Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 376(2) & 34---Rape, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Unnaturalconduct of witnesses---Scope---Accused were charged for committing zina with the nieces ofcomplainant---Record reflected that the conduct of the alleged victims and their familymembers was unnatural for the reasons that as per the story of prosecution, both the victimsboarded a vehicle and shifted to some place where they were subjected to rape, however, thealleged place of abduction and the area wherefrom they travelled was highly populated,keeping mum the alleged victims negated the story of the prosecution as mentioned in theFIR and narrated by the prosecution witnesses---First Information Report was not registeredby the victims, their father or brother, which otherwise was unnatural---Medical examinationshowed that there were no marks of violence on their persons---Accused were not identifiedby the victims correctly during the trial, thus, false implication of the accused for ulteriormotive, could not be kept out of consideration--- Material contradictions, dishonestimprovements and inconsistencies had been noted in the statements of witnesses, whichmade the very case of prosecution doubtful---Alleged disclosure made by the accused wasalso of no avail, as a result, no recovery or discovery of new facts could be unearthed nor theaccused made any confession in that behalf---Circumstances established that the prosecutionhad failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal againstconviction was allowed, in circumstances.(b) Criminal trial-------Benefit of doubt---Principle---If a single doubt is created even then the defence is entitledto the benefit of doubt not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right.Muhammad Akram v. The State 2009 SCMR 230 and Sher Umer Khan v. Khan Puralias Khaney and 2 others PLD 2014 Pesh. 143 rel.(c) Criminal trial-------Sentence---Harsher the sentence, stricter the standard of proof.(d) Administration of justice-------Standard of sentence---Scope-Some minimum standards of safety are to be laid down soas to strike a balance between the prosecution and the defence in order to obviate chances ofmiscarriage of justice on account of exaggeration by the Investigating Agency---Suchminimum standards of safety are even otherwise necessary for safeguarding the fundamentalrights of the citizens regarding life and liberty, which could not be left at the mercy of policewithout production of independent reliable evidence.

Summary: Background:Civil Appeal No. 498 of 2020 arises from a judgment dated 30.08.2018 of the Federal Service Tribunal Lahore, passed in Appeal No. 77(L) of 2016. The appeal is filed by the Deputy Postmaster General, Central Punjab, Lahore, and another appellant against Habib Ahmed, the respondent. The respondent was initially dismissed from service for misappropriation of public funds, but the tribunal modified the penalty to compulsory retirement.---Issues:Whether the Federal Service Tribunal erred in modifying the penalty of dismissal to compulsory retirement for the respondent.Whether the respondent's admission of misappropriation, despite repayment, justifies a lenient view in modifying the penalty.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The respondent, while serving as a Postmaster, was accused of misappropriating significant sums of public money, leading to his dismissal from service. The inquiry committee and the tribunal found the charges of misappropriation established, with the respondent admitting to the offense.The appellants argued that the tribunal's decision to modify the penalty was unlawful and failed to consider established legal principles. They contended that the severity of the offense warranted dismissal without granting pensionary benefits.The respondent defended the tribunal's judgment, emphasizing that he had repaid the misappropriated amounts and had 21 years of service, advocating for a lenient view.Upon review, the court found that the respondent had indeed misappropriated substantial sums and admitted to the offense. Despite repayment, his actions warranted dismissal, given the breach of trust and the severity of the offense. The tribunal's decision to modify the penalty to compulsory retirement was deemed unlawful and not in line with established legal principles.---Citations/Precedents:Government Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973

Summary: Background: The appellant filed a civil appeal challenging the orders passed by the Additional Registrar of the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The case originated from a dispute where the appellant, residing abroad, was represented through his attorney. However, the respondents served notices to the appellant’s local address in Pakistan rather than through his attorney, leading to a failure in service of notice. As a result, the case was set down ex-parte, and the proclamation regarding the ex-parte order was published in a local newspaper with no circulation in the U.K., where the appellant resides. The appellant subsequently sought condonation of delay and requested the court to set aside the ex-parte orders. -----Issues: 1- Whether the failure to serve notice to the appellant’s attorney instead of his local address violated proper service procedure. -----2- Whether the lack of newspaper circulation in the U.K. justified the delay in filing the appeal and concise statement. -----3- Whether the ex-parte orders of the Additional Registrar should be set aside for the ends of justice. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court found that the notices were incorrectly issued to the appellant’s local address rather than his attorney, despite the subject matter of the dispute being related to the power of attorney. The court accepted the appellant's argument that the proclamation through a local newspaper with no U.K. circulation was insufficient notice. Additionally, it acknowledged that the appellant had demonstrated sufficient cause for not filing the concise statement and appeal on time. The court accepted the appeal, set aside the ex-parte orders issued by the Additional Registrar, and allowed the appellant to file a concise statement within 15 days. The court directed the office to complete the file and submit it to the Chief Justice for the constitution of a bench to hear the main case. -----Citations/Precedents: Civil Procedure Code (service of notice and ex-parte proceedings) Doctrine of Sufficient Cause (for condonation of delay) Provisions on Attorney Representation in Absence of Principal

Summary: Background: The appellant filed a writ petition before the Azad Jammu & Kashmir High Court, asserting ownership and possession over a piece of land identified as Khasra No. 1515 (Shamilat Deh) in Goi, District Kotli. The appellant alleged that the respondents, with the help of revenue officials, interfered with his possession by falsely claiming that the disputed land was part of Khasra Nos. 1466 and 1467 owned by them. The trial court dismissed the appellant’s suit for declaration and temporary injunction, and the first appellate court upheld the decision. The appellant then approached the High Court, which also dismissed his petition, citing the availability of an alternative remedy through an appeal or revision petition. Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. -----Issues: 1- Whether the appellant had lawful possession or ownership rights over the disputed shamilat-deh land. ----2- Whether the courts below correctly dismissed the suit under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC, for lack of cause of action. ----3- Whether the High Court’s dismissal of the writ petition on procedural grounds while commenting on the merits of the case was appropriate. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome The Supreme Court found that the appellant failed to provide evidence of ownership or lawful possession of the disputed land (Khasra No. 1515). The demarcation report indicated that the appellant had trespassed onto the land claimed by the respondents, making him an intruder without entitlement to discretionary relief. The court held that the High Court was correct in dismissing the writ petition on the basis that the appellant had an adequate alternative remedy in the form of appeal or revision petition. However, the Supreme Court criticized the High Court for discussing the merits of the case after dismissing the petition on jurisdictional grounds. The Supreme Court modified the judgments of the trial and appellate courts, clarifying that the suit should have been rejected for lack of cause of action under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC, rather than dismissed under The Grant of Khalsa Waste Land as Shamilat Deh Act, 1966. It emphasized that a co-sharer in a village may retain possession of shamilat-deh land until a formal partition takes place if ownership is established, but the appellant failed to provide such evidence. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. -----Citations/Precedents Order VII, Rule 11, CPC – Rejection of plaint for lack of cause of action. Order XLIII, Rule 5, Azad Jammu & Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978 – Inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Grant of Khalsa Waste Land as Shamilat Deh Act, 1966 – Rights of co-sharers over shamilat-deh land. Saif Ali vs. Custodian of Evacuee Property and others [1993 SCR 39] – Availability of alternative remedies precluding writ petitions. Zafar Umar Khan & another vs. Agricultural Development Bank and 5 others [1996 SCR 321] – Writ petition dismissed where alternative remedies exist.

Summary: Background: The appellant filed a writ petition before the Azad Jammu & Kashmir High Court, claiming that he was entitled to appointment as a Patwari in District Bagh. He alleged that despite completing his Patwar Course on August 29, 2005, and having his name entered in the seniority list after earlier court directions, the authorities overlooked his application for the post. Instead, the respondents were appointed to the vacant posts of Patwari, allegedly in violation of previous court judgments. Gul argued that the appointments were illegal and influenced by political intervention. His initial writ petitions were accepted, but the High Court dismissed his current petition, leading to this appeal to the Supreme Court. -----Issues: 1- Whether the entry of the appellant’s name in the seniority list granted him an automatic right to appointment as Patwari. -----2- Whether the appellant participated in the required test and interview for the Patwari post. -----3- Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the appellant’s claim that the respondents' appointments were illegal. -----4- Whether filing successive writ petitions was justified, given the appellant’s allegations of non-compliance with earlier judgments. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the High Court’s conclusion that merely being listed in the seniority list does not confer an automatic right to appointment. The court emphasized that appointments must follow a selection process, including participation in a test and interview, which the appellant failed to demonstrate. The court noted that the appellant did not provide any evidence showing he had participated in or qualified through the required test and interview. Instead, the record indicated that the appellant had pursued multiple writ petitions and contempt applications, attempting to secure the position solely through court orders rather than merit. The court clarified that if the appellant believed earlier court orders were not honored, he should have filed a contempt application rather than submitting a new writ petition. Finding no legal infirmity in the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs. -----Citations/Precedents: Order XXXIII, CPC – Relevant to forma pauperis claims. Doctrine of Seniority vs. Merit – Seniority alone does not guarantee appointment without qualifying selection procedures. Principles on Contempt of Court – Appropriate remedy for non-compliance with prior court orders. Test and Interview Requirement – Mandated for public sector appointments.

Summary: Background: The appellant filed a suit for recovery of damages amounting to Rs.150,000,000/- the owner of Royal Star Hotel, and the Electricity Department of Azad Jammu & Kashmir. The case arose after Sarwar, working in the hotel, suffered severe injuries from an electric shock caused by a nearby 11 K.V. transmission line passing dangerously close to the hotel. The accident led to the amputation of some of his body parts, rendering him disabled. Sarwar alleged that the accident occurred due to the negligence of both the hotel owner and the electricity department. The trial court decreed Rs.40,00,000/- in damages, holding both the hotel owner and the Electricity Department responsible. Appeals were filed by both parties: Sarwar sought an increase in the damages, while the hotel owner, Muhammad Naeem, and the Electricity Department contested the liability. The High Court modified the trial court’s judgment, holding Naeem responsible for Rs.20,00,000/- in damages and absolving the Electricity Department. Both Naeem and Sarwar challenged the decision in the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir. -----Issues: 1- Whether the procedure under Order XXXIII, CPC, allowing Sarwar to sue as a forma pauperis, was correctly followed by the trial court. -----2- Whether the hotel owner, Muhammad Naeem, could be held liable for damages arising from the electric shock accident. -----3- Whether the calculation of damages and apportionment of liability between the hotel owner and the Electricity Department were appropriate. -----4- Whether the High Court violated procedural requirements under Order XLI, Rule 31, CPC, by failing to properly analyze the evidence and make findings on each issue. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome The Supreme Court found that the mandatory procedure under Order XXXIII, CPC for allowing a forma pauperis suit was not followed, rendering the trial court proceedings procedurally flawed. Additionally, the High Court failed to properly evaluate the evidence or make clear points for determination as required under Order XLI, Rule 31, CPC. The Supreme Court noted that key issues, such as the calculation of damages and the role of contributory negligence, were not adequately addressed. The court held that the High Court's judgment was incomplete and procedurally deficient, particularly in absolving the Electricity Department without proper consideration of its responsibility for the accident. Similarly, the damages awarded to the plaintiff were not sufficiently supported by documentary evidence, such as medical records or proof of expenses. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remanded the case for a fresh hearing. All appeals were deemed pending, and the High Court was directed to reconsider the case and address the unresolved issues after providing the parties an opportunity to be heard. -----Citations/Precedents Order XXXIII, CPC – Procedure for suits by indigent persons (forma pauperis). Order XLI, Rule 31, CPC – Requirement for appellate courts to frame points for determination and discuss evidence. Principles of contributory negligence in tort law.

Summary: Background: The appellant filed three family suits before the Family Court in Mirpur. These suits sought: Recovery of dowry articles Payment of maintenance allowance Payment of dower The appellant claimed that she was married to the respondent on January 22, 2012, with the agreed dower consisting of 4 tola of gold ornaments and a 5 marla plot. She further alleged that the respondent failed to transfer the plot in her name and had confiscated the gold ornaments given to her at the time of Nikah. Additionally, the Nikahnama stated that the respondent would pay Rs. 300,000 in case of divorce. The Family Court consolidated the suits and decreed in favor of the appellant for the payment of Rs. 300,000 and the 5 marla plot but dismissed her claim for prompt payment of the gold ornaments. Dissatisfied with the decision, the respondent filed an appeal before the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court, which reversed the Family Court’s decision, leading the appellant to file the present appeal before the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir. -----Issues: 1- Whether the condition for the 5 marla plot was valid and enforceable as part of the dower. ------2- Whether the Family Court correctly relied on the entry in the Nikahnama as proof of the agreed dower. ------3- Whether the Shariat Appellate Bench was justified in dismissing the suit for the recovery of dower. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Shariat Appellate Bench, dismissing the appellant’s claim. The court found that the dower recorded in the Nikahnama was limited to 4 tola of gold ornaments, which had been duly paid. The court ruled that although the 5 marla plot was mentioned in the Nikahnama, it was not provided as part of the agreed dower. The court also noted that the respondent was not in possession of a plot, which supported the conclusion that the condition for the plot was added after the Nikah and did not form part of the original contract. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Family Court should not have awarded the 5 marla plot as dower since there was no evidence to support that it was agreed as part of the dower contract. The reasons given by the Shariat Appellate Bench for reversing the Family Court’s decision were deemed reasonable and did not require interference. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. -----Citations/Precedents: Presumption of Truth in Nikahnama Entries – Entries in the Nikahnama are presumed to be valid unless proven otherwise. Doctrine of Contractual Obligations in Family Law – Dower obligations must be clearly agreed upon at the time of Nikah. Judicial Review of Family Court Orders – Grounds for appellate courts to modify family court decisions based on the validity of evidence.

Summary: Background: The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir, seeking his appointment to a vacant post of Patwari in District Bagh. Gul claimed that he completed the Patwar Course on August 29, 2005, but was excluded from the seniority list. Following directions issued by the High Court in earlier petitions, his name was subsequently entered in the list. Despite this, the respondents were appointed to the vacant posts, allegedly in violation of earlier court judgments, and Gul's requests for appointment were ignored. He alleged contempt of court and sought relief through another writ petition. The High Court dismissed his petition, reasoning that seniority alone does not confer a right to appointment unless the candidate successfully passes the requisite test and interview. Dissatisfied with this decision, Gul filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir. -----Issues: 1- Whether mere entry in the seniority list gives a candidate a right to be appointed. -----2- Whether the appellant participated in the test and interview required for the post. -----3- Whether the respondents' appointments violated prior court orders. -----4- Whether the appellant could file another writ petition instead of pursuing a contempt application for non-compliance with earlier judgments. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment. The court held that listing in the seniority list does not grant a candidate the right to appointment unless they have successfully participated in the test and interview process conducted by the relevant authorities. The court emphasized that no evidence was provided by the appellant to show he had completed the required selection process or that he was arbitrarily overlooked for the post. The court also observed that multiple writ petitions filed by the appellant were not legally justified. If earlier court orders had not been implemented, the appropriate course of action was to file a contempt application rather than a fresh writ petition. The respondents’ appointments, the court found, were valid and did not violate any laws or judicial orders. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. -----Citations/Precedents: Doctrine of Merit-Based Appointments – Appointments in public service require successful completion of prescribed tests and interviews. Contempt of Court Application – The correct remedy for non-compliance with prior court orders. Doctrine of Seniority vs. Selection Process – Seniority alone does not confer a right to appointment without fulfilling selection criteria.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending