Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Quashment of special assistans to the Prime Minister (SAPM)

Summary: The case stems from a Murabaha Financing Facility extended to the appellant by Faysal Bank Limited under an agreement dated 20.11.2007.The appellant's application to defend against the lawsuit was initially dismissed by the Banking Court.The Banking Court issued a judgment in favor of Faysal Bank Limited for the recovery of a specific amount along with the cost of funds.The Banking Court also allowed the sale of certain properties mortgaged as security for the facility.The appellant filed this appeal, claiming that all obligations had been cleared, the Subject Properties were not mortgaged to the bank, and that the bank had coerced the appellant to sign blank documents.There were attempts to settle the matter out of court, but those efforts failed.The respondent's counsel argued that the appeal was filed after the prescribed 30-day period and, therefore, should be dismissed as time-barred.The respondent presented evidence, including a letter from the appellant accepting a settlement offer.The appellant was accused of taking inconsistent stances during the proceedings.The judgment ultimately concluded that the Banking Court's decision was correct, and the appeal was dismissed along with all pending applications.This judgment essentially upholds the original decision made by the Banking Court in favor of Faysal Bank Limited regarding the recovery of finances, and it dismisses the appeal brought by Farnaz Ahmed.

Summary: The respondent had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, alleging that he was the allottee of a plot in, Islamabad, through open auction. The respondent claimed that the CDA failed to deliver possession of the plot within the stipulated time and did not remove high tension wires and electric poles passing through the commercial plots in the area. The respondent requested the court to order the CDA to remove the encumbrances and restrain them from canceling the plot.the Supreme Court examined the evidence and concluded that the judgments of the lower courts suffered from misreading and non-reading of the evidence. The Court found that the possession of the plot was delivered within a reasonable time, and the respondent had failed to pay the installments on time despite the possession being given. The Court also noted that the rescheduling of payment was not approved by the CDA Board, except for the permission to collect delayed payment charges. Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the lower courts, and provided detailed reasons for their decision.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---Ss. 374, 375 & 376---Death sentence---Murder reference---Duty of High Court---Reappraisal of entire evidence---High Court, while deciding appeal of condemned prisoner along with murder reference for confirmation of death sentence, is not confined merely to the arguments advanced in appeal---In proceedings under S.374, Cr.P.C., High Court is under a statutory duty to read, scrutinize and reappraise every piece of evidence and to examine whether evidence has been improperly admitted, excluded, misread or non-read by Trial Court---Even non-filing or withdrawal of appeal, or any concession by State counsel, does not relieve High Court of such duty---Death sentence cannot be confirmed unless High Court independently assesses guilt or innocence and appropriateness of sentence. Cited Cases: Noorul Haq v. State 1989 PCr.LJ 1322. Fakiro v. State PLD 1964 (W.P.) Karachi 344. Bhupendra Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1968 SC 1438. Jumman v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 469. Ram Shankar v. State of West Bengal AIR 1962 SC 1239. Masalti v. State of U.P. AIR 1965 SC 202. Gul v. Emperor AIR 1921 Sindh 84. (b) Constitution of Pakistan---Arts. 9, 10A & 14---Criminal trial---Heinous offence---Fair trial and appraisal of evidence---Five persons were brutally murdered, but heinous, gruesome or brutal nature of offence could not justify strained, emotional or haphazard appreciation of evidence---Cases must be decided on evidence alone and not on sentiments---Even in a shocking murder case, accused remains presumed innocent until prosecution proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt through legally admissible, confidence-inspiring and reliable evidence---Fair trial under Art.10A cannot be taken away merely because allegations are grave. Cited Cases: Muhammad Fazil v. State 1982 PCr.LJ 510. Abdul Ghaffar v. State 2005 PCr.LJ 887. Muhammad Arif v. State 2006 PCr.LJ 1827. Kazim Hussain v. State 2008 PCr.LJ 971. Azeem Khan v. Mujahid Khan 2016 SCMR 274. State v. Mushtaq Ahmad PLD 1973 SC 