Summary: Bail granted---Background:Mir Wali Khan, a resident of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK), was arrested by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) based on information suggesting he was a foreigner. The arrest occurred on 17-01-2020 in Gilgit, and the FIR registered against him accused him under Section 420 PPC and Section 14 Foreigners Act. The petitioner claimed to be a Pakistani national and sought post-arrest bail through a petition under Section 497 Cr.P.C.----Issues:Whether Mir Wali Khan, the petitioner, qualifies for post-arrest bail despite being accused of offenses under Section 420 PPC and Section 14 Foreigners Act.Whether the petitioner's possession of a valid Form-B issued by NADRA and his family's long-term residency in KPK provide sufficient grounds for granting bail.Whether the offense under Section 14(1) of the Foreigners Act falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C., affecting the petitioner's eligibility for bail.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court granted post-arrest bail to Mir Wali Khan after considering several factors. Firstly, it noted that the offense under Section 420 PPC was bailable. Secondly, the petitioner's possession of a valid Form-B issued by NADRA, indicating his residency in Pakistan, supported his claim of Pakistani nationality. Additionally, the petitioner's father's death certificate, which indicated a long-term family residency in KPK, further substantiated his claim. The court reasoned that since the offense under Section 14(1) of the Foreigners Act did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C., the petitioner was entitled to bail. Consequently, Mir Wali Khan was admitted to post-arrest bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.300,000/- with two sureties each in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.-----Citations/Precedents:Section 497 Cr.P.C.Section 420 PPCSection 14 Foreigners ActNADRA (National Database and Registration Authority)

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Service Matter, Pension

Summary: Sections of law; 11,115 and Order 23 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908.(a) The principle of res-judicata initially arose out of a matter of public policy with the desire that judgments of Courts properly adjudicated upon, should have finality.(b) For invoking the principle of res-judicata, it is essential that earlier suit should have been decided on merit, by a forum competent to grant the relief in the subsequent suit.(c) Where earlier suit had been simply withdrawn, the subsequent suit cannot be held to be barred by the principle of res-judicata.

Summary: [Civil Procedure Code CPC (Delay in payment of Court Fee)] Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. VII, R. 2 & S. 100---Money suit---Second appeal---Limitation---Court fee fixed after period of limitation---Effect---Defendant did not appear for cross-examination and his affidavit-in-evidence was discarded and suit was decreed---Validity---Defendant had not produced any witness to discharge his burden---Courts below had decreed the suit on the basis of unimpeachable evidence of plaintiff---No mis-reading or non-reading of evidence had been pointed out in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below---Defendant had paid court fee after one year and nine months of filing of present appeal, which was time barred---Defendant was guilty of contumacy and had no respect to the authority of law---Valuable right of limitation having accrued in favour of plaintiff, second appeal was dismissed. Hassan Bakhsh and others v. Syed Afzal Shah and others 1974 SCMR 364; Allah Yar v. Muhammad Riaz and others PLD 1981 SC 489 and Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Collector, Badin v. Haji Abdul Shakoor and others 1997 SCMR 919 rel.

Summary: Acquittal granted---Background:Jan Muhammad, aged 18, was murdered on May 22, 2007, in the jurisdiction of Police Station City Hassan Abdal, District Attock.The petitioner, Mazhar Ellahi, was accused of shooting Jan Muhammad and injuring witness Sajid Mehmood, allegedly due to a suspected liaison between Jan Muhammad's brother and Mazhar Ellahi's daughter.The incident was reported promptly, and recoveries included a pistol and casings from the crime scene.---Issues:Validity of the convictions and sentences imposed on the petitioner for homicide and attempted murder.Assessment of evidence and credibility of witnesses.Consideration of the absence of motive and the acquittal of co-accused.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court reviewed the prompt registration of the case, examination of the injured, and autopsy of the deceased, finding no reason to doubt the presence of witnesses or the accuracy of their statements.The injuries sustained were consistent with the weapon recovered, supporting the prosecution's case against the petitioner.The acquittal of the co-accused did not undermine the credibility of the witnesses or the prosecution's case, as the injuries inflicted suggested the involvement of multiple assailants.Despite the absence of a forensic report and a clear motive, the court upheld the petitioner's convictions based on the totality of the circumstances and the evidence presented.The petition was dismissed, and leave was declined.

Summary: Background: The complainant-appellants filed a case against Sajid Hussain and Robina Qadeer, alleging the murder of Muhammad Ayub and Abid Hussain due to a dispute over a piece of land. The trial court acquitted Robina Qadeer due to a lack of evidence but convicted Sajid Hussain, sentencing him to death. Both parties appealed the decision. The Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court dismissed the complainant's appeal and partially accepted Sajid Hussain's appeal, reducing his death sentence to life imprisonment. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. ---Issues: 1- Whether the trial court and High Court erred in acquitting Robina Qadeer. 2- Whether the reduction of Sajid Hussain's death sentence to life imprisonment was justified. 3- Whether the evidence provided by the prosecution sufficiently proved the guilt of Sajid Hussain beyond a reasonable doubt. ---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to provide a convincing explanation for the presence of the eyewitnesses at the crime scene, making them chance witnesses. The Court noted that their statements contained contradictions and lacked corroboration. The Court also observed that the pistol recovered from Sajid Hussain was not in working condition, which further weakened the prosecution's case. Given these mitigating factors, the Supreme Court altered Sajid Hussain's life imprisonment sentence to the period already served and upheld the acquittal of Robina Qadeer. ---Citations/Precedents: Akhtar Ali and others v. The State [2008 SCMR 6] Tanvir alias Rabail and another v. The State [2012 YLR 2016] Imtiaz alias Taj v. The State [2018 SCMR 344] Muhammad Khurshid Khan v. Muhammad Basharat and another [2007 SCR 1] Qadir Bakhsh and others v. The State through Shoukat and others [2013 SCR 439] Azhar Aziz v. State [PLJ 1996 SC (AJK) 257] Muhammad Qasim and another v. The State [1997 P.Cr.L.J. 1095] Muhammad Tahir Aziz v. The State and another [2009 SCR 71] Sheikh Javed Iqbal v. Muhammad Bashir and 5 others [2010 SCR 208] Muhammad Yar alias Yari v. The State [2001 MLD 807]

Summary: Background: The appellants, students of various departments at the University of Azad Jammu & Kashmir, filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging a case registered against them under sections 147, 148, 149, and 302 of the Azad Penal Code (APC) and section 6 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Anti Terrorism Act, 2014 (ATA). The appellants were implicated in a false case registered with mala fide intentions. Following an investigation, the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) exonerated some of the accused. However, the appellants were sent to Central Jail Rara, Muzaffarabad, and the challan was presented in the Anti Terrorism Court, Muzaffarabad. Their application to transfer the case to the District Court was dismissed by the Anti Terrorism Court, leading to the filing of the writ petition in the High Court, which was also dismissed. This prompted the appellants to appeal to the Supreme Court. ----Issues: 1- Whether the provisions of section 6 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Anti Terrorism Act, 2014, are applicable in this case. 2- Whether the case should be transferred from the Anti Terrorism Court to the District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome The Supreme Court concluded that the provisions of the ATA were not applicable in this case. Section 6 of the ATA must be read in conjunction with section 5, which specifies that the act must be designed to coerce, intimidate, or create a sense of fear or insecurity in society. The Court found that the case involved personal enmity and not an act of terrorism aimed at intimidating the public or the government. The previous enmity between the parties indicated that the incident was a result of a private vendetta rather than an act of terrorism. Consequently, the case did not fall within the purview of the ATA and should be tried by the District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction. ----Citations/Precedents Ghulam Hussain and others v. The State & others (PLD 1983 SC 82) Fazad Dad vs. The State (PLD 1987 Sh. C (AJ&K) 10)

