Summary: Cr. Misc. No. 47/2020 and Cr. Misc. No. 48/2020, the petitioner Faizan Rehmat sought to challenge the orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Diamer and the Judicial Magistrate Chilas. The petitioner was charged under Sections 489-F, 420, and 34 PPC (FIR No. 91/2018) and Sections 489-F, 420, and 506(ii) PPC (FIR No. 11/2019) for alleged fraudulent activities. The Judicial Magistrate granted bail with the condition that the petitioner furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 10 million, which was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge.---Issues:Whether the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 10 million for bail is lawful and justified.Whether the petitioner should be allowed to furnish local sureties or personal surety bonds instead of a bank guarantee.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court dismissed the petitions, maintaining the conditions set by the lower courts. The key points of the judgment are:Petitioner's Agreement to Conditions: The petitioner?s counsel had initially agreed to furnish the bank guarantee during the bail proceedings, as recorded in the bail order dated 02-05-2019. The petitioner could not later resile from this agreement.Non-Local Status: The condition of a bank guarantee was deemed appropriate given the petitioner's non-local status, which was a factor in ensuring his compliance with bail conditions.Estoppel by Conduct: The petitioner was estopped from challenging the condition due to his initial agreement, making the impugned orders by the Judicial Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge valid and enforceable.The court concluded that there was no merit in the petitions, thus upholding the orders requiring the bank guarantee for bail.----Citations/Precedents:Sections 489-F, 420, and 34 PPC (FIR No. 91/2018)Sections 489-F, 420, and 506(ii) PPC (FIR No. 11/2019)Section 561-A Cr.P.C.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Criminal Jail Appeal --- (Conviction Set aside, Delay in Identification, JM not examined, Recovered article not produced, at the time of Statement, No identification mentioned in given in FIR) ---- The appellant, Muhammad Ali s/o Yameen Khan, was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder (Qatil-i-Amd) of deceased Azam Khan, along with a fine and compensation to the deceased's heirs. Other accused individuals, Ali Bath Khan S/O Meer Hajat Khan and Missal Khan S/O Asmatullah, were acquitted. The appeals and revision centered around the dissatisfaction with the trial court's judgment, including the conviction of Muhammad Ali, the acquittals of the other accused, and the sentencing.The prosecution's case was based on an FIR lodged by Gul Wali Khan, stating that Azam Khan was shot dead by three assailants after a Valima ceremony. The investigation led to the arrest of Muhammad Ali and others, and the case proceeded to trial, where nine prosecution witnesses were examined.The High Court, after reviewing the evidence and arguments, found that the prosecution failed to establish Muhammad Ali's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted significant inconsistencies in witness statements, lack of direct nomination of the accused in the FIR, questionable conduct of the identification parade, and discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence. The court also highlighted procedural lapses, such as the failure to put all incriminating evidence to the accused under Section 342 of the Cr.P.C.Consequently, the appeals filed by Muhammad Ali were allowed, leading to his acquittal based on the benefit of the doubt. The court ordered his immediate release unless required in connection with any other case. The acquittal appeal and criminal revision related to the other accused and sentencing, respectively, were dismissed based on the evidence and legal principles governing appeals against acquittal and the scope for sentence enhancement.

Summary: The judgment pertains to several--- criminal appeals and revisions, involving multiple appellants and respondents. The judgment includes discussions about the prosecution's case, identification parades, evidence presented, contradictions in witness testimonies, and the application of legal principles.

Summary: The victim in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C has charged the accused/petitioner, endorsing the contents of FIR. The currency note allegedly put by the accused in the pocket of victim was also produced before the police and taken into possession through recovery memo. A minor child of 11/12 years of age has been allegedly subjected to immoral act. The offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.Even, otherwise, the offence for which the accused petitioner is charged is too heinous and of moral turpitude, affecting the society in general and the life of an innocent victim in particular being stigmatized at the very early stage. The prosecution as well as Courts of law can play a vital role in curtailing such crimes while applying the true judicial mind to the governing judicature.

Summary: The complaint was filed by Nimra Saleem, alleging that her ex-husband, Saleem Khalid, had subjected her to maltreatment, forced her into obscene activities, made sexual videos of her, and blackmailed her using these materials. The case involved allegations of drug and alcohol use, the creation of a Tinder account, and forcing the complainant into sexual interactions.The accused argued that he was falsely implicated, the raid on his residence was conducted unlawfully, and the evidence against him was insufficient to prove the charges. The prosecution, however, contended that the accused had damaged the complainant's reputation and violated her modesty by forwarding explicit material on social media.The court considered the arguments and noted that the accused had admitted to making and sharing obscene videos of the complainant. It cited relevant sections of the PECA Act related to offenses against dignity, modesty, and cyberstalking. The court determined that the charges were serious and had a significant impact on society and the victim. Therefore, it dismissed the bail application, concluding that the prosecution had sufficient evidence to connect the accused to the alleged offenses.

Summary: This case, titled "The Fauji Foundation Charitable Trust Versus Federal Land Commission & others," involved a petition filed by The Fauji Foundation Charitable Trust against the Federal Land Commission and others, challenging the resumption of land by orders dated 05.12.1972, 04.04.1973, and 22.12.1973 under M.L.R. 115. The petitioner, a charitable trust administered by a committee formed by the Federal Government, claimed the land had been improperly resumed and sought legal redress 41 years after the initial resumption.The High Court of Sindh, with Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui and Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam presiding, examined several key issues, including the validity of the land resumption orders, the delay in filing the petition, the petitioner's status as a charitable institution, and the legality of lease agreements entered into after the land resumption. The court also considered the impact of subsequent legal and regulatory changes on the case.Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, finding it to be misconceived. The court allowed for the recovery of land revenue through lawful means but set aside warrants of arrest issued against the petitioner. The decision was based on a thorough examination of legal precedents, statutory provisions, and the facts of the case. The court's judgment emphasized the importance of timely legal action, the consequences of electing certain legal remedies over others, and the need for adherence to proper legal procedures in land resumption and leasing. ----- Subject: Resumption of land under MRL 115[MLR 115 of1972 , Land Revenue Act, 1967 , Law of laches , Act II of 1977 , law of acquiescence , Estoppel , Doctrine of Election]Fauji Foundation a "Charitable Trust" operating under endowment Act 1980 was functioning through a committee formed vide notification of 08.03.1972 of federal Government. Committee after deliberation resolved that secretary to act as authorized person. Unless otherwise explained, it does not deemed to have empowered /authorized secretary to further delegate the powers by a simple authority letter signed by Secretary alone, when it's not borne out of resolution.In the earlier petition when resumption of land was questioned, the parties withdrew their lis in view of negotiation which ended as 30 years leases of subject land and the cause of resumption deemed to have exhausted by way of doctrine of election, Petitioner opted for a long term lease instead to continue litigation against resumption of land .Such right (if any) was bartered with long term lease. Such right to challenge the resumption of land thus was not available when present petition was filed.Process of execution for long term lease should have followed requirement of MLR 115 and section 17 of Act II of 1977 and since it was not transparent, the two leases were executed in an unlawful manner and which period (30 years) has already been exhausted. Scheme of recovery of land revenue includes a process of attachment of holding against arrears which are due. Unless a remedy is exhausted, immediate jump to arrest and detention would not be justified.The question of declaring MLR 115 being repugnant to injunctions of Islamic law has already been decided but with its prospective effect as highlighted in the judgment of Qazalbash Waqf v. Chief Land Commissioner and the effective date was set as 23rd March, 1990 before which the process of resumption had already been completed yet long term leases were executed surrendering rights over the land. (if any)

Summary: Background:The Government of Punjab filed an appeal against the Lahore High Court's order directing the issuance of an appointment letter to Abdul Jabbar as Junior Special Educator, subject to post availability. Abdul Jabbar had applied for the position, ranked 108th on the merit list, and claimed a right to appointment when two recommended candidates failed to join. The High Court relied on Punjab Public Service Commission Regulations, 2016, and directed the government to appoint Abdul Jabbar.---Issues:Whether Abdul Jabbar had a legal right to appointment based on his ranking and vacancies.Whether the High Court correctly interpreted Punjab Public Service Commission Regulations, 2016.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that Abdul Jabbar did not have an automatic right to appointment as no departmental request for a substitute was made as per Regulation No. 59. The Court noted that Abdul Jabbar did not participate in the fresh recruitment process despite awareness. The High Court misinterpreted the Regulations and did not verify Abdul Jabbar's eligibility or merit. Regulation No. 59 entrusted the decision to the hiring department, and the Court should not interfere with executive functions without valid reasons.---Citations/Precedents:Musa Wazir v. NWFP Public Service Commission (1993 SCMR 1124)Muhammad Kashif v. Province of Punjab (Civil Petition No. 1187/2016)Punjab Public Service Commission Regulations, 2016

Summary: Summary pending