Summary: Maintained ---- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- S. 302(b) — Sentence—Mitigating circumstances—Reduction from death to life imprisonment—Scope Petitioners were convicted for the murders of Ghulam Habib and Ghulam Dastagir in a retaliatory attack near court premises—Conviction upheld by Trial Court and High Court—Supreme Court observed that incident stemmed from deep-rooted enmity and vendetta rather than cold-blooded premeditation—Held, even a single mitigating circumstance is sufficient to warrant lesser punishment—Death sentence converted to life imprisonment under S. 302(b) PPC on two counts, to run concurrently with benefit of S. 382-B Cr.P.C. Cited case: Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din v. The State (2014 SCMR 1034). (b) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997) ---- S. 7(a)—Terrorism—Determination—Personal motive versus public impact Petitioners were also convicted under S. 7(a) ATA by the Trial Court, but the High Court acquitted them of terrorism charges—Held, act of personal vengeance, though brutal and conducted in a public space, did not meet the statutory threshold of terrorism under ATA—No intent to terrorize the public or destabilize law and order—ATA charges rightly set aside. Principle reaffirmed: Mere occurrence in public or near court premises does not automatically invoke S. 7 ATA without requisite mens rea. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---- S. 374—Reference for confirmation of death sentence—Concurrent findings—Scope of interference by Supreme Court Trial Court awarded death penalty; High Court upheld convictions under PPC while setting aside ATA conviction—Upon independent appraisal of ocular and medical evidence, the Supreme Court found no material discrepancies—Held, concurrent findings supported by credible eyewitnesses and forensic corroboration do not warrant reversal—However, sentence can be modified in presence of mitigating factors. Cited principle: Concurrent findings may be maintained with variation in sentence based on judicial discretion. (d) Criminal trial ---- Ocular evidence—Testimony of related and independent witnesses—Corroboration by medical and forensic evidence Four eyewitnesses, including two private individuals and two police officials, gave consistent ocular account—Real brother of deceased and family friend among witnesses—Their testimony was corroborated by medical reports and PFSA forensic analysis—Crime weapons recovered from petitioners—Held, evidence was reliable, trustworthy, and proved the case against petitioners beyond doubt. Principle reaffirmed: Relationship of witnesses to deceased not sufficient ground to discard testimony if otherwise credible and corroborated. (e) Criminal law ---- Motive—Revenge and prior enmity—Effect on sentencing Incident was a product of long-standing blood feud involving multiple cross FIRs and prior murders—Held, though motive of revenge was established, its existence served as a mitigating factor impacting quantum of sentence, not a ground for acquittal—In such cases, life imprisonment may serve ends of justice. Cited precedent: Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din v. The State (2014 SCMR 1034). Disposition: Leave to appeal granted—Appeal partly allowed—Conviction under S. 302(b) PPC maintained—Death sentences converted to life imprisonment on two counts to run concurrently—Benefit of S. 382-B Cr.P.C. extended—Conviction under S. 7(a) ATA already set aside by High Court upheld.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: FIR is always considered a cornerstone of the case of prosecution, however, if complainant immediately after the occurrence meets the police official, narrates entire detail of occurrence to him but it is not recorded then and there rather subsequently on written application or oral statement of the same complainant received at some other place, FIR is recorded then neither it can be termed as First Information Report as mentioned in Section: 154 Cr.P.C. in stricto sensu nor any importance can be attached to the same like promptly recorded FIR.

Summary: The nub of the matter is to examine whether mere registration of a criminal case empowers the authorities to place name of a citizen on the Passport Control List more so, when such citizen is admitted to bail? Rule 22(2)(b) of the Passport Rules, 2021� has been relied upon by the respondents to justify the impugned action. The respondents claim that it was a routine matter in which such recommendations were made by the Home Department, Government of the Punjab alongwith Punjab Police, however, the officials of the Punjab Government failed to refer to any guideline, or data indicating how often such letters are sent by Home Department, Government of the Punjab or in what categories of cases this step is taken, more particularly, when the underlaying reasoning i.e., the petitioner not being apprehended is incorrect on account of his confirmed pre-arrest bail. This Court is of the opinion that mere involvement in a criminal case is insufficient to justify a restriction on international travel, especially when the accused is admitted to bail by a Competent Court.

Summary: Determination of qualifications for admission to institutions in any field is within the legislative competence of the government

Summary: The petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") based, inter alia, on the ground that the suit of the respondent was barred under Order II Rule 2, CPC was dismissed and the said finding was maintained by the Revisional Court below. This Court held that pattern of electing one remedy, abandoning it after adverse consequences, then shifting to the arbitration without proper recourse, and finally returning to file a third suit without compliance with the mandatory legal provisions is precisely what the doctrine of election, the bar contained in Order II Rule 2 CPC, and the scheme of the Arbitration Act, 1940 aim to prevent. If such litigation is allowed to proceed without scrutiny under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, it would set a dangerous precedent whereby a litigant could perpetually avoid finality by alternating between forums and/or remedies, without accountability. The law does not permit a party to keep the adversary entangled in an unending chain of litigation by withholding material facts, disowning procedural consequences, and reviving stale claims under the guise of a fresh suit. The respondent, having exhausted his remedies and failed to pursue them diligently, cannot now be allowed to relitigate the same dispute under a new garb.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: FIR is always considered a cornerstone of the case of prosecution, however, if complainant immediately after the occurrence meets the police official, narrates entire detail of occurrence to him but it is not recorded then and there rather subsequently on written application or oral statement of the same complainant received at some other place, FIR is recorded then neither it can be termed as First Information Report as mentioned in Section: 154 Cr.P.C. in stricto sensu nor any importance can be attached to the same like promptly recorded FIR. 405Development Authorities 21935/24 Akbar Ali & 3 others Vs Commissioner Lahore Division Lahore etc. Mr. Justice Shujaat Ali Khan 04- 06- 2025 2025 LHC 3612 PLJ 2025 Lahore 729

Summary: Summary pending