Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Under Section 7(f)(ii) of PEEDA, where charge of absence from duty for a period of more than one year is proved, the penalty of compulsory retirement, or removal or dismissal from service shall be imposed. However, if the absence from duty is not more than one year, the Authority has option to impose any one or more penalties mentioned under section 4 of PEEDA, however, such discretion must be reasoned, supported by cogent justification and in accordance with principles of proportionality and administrative fairness.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Under Section 7(f)(ii) of PEEDA, where charge of absence from duty for a period of more than one year is proved, the penalty of compulsory retirement, or removal or dismissal from service shall be imposed. However, if the absence from duty is not more than one year, the Authority has option to impose any one or more penalties mentioned under section 4 of PEEDA, however, such discretion must be reasoned, supported by cogent justification and in accordance with principles of proportionality and administrative fairness. 379Writ Petition- Land- Consolidation 2535-15 MUHAMMAD BUX ETC VS MBR ETC Mr. Justice Ch. Sultan Mahmood 17- 06- 2025 2025 LHC 4147

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: i. For maintaining a suit being filed in a representative capacity, a plaintiff is required to file an application under Order I Rule 8 CPC for seeking permission to file the said suit in its representative capacity and such permission is to be granted by the Court through a specific and explicit order. ii. In order to file a suit in representative capacity, a plaintiff is required to append the list of the interested persons on whose behalf the suit is being filed and then such interested persons/owners are to be served through notices or at least through publication of an advertisement and in case of absence of the aforesaid exercise by the trial Court and in absence of any specific order qua the grant of permission to file the suit in representative capacity then such suit could not be treated as a suit filed in representative capacity by such plaintiff. iii. In case of absence of any permission by the trial Court to file the suit in representative capacity, a co-owner/individual cannot maintain a suit for declaration or possession with respect to Shamilat land, as a co-owner/co-sharer of Shamilat land cannot, in his personal capacity can maintain a suit for declaration or possession. iv. A suit for declaration, issuance of permanent injunction or suit for dispossession in respect of a Shamilat land could not be filed by an individual/co-owner, and the proper course for an aggrieved co-owner with respect to Shamilat land is to file a suit for official partition. v. An excess of possession of a co-owner in Shamilat land could not be challenged by the co-owner of Shamilat land unless and until such Shamilat land is officially partitioned and thereafter every co-owner is handed over possession proportionate to his original ownership in the said mouza. vi. Civil cases are decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence, and any party who succeeds to tilt the scale in his favour would be entitled for the relief claimed. vii. The scope, extent and domain of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court in cases of concurrent findings has duly been dilated and highlighted.

Summary: (a) When there is contradiction in the statements of eyewitnesses and site plan, the same are not safe for reliance for the purpose of conviction. (b) When cause of death of the deceased as per post mortem report is single shot firearm injury, possibility of false implication of two accused who are real brothers inter-se cannot be ruled out when motive is shown as previous hostilities. (c) Where crime empties recovered from the spot at the time of inspection by the Investigation Officer, are sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory after the arrest of the accused or together with the crime weapon recovered after a considerable delay without justifiable reason, the positive report of the said Laboratory loses its evidentiary value and the same cannot be relied upon for the purpose of conviction. (d) Where hostilities followed by litigations exist between the parties, the same may drive one of the parties to enmesh its rival in a false case or the latter to do away with the former, therefore, such a motive can be considered a double-edged weapon, hence, merely on the basis of such motive, an accused cannot be held responsible for commission of offence. (e) It is not essential that there should be many circumstances creating doubts, even a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case is sufficient to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused as it is the cardinal principle of criminal administration of justice that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.

Summary: i. There is no denial to this fact that the tragic incident led to the tragic death of the deceased, where one was the husband and the other his wife, but there is no denial to this fact as well that mere heinousness of an offence would hardly be a circumstance for holding an accused responsible, rather under all circumstances the Courts of law must look for independent corroboration and the prosecution must bring on record trust-worthy and confidence-inspiring evidence. If on one hand the unfortunate spouses lost their lives, then on the other four (04) real brothers are charged, so to reach to a just conclusion extra care is needed, so that the liabilities could be fixed against those who are responsible. ii. The improvements are dishonest and we are confident in holding that the same has damaged the case of the prosecution. The witnesses failed to establish their presence on the spot. Had they been present and had they been fired upon, there was hardly an occasion for them to escape unhurt, as the accused were armed with deadly weapons. iii. On one hand the witnesses remained inconsistent on material aspects of the case, whereas on the other they failed to establish their presence on the spot at the time of occurrence, so this Court is inclined to hold that the incident went unwitnessed and the report was made after attendance of the complainant was procured.

Summary: (i) The driver having the charge of vehicle is supposed to have knowledge with regard to contents and articles being transported in it. (ii) Co-accused at the relevant time was found seated in the front seat of the vehicle and noting incriminating was recovered from the personal possession. (iii) Appellant filed appeal for the return of vehicle. Who is neither the registered owner of the vehicle nor its bonafide purchaser.