants to make search of a place, to call uponbefore making the search, two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality to attend andwitness the search---Purpose of the same is to prevent chicaneries of police.(b) Explosive Substances Act (XI of 1908)-------S.5---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Explosive substance, recovery of---Appreciation of evidence---Complainant as investigation officer---Benefit of doubt---Accused was arrested for recovery of explosive substance from him---Complainant himselfwas investigation officer and his investigation was biased and a mockery---Though policeofficer was not prohibited under law to be a complainant if he was a witness to commissionof an offence and also to be an investigation officer, so long as it did not in any wayprejudiced the accused person---Court was required to appraise evidence produced byprosecution as a whole and to form opinion after evaluating the same---Seizing officerexcluded independent persons to act as witnesses of arrest and recovery and to choose two ofhis subordinates to act as attesting witnesses---Contradictions existed among statements ofwitnesses and investigation was by an officer who was not competent to do so---Expertreport was issued by a person not notified by Provincial or Federal Government and seizingofficer himself acted as investigation officer---High Court set aside conviction and sentenceawarded to accused and acquitted him of the charge---Appeal was allowed in circumstances.The State v. Bashir and others PLD 1997 SC 408 rel.

Summary: (a) Criminal Trial-------Administration of justice---Courts of law were not to sit entirely unconcerned during theproceedings, nor was a court, holding a criminal trial expected to leave it to the contestants todo what they liked---Main purpose of the entire judicial proceedings was to find out truth,arrive at a correct decision; and to see that no innocent person was punished, merely becauseof certain technical omission (s) on his part; or on the part of his counsel---In case of capitalpunishment, accused must be given reasonable opportunity of rebutting the evidence sobrought on record---Intentional or unintentional lapse on the part of complainant, prosecutioncounsel or defence counsel was not to be allowed to stand in the way of justice, because ithad a bearing on the determination of guilt or innocence of accused---Such a power underArt.161, Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and S.540, Cr.P.C. had been given to criminal court for thesafe administration of justice---Fair and free administration of justice was primary andessentially an obligation cast on the courts of law constituted for the purpose.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302(b)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.360---Qatl-e-amd---Appreciation ofevidence---Administration of justice---Trial of the case had been conducted in violation of thesettled principles of law, resulting in miscarriage of justice in a careless and ridiculousmanner---Accused persons had been deprived of their fundamental rights to be defended by aproper counsel---Such practice, would not only shake the confidence of general public, butwould also damage the noble profession of law in the eye of community---Statement of theprosecution witness had been recorded in violation of S.360, Cr.P.C., object of which was toobtain an accurate record from the witness of what he really meant to say; and to give him anopportunity of correcting the words which the court or his clerk had taken down---Before a deposition was closed, the evidence must be read over to the witness enabling him to protecthimself against any inaccuracy in the words taken down from his lips---Serious prejudice hadbeen caused to accused, resulting in grave miscarriage of justice---Presiding Officer wasrequired to record the evidence in his own hand; and if it was not possible for him, then itshould be taken down by the clerk/reader from direct dictation of the Presiding Judge---Not asingle bit of tangible evidence was available on record, in the present case, to connectaccused with the commission of alleged offence---Eye-witnesses had not uttered a singleword against one accused--Appeal up to the extent of said one accused was allowed and hewas acquitted of the charge and ordered to be released forthwith---Impugned judgment wasset aside and case was remanded to the Trial Court for retrial of other accused.