Summary: 1. The report was made by complainant within 45 minutes of the occurence. The Complainant narrated the incident as he saw and the arrival soonafter the incident with injured to the hospital excluded the chances of consultation and deliberation and false charge.2. The purpose of the accused was manifest from the fact that soon after occurence he fled on motorcycle of the deceased and took away the laptop and mobile Nokia of the deceased. The accused was so hardened that on the same day at 8:00 P.M he was arrested from guava garden and the snatched articles were recovered from his possession, which were duly identified by the complainant in identification parade before the judicial Magistrate.

Summary: The incident involved the appellant allegedly assaulting a nine-year-old girl, Hijab Fatima, on her way home from school. The judgment included a five-year prison sentence, a fine of Rs.25,000, and additional penalties.During the trial, the prosecution presented eight witnesses, including the complainant Syed Mushtaq Hussain Shah, eyewitnesses Ahmad Ali and Altaf Hussain, and the investigating officer Muhammad Shafi SI. The defense argued that there was an unexplained delay in filing the FIR and that the eyewitnesses failed to justify their presence. They also claimed contradictions in the witnesses' statements.The court, however, found the prosecution's case convincing, highlighting that the delay in reporting the crime was understandable given its sensitive nature. The judgment emphasized the consistency in the statements of the victim and the eyewitnesses, refuting the defense's arguments. The court noted that the victim was not medically examined due to the immediate arrival of witnesses preventing the rape. The appellant's defense, claiming false implication, was deemed unsubstantiated as no evidence was presented.The appeal focused on the omission of administering an oath to the child witness, Hijab Fatima. The court clarified that under the Oaths Act, the absence of an oath does not invalidate the proceedings or make the testimony inadmissible. The court further discussed the competency of a child witness under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and emphasized that the credibility of a witness and their competency are distinct.Ultimately, the court set aside the conviction under Section 376/511 P.P.C but convicted the appellant under Section 354 P.P.C for attempted assault. Atif Shahzad received a two-year prison sentence, a Rs.50,000 fine, and a Rs.100,000 compensation order to be paid to the victim. Failure to pay the fine or compensation would result in additional imprisonment. The judgment concluded by mentioning the availability of the benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C to the appellant.

Summary: The petitioner contested the appointment, alleging that the marks awarded to respondent No.4 were contrary to the record and violated Rule 17 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968. The petitioner claimed that the strength and importance of the 'Arain Community' were overlooked, and he should have been appointed instead.The judge, after examining the record, noted that the petitioner was awarded 30 marks based on community strength, while respondent No.4 received 15 marks. Additionally, respondent No.4 received 30 marks on hereditary claim. The academic qualifications of the petitioner were questioned, as he admitted to not having cleared the matriculation examination. The judge found it puzzling that the petitioner was awarded 10 marks in light of this admission.The judge distinguished the judgments cited by the petitioner's counsel, stating that they were not applicable to the present case. The authorities had meticulously considered the qualifications of the candidates, and the petitioner secured 63 marks compared to respondent No.4's 73 marks. The judge concluded that there was no illegality in the orders, and the petition lacked merit. Judicial review jurisdiction was deemed unnecessary, and the petition was dismissed.

Summary: The case involved the adjudication of a Civil Revision related to the allotment of a plot (No. 47 Block-Z, measuring 7 Marla) reserved for the defense/armed forces. The plot was allotted to Mr. Manzoor Hussain, an army veteran, with conditions specified in the allotment letter. The allottee, passed away on 19.02.2007, and the respondents, legal heirs of the allottee, filed a suit for a Mandatory Injunction on 18.03.1997, claiming that despite approaching the petitioner (No.2) for completion of formalities, no progress was made. The suit was decreed, and the petitioner's appeal was dismissed, leading to the current Civil Revision. The petitioner argued that the allottee had not fulfilled the formalities and conditions, leading to the cancellation of the allotment, and no obligation can be claimed through a mandatory injunction. The respondents argued that once an allotment is made, it cannot be canceled subsequently, creating vested and enforceable rights in favor of the allottee. The court noted that the allottee never appeared as a witness, and the assertions about approaching the petitioner for formalities were unproven hearsay evidence. The court examined the allotment letter's conditions, deeming them as conditions precedent, and concludes that the respondents failed to provide strong evidence of the petitioners' continuing obligation. The court, therefore, allowed the Civil Revision, setting aside the judgments and decrees of the lower courts, and dismissing the suit of the respondents.