418. (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat/Criminal trial---Circumstantial evidence---Unseen occurrence---Standard of proof---Prosecution case was wholly based on circumstantial evidence, including last-seen evidence, recovery of motorcycle, alleged stolen property, bloodstained knives/gloves and medical evidence---Circumstantial evidence must be narrowly examined with minute care and caution---Facts and circumstances relied upon must form a complete and unbroken chain, one end touching the dead body and the other the neck of accused---If any link is missing, or circumstances are reconcilable with any reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence, conviction, especially on a capital charge, cannot safely be recorded. Cited Cases: Lejzor Teper v. Queen PLD 1952 PC 117. Fazal Elahi v. Crown PLD 1953 FC 214. Saeed Ahmad v. Muhammad Irfan PLD 1986 SC 690. Siraj v. Crown PLD 1956 FC 123. Nazir Hossain v. State 1969 SCMR 388. Sairan v. State PLD 1970 SC 56. Karamat Hussain v. State 1972 SCMR 15. Barkat Ali v. Karam Elahi 1992 SCMR 1047. Ibrahim v. State 2009 SCMR 407. Muhammad Hussain v. State 2011 SCMR 1127. Imran v. State 2015 SCMR 155. Hashim Qasim v. State 2017 SCMR 986. Fayyaz Ahmad v. State 2017 SCMR 2026. (d) Criminal trial---Chance witness---Last seen evidence---Unexplained presence---Witness claimed that he saw three persons outside deceased’s house at about 8:00/8:30 p.m. while going for condolence in another village---Witness could not name the person whose father had allegedly died nor the deceased person on whose death he was going for condolence---Presence at such odd winter-night hours did not fit ordinary rural practice of condolence visits---Explanation for presence near place of occurrence was unsatisfactory---Last-seen evidence was unsafe to rely upon. Cited Cases: Javed Ahmad v. State 1978 SCMR 114. Zafar Hayat v. State 1995 SCMR 896. Muhammad Rafique v. State 2004 SCMR 755. Muhammad Khalid v. Abdullah 2008 SCMR 158. Sughra Begum v. Qaiser Pervez 2015 SCMR 1142. Ibrar Hussain v. State 2020 SCMR 1850. (e) Criminal trial---Witness making material improvement---Effect---Witness had stated before police under S.161, Cr.P.C. that due to darkness he could not identify the persons seen outside deceased’s house, but in Court he identified accused and stated that there was light---He had not described age, complexion, height or other identifying features to police---Such glaring improvement was deliberate and material, made to strengthen prosecution case---Witness became unreliable and High Court’s view that his testimony remained unaffected was held flawed and untenable. Cited Cases: Hadi Bakhsh v. State PLD 1963 (W.P.) Karachi 805. Shahzada v. Hamidullah 1968 PCr.LJ 176. Amir Zaman v. Mahboob 1985 SCMR 685. Saeed Muhammad v. State 1993 SCMR 550. Khalid Javed v. State 2003 SCMR 1419. Akhtar Ali v. State 2008 SCMR 6. Muhammad Rafique v. State 2010 SCMR 385. Muhammad Saleem v. Muhammad Azan 2011 SCMR 474. Sardar Bibi v. Munir Ahmed 2017 SCMR 344. (f) Criminal trial---Recovery of motorcycle allegedly used in occurrence---No specification in FIR---No forensic test---No proof of ownership---Effect---FIR did not mention make, colour, registration number or other particulars of motorcycle allegedly seen outside deceased’s house---Investigating Officer claimed bloodstains existed on motorcycle seat-cover but failed to send same to Chemical Examiner or Serologist---No proof of ownership was collected and alleged informer regarding ownership was not examined---Site-plan of place of recovery was also not prepared---Recovery was deficient and could not connect accused with occurrence. (g) Criminal trial---Recovery of stolen property---Robbery-cum-murder---Unnatural recovery story---Effect---Prosecution alleged that accused were arrested at a snooker club and immediately made disclosures leading to recovery of gold ornaments, cash, defence saving certificates, laptop and cameras---Story that accused, while casually playing snooker, immediately admitted involvement in capital offence and cooperated in recoveries was intrinsically doubtful and inconsistent with ordinary human conduct---Non-mention of scattered jewellery boxes in FIR and absence of such boxes in crime-scene photographs further damaged prosecution case. (h) Criminal trial---Recovery of stolen property---No prior description or proof of ownership---Effect---In absence of description of stolen property in FIR or prior statement under S.161, Cr.P.C., recovered articles could not safely be treated as stolen property of deceased---Goldsmith’s testimony was weak as he produced no sale record or proper repair record and could not satisfactorily prove ownership---Surviving daughters of deceased, who were best persons to identify ornaments, were not used for identification---Laptop and cameras were also not forensically examined to establish ownership---Such recoveries could not form a reliable link in circumstantial chain. (i) Criminal trial---Recovery of mobile phones/SIMs---Contradictions and omissions---Effect---Investigating Officer’s oral statement regarding mobile phones being called for through brothers of accused contradicted written recovery memos---Persons who allegedly brought mobile phones were not joined in investigation, their names were not recorded, and explanation for such recovery was unnatural---Theft of mobile phones was not mentioned in FIR or supplementary statement---Call-data theory was also not properly put to accused under S.342, Cr.P.C. and relevant persons called through SIM were not examined---Recovery of mobile phones/SIMs was unreliable. (j) Criminal trial---Recovery of bloodstained knives/gloves---Public place---Non-association of independent witnesses---Unnatural conduct---Weapons were allegedly recovered from beneath/near Manara Pulley, a public place near shops and villages, but no independent local witness was associated---Recovery witnesses were close relatives of complainant and particulars appeared added later on recovery memos---Story that offenders wrapped bloodstained knives and gloves in polythene bags and buried them near water stream instead of destroying or throwing them away was unnatural---Recovery was unsafe to rely upon. Cited Cases: Sardar Bibi v. Munir Ahmed 2017 SCMR 344. Muhammad Asif v. State 2017 SCMR 486. (k) Criminal trial---Recovery of weapon of offence---Corroborative evidence only---Substantive evidence absent---Effect---Recovery of alleged weapon of offence is only corroborative and cannot by itself prove guilt where substantive evidence fails---If ocular or other substantive evidence is unreliable, recovery of weapon cannot independently sustain conviction---Recovery of bloodstained knives, even if assumed, was insufficient without reliable substantive evidence connecting accused with murder. Cited Cases: Siraj v. Crown PLD 1956 FC 123. Saifullah v. State 1985 SCMR 410. Ali Muhammad v. Bashir Ahmed 2003 SCMR 868. Israr-ul-Haq v. Muhammad Fayyaz 2007 SCMR 1427. Hayatullah v. State 2018 SCMR 2092. (l) Criminal trial---Bloodstained weapon---Forensic report not matching blood with deceased---Evidentiary value---Mere recovery of bloodstained knife or weapon does not connect accused with offence unless blood found thereon is forensically matched with blood of deceased---As with firearm recovery requiring positive forensic report matching crime empties, recovery of bloodstained weapon without matching report cannot be used as substantive or corroborative evidence against accused---Bloodstained knives/gloves in the case did not connect petitioners with murders. Cited Cases: Irfan Ali v. State 2015 SCMR 840. Khalid Javed v. State 2003 SCMR 1419. Hamid Nadeem v. State 2011 SCMR 1233. Muhammad Asif v. State 2017 SCMR 486. Sardar Bibi v. Munir Ahmed 2017 SCMR 344. Azhar Mehmood v. State 2017 SCMR 135. (m) Medical evidence---Nature and scope---Supporting evidence, not corroborative evidence connecting accused---Medical evidence proved only that deaths occurred by cutting throats with sharp-edged weapon---It could confirm seat, nature and cause of injury, type of weapon and duration between injury and death, but could not identify offender---Medical evidence by itself does not connect accused with commission of offence and cannot constitute corroboration for involvement of accused. Cited Cases: Yaqoob Shah v. State PLD 1976 SC 53. Machia v. State PLD 1976 SC 695. Muhammad Iqbal v. Abid Hussain 1994 SCMR 1928. Mehmood Ahmad v. State 1995 SCMR 127. Muhammad Sharif v. State 1997 SCMR 866. Dildar Hussain v. Muhammad Afzaal PLD 2004 SC 663. Iftikhar Hussain v. State 2004 SCMR 1185. Sikandar v. State 2006 SCMR 1786. Ghulam Murtaza v. Muhammad Akram 2007 SCMR 1549. Altaf Hussain v. Fakhar Hussain 2008 SCMR 1103. Hashim Qasim v. State 2017 SCMR 986. (n) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---Ss. 161 & 342---Test identification parade---Witness dying before trial---Effect---One Fazal Karim allegedly told police that he saw accused Qadeer with two unknown boys going towards locality of deceased’s house, but he died during trial and could not be examined---Investigating Officer did not conduct test identification proceedings of Khurram Shahzad and Naveed Asghar through said witness after their arrest---Statement under S.161, Cr.P.C. of deceased witness could not be used to draw adverse inference against accused, especially when veracity could not be tested by cross-examination---Omission to hold identification proceedings was serious failure in investigation. (o) Criminal investigation---Defective investigation---Creating evidence instead of collecting evidence---Effect---Investigation of gruesome murder of five members of a family was marked by serious omissions, doubtful recoveries, absence of forensic examination, lack of independent witnesses, failure to conduct identification proceedings, and attempt to fill gaps through questionable evidence---Investigating Officer appeared to create evidence instead of collecting legally admissible evidence---Such investigation could not support conviction on capital charge. (p) Criminal trial---Benefit of doubt---Suspicion and probability not enough---Standard beyond reasonable doubt---Finding of guilt cannot rest on high probabilities, suspicion, surmises or conjectures---If prosecution evidence leaves reasonable doubt, accused is entitled to benefit of doubt as of right and not as concession---Courts below filled missing links in circumstantial chain due to heinous nature of charge, resulting in grave injustice---Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Cited Cases: Muhammad Luqman v. State PLD 1970 SC 10. Tariq Pervez v. State 1995 SCMR 1345. Ayub Masih v. State PLD 2002 SC 1048. (q) Criminal appeal---Concurrent findings of Trial Court and High Court---Supreme Court’s interference---Where concurrent verdicts were based on superficial and cursory appreciation of evidence, overlooked serious pitfalls, and were founded on unreliable circumstantial evidence, Supreme Court could interfere---Conviction and death sentence were manifestly erroneous because prosecution failed to complete the chain of circumstances and failed to rule out every hypothesis consistent with innocence. Disposition: Jail petition was converted into appeal and allowed; judgments of Trial Court and High Court were set aside; petitioners were acquitted of all charges and directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Summary: (a) Defamation Ordinance (LVI of 2002)-------Ss.3, 8 & 12---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11---Suit fordefamation/damages against Police Officer for circulation of false statement/representation---Essentials---Rejection of plaint---Scope---Suit was dismissed by Trial Court---Validity---Noestimation and clear calculation had been given by the appellant as to how and which act ofthe defendant caused financial loss, mental agony and defamation to the appellant which wasnot clear by the appellant in his plaint/suit---Report submitted by the police officials beforethe competent court of law did not come within the definition of "defamation"---Nodisclosure in plaint as to on which words/actions of the respondents petitioner/plaintiffreceived mental agony and defamation which disrepute him in public at large or to hisfriends and relatives---Appellant/plaintiff had not complied with the mandatory requirementsof Rr. 2 & 4 of O.VI of C.P.C.---Legal notice was given to the SHO of police station with adelay of more than eleven months---Plaint did not disclose any cause of action---Nodate/month had been mentioned in plaint as to where/when the respondents caused financialloss and before whom reputation was disrepute and damaged---Suit appeared to be barred bylimitation, so plaint should have to be rejected under O.VII, R.11 of C.P.C---Impugnedjudgment of the Trial Court had rightly been passed---Appeal was dismissed accordingly.Raja Ali Shan v. Messrs Essem Hotel Limited and others 2007 SCMR 741 ref.(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O.VII, R.11---Rejection of Plaint---Scope---For deciding the question of rejection ofplaint, only the plaint and its accompaniments could be examined.(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O.VII, R.11---Rejection of Plaint---Scope---Object of R.11 of O.VII, C.P.C. wasprimarily to save the parties from rigours of frivolous litigation at the very inception of theproceedings, and if the Court on the basis of averments made in the plaint and documents available, concluded that even if all the allegations made in the plaint were proved, theplaintiff would not be entitled to the relief claimed, the Court would be justified in rejectingthe plaint in the exercise of powers available under R.11 of O.VII, C.P.C.Pakistan Agriculture Storage and Services Corporation Ltd. v. Mian Abdul Latif andothers PLD 2008 SC 371 rel.(d) Defamation Ordinance (LVI of 2002)-------S.12---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.3---Special law---Applicability---Scope---Defamation Ordinance, 2002 is a special law which has prescribed limitation (six monthssince publication of the documentary material/matter) for filing suit for defamation andLimitation Act, 1908 does not apply in defamation cases.

