Summary: Background:The petitioner, Mohammad Ilyas, sought the release of his vehicle, a Toyota Saloon Car, impounded by the police under FIR No.13/2019. The vehicle was seized in connection with an offense under Section 9-B of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act (CNSA) 1997. Mohammad Ilyas filed a criminal revision petition under Section 439-A of the Cr.P.C. after his initial application for the vehicle's release was dismissed by the Sessions Judge Gilgit.----Issues:Whether the petitioner, as the owner and last possessor of the vehicle, is entitled to its custody on superdari.Whether the vehicle's continued detention by the police serves any useful purpose after the completion of the investigation.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Hon'ble Judge Ali Baig held that the petitioner, being the bona fide owner and last possessor of the vehicle, is entitled to its custody on superdari. The court observed that no rival claimant had come forward to claim ownership of the vehicle. It was also noted that detaining the vehicle at the police station would not serve any useful purpose, especially since the investigation was complete. Prolonged detention could lead to the vehicle's deterioration. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the police were directed to release the vehicle to the petitioner upon furnishing an undertaking to produce the vehicle in court when required and not to sell it until the case is disposed of.----Citations/Precedents:Section 9-B of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act 1997Section 439-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)Section 516-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Impugned office order dated 17.5.19 Ex Director General PPRA

Summary: Judicial Magistrate was not empowered under the law to issue direction to the police regarding registration of case, which powers are only vested with the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace u/s 22-A Cr.P.C., so without discussing the merits of the complaint & leaving aside the question that whether the offenses allegedly committed are cognizable or nor, we reached at the conclusion that the act of the learned Judicial Magistrate issuing direction to the police regarding registration of case is beyond his jurisdiction, so the whole proceeding upon which the superstructure was build i.e. registration of case are not sustainable.

Summary: This application, filed under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, is presented by Mr. Muhammad Latif, the subsequent transferee of a property initially purchased at auction by Mr. Abid Hussain (respondent No.14). The applicant seeks a declaration against the judgment, where the court allowed an appeal and set aside an auction held. The applicant, impleaded as respondent No.15 in the main appeal, argues that no opportunity was given to defend its rights. The court examined the issues framed, including fraud and misrepresentation, engagement of legal representation, and the relief sought. During the proceedings, it is revealed that the auction purchaser (respondent No.14) independently challenged the judgment before the Supreme Court but subsequently withdrew the appeal. The court determined whether the interests of the applicant and the auction purchaser overlap, if they can pursue separate remedies, and the implications of the withdrawal of the appeal by the auction purchaser. The court concluded that the applicant, as a subsequent transferee, cannot claim independent rights in the property when the auction sale is set aside. The principle of lis pendens is applied, and the withdrawal of the appeal by the auction purchaser is deemed an acceptance of the order setting aside the auction. The court dismissed the application, ruling that the applicant lacks the standing to contest the order independently of the auction purchaser.

Summary: The appellant was prosecuted, convicted and sentenced under Section 409, 467, 468, 471 P.P.C. as well as under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 by the learned Judge Special Court (Central), Faisalabad------------If a public servant is entrusted with a property and he commits criminal breach of trust with respect to the said property then he is liable to be punished under Section 409 P.P.C.-------------------A close examination of the entire evidence and documents does not reveal any material, worth mentioning for fastening the appellant with the offence of criminal breach of trust punishable.-------------Further, there is no evidence that there was any conspiracy or concert of minds of the appellant and his co-accused (since convicted) or any pre-arranged plan between them to commit the offence or offences complained of.-------------The condition precedent for an offence under Sections 467 and 471 PPC is forgery.------------The question is whether the appellant, executed false and forged cheques in collusion with the other accused.-----------------------As per prosecution case forged signatures of the complainant were affixed upon the cheques. But no material evidence has been laid by the prosecution to establish connection of the appellant with the forgery or co-accused.-------------There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a forged cheques and a person executing cheques by impersonating the concerned officers or falsely claiming to be authorized or empowered by the authority, to execute the cheques.----------------During investigation none of the investigating officer obtained specimen signatures of the appellant.-----------------If what is executed is not executed by the appellant, it cannot be said that the appellant affixed forged signatures and used them as genuine.--------------If there is no forgery conducted by the appellant, then neither Section 467 nor Section 471 of the Code are attracted. If a public servant dishonestly misappropriates property entrusted to him and converts it to his own use, he can be punished for the said offences.---------------From perusal of entire evidence available on record, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the appellant was entrusted with the cheque books and there is nothing to show that appellant has misappropriated Rs.9,11,755/- and affixed forged signatures on the cheques, thus, offences under Section 409 467, 468, 471 P.P.C. as well as under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 are not made out. Resultantly, appeal is allowed.

Summary: Background:Mehmood Ahmed, a Sub-Inspector (SI) in the City Yazman Police, was directed to arrest the main accused in FIR No.134/2014. Despite instructions, he failed to do so, resulting in the accused obtaining pre-arrest bail. Consequently, he was dismissed from service. His dismissal was challenged through a service appeal, leading to a penalty of reduction in rank from SI to Assistant Sub-Inspector. However, upon further review, the penalty was enhanced to dismissal from service.---Issues:Whether the enhancement of penalty from reduction in rank to dismissal from service was in accordance with the law and principles of natural justice?---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that the enhancement of the penalty was lawful and in compliance with the principles of natural justice. Rule 12(iii) of the Punjab Police (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975, mandates giving the defaulter an opportunity to show cause before enhancing a penalty. In this case, Mehmood Ahmed was provided with a personal hearing by the Regional Police Officer (RPO) on 2.2.2017, where he was given the opportunity to present his case against the enhancement of penalty. As Mehmood Ahmed was heard personally, there was no violation of the principles of natural justice. Thus, the appeal was dismissed.---Citations/Precedents:Punjab Police (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975Rule 12(iii) of the Punjab Police (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975

Summary: Background: The appellant filed a civil appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which involved a dispute over the validity of a decision made by the Custodian of Evacuee Property. The main contention was that the decision in question arose from a second and successive review petition filed before the Custodian, raising the legal issue of whether such a successive review petition is permissible. ----Issues: 1- Whether a second and successive review petition before the Custodian of Evacuee Property is legally permissible. 2- Whether the High Court properly addressed and resolved the issue of the successive review petition. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court accepted the appeal, recalling the impugned judgment of the High Court and remanding the case for reconsideration. The Supreme Court identified an important legal proposition regarding the permissibility of a second and successive review petition before the Custodian. It was noted that this legal issue goes to the root of the case and had not been properly addressed by the High Court. The Supreme Court referenced its own precedent, which indicated that no successive review petition is competent. The case was remanded to the High Court to hear the parties on this specific legal proposition and pass a speaking judgment addressing this core issue. The appeal was accepted, the judgment of the High Court was recalled, and the case was remanded to the High Court for a decision within four months, ensuring the parties have the opportunity to argue on the specific legal issue of the successive review petition. ----Citations/Precedents: Dr. Munawar Ahmed & others vs. Muhammad Aslam & others [2016 SCR 1014]