Summary: The appellant has appealed against a judgment convicting him in a case involving offenses under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The prosecution, led by complainant Mst. Saima Khan, alleges that Wali Nawaz Khan and others, armed with weapons, attacked and killed Habib Khan. The motive behind the crime is stated to be a dispute over land and a previous criminal litigation. The appellant challenges the verdict, claiming innocence, lack of corroboration in witness testimony, and inconsistencies in the evidence. The court, after reviewing the evidence, including the complainant's testimony, medical reports, and the appellant's statements, upholds the conviction, finding the prosecution's case convincing. The judgment dismissed the appeal, orders the appellant's custody to serve the remaining sentence, and rejects a related revision petition seeking the enhancement of the sentence.

Summary: In this petition filed under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. along with Section 439 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks the removal of disparaging remarks made by the learned Magistrate against him in a judgment. The petitioner, an Emergency Medical Technician, was involved in a case of alleged embezzlement of funds. The judgment accused him of lodging a false FIR to cover up the crime. The court acknowledged the need for caution in making remarks and expunges the criticized observation, emphasizing the lack of evidence and denial of an opportunity for the petitioner to respond. Therefore, this petition was allowed and the saidobservation is expunged.

Summary: Background:Mirza Muhammad Nazakat Baig, a member of the Supreme Court Bar Association, challenged the vires of Rule 9(a) of the Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan Rules, 1989. The rule granted the right of presidency of the Supreme Court Bar Association on a rotational basis to Islamabad Capital Territory, including Rawalpindi, which is part of Punjab. Baig argued that this amendment was discriminatory. The Islamabad High Court dismissed his constitutional petition, stating that the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973 provided alternative remedies for such grievances. Baig appealed to the Supreme Court, contesting the non-statutory nature of the rules and asserting the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution.---Issues:Whether the Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan Rules, 1989 are statutory in nature.Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain grievances related to the Supreme Court Bar Association rules.Whether the amendment to Rule 9(a) of the rules was discriminatory.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court examined the nature of the Supreme Court Bar Association rules and concluded that they are non-statutory in nature. The Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973 provides mechanisms for redressal of grievances, and the Supreme Court Bar Association and Pakistan Bar Council are autonomous bodies not subject to administrative control by the government. Therefore, they are not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. The Court upheld the decision of the Islamabad High Court, finding no legal, procedural, or jurisdictional error in its reasoning. The appeal was dismissed.---Citations/Precedents:Abdul Sattar Chughtai Malik v. Pakistan Bar Council through Secretary and another (PLD 2007 Lahore 170)Muhammad Tariq Badr and another v. National Bank of Pakistan and others (2013 SCMR 314)Shafique Ahmed Khan and others v. NESCOM through Chairman, Islamabad and others (PLD 2016 SC 377)Muhammad Zaman and others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division (Regulation Wing), Islamabad and others (2017 SCMR 571)

Summary: Background:The appellant, Sultan, challenges the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, D.I. Khan Bench, in Civil Revisions bearing No.179 and 180 of 2011, whereby the court allowed the revisions filed by the respondent/vendee, resulting in the dismissal of the appellant's preemptory suit.---Issues:Whether the appellant successfully proved the service of Talb-i-Ishhad (pre-emption notice) in accordance with the law.Whether the failure to prove the performance of Talb-i-Ishhad is fatal to the appellant's preemptory suit.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The appellant failed to produce evidence of the service or refusal of the Talb-i-Ishhad. The appellant's argument that the respondent admitted receipt of the notice was not substantiated by the evidence. Furthermore, the original notice was not produced as evidence.The court emphasized that proving the performance of Talb-i-Ishhad is essential for a preemptory suit. The appellant's failure to do so, despite relying on the respondent's admissions, renders the suit defective. The admission of notice receipt by the respondent does not confirm compliance with all legal requirements for the Talb-i-Ishhad. Therefore, the appellant's suit cannot succeed.The court reiterated that in a preemptory suit, each Talb must be proven in accordance with the law. The mere admission of notice receipt by the respondent does not fulfill the legal requirements for the Talb-i-Ishhad.As the appellant failed to establish the performance of Talb-i-Ishhad in accordance with the law, the court found no grounds to interfere with the High Court's judgment.Both Civil Appeals are dismissed.---Citations/Precedents:Allah Ditta through L.Rs. and others v. Muhammad Anar (2013 SCMR 866) - Relevant for establishing the legal requirements for proving Talb-i-Ishhad in a preemptory suit.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Customs Act, 1969 ---- Section 179(3) ---- Time Limitation for Adjudication: The issue of the statutory period for passing an Order-in-Original under Section 179(3) of the Customs Act, 1969, was examined. The petitioner contended that the Order-in-Original, issued 229 days after the show cause notice, was void as it was passed beyond the prescribed 120-day period. The petitioner argued that no extension had been granted, and the delay was not attributable to them. The Court held that the Order-in-Original was passed in contravention of Section 179(3) of the Customs Act, as it was issued beyond the statutory period. Cited Case: Messrs Mujahid Soap and Chemical Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Customs Appellate Tribunal (2019 SCMR 1735). (b) Adjudicatory Decision ---- Communication of Order: The Court addressed the issue of the date of passing the Order-in-Original, emphasizing that a decision must be communicated to the parties to be considered legally effective. Despite the Order-in-Original being signed on 15.01.2016, it was not made available to the petitioner until 16.05.2016. The Court ruled that the date on which the order was communicated to the petitioner (16.05.2016) would be considered the effective date, and the Order-in-Original was thus deemed invalid for failing to comply with the time limitation under Section 179(3) of the Customs Act. Cited Case: Messrs Mujahid Soap and Chemical Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Customs Appellate Tribunal (2019 SCMR 1735). (c) Delay in Adjudication ---- Responsibility of Department: The Court examined the delay in adjudication, noting that the delay was not caused by the petitioner but by the Department's failure to file parawise comments in a timely manner. The Court highlighted that the Additional Collector had directed the Department to expedite filing the comments, and the hearing was delayed due to the Department’s non-compliance. Therefore, the delay in passing the Order-in-Original was attributable to the Department. ----Disposition: The reference was answered in the positive, declaring the Order-in-Original invalid for being passed beyond the statutory period set by Section 179(3) of the Customs Act, 1969.