Summary: Family Courts Act ( XXXV of 1964)-------S.17---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Preamble---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984 ),Preamble---Family Court Act, 1964---Object---Provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 andQanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Applicability---Dismissal of suit on technicalities---Effect---Family Court dismissed the suit of lady/respondent on the ground that she did not fulfil therequirements of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, while producing her documentary as well asoral evidence---Appellate Court remanded the matter to the Family Court---Held, thatpurpose of enacting the special law regarding family disputes was to advance justice and toavoid technicalities which were hindrance in providing ultimate justice to the parties---Family Courts Act, 1964, was promulgated for the expeditious settlement and disposal ofdisputes relating to the marriages and other family affairs and special procedure wasprovided to achieve the object---Purpose of enacting the Family Courts Act, 1964, was tofrustrate the technicalities for the purpose of justice between the parties in the shortestpossible time---Provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, as well as Qanun-e-Shahadat,1984, were not applicable in stricto sensu to the proceedings before the Family Court---Byvirtue of S.17 of the Family Courts Act, 1964, the applicability of Civil Procedure Code,1908 and Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, had been excluded---Appellate Court had rightlyremanded the matter to the Family Court---No illegality or infirmity had been noticed in theimpugned order passed by the Appellate Court---Constitutional petition was dismissed, incircumstances

Summary: Background:Shaheen Airport Services and MCB Bank Ltd. filed civil review petitions against the judgment dated March 28, 2018, by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in CAs No.970 and 971 of 2013. The central issue under review was whether Shaheen Airport Services could be considered a charitable organization, thus exempt from the application of both federal and provincial labor laws, which would preclude the registration of trade unions within its establishments. The High Court previously determined that Shaheen Airport Services, operating in more than one province, did not qualify as a charitable organization based on the nature of its operations, making it subject to the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 (IRA 2012) and the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013 (SIRA 2013).-----Issues:Whether the applicability of IRA 2012 and SIRA 2013 to Shaheen Airport Services was correctly assumed based on the High Court's detailed consideration of the matter.Whether the activities involved in the operation of Shaheen Airport Services' business disqualified it from being recognized as a charitable organization.The legal implications of defining an establishment's industry status based on its activities rather than its charitable status.-----Holding/Reasoning:The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions, upholding the findings of the High Court. The Court agreed with the High Court's determination that Shaheen Airport Services did not qualify as a charitable organization due to the nature of its operations. The Court emphasized that the legal definition of an "industry" under labor laws focuses on the activities of the establishment rather than its declared charitable status. The Court further noted that the claim of Shaheen Airport Services being a charitable institution had been consistently declined, rendering it subject to relevant labor laws.The Supreme Court also addressed the contention that the High Court's findings were per incuriam (i.e., made in error or ignorance of the law), specifically regarding the exclusion clauses in IRA 2012 and SIRA 2013 that exempt certain types of organizations from their application. The Court rejected this argument, affirming that the applicability of industrial relations laws to Shaheen Airport Services was not barred, given its non-charitable status as determined by the concurrent findings.-----Citations/Precedents:The case of Air League of PIAC Employees through President vs. Federation of Pakistan M/O Labour and Manpower Division Islamabad and others (2011 SCMR 1254) was cited regarding the retrospective applicability of IRA 2012 after the repeal of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 2008. This precedent was relevant to the discussion on the legal framework governing industrial relations and the status of establishments as industries or charitable institutions under such laws.