Summary: Slight contradiction in the statements of PWs due to lengthy and taxing Cross-examination would not damage the evidentiary value of such statement.

Summary: Section of Law; Article 199 of the Constitution and Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015 read with Anti-Dumping Duties Rules 2001.(a) A writ petition would not be maintainable in case of existence of an effective alternate remedy.

Summary: [aspect of common intention or common object] The incident giving rise to this case occurred on August 5, 2011, in the Marot area of Bahawalnagar district. The complainant, Muhammad Ilyas, and his brother Muhammad Shahid discovered that water was being stolen from their land. When they attempted to prevent this theft, a confrontation ensued with the accused individuals, including Bashir Ahmed and Munir Ahmed. Tragically, during this altercation, Muhammad Ishaq, the brother of the complainant, was fatally shot by Munir Ahmed. The complainant and Muhammad Shahid also sustained injuries during the incident. In response to the incident, a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged, and the accused individuals were subsequently arrested. The case proceeded to trial, and after careful examination of the evidence, the Trial Court convicted Munir Ahmed under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) for murder. Additionally, Bashir Ahmed was convicted under various sections of the PPC for causing injuries to the complainant and Muhammad Shahid. The Trial Court also acquitted three co-accused individuals due to a lack of evidence. Unsatisfied with the Trial Court's decision, both the appellants, Bashir Ahmed and Munir Ahmed, filed Criminal Appeals before the Lahore High Court (Bahawalpur Bench). They challenged their convictions and sought a review of the sentences imposed upon them. The High Court, after considering the evidence and arguments presented, upheld the convictions of both appellants. However, it modified Munir Ahmed's death sentence to life imprisonment. Following the High Court's judgment, the petitioners filed Criminal Petition No. 1371/16 before the Supreme Court, raising several legal issues. The primary contention was that the convictions and sentences imposed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court were not sustainable in the eyes of the law. They argued that the element of common intention had not been established, which was crucial for convicting them under certain sections of the PPC. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the petition and proceeded to analyze the case in-depth. During the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the question of the legality of the convictions and sentences was thoroughly examined. The Court noted that the Trial Court and High Court had failed to adequately consider the aspect of common intention or common object in their judgments. This was essential, especially considering the charges against the petitioners involved multiple accused individuals. The Court questioned whether the sentences imposed were consistent with the spirit of the relevant sections of the PPC. After careful consideration of the arguments and evidence presented, the Supreme Court rendered its decision. The Court found that the lower courts had erred in their interpretation of the law and had failed to establish the necessary elements for certain convictions and sentences. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and sentences of the petitioners and ordered a re-examination of the case by the Trial Court. The Court emphasized the importance of correctly applying the law and ensuring that convictions are based on sound legal principles. In conclusion, this Supreme Court case in Pakistan highlights the significance of proper interpretation and application of the law in criminal proceedings. It serves as a reminder that convictions must be based on solid evidence and established legal principles. The decision of the Supreme Court provides clarity on the requirements for certain convictions and emphasizes the importance of a fair trial for all parties involved.

Summary: [aspect of common intention or common object] The incident giving rise to this case occurred on August 5, 2011, in the Marot area of Bahawalnagar district. The complainant, Muhammad Ilyas, and his brother Muhammad Shahid discovered that water was being stolen from their land. When they attempted to prevent this theft, a confrontation ensued with the accused individuals, including Bashir Ahmed and Munir Ahmed. Tragically, during this altercation, Muhammad Ishaq, the brother of the complainant, was fatally shot by Munir Ahmed. The complainant and Muhammad Shahid also sustained injuries during the incident. In response to the incident, a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged, and the accused individuals were subsequently arrested. The case proceeded to trial, and after careful examination of the evidence, the Trial Court convicted Munir Ahmed under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) for murder. Additionally, Bashir Ahmed was convicted under various sections of the PPC for causing injuries to the complainant and Muhammad Shahid. The Trial Court also acquitted three co-accused individuals due to a lack of evidence. Unsatisfied with the Trial Court's decision, both the appellants, Bashir Ahmed and Munir Ahmed, filed Criminal Appeals before the Lahore High Court (Bahawalpur Bench). They challenged their convictions and sought a review of the sentences imposed upon them. The High Court, after considering the evidence and arguments presented, upheld the convictions of both appellants. However, it modified Munir Ahmed's death sentence to life imprisonment. Following the High Court's judgment, the petitioners filed Criminal Petition No. 1371/16 before the Supreme Court, raising several legal issues. The primary contention was that the convictions and sentences imposed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court were not sustainable in the eyes of the law. They argued that the element of common intention had not been established, which was crucial for convicting them under certain sections of the PPC. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the petition and proceeded to analyze the case in-depth. During the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the question of the legality of the convictions and sentences was thoroughly examined. The Court noted that the Trial Court and High Court had failed to adequately consider the aspect of common intention or common object in their judgments. This was essential, especially considering the charges against the petitioners involved multiple accused individuals. The Court questioned whether the sentences imposed were consistent with the spirit of the relevant sections of the PPC. After careful consideration of the arguments and evidence presented, the Supreme Court rendered its decision. The Court found that the lower courts had erred in their interpretation of the law and had failed to establish the necessary elements for certain convictions and sentences. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and sentences of the petitioners and ordered a re-examination of the case by the Trial Court. The Court emphasized the importance of correctly applying the law and ensuring that convictions are based on sound legal principles. In conclusion, this Supreme Court case in Pakistan highlights the significance of proper interpretation and application of the law in criminal proceedings. It serves as a reminder that convictions must be based on solid evidence and established legal principles. The decision of the Supreme Court provides clarity on the requirements for certain convictions and emphasizes the importance of a fair trial for all parties involved.

