Summary: Alleged accused impugns order U/s 22-A whereas in Justice of Peace allowed the petition and ordered registration of FIR.

Summary: Culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Summary: Sec of Law: 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.(a) Case of a plaintiff has to stand on its own legs. His case cannot succeed merely by exploiting weaknesses of the opposite party.

Summary: The FIR was not lodged was at police station; private complaint has been filed with the delay of two months and 21 days; there is considerable delay in conducting post mortem examination and that the witnesses could not justify the reason given by them for their presnece at the place of occurrence; lastly joint role of firing attributed to the appellant

Summary: Dispute about inheritance---Resjudicata---The central matter concerned a land estate that was previously owned by an individual who had passed away. The individual's daughter, who survived them, also passed away at a later point. After her passing, her descendants initiated a legal action, asserting their claim to inherit from the estate. The appellants argued that the Appellate Court's decision to reverse the Civil Judge's ruling and reinstate the descendants' claim was valid. They based their argument on principles of inheritance under Islamic law and contended that the concept of res judicata should not apply to cases governed by Muslim Personal Law. They cited a legal precedent to support their stance.Conversely, the respondents contended that the deceased daughter had previously filed a lawsuit for the same estate and cause of action, which was dismissed. They argued that the principle of res judicata, as outlined in specific sections of the Code of Civil Procedure, should be applicable. The respondents emphasized that the earlier court decision should not be ignored and that the subsequent lawsuit filed by the deceased daughter's descendants should be considered inadmissible.During the course of the proceedings, the appellants drew upon the aforementioned legal precedent, which was presumed to establish that the principle of res judicata did not extend to cases governed by Muslim Personal Law. However, the Court observed that the relevant legal framework did not explicitly exempt such cases from the principle of res judicata. The Court clarified that not all statements within a legal judgment hold binding precedent.Ultimately, the Court determined that the Appellate Court's dismissal of the principle of res judicata was a legal error and upheld the High Court's correction of this error. As a result, the lawsuit brought forward by the respondents' side in a subsequent year was dismissed due to the prior decision made nearly forty years earlier. The Court highlighted the importance of upholding the finality of decisions for the sake of public policy. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded in the case.

Summary: [(1) The gift of immovable property by a father under the Muhammadan Law in favour of his minor son could not be revoked. (2) No transfer of possession is required in case of gift by a father to his minor child or by a guardian to his ward. (3) Section 123 and 129 of the Transfer of Property Act are not applicable to the hiba envisioned under the Muslim Law. (4) When the donor and the donee are related within the prohibited degree, a gift made cannot be revoked]---The original lawsuit was filed by the deceased respondent No. 1, claiming that his father had gifted him land in the year 1952. After the father's death, the respondent No. 1 discovered that his father had executed a document of revocation of the gift in 1970 and subsequently gifted the same land to the petitioners (defendants No. 2 to 6). The respondent No. 1 sought a declaration, cancellation of the documents, and relief of delivery of possession of the land.The trial court decreed in favor of the respondent No. 1, and the petitioners appealed, but their appeal was dismissed. The main contention was whether the gift of immovable property conveyed by a father to his minor child in 1952 could be revoked in 1970, even after possession had been delivered and accepted by the mother of the donee on his behalf. The court examined the principles of Muhammadan Law and noted that gifts to certain close relations within prohibited degrees, such as minor children, could not be revoked. It also emphasized that the Transfer of Property Act does not apply to such gifts under Muslim Law.The court further discussed that once possession is delivered, revocation would require a decree from the court and not just the declaration of the donor. It also mentioned that the possession of the guardian, in this case, the mother, is considered the possession of the minor. The court referred to various authoritative sources and precedents to support its conclusion.Ultimately, the court held that the revocation made by the father on the pretext of non-handing over of possession was unlawful and that the cancellation deed was void in the eye of the law. The court upheld the earlier decisions and dismissed the petitioners' challenge.

Summary: Other Sentences/5 Years R.I---Upheld---ATA---The petitioner argued that he shouldn't have been convicted under the Anti-Terrorism Act as the power to list individuals as proscribed persons in the Fourth Schedule was vested solely in the Federal Government, but his name was placed in the schedule by the Provincial Government. Additionally, he argued that disobedience of the bond did not constitute a substantive offense under the Act and thus couldn't be considered absconding under section 21-L.The court dismissed these arguments, explaining that the Federal Government had delegated its powers to Provincial Home Secretaries and Chief Commissioner Islamabad Capital Territory, thus making the petitioner's placement within the Fourth Schedule lawful. The court pointed out that violation of the bond constitutes an offense under section 11 EE of the Act, punishable by imprisonment or fine. The court found that the prosecution had proven the charges against the petitioner beyond a doubt based on both oral and documentary evidence. Therefore, the court rejected the petition, declining to grant leave.