Summary: Background: The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for the recovery of dowry articles in the Court of Judge Family Court, Mirpur, on February 12, 2011. She sought a decree for the recovery of the dowry articles listed in the plaint, or their value amounting to Rs. 1,61,950/-. The trial court partly decreed the suit, entitling the plaintiff to receive the dowry articles admitted by the defendant-appellant in the written statement. Dissatisfied with this decision, the respondent appealed to the High Court. The High Court partially accepted the appeal, modifying the judgment to allow the respondent to receive the market value of the dowry articles, which led to the appellant filing the present appeal before the Supreme Court. ----Issues: 1- Whether the High Court erred in modifying the trial court's judgment to allow the respondent to receive the market value of the dowry articles instead of the articles themselves. 2- Whether the appellant's readiness to return the dowry articles should negate the need for a monetary valuation. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court found that the High Court's modification of the trial court's decree, ordering the payment of the market value of the dowry articles, was unwarranted. The Court noted that the appellant was ready to hand over the dowry articles and that there was no concrete evidence presented to prove that the articles had been damaged. The Court emphasized that the execution of the decree should follow the trial court's original order, which entailed the return of the dowry articles. The Court held that any issues arising during the execution of the decree, such as damage to the articles, could be addressed by the executing court at that time. Therefore, the Supreme Court quashed the High Court's modification, reverting to the trial court's original decree.

Summary: Acquittal granted---Background: On June 1, 2010, Muhammad Afzal lodged an application at Police Station Dadyal for registration of a case against Sajid Hussain and others, alleging that Sajid Hussain shot and killed Muhammad Ayub and Abid Hussain over a dispute regarding unpaid air tickets. The incident was purportedly witnessed by Farooq Shahid and Muhammad Shafique. Following the investigation, Sajid Hussain was charged and convicted by the trial court, receiving a death sentence and additional imprisonment for related charges. The co-accused, Robina Qadeer, was acquitted. Both parties appealed the decision to the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court, which reduced Sajid Hussain's death sentence to life imprisonment and dismissed the complainants' appeal against Robina Qadeer's acquittal. ----Issues: 1- Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to sustain the conviction of Sajid Hussain. 2- Whether the acquittal of Robina Qadeer was justified. 3- Whether the reduction of Sajid Hussain's death sentence to life imprisonment was appropriate. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court found several issues with the prosecution's case. The primary concerns were the contradictions in eyewitness testimony and the questionable presence of the eyewitnesses at the scene. The Court noted that the direct evidence provided by the prosecution was insufficient to uphold the death sentence due to these inconsistencies and lack of corroboration. The Court also considered the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory, which indicated that the pistol allegedly recovered from Sajid Hussain was not in working condition. This was deemed a significant mitigating factor. The Court found no compelling reason to overturn Robina Qadeer's acquittal, as the evidence against her was weak and doubtful. Given these circumstances, the Supreme Court altered Sajid Hussain's sentence to the time already served and upheld the High Court's decision regarding Robina Qadeer's acquittal. ----Citations/Precedents: Akhtar Ali and others v. The State [2008 SCMR 6] Tanvir alias Rabail and another v. The State [2012 YLR 2016] Imtiaz alias Taj v. The State [2018 SCMR 344] Muhammad Khurshid Khan v. Muhammad Basharat and another [2007 SCR 1] Qadir Bakhsh and others v. The State through Shoukat and others [2013 SCR 439] Azhar Aziz v. State [PLJ 1996 SC (AJK) 257] Muhammad Qasim and another v. The State [1997 P.Cr.L.J. 1095] Muhammad Tahir Aziz v. The State and another [2009 SCR 71] Sheikh Javed Iqbal v. Muhammad Bashir and 5 others [2010 SCR 208] Muhammad Yar alias Yari v. The State [2001 MLD 807]