Summary: Acquittal granted---The judgment discussed the appeal filed by Muhammad Anwar against his conviction and sentence for the murder of his wife Nasreen Bibi and another woman named Rasoolan Bibi. The judgment covers various aspects of the case, including the facts, the investigation, evidence presented by the prosecution, and arguments made by both the appellant's counsel and the state. The court ultimately found that the prosecution failed to conclusively establish the identity of the deceased women and that crucial elements of the case, such as motive and last-seen evidence, were not proven. The judgment highlights issues with the evidence, including the lack of verification of the alleged motive and the weak credibility of certain witnesses. Additionally, the court raised concerns about the recovery of the weapon and the identification process. As a result, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and acquitted the appellant of the charges. The judgment emphasized the importance of a thorough examination of circumstantial evidence in cases of this nature and stresses the need for a clear and convincing chain of evidence to establish guilt.

Summary: Acquittal granted---The appellant, challenged a judgment where he was convicted under Section 302 (b) PPC for the murder of Majid. The incident occurred when Ashraf, along with other accused individuals, allegedly attacked Majid with hatchets and sotas. The prosecution presented evidence, including medical reports, witness testimonies, and the FIR, leading to the conviction of Ashraf. However, the appellant appealed, argued that the judgment was based on a misreading of evidence and failed to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellate court considered the roles of the accused, the lack of differentiation in their charges, and the absence of bloodstains on the alleged weapons. Ultimately, the court found insufficient evidence to convict Ashraf and acquitted him of all charges, setting aside the earlier judgment and discharging his surety.

Summary: The petitioner sought to declare proceedings conducted by the respondents in a police station under Section 107/150 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) as illegal and void, requesting their quashing and issuance of directions to the respondents not to interfere in the affairs of a mosque. The court, heard the petitioner's counsel, who argued that the police lacked the competence to initiate proceedings under Section 107/150 Cr.P.C., and the agreement written which was illegal and should be declared null and void. The court, after considering the relevant sections of the Cr.P.C. regarding prevention of offenses and security measures, concluded that the police had the authority to act under Section 107/150. The court further stated that the petitioner's grievances should be addressed before the Area Magistrate for Section 107/150 issues and in the Civil Court for the legality of the agreement. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, deeming it meritless.

Summary: Background:This case involves the challenge to show cause notices issued to taxpayer respondents under Section 11(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 ("Act") by Officers of Inland Revenue ("OIRs"). The notices alleged non-payment or short payment of sales tax during specified tax periods. The impugned judgment set aside these notices and subsequent judgments based on its reasoning.---Issues:Whether the delegation of powers by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue ("CIR") to subordinate OIRs was lawful.Whether the impugned judgment correctly interpreted the powers vested in OIRs under the Act.Whether the impugned judgment properly addressed the legal effect of the notifications issued by the Federal Board of Revenue ("FBR").---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The impugned judgment held that the delegation of powers by the CIR to subordinate OIRs, as authorized by Notification-II, constituted unlawful sub-delegation. It reasoned that the FBR, through Notification-I, appointed Commissioners of Inland Revenue with specific powers, and further delegation by the CIR was unauthorized.The court analyzed Sections 30, 31, and 11 of the Act to determine the scope of powers conferred upon OIRs. It concluded that OIRs appointed by the FBR could only exercise powers specified in the Act. The impugned judgment erroneously interpreted the law by overlooking the statutory framework and the distinction between functions and powers.The court emphasized that the FBR alone had the authority to appoint OIRs and specify their jurisdictional limits. Delegation of powers by the FBR to CIRs, and subsequently by CIRs to subordinate OIRs, was within the legal framework of the Act. Therefore, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the appeals were allowed.---Precedents:Sales Tax Act, 1990Nazar Hussain Vs. State (PLD 2010 SC 1021)Zahid Javed Vs. Tahir Riaz (PLD 2016 SC 637)

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Section 417(2-A) Cr.PC . Appeal against acquittal. Prosecution case was held to be unwitnessed in view of the contradictions and discrepancies in the statement of the prosecution witness. The alleged witness were not present on the spot at the time of occurrence, thus, the Learned Trial Court had rightly extended the benefit of the doubt appellant/ Accused and acquitted him. After acquittal accused earns double presumption of innocence and very strong and cogent are required to dislodge such presumptions. Appeal dismissed.

Summary: R. 31 of KPK Govt. Servants ( Conduct) Rules, 1987, Defamation Ordinance, 2002. Govt servant has to obtain sanction from Govt:/ department before filling suit for damages/ vindication of his public acts or character.

Summary: Sec. 115 CPC... Cause of action accrued to the predecessor of petitioners when mutation in question was cancelled in the year 1972, however, the present suit was brought by the petitioner in the year 1991. Thus, the suit was hopelessly time barred, moreover, finding of both the Courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence produced by the parties. No. illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error could find, warranting interference by High Court in its R. Jurisdiction u/s 115 CPC, which otherwise has a limited scope in this regards. Revision petition dismissed.

Summary: Pending

Summary: The case revolved around the authenticity of the allotment against Khata RL-II No.7 in Shivpura Kalan. The judgment emphasized the lack of evidence supporting the authenticity of the alleged allotment order. The court cites various legal precedents to highlighted that fraud vitiates proceedings, and any transaction based on fraudulent actions cannot be validated. The petitioner claimed to be a bona fide purchaser, but the court asserted that a purchaser must diligently scrutinized the legality of the title before acquiring land. The court concluded that the writ petition is misconceived and devoid of merit, dismissing it accordingly.