Summary: Acquittal --- Imran was sentenced to death under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and directed to pay Rs. 5 Lacs as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. In case of default, a six-month simple imprisonment was imposed. Imran appealed the conviction. The incident involved Imran, along with other accused individuals, firing upon Sana Ullah, resulting in his death. The motive was allegedly related to a prior case where the deceased was an eyewitness. However, the judgment questions the credibility of the key witnesses, Atta Ullah and Jameel Ahmad, who claimed to be present during the incident. The court raises concerned about inconsistencies in their statements, including changes in the location of injuries and the source of light. The court also noted that the witnesses were unharmed despite being in close proximity to armed assailants, casting doubt on their presence at the crime scene. The judgment emphasized the importance of witness credibility, pointing out dishonest improvements in their statements and the lack of independent corroboration. The court concluded that the evidence against Imran is insufficient, as the witnesses' statements lack intrinsic worth and are rejected outright. The court dismissed the appeal and questions the reliability of witness testimony, leading to doubts about the prosecution's case against Muhammad Imran.

Summary: Acquittal granted---Background:Raja Farhat Iqbal was acquitted of homicide by the trial court but was later found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment by the High Court of Sindh.He filed an appeal against this decision, which was dismissed after his counsel opted to withdraw it.His subsequent attempt to seek a review of the dismissal of his appeal was also unsuccessful.Despite these legal setbacks, Raja Farhat Iqbal was released on parole in 2015.---Issues:Whether Raja Farhat Iqbal could file another review petition after the dismissal of his earlier attempt.Whether the court should entertain his application for review.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court held that the dismissal of the review petition closed the door for subsequent attempts by Raja Farhat Iqbal to challenge the decision.It was noted that his counsel's decision to withdraw the appeal barred him from seeking further recourse.The court dismissed the application as "hopelessly misconceived" and declined to entertain it.---Quote:The dismissal of review petition foreclosed avenues for subsequent attempts by the accused and for that law is well settled by now.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Talb-e-Ishaad must be served on the vendee and its service on the addressee as prescribed in law is imperative and if the acknowledgement due carries an endorsement of refusal or not accepted, a presumption of service would arise unless rebutted and if addressee make a statement on oath denying the service, then onus of proof would be on the party relying upon such notice.

Summary: In the absence of vested right existing in favour of an employee, an action of administrative authority may not be reversed for mere omission in providing a right of hearing.

Summary: The defendant was ordered to be served through all modes in a Family Appeal but no effort was made to serve him through other modes, mere service through publication in newspaper would not be enough to decide the appeal by proceeding ex parte against the respondent in appeal. By setting aside the order of appellate court, matter remanded for decision afresh.

Summary: Conviction upheld --- The appellant, was convicted under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the offense of possessing narcotics. The court found the prosecution's evidence, including the statements of witnesses and the report from the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, to be credible and sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant. The defense's arguments challenging the evidence and alleging false implication were dismissed by the court. The judgment affirms the conviction of Jamal Khan and upholds the sentence imposed by the trial court.

Summary: The respondent No. 1 filed a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction related to an inherited property. The property, measuring 4 marlas 4 sarsahi out of a total of 10 marlas, is located in Mohallah/Mauza Mianapura, Tehsil & District Sialkot, and was inherited by petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 from their deceased father. The suit alleges that petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 entered into agreements to sell their shares of the property and received part of the consideration amount. The suit was dismissed by the trial court in an ex parte judgment. The court emphasized that during the pendency of a suit, the property cannot be transferred to affect the rights of other parties to the suit. Therefore, the court set aside the impugned judgment, dismissed the application under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Summary: In this case, several writ petitions have been collectively decided as the question of law and facts are common in all of them. The petitioners challenged changes and amendments made in regulations related to admission in medical colleges. The petitioners argued that the Pakistan Medical & Dental Council (PMDC) had no authority to amend the regulations concerning admission in medical colleges under the new Ordinance, as the Ordinance, 2019, did not empower PMDC to formulate or amend such regulations. They contended that the protected Admission Regulations of 2018, framed under the Ordinance, 1962, were replaced without legal justification, rendering the changes in admission criteria illegal and void ab initio. The court examined the relevant provisions of the Ordinance, 2019, particularly Section 42, which outlined the powers of PMDC to frame regulations. The court noted that the Ordinance did not specifically mention the power to frame regulations related to admission in medical colleges. The court also considered Section 49(2), which protected existing regulations until altered, repealed, or modified by the new Council under the Ordinance, 2019. The court held that the absence of a specific provision empowering PMDC to amend admission regulations in the new Ordinance meant that PMDC did not have the authority to make such changes. The court emphasized that when a law has provided a particular procedure or power, it should be followed, and any omission must be rectified by the legislature, not the court. The court declared the amendments made by PMDC in the admission regulations to be ultra vires, void ab initio, and without lawful authority. The court directed medical colleges to follow the unamended Admission Regulations of 2018 for student admissions, as the entrance test had already taken place.