Summary: Acquittal granted---Background:Safdar Abbas and Akhtar Abbas, brothers, were convicted for the murder of Muhammad Bukhsh by a learned Additional Sessions Judge in Jhang. The incident occurred on 5.4.2008, allegedly due to disputes over agricultural land. While the co-accused were acquitted, the petitioners were convicted under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to death, later commuted to life imprisonment by the Lahore High Court. The petitioners challenged the verdict, arguing that the evidence disbelieved regarding the majority of the accused cannot sustain the charge against them without independent corroboration.---Issues:Whether evidence disbelieved regarding the majority of the accused can be used to sustain the charge against the petitioners without independent corroboration.Whether the motive cited in the crime report was specific enough to support the petitioners' conviction.Whether the prosecution's evidence was substantially flawed, warranting the setting aside of the conviction.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court found that the roles of the accused, closely related and members of the same clan, could not be bifurcated without nullifying the entire case. The motive cited in the crime report was non-specific, and investigative conclusions were inconsistent with the complainant's case. Additionally, recoveries were deemed inconsequential, and the complainant abandoned the case against the acquitted co-accused after a failed petition for leave to appeal in the High Court. Given these circumstances and the substantially flawed prosecution evidence, the Court concluded that it would be unsafe to maintain the petitioners' conviction. Therefore, the petition was converted into an appeal and allowed, setting aside the impugned judgment and ordering the release of the petitioners unless detained in any other case. The complainant's petition seeking enhancement was dismissed.

Summary: Background:Muhammad Saleem Khan filed a civil petition seeking leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench. The High Court allowed MCB Bank Limited's appeal against the dismissal of its suit for recovery of finances by the Banking Court. The Banking Court had dismissed the suit due to non-compliance with the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891.---Issues:Whether the account statement attached to the suit complied with the requirements of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891.Whether the Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002 (ETO) applied to banking matters, and if so, its effect on the case.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that the Banking Court erred in finding non-compliance with the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891. The account statement attached to the suit contained a certification note that met the Act's requirements. The Court rejected arguments that certification should be on every page, as the comprehensive document with overall verification sufficed. The Court refused to address the applicability of the ETO, as it was not raised in the High Court's judgment. It directed the Banking Court to proceed with the case and decide within four months.

Summary: Background: The appellant, Kashmir United Flour and General Mills Limited, challenged a government decision regarding the allocation of a wheat grinding quota. The dispute arose when Gillani Flour Mills, which had been temporarily closed for upgradation, sought to transfer its wheat grinding quota to another mill. The Azad Jammu & Kashmir Government allocated the quota to Sarwar Flour and General Mills, bypassing the appellant’s mill. The appellant argued that under a 2006 notification, the Government had agreed that in cases of emergency or closure of mills within Azad Jammu & Kashmir (AJK), the appellant's mill would provide services until the emergency subsided. When the quota was given to Sarwar Flour Mills through a notification dated December 30, 2016, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the petition, prompting the appellant to appeal to the Supreme Court. -----Issues: 1- Whether the 2006 notification granted the appellant a binding right to provide services during emergencies or mill closures. -----2- Whether the December 30, 2016 notification was valid or in violation of the earlier 2006 notification. -----3- Whether the Government acted arbitrarily by assigning the quota to Sarwar Flour Mills instead of the appellant. -----4- Whether the matter of contractual obligations was suitable for resolution through writ jurisdiction. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court accepted the appeal and ruled in favor of the appellant. The following reasoning was provided: --Validity of the 2006 Notification: The 2006 notification was binding and stipulated that the appellant’s mill would receive emergency contracts for grinding wheat when other mills in AJK were temporarily closed. --Government's Arbitrary Action: The Government violated the 2006 notification by assigning the wheat quota from Gillani Flour Mills to Sarwar Flour Mills instead of the appellant’s mill. The 2016 notification allocating the quota to Sarwar Flour Mills was cancelled as it conflicted with the earlier government commitment. --Writ Jurisdiction: The court found that the appellant’s challenge was valid within the scope of writ jurisdiction because it involved a matter of administrative action and compliance with government policy, not just a private contractual dispute. --Allocation of Quota: The court ordered that during the period Gillani Flour Mills remained closed for upgradation and installation of new machinery, the Government must allocate the wheat quota to the appellant’s mill.

