Summary: The petitioner was arrested along with nine others by Sub-Inspector Muhammad Afzal for gaming at a public place near Chungi No.11, Multan.The petitioner's counsel argued that the magistrate's order was without jurisdiction, contending that the confession made by the petitioner was not recorded in accordance with the procedure stipulated in section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C). The counsel for the petitioner further argued that any irregularity in the proceedings could not be cured under section 537 of the Cr.P.C. The deputy prosecutor general contended that the petitioner's confession was duly recorded by the magistrate and that any irregularity could be cured under section 537 of the Cr.P.C. Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor (AIR 1936 PC 253): This case was cited to establish the principle that confessions recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C must adhere strictly to the prescribed procedure, and any violation renders the confession inadmissible. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh and others (AIR 1964 SC 358), Ramaswami Reddiar (AIR 1953 Madras 138), these legal precedents were invoked to underscore the significance of following the procedural safeguards outlined in section 164 of the Cr.P.C when recording confessions, and to establish the inadmissibility of confessions recorded in violation of these procedures. Consequently, the petition was accepted, and the impugned order convicting the petitioner was set aside. The judgment also extended the benefit of its findings to the co-accused in the case, setting aside their convictions as well.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. II, R. 2---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 12 & 54---Suit for possession, menseprofit and permanent injunction--- Bar on further suit---Splitting of claim---Scope---Petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit in respect of legacy of his father which was decreed /actedupon, where after he filed civil suit again on the same subject-suit/cause of action, which wasdismissed---Held, that under O. II, R.2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the splitting ofclaim was not permissible and all the claims based on same cause of action against the sameparty should be included in one suit---O. II, R. 2 of the C.P.C, 1908, was devised to prevent aparty from splitting up its claim, and if the plaintiff omitted or relinquished any part of hisright/entitlement, he was precluded from agitating the relinquished part of claim insubsequent suit---Suit of the petitioner was hit by the O. II, R.2, C.P.C.---No illegality orinfirmity was found in the impugned findings of both the Courts below---Revision wasdismissed, in circumstances. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. II, R. 2---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 12 & 54---Suit for possession, menseprofit and permanent injunction---Bar on further suit---Object---Object of R.2 of O.II, C.P.C,was to prevent further litigation between the same parties over the same cause of action---Where the plaintiff relinquished a claim which was available to him during the previous suit,the same could not be suited in part left subsequently.

Summary: Background: The Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and several ex-judges filed a petition seeking review of the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir's judgment dated July 17, 2020. This judgment had declared the appointments of the private petitioners as judges of the High Court as ultra vires the Constitution and without lawful authority. The review petition was decided on December 15, 2020, with a short order dismissing the petition for lack of merit and procedural misconduct by the petitioners' counsel. ----Issues: 1- Whether the judgment of July 17, 2020, which invalidated the appointments of the private petitioners as High Court judges, contained any errors or mistakes apparent on the face of the record. 2- Whether the conduct of the petitioners' counsel and their repeated requests for adjournments constituted an attempt to delay the proceedings. 3- Whether the Azad Government and the worthy President of Azad Jammu and Kashmir were aggrieved parties with the standing to seek a review of the judgment. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Error or Mistake on Record: The Court found no error or mistake apparent on the face of the record. The petitioners' claims that the consultation process for the judges' appointments was lawful were not substantiated by the record. --Conduct of Counsel: The Court noted the petitioners' counsel's conduct, including repeated requests for adjournments and failure to argue the case, was unbecoming and suggested an attempt to delay the proceedings. The Court proceeded to decide the case based on the available record due to the counsel's lack of interest. --Standing of Petitioners: The Court ruled that the Azad Government and the President of Azad Jammu and Kashmir were not aggrieved parties as defined by law, as the judgment did not affect their rights, interests, or titles. The inclusion of the government and the President in the review petition conveyed a bad impression and was deemed inappropriate. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, finding no valid grounds for review and highlighting procedural and substantive deficiencies in the petitioners' arguments. The petitioners, including the Azad Government and the President, were found to lack standing to seek review, and the private petitioners should have filed an independent review petition. ----Citations/Precedents: Ch. Muhammad Yasin v. Sardar Muhammad Naeem Khan and 3 others [2010 SCR 17]: Definition of an aggrieved party. Bashir Ahmed Mughal v. Azad Government and 6 others [2014 SCR 1258]: Discussion on the independence of the judiciary and the appointment of judges.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Election/FPCCI: - Petitioner a contestantin elections for FPCCI is aggrieved of order by DGTO wherein candidature of another nominee was allowed.