Summary: [Tax Tribunal is the final fact finding body. Only "question of law" is to be examined by the Court in a Tax Reference]

Summary: Background: The appellants/their predecessors-in-interest filed a suit claiming their inheritance rights through Sahib-un-Nisa from Mehrban Ali?s estate after his death in 1908. The Appellate Court had initially ruled in favor of the appellants by setting aside the Civil Judge's dismissal of the suit. However, the High Court reversed the Appellate Court's decision, restoring the Civil Judge's dismissal based on the principle of res judicata.---Issue: Whether the principle of res judicata is applicable to cases involving Muslim Personal Law, specifically in matters of inheritance.---Holding: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's application of the principle of res judicata to the case. The Court clarified that the Act does not stipulate the inapplicability of res judicata to Muslim Personal Law and cited previous judgments to support the applicability of res judicata in similar cases.---Rationale: The Supreme Court emphasized that not every observation in its judgments creates a binding precedent unless it decides a question of law or enunciates a principle of law as per Article 189 of the Constitution. The Court found that the Appellate Court had erred in disregarding the principle of res judicata, and the High Court had correctly rectified this mistake. The Court also highlighted the importance of public policy in not reopening disputes that have been finally decided.---Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the High Court's decision to apply the principle of res judicata, thereby dismissing the suit filed by the appellants in 1997 on the grounds that the matter had been previously decided in 1958. The Court ruled that disputes once decided should not be reopened, maintaining the stability and finality of legal judgments. No order as to costs was made since the appeal was filed as of right.

Summary: Sentence reduced---Background: The appellant was convicted and sentenced to 14 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine under Section 9(C) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act (CNSA), 2001, and one year of simple imprisonment under Section 4 of The Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Act, 1985. The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence, claiming procedural lapses and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. ----Issues: 1- Whether the delay in sending the narcotics sample for forensic analysis impacts the credibility of the prosecution’s case. 2- Whether the discrepancy in the weight of the narcotics sample affects the validity of the conviction. 3- Whether the offenses under CNSA and The Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Act should be tried by the Tehsil Criminal Court. 4- Whether the conviction and sentence awarded by the lower courts were justified. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Delay in Sending Sample: The Court acknowledged the delay in sending the sample for forensic analysis but considered it a mitigating circumstance rather than grounds for complete acquittal. The standard procedure requires samples to be dispatched within 72 hours, which was not followed. --Discrepancy in Weight: The Court noted the discrepancy in the weight of the sample as a dent in the prosecution's case but insufficient to discredit the entire case. Such discrepancies could be considered for reducing the sentence. --Jurisdiction of Courts: The Court held that the offenses under CNSA, being a special law, have precedence over the general provisions of The Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Act. Therefore, the trial by the Special Court for CNSA was justified. --Conviction and Sentence: Considering the mitigating circumstances, the Court reduced the sentence under Section 9(C) of CNSA from 14 years to 8 years of rigorous imprisonment while maintaining the rest of the judgment. ----Citations/Precedents: Hussain Bux alias Kabacho Channa vs. The State [2017 P Cr.LJ 501]: Evidence of police officials and delay in sending samples. Farrah Ayyub vs. The State, Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2020: Discrepancy in weight and delay in sending samples. Tariq Pervaiz vs. The State [1995 SCMR 1345]: Sending sample parcels for analysis. Shabbir Hussain vs. The State [2021 SCMR 198]: Credibility of police witnesses and public reluctance to be witnesses. Noor Aga vs. State of Punjab [2008 16 SCC 417]: Discrepancy in the weight of samples. Salah-ud-Din vs. The State [2010 SCMR 1962]: Credibility of police witnesses. Malick Hussain Shah vs. Superintendent of Police Rangers [2014 SCR 1120]: Precedence of special law over general law. Muhammad Yousaf Haroon vs. Competent Authority & others [2014 SCR 1180]: Applicability of later promulgated law over the earlier one. Outcome: The appeal was partially accepted, reducing the sentence under Section 9(C) of CNSA from 14 years to 8 years of rigorous imprisonment while maintaining the rest of the judgment.