Summary: Pending

Summary: Tajamal Hussain Shah, the petitioner, was accused of committing murder and was tried in the trial court, which convicted him under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The High Court upheld the conviction and sentences in the appeal.The petitioner's counsel argued that there were material contradictions and discrepancies in the prosecution evidence that were not properly addressed by the lower courts. One such contradiction was regarding the location of the gunshot wound on the deceased, as described by the prosecution witnesses and the medical evidence.The petitioner claimed that he was not present at the scene of the crime and provided an alibi, which was verified by the Investigating Officer and supported by evidence from the 62 Signal Battalion. The prosecution's failure to prove the motive behind the crime and reliance on the petitioner's alleged absconsion were also highlighted as weak points in the case.Considering the discrepancies and doubts raised by the petitioner's counsel, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the Court allowed the petition, converted it into an appeal, and set aside the impugned judgment. The petitioner was acquitted of the charges and ordered to be released from jail unless required in any other case.

Summary: Tajamal Hussain Shah, the petitioner, was accused of committing murder and was tried in the trial court, which convicted him under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The High Court upheld the conviction and sentences in the appeal.The petitioner's counsel argued that there were material contradictions and discrepancies in the prosecution evidence that were not properly addressed by the lower courts. One such contradiction was regarding the location of the gunshot wound on the deceased, as described by the prosecution witnesses and the medical evidence.The petitioner claimed that he was not present at the scene of the crime and provided an alibi, which was verified by the Investigating Officer and supported by evidence from the 62 Signal Battalion. The prosecution's failure to prove the motive behind the crime and reliance on the petitioner's alleged absconsion were also highlighted as weak points in the case.Considering the discrepancies and doubts raised by the petitioner's counsel, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the Court allowed the petition, converted it into an appeal, and set aside the impugned judgment. The petitioner was acquitted of the charges and ordered to be released from jail unless required in any other case.

Summary: The petitioner, Sajjad Hussain, along with five co-accused, was tried in the trial court for the murder of Noor Hussain and Chulam Abbas, brother and cousin of the complainant, and for causing injuries to Sabir Hussain. The trial court convicted the petitioner under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and sentenced him to death on two counts. The High Court upheld the conviction but altered the sentence to imprisonment for life on two counts.The prosecution's story stated that the accused, including the petitioner, armed with Kalashnikovs, attacked the victims while they were traveling in a car, resulting in their deaths and injuries to another person. The motive for the attack was allegedly due to a previous murder committed by the deceased Ghulam Abbas, which led to a grudge.The petitioner's counsel argued that there were contradictions and dishonest improvements in the statements of prosecution witnesses, who were also related and inimical to the petitioner. They pointed out that the co-accused with similar roles were acquitted, while the petitioner was convicted. The police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. did not find the petitioner directly involved in the crime, but only in communication with a co-accused via a mobile phone, which was not presented as evidence.The Court considered the evidence and found that the prosecution had failed to establish the petitioner's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It observed that there was no incriminating evidence against the petitioner to differentiate his case from the acquitted co-accused. The Court concluded that a reasonable doubt had arisen in the prosecution's case, entitling the petitioner to the benefit of the doubt. As a result, the Court allowed the petition, converted it into an appeal, and set aside the impugned judgment. The petitioner was acquitted of the charges and ordered to be released from jail unless detained in any other case.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S.497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F---Dishonoring of cheques---Post-arrest bail, grant of---Issuance of three cheques---Business transaction---Involvement of huge amount---Investigation complete and petitioner not required for further investigation---Offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C., as maximum punishment provided for the offence was 03 years---Grant of bail in such like cases is generally the rule and refusal is the exception, especially for offenses with a maximum punishment of 03 years---No evidence was available against the accused qua misusing of bail in previous cases---Bail could not be withheld merely on the ground of the involvement of a huge amount---Bail can be declined in offences, which do not fall within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. when strong and exceptional grounds exist i.e. where the accused is habitual or has misused the concession of bail, which was not the position in the case of applicant---To err in granting bail is better than to err in declining it---Mere registration of other criminal cases without any conviction therein was not sufficient to deprive the applicant of the concession of bail---Enlargement of an accused on bail does not amount to his acquittal, rather, instead of being in jail, he is surrendered into the hands of sureties, who are responsible for his presence before the Trial Court---Applicant was admitted to post arrest bail, in circumstances. Muhammad Nasir Shafique v. The State through Prosecutor General Punjab and another 2021 SCMR 2092 and Riaz Jafar Natiq v. Muhammad Nadeem Dar and others 2011 SCMR 1708 rel. Anjum Pervez and Nazmeen Akhtar for Petitioner. Muhammad Nisar Khan, AAG for the State. Amin-ur-Rehman Yousafzai for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 20th April, 2022.

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 8---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 52---Suit for possession through partition---Lis pendens, principle of---Applicability---Grant of temporary injunction---Petitioner filed application for registration of sale deed qua transfer of property during the pendency of suit and existence of status quo order, which was concurrently refused by the courts below---Validity---Petitioner/vendor was a contesting party before the trial court in the pending suit filed by the respondent and if he was allowed to alienate the property in question in favour of petitioner/vendee, then definitely it would adversely affect the interest and cause of respondent---Pendency of a suit in any court or proceeding, which was not collusive and in which any right to immovable property was directly and specifically in question, the property could not be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under the decree or order, which may be made therein---Findings of the courts below did not suffer from any illegality or irregularity---Civil revision was dismissed, in circumstances. Farzand Ali v. Khuda Bakhsh PLD 2015 SC 187 rel. (b) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)--- ----S. 52---Principle of lis pendens---Object and purpose---Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA) in legal parlance is known as principle of "lis pendens", which literally means a pending suit or cause---Doctrine of "lis pendens" has been defined as jurisdiction, power, or control which a court acquires over property involved in a suit pending the continuance of the action and until final judgment therein---Object and purpose of S.52 of TPA is to protect the parties to the litigation against alienation by them during the pendency of litigation---If the vendor is allowed to alienate the disputed property during the pendency of the suit, then, indeed, there would be no end to the pending litigation and certainly justice would be defeated, which is neither permissible nor desirable under the law---Section 52 of TPA is based upon the well-known maxim of equity "pendente lite nihil innovetur", which means that during the pendency of litigation nothing new should be introduced, which adversely affects the rights of the litigating parties. Tariq Khan Hoti for Petitioners. Fawad Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 20th April, 2022.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending