Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Against impugned order dated 14.11.19 whereby application U/S 12(2) is dismissed against exparte judgment & decree dated 26.2.18.

Summary: Appellate Court should always give proper weight & consideration to the view of the trial court as to credibility of the witnesses and presumption of innocence in favour of accused. High Court would not interfere unless the judgment of the trial Court is perverse, illegal or leading to Miscarriage of Justice.

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------S. 42---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 75---Proof of documents by primaryevidence---Photocopy---Suit for declaration---Scope---Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration andrecovery of compensation with the averment that due to earthquake their district wasseriously affected, pursuant to which the government through a notification had categorizedthe affectees in four categories such as totally collapsed house, unrepairable damaged house,repairable damaged house and minor damaged house and that the plaintiffs' houses weretotally collapsed but they were not compensated accordingly---Trial Court decreed the suit---Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal---Validity---Local Commission had reported thatthe plaintiffs' houses had collapsed and were unrepairable---Report of Local Commissionwas not disputed---Defendants had not filed objection on report of Local Commission---Defendants in their written statement had stated that the survey was conducted by the Armybut none from the Army was examined nor was the original survey report exhibited---Meretendering of photocopy of report had no legal value---Judgment passed by Trial Court wasupheld and that of Appellate Court was set aside

Summary: Conviction upheld---Background:The case involves a criminal appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment of the Lahore High Court. The appellants were convicted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, following their involvement in a violent incident resulting in multiple deaths and injuries. The prosecution's case relied on eyewitness testimony and medical evidence to establish the appellants' guilt.---Issues:Whether the prosecution successfully proved its case against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt.Whether there were any discrepancies in the prosecution's case that undermined its credibility.Whether the sentences imposed by the Lahore High Court were appropriate given the circumstances of the case.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:After a thorough review of the evidence and legal arguments presented by both parties, the Supreme Court upheld the convictions and sentences imposed by the Lahore High Court. The Court found that the prosecution's evidence, including eyewitness testimony and medical reports, was credible and sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court also considered the circumstances surrounding the incident, including possible motives, and concluded that the sentences imposed by the High Court were appropriate given the gravity of the offenses committed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the Lahore High Court was affirmed.--Citations/Precedents:"MUHAMMAD IQBAL versus THE STATE" (PLD 2001 Supreme Court 222)"AJUN SHAH versus THE STATE" (PLD 1967 Supreme Court 185)

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: 1. Had the FIR been registered, then definitely the inquest report would be definitely bear the F.I.R number as section of law.2. The complainant did not identify the dead body of his brother before the police at the time when the inquest report was prepared and thereafter, had he been present in the police station when the police was preparing the inquest report, he would have been figured in the column of identification.3. Withholding of the best available evidence speaks nothing but that had he been produced he would not have supported the charge of the complainant against the convict/appellant.4. We know that prosecution is not bound to set up motive in every case but once it is alleged and not proved, then ocular account is required to be scrutinized with great caution.

Summary: Hiba biliwaz and Hiba bi-shart-al-iwaz are preemptable. The Hiba with a condition for something inreturn is called as Hiba-ba-shartul-iwaz. In this kind of hiba, the donee does not pay the consideration voluntarily, it is paid by the donee because it is a condition precedent for the gift. In other words, the gift and the iwaz go hand in hand not one before the other. Payment of consideration is a prior condition (shart) for the gift. Therefore, subsequent gift by donee to donor is the condition precedent for the first gift in favour of the donee. The subsequent gift by donee to donor is not consideration of the first gift. The result is that in a Hibaba- shartul-iwaz the original gift is a pure gift at its inception and the payment of Iwaz is also an independent gift. Accordingly, Hiba-ba-shartul-iwaz is nothing but aset of two independent gifts in which the second gift is condition precedent for the first. Any kind of property may be stipulated as return.The legal incidents of a Hiba-bashartul-iwaz are given below:(1) As the whole transaction is a set of two independent gifts, therefore, it must be completed by declaration, acceptance and delivery of possession. Registration is neither necessary nor sufficient for any of the two gifts.(2) It is revocable in the beginning (i.e. when only the original gift has been made by donor to donee). But, as soon as the donee makes the gift of his property in furtherance of fulfilment of condition, the transaction becomes irrevocable.(3) Since Hiba-ba-shartul-iwaz is legally a set of two independent gifts, therefore, the right of pre-emption is exercisable in it. There is a slightest difference between hibabiliwaz and Hiba basharat-ul-iwaz such as:i. In Hiba- bill-iwaz, the consideration is paid by donee voluntarily, whereas in Hiba-ba-Shartul-iwaz, itspayment is a condition precedent.ii. In Hiba- bil-iwaz the consideration is at the will of donee but in Hiba-ba-shartul- iwaz the value andkinds of consideration is at the discretion of the donor.iii. Hiba- bil-Iwaz is not a Hiba; it is either sale or exchange whereas Hiba-ba-shartul-iwaz is treated asHiba.iv. Doctrine of Musha is not applicable to Hiba- billiwaz whereas this doctrine is applicable to Hiba-bashartul- Iwaz.v. Since Hiba- bil-iwaz is not gift, it is either sale or exchange, therefore it must be in writing andregistered, whereas in Hiba-ba-Shartul-iwaz writing and registration is neither necessary nor sufficient.vi. In Hiba- bil-Iwaz, the delivery of possession is not necessary whereas it is necessary in Hiba-ba-Shartul-iwaz.vii. The Hiba-bil-Iwaz becomes irrevocable as soon as made, whereas Hiba-ba-Shaatul-iwaz is revocable and becomes irrevocable only after the payment of iwaz by the donee.