Summary: Bail granted----(a) Criminal Procedure – Cancellation of Bail – Principles for Cancellation of Bail: The petitioner sought cancellation of bail granted to the respondents/accused in FIR No. 482/2018 under sections 436, 506-II, 148, 149 PPC, alleging misuse of bail, threats to witnesses, and tampering with evidence. The Court noted that the principles for the grant of bail differ from those for its cancellation. Cancellation of bail requires strong and exceptional grounds, such as a patently illegal or erroneous order. The Court referred to precedents, particularly "The State v. Rafiq Ahmad Channa" (2010 SCMR 580), which set out factors to be considered when granting bail. The Court found no evidence of misuse of bail or tampering with evidence, thereby upholding the original decision to grant bail. (b) Criminal Procedure – Delay in Filing FIR – Impact on Credibility The Court highlighted an unexplained delay of three days in lodging the FIR, noting that the petitioner failed to provide any evidence regarding threats made to prosecution witnesses. No application was filed for these allegations, weakening the credibility of the petitioner’s claims. The delay was considered significant in assessing the merit of the petitioner's allegations. (c) Criminal Procedure – Precedents on Bail – Scope of Bail Grant The Court referred to the principles established in prior cases such as "The State v. Khalid Mehmood" (2006 SCMR 1265) and "Ahsan Akbar v. The State" (2007 SCMR 482), which state that bail should not be withheld as a punishment, and that once bail is granted by a competent Court, only strong and exceptional grounds can lead to its cancellation. ----Disposition: The petition for cancellation of bail was dismissed, as the Court found no merit in the petitioner’s allegations and upheld the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge to grant bail to the respondents. The observations made in the judgment were deemed to have no bearing on the merits of the case.

Summary: [Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance,1979 (section 12) The expression subject to agreement is occasionally used in thecorrespondence exchanged between the parties during contractnegotiations. These words denote that the document is not an offer oracceptance and negotiations are still going on. The expression, whichmay be found similar and closer to the term subject to agreement, is without prejudice, which may not be a synonym but much closer tothe essence of expression subject to agreement/contract.

Summary: Acquittal granted---In this legal case, Muhammad Sajjad was convicted under Sections 302/337A(i)/148/149/337A(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Muhammad Waseem. The incident involved an altercation between the accused and the deceased, resulting in fatal injuries to Waseem. However, the judgment is being appealed based on several grounds, including the alleged fabrication of evidence, contradictions in witness statements, and doubts regarding the presence of eyewitnesses at the crime scene. The appellant's counsel argued for his innocence, claiming false implication and unreliable prosecution witnesses. Additionally, the delay in the post-mortem examination is highlighted to cast doubt on the credibility of the case. The court ultimately acquitted Muhammad Sajjad due to insufficient evidence, citing doubts in the prosecution's narrative and inconsistencies in witness testimonies.

Summary: In this constitutional petition, the petitioner seeks a directive for the production of records related to Mr. Muhammad Shafiq TWF/367 (late) and requests the annulment of an order/letter wherein respondent No.1 did not declare the petitioner's late husband as a "Shaheed" (martyr) in an accidental case. The petitioner's husband, a Traffic Warden, died in a road traffic accident while on duty, and the petitioner had submitted applications for his declaration as a "Shaheed." The court, after examining the details of the incident and relevant regulations, concludes that the deceased is entitled to be declared a "Shaheed." Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and Muhammad Shafiq is declared a "Shaheed" with all associated benefits.