Summary: PLJ 2020 Lahore (Note) 30 [Multan Bench Multan] Present Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed J MUHAMMAD ZAHID etc - - Respondents versus RETURNING OFFICER PP - 213 MULTAN - III and others - - Appellants EA No 15 29 30 31 61 62 65 98 108 116 125 of 2018 decided on 2562018 Punjab Local Government Act 2013 (XVIII of 2013) - - - - - - S 28Elections Act 2017 (Act No XXXIII of 2017) S 231 - - Constitution of Pakistan 1973 Arts 62 63 - - Rejection of nomination papers - - Dual membership - - Tending of resignations - - Qualification for candidate - - Right to participation - - Determination - - Challenge to - - Viewed from their angle by necessary implication a Mayor Deputy Mayor or Chairman were required to quit office before joining electoral race however purpose contemplated by section ibid could only become enforceable alter incumbent successfully returns from constituency and he could take that chance without burning his boats - - Such a construction would be riot only just and fair but also in accord with purpose behind law - - Rights provided to a citizen under Elections Act 2017 in terms of qualification for a candidate based upon a Constitutional edifice unambiguously prevail upon Punjab Local Government Act a Provincial Statute - - A contra construction or interpretation would essentially suffer from yet another flaw and that is discrimination as in some of provinces no such embargo is placed upon electoral choices - - Argument by learned Assistant Attorney General that since vires of Statute is still under consideration appellants should hold in abeyance their political pursuits is beside mark they can participate in election and in case they emerged triumphant they shall cease to hold former office even without resignation - - Appeals was allowed [Para 4] A B Sh Tanveer Ahmad Advocate (in EA No 15 of 2018) Rana Muhammad Asif Saeed Advocate (in EA No 29 - 2018 30 - 2018 31 - 2018 116 - 2018) Syed Muzammil Hussain Shah Bokhari Advocate (in EA No 65 - 2018 98 - 2018) Malik Abid Hussain Khakhi Advocate (in EA No 61 - 2018) Rao Sajjad - ur - Rehman Advocate in (EA No 62 - 2018) Syed Riaz - ul - Hassan Gillani Advocate (in EA No 108 - 2018) Mirza Aziz Akbar Baig Advocate (in EA No125 - 2018) Rana Naveed Assistant Attorney General for Pakistan Mehr Nazar Abbas Chawan Assistant Advocate General Punjab Ch Parvez Akhtar Gujjar Advocate for Election Commission of PakistanJudgement Result: Judgement Result:

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Scope of repatriation orders under Punjab Local Government Act, 2019---The document pertained to the dissolution of existing local governments under the Punjab Local Government Act, 2019. It specified the constitution of succeeding local governments, including Metropolitan Corporations, Municipal Corporations, Municipal Committees, Town Committees, and Tehsil Councils. The petitioner challenged the alleged illegal transfers/repatriation orders of local government employees, arguing that they are entitled to work until new local governments are constituted. The court rejected the petitioner's claims, stating that there is no apparent violation of the relevant sections of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2019. It emphasized that the defunct Union Councils are temporarily discharging public functions until new local governments are constituted. The court noted that the deployment plan and transfer orders were carried out lawfully by the duly constituted successive local governments. The petitioners' claim of a violation of their legal rights is dismissed, and they are directed to report to the duly constituted successive local governments against their substantive posts. The court concluded that the petitions are incompetent and dismissed them.

Summary: The case involves a petitioner, a transporter, who owns a bus allegedly involved in a road accident. The petitioner claimed that the bus was unlawfully seized by the police after the accident, and despite their efforts to retrieve it, the authorities have refused to return the vehicle. The petitioner argued that the police exceeded their authority by detaining the bus and cites Section 95 of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, which limits the detention of a motor vehicle involved in an accident to 48 hours. The court examined the maintainability of the petition, emphasizing that alternative remedies should be considered but can be set aside if they prove inadequate or ineffective. The court interpreted Section 95 of the Ordinance, concluding that it is mandatory and limits the detention of a vehicle involved in an accident to 48 hours. The court rejected the reliance on Rule 22.16 of the Police Rules, 1934, stating that the Ordinance takes precedence over general laws. Additionally, it clarified that Section 516-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) is not applicable since the bus does not fall under the category of property used for the commission of an offense. Ultimately, the court rules in favor of the petitioner, declaring the continued detention of the bus as unlawful and orders its immediate return.

Summary: The appellant denied the execution of an agreement to sell, which was claimed by the respondent No.1. The trial court decreed the claim of respondent No.1, but the appellant challenged this decision in the first appellate court, and subsequently, in this second appeal. The revision petitioner (respondent No.2) claimed rights to the same land based on a separate agreement to sell which the appellant admitted to executing. However, the appellant alleged default in the payment of the balance consideration. The judgment criticized the lower courts for not adhering to proper legal procedures, specifically the failure to confront the appellant with the disputed agreement and signatures, as required by Article 140 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984. It also points out the absence of crucial evidence, emphasized that the endorsement at the back of the agreement was not shown or confronted to the appellant. The judgment concluded by allowing the second appeal and the civil revision, setting aside the previous judgments and decrees, dismissing the suit of respondent No.1, and decreeing the suit of respondent No.2.

Summary: (a) Criminal trial-------Witness---Hearsay---Witness who did not see the occurrence and had raised fingerstowards accused on the basis of information conveyed to them by a third person, suchwitness had merely deposed about crime without reference to real culprit.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Unnatural death ofwife---Husband failed to explain---Wife of accused was murdered in house and accusedcould not explain her death---Unnatural death of deceased inside the house of accused andhis failure to discharge such onus, was intriguing---Such failure could not be equated toqualify as evidentiary certainty, essentially required in order to saddle accused withformidable corporal consequences after discarding remaining pieces of evidence relied uponby prosecution---Accused could not be convicted for alleged murder simply on the basis ofsupposition---Prosecution failed to prove charge against accused persons beyond reasonabledoubt---High Court extended benefit of doubt to the accused husband, set aside convictionand sentence awarded by Trial Court and acquitted him of the charge---Appeal was allowed,in circumstances.(c) Criminal trial-------Abscondance--- Scope--- Mere absconsion of accused is not sufficient to sustainconviction---People avoid facing the process of law or their adversaries for a variety ofreasons, not essentially inclusive of guilt.Nasrullah alias Nasro v. State 2017 SCMR 724 and Asad Khan v. State PLD 2017 SC681 rel.

Summary: Acquittal granted---Background:Malik Safeer was stabbed to death on 16.8.2005 near Police Headquarters Garden Karachi.The incident was reported by the victim's brother after midnight, naming Muhammad Imran and others as assailants.Imran was convicted under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to life imprisonment.---Issues:Whether the prosecution's evidence established the guilt of the petitioner beyond a reasonable doubt.Whether discrepancies in witness testimonies and the presence of alternative explanations warranted acquittal.Whether the delay in reporting the incident and discrepancies in witness statements undermined the prosecution's case.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Witness testimonies were found inconsistent and improbable, casting doubt on their credibility.Discrepancies in witness statements, coupled with alternative explanations, undermined the prosecution's case.The medical examination of the petitioner's mother revealed injuries inconsistent with the prosecution's narrative.The recovery of the weapon and the acquittal of co-accused further weakened the prosecution's case.The benefit of the doubt was extended to the petitioner, resulting in acquittal.The criminal petition was converted into an appeal and allowed, leading to the petitioner's immediate release.---Citations/Precedents:Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (specifically section 302 and section 34)

Summary: Summary pending