Summary: Background: The appellant filed a suit for declaration-cum-perpetual injunction and possession in the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Hattian Bala on August 13, 2011. He claimed ownership of land totaling 4 kanals 6 marlas under various Khasra numbers. The appellant alleged that he had leased the land to the respondents for 35 years in exchange for Rs. 9,000, but the respondents fraudulently executed a sale deed on July 12, 1977, taking advantage of his illiteracy. The respondents, however, argued that the sale deed was valid and legally executed. The trial court dismissed the appellant’s suit due to lack of evidence and because it was time-barred. The appellant’s appeals to the District Judge and High Court were also dismissed, prompting the appellant to file a second appeal before the Supreme Court. -----Issues: 1- Was the sale deed of 1977 a valid transfer of ownership, or was it meant to be a mortgage agreement? -----2- Was the suit time-barred under applicable limitation laws? -----3- Can concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and lower appellate courts be challenged in a second appeal? -----4- Were the revenue entries and mutation in favor of the respondents legally valid? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the judgments of the lower courts for the following reasons: --Validity of the Sale Deed: The sale deed was considered valid as there was no evidence to support the appellant's claim that it was intended to be a mortgage. The contents of the deed reflected a clear sale transaction. --Failure to Provide Evidence: The appellant failed to provide supporting evidence, such as witnesses or documentation, proving the alleged mortgage agreement. The beneficiary of a transaction bears the burden of proof, which the appellant could not meet. --Revenue Records and Mutation: The sale deed was recorded in the revenue records, and the mutation process confirmed the respondents' ownership. These entries provided public notice, which the appellant failed to challenge in a timely manner. --Time-Barred Claim: The sale deed was executed in 1977, but the appellant filed his suit only in 2011. This delay made the claim barred by limitation, and no valid justification for the delay was presented. --Concurrent Findings of Fact: The trial court, District Judge, and High Court had all ruled against the appellant based on the facts and evidence. The Supreme Court emphasized that second appeals cannot overturn concurrent findings unless there is clear misreading or non-reading of evidence, which the appellant failed to establish. --No Misreading of Evidence: The appellant could not demonstrate any misreading or non-reading of evidence by the lower courts, leaving no ground for the Supreme Court to intervene.

Summary: Background: The appellant, a candidate for the position of Forester (B-11), participated in the test and interview conducted by the Forest Department for multiple divisions. Initially, his name was mistakenly placed in the merit list for the Muzaffarabad division, but it was later corrected, and he was listed in the merit list for Jhelum Valley Division. The appellant was subsequently appointed on 14.10.2015, but later declared surplus. He filed a writ petition in the Azad Jammu & Kashmir High Court seeking adjustment, which was dismissed by the High Court on 17.1.2019. This led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court. -----Issues: 1- Whether the appellant’s appointment order dated 14.10.2015 is valid. -----2- Whether the High Court’s decision to dismiss the writ petition without adjusting the appellant was legally sound. -----3- Whether administrative lapses by the Forest Department can justify penalizing the appellant by declaring him surplus. -----4- Whether the appointment of another candidate (Waseem Rafique) after the appellant's selection constitutes discrimination. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and ruled in favor of the appellant, providing the following reasoning: --Correction of Merit List and Appointment Validity: The appellant's name was correctly placed at serial no. 5 of the merit list for Jhelum Valley Division. The appointment order dated 14.10.2015 was based on the recommendations of the selection committee, which was never formally canceled. --High Court's Contradictory Judgment: The High Court’s decision was inconsistent, as it stated the appointment order was fake but also left the matter for the department to decide, creating confusion. --Non-Challenge of Appointment: No evidence was provided showing the appellant’s appointment was challenged or canceled by the competent authority. --Discrimination and Adjustment Obligation: Another candidate, Waseem Rafique, who ranked below the appellant, was appointed, raising issues of discrimination. The Court emphasized that the department cannot arbitrarily penalize the appellant for its own administrative errors. --Principle of Administrative Lapse: The Court cited multiple precedents, affirming that lapses by public authorities cannot be used to penalize candidates who are validly appointed. Once a candidate is appointed, the department cannot later reverse its decision without valid legal grounds. ------Citations/Precedents: Sardar Asif Mehmood Raza vs. Abdul Khamid and 7 others [2004 SCR 298]: The Court held that public functionaries cannot penalize candidates for administrative lapses made during the hiring process. Secretary to Government of N.W.F.P. Zakat/Social Welfare Department, Peshawar vs. Sadullah Khan [1996 SCMR 413]: Irregular appointments cannot be used to justify termination without fault on the part of the appointee. Director Kashmir Institute vs. Ali Afsar Abbasi and 2 others [2017 SCR 869]: The Court reiterated that once an individual is appointed and serves, they cannot be penalized for procedural irregularities.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908): ----O. XLI, R. 31---Regular First Appeal---Burden of proof in allegations of fraud---Transfer of immovable property---Presumption of correctness of official documents. Appellant challenged the transfer of a suit property in the joint names of himself and respondent No.1, alleging fraud and breach of trust. The suit property was transferred based on an application submitted to the Capital Development Authority (CDA) by the original owner, accompanied by a joint affidavit/undertaking and declaration of transferee signed by both the appellant and respondent No.1. The appellant admitted his signatures on these documents during cross-examination. The appellant, an educated individual, could not claim ignorance of the contents of these documents. Fraud must be specifically pleaded and proved with cogent evidence, which the appellant failed to do. Transfer letters issued by public authorities enjoy a presumption of correctness, and the burden lies on the party alleging fraud to rebut this presumption. The appellant's failure to produce key witnesses, including the original owner (Mr. Bhatti) and attesting witnesses, created an adverse presumption under Art. 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Held: Fraud was not established, and the transfer process was valid and in accordance with law. -----Cited Cases: Muhammad Siddique v. Abdul Shakoor 2014 SCMR 1169 Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain PLD 2014 SC 146 (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984: ----Art. 129(g)---Adverse presumption---Failure to produce crucial witnesses---Burden of proof. Appellant failed to produce Mr. Bhatti (the original owner of the property) and attesting witnesses to substantiate his claims. Under Art. 129(g), the court drew an adverse presumption against the appellant, holding that the withheld evidence, if presented, would have been unfavorable to his case. Courts are justified in applying this presumption when key witnesses are intentionally not produced without plausible justification. Held: Non-production of material witnesses weakened the appellant's case significantly. ----Cited Cases: Muhammad Aslam v. Mst. Yasmeen PLD 2010 SC 952 (c) Property Law: ----Transfer of immovable property---Sanctity of public documents---Fraud must be proved specifically. Transfers of immovable property carried out by public authorities, such as the CDA, must be afforded sanctity unless fraud is clearly proven. Mere allegations of fraud, without concrete and specific particulars, are insufficient to invalidate such transfers. Public documents like transfer letters and affidavits enjoy a presumption of correctness under the law. Held: The transfer letter dated 11.08.2007 (Exh.P/1) was valid, and no illegality or fraud was established. ---Disposition: Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.