Summary: BackgroundThis case involves a series of constitutional petitions filed in the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging the legal proceedings initiated by the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) against various petitioners, including Mr. Justice Qazi Faez Isa. The petitions argue against the actions taken under Reference No. 1 of 2019, which was directed at Justice Isa and involved allegations related to the nondisclosure of assets held in the United Kingdom by his family. The main contention revolves around the legality and procedural propriety of the reference filed by the President of Pakistan and its subsequent handling by the SJC.---IssuesWhether Reference No. 1 of 2019 filed against Justice Qazi Faez Isa by the President of Pakistan is legally and procedurally valid.Whether the proceedings initiated by the Supreme Judicial Council based on the said reference were in accordance with the law.The rights of judges under scrutiny and the implications for judicial independence.---Holding/Reasoning/OutcomeThe Supreme Court allowed the petitions, resulting in several crucial determinations:Reference No. 1 of 2019 was declared to have no legal effect and was quashed. Consequently, all proceedings against Justice Isa in the SJC, including a show-cause notice, were abated.The court ordered the Inland Revenue to individually reassess the legality of the assets held by Justice Isa's family in the UK, setting specific deadlines and procedures for this reassessment, separate from the judicial review process.It underscored the constitutional protection of judicial independence and the right of judges and other citizens to be treated according to the law, emphasizing that no individual or institution is above the law, including judges.Justice Yahya Afridi dissented in part, finding Constitutional Petition No. 17/2019 non-maintainable.---Citations/PrecedentsArticle 209 of the Constitution, regarding the procedure for the SJC.Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, under which the assets in question are to be reassessed.Various constitutional principles concerning the independence of the judiciary and the legal protections afforded to judges and citizens.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 489-F---Dishonestly issuing a cheque---Scope---Mere issuance of a cheque and it beingdishonoured by itself was not an offence, unless dishonesty on the part of payer is proved.Allah Ditta v. The State 2013 SCMR 51 and Muhammad Sultan v. The State 2010SCMR 806 rel.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 489-F--- Dishonestly issuing a cheque---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Accused issued cheques, which were dishonoured on presentation, due to insufficient balancein the account---Record showed that the entire case was based on the testimony of thecomplainant being star witness of the case---Complainant stated in his statement that in themonth of March 2017, the accused started partnership with a Trading Company and wasdoing business with him of Rs.30000000/----In the meanwhile, Rs. 1,48,000,00/- wasoutstanding against him---On demand of the same, the accused first lingered on the matterbut consequently issued cheques---On presentation, the same were dishonoured due toinsufficient balance in the account---Complainant did not produce any agreement in respectof business partnership, which was the basic document to establish the relationship betweenthe complainant and accused---Statement of complainant was silent with regard to placewhere such transaction took place---Furthermore, complainant had failed to produce a singledocument to establish the existence of any partnership allegedly carried out between him andthe accused---Complainant had also failed to give the full particulars of the said partnership---Complainant could not establish on record that there had been any transaction between himand the accused for which the cheques had been issued and subsequently were declareddishonoured---Complainant stated during cross-examination that he himself filled the chequeat the instance of the accused, meaning thereby that the cheque was filled/written by thecomplainant himself and he also mentioned the amount in the said cheque---Said fact provedthat the accused did not issue the cheque wilfully and intentionally---Similarlywitness/representative of the Bank stated during cross-examination that there was cutting onthe cheque of Rs.600000/=---Said aspect of the matter casted serious doubt in the prosecution case which was not considered by the Trial Court as well as appellate court---Criminalrevision was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside the impugned judgmentspassed by the Trial Court and appellate court.(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 489-F--- Dishonestly issuing a cheque---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of about sixmonths in lodging the FIR---Effect---Accused issued cheques, which were dishonoured onpresentation, due to insufficient balance in the account---Record showed that the allegedcheques were issued on 18.08.2017 and 28.9.2017, but the application for registration of theFIR was submitted on 17.03.2018 and FIR was lodged on 26.08.2018 with delay of sixmonths without an explanation, however, complainant stated during cross-examination thatthe application for registration of the FIR was written by an Advocate in his office on17.03.2018, meaning thereby that the complainant lodged the FIR after deliberation andconsultation, which created serious doubt in the prosecution case---Criminal revision wasallowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside the impugned judgments passed by theTrial Court and appellate court.(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 489-F--- Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Dishonestly issuing a cheque---Appreciation of evidence---Withholding material evidence---Effect---Accused issuedcheques, which were dishonoured on presentation, due to insufficient balance in the account---Complainant stated in his report as well as in his statement before the court that he wasManager of the Trading Company, meaning thereby that complainant was not the owner ofthe said Trading Company---In such view of the fact, the question arose that in what capacitythe accused had given the cheques to him---Moreso, prosecution neither cited the owner ofthe Trading Company as well as his brother as witnesses in the challan nor produced thembefore the Trial Court---In order to establish the version put forth by the complainant, thepresence of said important witnesses would have further strengthened the prosecutionversion---Non-production of such important witnesses, as provided under Art. 129(g) ofQanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 would cast adverse inference, that if the said witnesses had beenproduced they would not have supported the prosecution version---Criminal revision wasallowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside the impugned judgments passed by theTrial Court and appellate court.Lal Khan v The State 2004 SCMR 1847 rel.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending