Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Acquittal granted --- This case arose from Criminal Appeals No. S-47, S-50, and S-51 of 2021, all stemming from the same incident and challenging the judgments delivered by the III-Additional Sessions Judge, Mirpur Mathelo. The appellants were convicted under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and the Sindh Arms Act, 2013. The main charges included attempting to commit robbery, firing upon police officers, and possession of illegal weapons. ----- Facts: On August 18, 2020, a police patrol encountered five armed individuals, including the appellants. The appellants allegedly opened fire on the police officers with the intention to rob them. Following an exchange of gunfire that lasted about 10 minutes, one appellant, Muhammad Hanif, was arrested in injured condition. A pistol was recovered from him, but the remaining culprits managed to escape. FIR No. 39/2020 was registered under PPC sections 399 (preparation to commit robbery), 402 (gathering for the purpose of committing robbery), 324 (attempt to commit murder), 353 (assault to deter public servant from discharge of duty), 148 (rioting, armed with a deadly weapon), and 149 (unlawful assembly). A separate FIR No. 40/2020 was also lodged under section 24 of the Sindh Arms Act. ----- Trial Court: The trial court convicted all the accused under the aforementioned sections of the PPC and sentenced them to varying terms of rigorous imprisonment (R.I.). In addition, Muhammad Hanif was convicted under the Sindh Arms Act. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently, and the accused were granted the benefit of section 382-B of the Cr.P.C., which allows time spent in custody to count toward the sentence. ----- Appeal: The appellants challenged their convictions, arguing that the prosecution’s case was fabricated, and no such incident took place. They contended that Muhammad Hanif had been arrested a day earlier (on August 17, 2020), and a newspaper report supported this claim. The defense argued that the entire case was a result of police fabrication, and the evidence presented, including the delay in sending the recovered weapon for forensic analysis, further undermined the credibility of the prosecution's case. ----- Judgment: The High Court found significant contradictions in the prosecution’s case, including discrepancies in the timeline of events, the police's failure to sustain any injuries during the alleged exchange of gunfire, and the delay in sending the recovered weapon for forensic examination. These contradictions, coupled with the failure to adhere to proper investigation procedures, created doubt in the prosecution's narrative. ----- Police Encounter and Doubts: The court noted that despite the alleged exchange of gunfire lasting 10 minutes, no police officers were injured, and no damage was done to their vehicle, raising doubts about the authenticity of the encounter. ----- Investigating Officer’s Role: The investigating officer, who was also the complainant in the case, conducted the entire investigation, which was seen as problematic because it compromised the neutrality required in criminal investigations. This was found to be against established legal principles that require an independent investigation, especially in cases involving police encounters. ----- Delays in Forensic Examination: The court criticized the unexplained delay in sending the recovered weapon for forensic examination, which cast further doubt on the prosecution's evidence. ----- Benefit of Doubt: Given the various discrepancies and procedural lapses, the court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. As per established legal principles, any doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused. ----- Acquittal: The court acquitted all the appellants, setting aside their convictions and sentences in both the main case under the PPC and the offshoot case under the Sindh Arms Act. The court reasoned that since the appellants were acquitted of the main charges, Muhammad Hanif was also entitled to be acquitted in the arms case, as it was merely an offshoot of the main case. ----- Outcome: The appeals were allowed, and the appellants were acquitted of all charges. The court emphasized that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and the benefit of the doubt was extended to the appellants. The court also noted that police investigations, especially in cases of alleged encounters, must be conducted with impartiality and adherence to proper procedures.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, a tenant, leased a godown at Al-Khidmat Plaza in Rawalpindi from the respondent, the landlord, through a written agreement dated 18.02.2020. The lease was for a one-year period, from 01.02.2020 to 31.01.2021, with a rent of Rs.90,000 per month paid annually in advance. After the lease expired, the respondent filed an eviction petition on the grounds of non-payment of rent, expiry of the lease, and personal bona fide need. The petitioner contested the eviction, claiming that he had paid the rent up to 31.07.2022 through excess payments and also challenged the respondent’s status as a landlord. Both the Rent Tribunal and the Additional District Judge ruled against the petitioner, leading him to file this writ petition. -----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner had defaulted on rent payments after the expiry of the lease agreement. 2- Whether the respondent had the legal status to file an eviction petition as a landlord. 3- Whether the excess amount paid by the petitioner should be treated as rent for the extended period. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Court held that the petitioner failed to produce any receipts or documentary proof of rent payment after the lease expired on 31.01.2021, which constituted rent default. The Court found that the respondent was authorized to act as a landlord under the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, which defines a landlord as either the owner or someone authorized to receive rent. The petitioner, having leased the property and paid rent to the respondent, could not challenge the respondent’s status. The petitioner’s claim that the excess amount paid should be treated as rent for the extended period was unsupported by evidence or recognized modes of payment under the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009. The Court ruled that the petitioner failed to establish any legal grounds for contesting the eviction and dismissed the writ petition. -----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Akram Bhatti vs. Additional District Judge, Attock and others (2021 CLC 1405) Asad Ali Khan vs. Special Judge Rent and others (PLD 2019 Lahore 363) Muhammad Nayab vs. Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi and others (2016 MLD 1095) Muhammad Tafeeq vs. Muhammad Nawaz and others (2015 CLC 1187) Muhammad Shah Alam vs. Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor (1979 SCMR 443)