Summary: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973------Art. 199--Appointment as ward boys ward servants on daily wages--Termination fromservice--Redressal of grievance--Direction to--Counsel for Petitioners states thatPetitioners will be satisfied and will not press this Petition if direction be issued toRespondent No. 4/Medical Superintendent, DHQ, Sheikhupura to redress their grievanceexpeditiously in accordance with law--Law Officer has no objection to same--A certifiedcopy of this Petition along with all annexures be transmitted to Respondent No. 2, whoshall, Ñ decide same strictly in accordance with law and judgments mentioned above, rules,regulations and policies applicable thereto, after providing proper hearing to all concernedincluding Petitioners, expeditiously within a period of one (01) month from receipt ofcertified copy of this order--Petition was disposed of. [Pp. 192 & 193] A & B2019 SCMR 233 ref.

Summary: The case revolved around the abduction and rape of the Petitioner's six-year-old daughter, Shehnaz Bibi, by Respondent No.2. The Petitioner discovered his daughter missing upon returning home from the bazaar, initiating a search. Witnesses reported seeing Respondent No.2 with the girl, leading to the discovery of the victim, injured and bloodied, near a well. Respondent No.2 was subsequently convicted and sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. The Petitioner contends that the sentence is inadequate, while the Deputy Prosecutor General supports the petition. Respondent No. 2's counsel opposes the petition, citing case law such as Amir Khan v. The State (2002 SCMR 403) and Abdul Haq v. Muhammad Amin alias Manna (2004 SCMR 810), arguing against sentence enhancement. The court deliberates on the legality of enhancing a convict's sentence post-incarceration, referencing various cases such as Muhammad Sharif v. Muhammad Javed (PLD 1976 SC 452) and Mst. Razia Begum v. Jahangir (PLD 1982 SC 302). It examined the principles of double jeopardy and the expectancy of life in the context of sentence enhancement. Considering the evidence and arguments presented, the court upholds Respondent No.2's conviction under Section 376 PPC, acknowledging his juvenile status at the time of the offence. It concluded that the sentence imposed by the trial court was justified and dismissed the petition, finding no grounds for interference.

Summary: A land outside of an Airport premises, if not used for the purposes under the Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance, 1982 shall be subject of Provincial and Local Government's law and administrative authority----In this case, the petitioner challenges an order passed by the Secretary, LG&CD Department, which declined the petitioner's request for waiving the commercialization fee. The Secretary concluded that the request was not covered under the government's policy letter, as the land fell within the jurisdiction of the Tehsil Municipal Administration (TMA) and municipal services were provided by the TMA. Additionally, the property was commercialized in 2004 at the lessee's request, who duly paid the fees. The petitioner argued that the land owned by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) falls under federal jurisdiction and is not subject to the authority of the TMA. The petitioner relies on the judgment in Sindh Revenue Board through Chairman Government of Sindh and another v The Civil Aviation Authority of Pakistan through Airport Manager (2017 SCMR 1344) to support this contention. The petitioner asserted that the land is part of an Aerodrome and Airport, as defined by the Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance, 1982, and falls under Entry No. 22 of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution, which can only be regulated by federal law. The petitioner also argued that the Commercialization Rules, 2004, do not apply to the land in question because it is already commercial in nature, and due process was not followed in its commercialization. However, the court rejected the petitioner's arguments. It stated that while the land may be within the premises of an airport, if it is used for commercial activities for the general public, it falls under the jurisdiction of provincial or local laws. The court emphasized that any land owned by the Civil Aviation Authority not used for purposes defined under the Ordinance of 1982 is subject to provincial and local government authority. In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, noting that the objection regarding the land not falling within the approved plan of the TMA can be raised separately before the relevant authorities.

Summary: (a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)-------Art. 59---Opinions of expert---Reliance---Scope---Exhibition of report---Scope---Question before High Court was whether the Trial Court without calling the expert aswitness of handwriting and fingerprint could exhibit his report on its own---Held; report ofexpert under Art. 59 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 was relevant---Expert opinion could notbe relied upon without producing the expert in Court for recording his statement, so that theopposite party availed the opportunity of cross-examination.(b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)-------Art. 59---Opinion of expert---Scope---Opinion of expert is relevant in evidence, butwithout examination of such expert his report is not admissible.Allah Dino v. Muhammad Umar 1974 SCMR 411 rel.(c) Evidence-------Documentary evidence---Proof---Exhibition of document---Scope---Mere placing adocument on record cannot be considered as evidence unless proved through prescribedprocedure---Document can be proved through the statement of witness and its exhibition---Even after exhibition it cannot be said that the document has been proved---When a partyintends to rely on a document it should prove the same through witness

Summary: ''Departmental proceedings to be finalized within two years of the retirement of civil servant ? interpretation of the proviso to section 21 of PEEDA Act.'' ---- Facts: The cases revolve around the application of the proviso to section 21 of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, which stipulates that departmental proceedings against a retired employee must be finalized no later than two years from their retirement. The respondents, former employees of the Forest Department, faced departmental proceedings initiated against them during their service, which continued beyond their retirement dates, exceeding the two-year limitation.----Issue(s):Whether the proviso to section 21 of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 is directory or mandatory.Holding: The Supreme Court held that the proviso is mandatory, and any departmental proceedings finalized after two years from an employee's retirement are void and have no legal effect.----Reasoning:The Court examined the legislative intent and purpose of the Act, emphasizing its focus on improving governance through the efficiency, discipline, and accountability of serving employees. Retired employees are only within the Act's scope if proceedings are initiated during their service or within one year post-retirement and concluded within two years of retirement.The Court interpreted the Act's provisions, considering the legislative intent, the language used, and the consequences of construing the proviso one way or the other. The mandatory nature of the proviso was affirmed by its potential to create liability against a retired employee within a specified timeframe.The Court referred to historical precedence and other regulations, such as Fundamental Rules and Civil Establishment Code, which advocate for the timely conclusion of departmental proceedings against employees nearing retirement to ensure that state interests are protected without unnecessarily burdening retired employees.----Judgment: The petitions challenging the judgments of the Punjab Service Tribunal were dismissed. The Tribunal's decisions, which likely favored the retired employees due to the proceedings exceeding the two-year limit, were upheld. Separate orders were issued for petitions where the proviso did not apply due to the proceedings being finalized within the stipulated timeframe.

Summary: Bail granted --- Background:The petitioner, Sharif Khan, sought post-arrest bail under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the order of the Peshawar High Court, Bannu Bench, which recalled the bail granted to him by the trial court in a case involving an offense under section 302/34 PPC.---Issues:Whether the petitioner's plea for bail should be granted considering the circumstances of the case.Whether the decision of the Peshawar High Court to recall the bail was justified.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court considered the petitioner's argument that he was falsely implicated, asserting his innocence and providing an alibi. The Investigating Officer verified his alibi and declared him innocent. The court noted discrepancies in the crime report regarding the number of assailants and injuries sustained, which were not specified to any particular assailant. The principles governing the grant of bail and its cancellation were reiterated, emphasizing strong and exceptional grounds required for cancellation. The court cited previous judgments supporting this stance. It concluded that the High Court erred in recalling the bail granted by the trial court. The petitioner was granted bail, and the case was remanded for further inquiry. The petitioner was instructed to furnish bail bonds for his release.---Citations/Precedents:Tariq Bashir and 05 others v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34)Sami Ullah and another v. Laiq Zada and other (2020 SCMR 1115)Shahid Arshad v. Muhammad Naqi Butt and 02 others (1976 SCMR 360)