Summary: Election/FPCCI: - Petitioner a contestantin elections for FPCCI is aggrieved of order by DGTO wherein candidature of another nominee was allowed.

Summary: Sentence Reduction---Narcotics---The case originated from a raid conducted at the petitioner's house based on a spy's information. During the raid, the petitioner was apprehended with a sack containing 15 kg of "bhukki/poast." A chemical analysis confirmed the presence of narcotics in the sample. The prosecution presented six witnesses to support their case, including a constable and an Assistant Session Judge. After hearing the arguments and examining the case record, the court concluded that the petitioner was caught with 15kg of bhukki/poast, and the prosecution witnesses remained consistent in their statements. The court acknowledged that minor discrepancies might exist due to the time gap between the registration of the FIR in 2007 and the recording of evidence in 2009. The court also noted that police officials can be reliable witnesses and should not be discarded solely because of their profession. Regarding the punishment, the court analyzed the definition of "opium" under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The court cited previous judgments and stated that not all poppy straw is considered "poast." The term "poast" specifically refers to the natural pouch or bulb containing the seeds of a poppy plant. The court found no evidence regarding whether only the pouch or the entire plant was recovered from the petitioner. Considering the mitigating circumstance that the petitioner had already spent over 13 years in jail and that the remaining sentence was less than two years, the court reduced the petitioner's sentence to the time already served. The petitioner was ordered to be released unless detained in any other case.

Summary: Sentence Reduction---Narcotics---The case originated from a raid conducted at the petitioner's house based on a spy's information. During the raid, the petitioner was apprehended with a sack containing 15 kg of "bhukki/poast." A chemical analysis confirmed the presence of narcotics in the sample. The prosecution presented six witnesses to support their case, including a constable and an Assistant Session Judge. After hearing the arguments and examining the case record, the court concluded that the petitioner was caught with 15kg of bhukki/poast, and the prosecution witnesses remained consistent in their statements. The court acknowledged that minor discrepancies might exist due to the time gap between the registration of the FIR in 2007 and the recording of evidence in 2009. The court also noted that police officials can be reliable witnesses and should not be discarded solely because of their profession. Regarding the punishment, the court analyzed the definition of "opium" under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The court cited previous judgments and stated that not all poppy straw is considered "poast." The term "poast" specifically refers to the natural pouch or bulb containing the seeds of a poppy plant. The court found no evidence regarding whether only the pouch or the entire plant was recovered from the petitioner. Considering the mitigating circumstance that the petitioner had already spent over 13 years in jail and that the remaining sentence was less than two years, the court reduced the petitioner's sentence to the time already served. The petitioner was ordered to be released unless detained in any other case.

Summary: Sentence Reduction---Narcotics---The case originated from a raid conducted at the petitioner's house based on a spy's information. During the raid, the petitioner was apprehended with a sack containing 15 kg of "bhukki/poast." A chemical analysis confirmed the presence of narcotics in the sample. The prosecution presented six witnesses to support their case, including a constable and an Assistant Session Judge. After hearing the arguments and examining the case record, the court concluded that the petitioner was caught with 15kg of bhukki/poast, and the prosecution witnesses remained consistent in their statements. The court acknowledged that minor discrepancies might exist due to the time gap between the registration of the FIR in 2007 and the recording of evidence in 2009. The court also noted that police officials can be reliable witnesses and should not be discarded solely because of their profession. Regarding the punishment, the court analyzed the definition of "opium" under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The court cited previous judgments and stated that not all poppy straw is considered "poast." The term "poast" specifically refers to the natural pouch or bulb containing the seeds of a poppy plant. The court found no evidence regarding whether only the pouch or the entire plant was recovered from the petitioner. Considering the mitigating circumstance that the petitioner had already spent over 13 years in jail and that the remaining sentence was less than two years, the court reduced the petitioner's sentence to the time already served. The petitioner was ordered to be released unless detained in any other case.