Summary: Pending

Summary: Civil Procedure Code CPC (Order XVII Rule 3 CPC)----The suit involved a dispute over agricultural land, with the respondent seeking a declaration and injunction. The applicant denied the claims, stating that he had acquired the land through a registered sale deed.After examining the pleadings and hearing the parties, the trial court framed issues and ultimately decreed the suit. The applicant appealed, but the appeal was dismissed. In this revision application, the applicant argued that the trial court had failed to appreciate the evidence properly, and the dismissal of the suit was not justified.The High Court, after reviewing the judgment and arguments, found that the trial court had appropriately closed the side of the plaintiff under Order XVII Rule 3 CPC (Civil Procedure Code) due to the failure to produce evidence. The court affirmed the decision of the lower courts and dismissed the revision application.

Summary: [1. The terms ?Austerity? defines a launch of economic policies which in fact a government executes and embarks on to control public sector debts/liabilities for restoring financial health/stability and lowering government expenditures.2. The terms ?Monetization? connotes to transform something into money which also expresses the transfiguration into revenue generating reformations and restructurings or conversion of something into source of income. Also to establish a legal tender; to purchase (public or private debt) and thereby free for other uses moneys that would have been devoted to debt service and to utilize (something of value) as a source of profit.3. The catchphrase ?intelligible differentia? articulates dissimilarity or disparity capable of being comprehended. The classification must be based on an intelligible differentia which should distinguish the persons that are grouped together from others left out of the group and the differentia or categorization/cataloguing must have a logical and commonsensical nexus with the object sought to be achieved.4. Neither the court can act or represent as appellate authority with the aim of scrutinizing the rightness, fittingness and aptness of a policy nor may act as advisor to the executives on matters of policy which they are entitled to formulate. The extensiveness of judicial review of a policy is to test out whether it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is at variance to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory provision or demonstrably arbitrary or discriminately.5. There is no hard and fast rule that if some benefit was wrongly extended due to some misunderstanding, error, misconception of law or without sanction of competent authority, that act should be treated so sacred and sacrosanct which could not be withdrawn to retrace or redo the wrong decision or action under the guise of locus poenitentiae principle. A wrong benefit extended beyond the scope of law and rules/policy cannot be claimed in perpetuity or eternity]

Summary: The petitioners challenged a direction from the Lahore High Court that required them to provide a 20ft passage to the respondents, excluding the passage of Rajbah, for transportation and exposure to the main road. The land in question was owned by the Provincial Government, and it was acquired for the purpose of dualizing Lahore-Sheikhupura Road and constructing a mechanical workshop.The Province of Punjab argued that the direction exceeded the High Court's jurisdiction and was not supported by law. They asserted that the respondents were fully aware of the modes of access to their land and no easement rights were claimed.The Supreme Court examined the evidence, including the absence of any existing passage from the respondents' land through the acquired land of the petitioners. They concluded that the direction issued by the High Court was not sustainable and set it aside.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending