Summary: PLJ 2018 SC (AJK) 69 Present Ch Muhammad Ibrahim Zia CJ and Sardar Abdul Hameed Khan J ABDUL HAMEED KHAN - - Appellant versus KALSOOM BIBI and 11 others - - Respondents CA No 9 of 2018 decided on 2022018 (On appeal from the order of the High Court dated 2792017 in Application No 292017) Specific Relief Act 1877 (I of 1877) - - - - - - S 42 - - Suit for declaration - - Decreed - - Appeal dismissed - - Second appeal before High Court - - Dismissed - - Application for recalling of order and restoration of appeal - - Application was dismissed while treating same as review petition - - Dismissed as withdrawn - - According to settled principle of law knowledge of counsel is knowledge of party - - It is proved that appeal was withdrawn - - If counsel for appellant has withdrawn appeal without authority appellant should seek remedy against counsel but Court cannot be blamed and other party can also not be penalized - - As there is no sufficient cause for non - appearance and filing application after such along delay thus filing of this appeal is a futile exercise - - Appeal was dismissed [P] A B Mr M Nadeem Raja Advocate for Appellant Hafiz Fazal - ur - Rehman Dar and Ch Rashid Rasheed Advocates for RespondentsJudgement Result:Appeal dismissed

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Background:The case revolves around a challenge to the joint candidacy of the appellants for the election of Chairman & Vice Chairman of Union Council No.3, Municipal Corporation, Gujrat. The respondents objected to their candidacy based on the appellants' prior convictions for criminal offenses. These convictions arose from previous election-related litigation and resulted in findings of dishonesty against the appellants.---Issues:Whether the appellants' convictions and sentences render them disqualified from contesting elections under relevant constitutional and statutory provisions.Whether the suspension of the appellants' sentences by the High Court affects their disqualification from contesting elections.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Court held that the appellants' convictions and sentences for multiple counts of criminal offenses rendered them disqualified from contesting elections. It reasoned that the aggregate period of sentences, even if ordered to run concurrently, exceeded the threshold specified in the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions. The Court emphasized that the disqualification arises from the convictions and sentences themselves, irrespective of the actual time served or the suspension of sentences.---Citations/Precedents:Haji Nasir Mahmood v. Mian Imran Alia Jassod (PLD 2010 SC 1089)Relevant provisions of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013Article 63(1)(h) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan---Quote:The benefit of running sentence concurrently is only for the purpose of incarceration in jail and same would have no effect on the sentences awarded to a person on different counts which have to be read cumulatively for the purpose of disqualification envisaged by Article 63(1)(h) of the Constitution and section 27(2)(i) of Punjab Local Government Act 2013. Moreover, suspension of sentence pending an appeal would have no bearing upon conviction of the appellant for the purpose of being qualified either to contest local bodies or Legislative Assembly elections.

Summary: (a) Land Acquisition Act: ----Compensation for acquired land---Fixation of rates---Interest on excess amount---Provincial Government sought to challenge the rate of compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Judge, Gilgit, which was fixed at PKR 9,00,000 per Kanal with 15% compulsory acquisition charge on the enhanced amount, including compound interest as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act---Land Acquisition Judge's decision was upheld by the Chief Court in Civil First Appeal No. 25/2015, with an additional rate of PKR 12,00,000 per Kanal for commercial land. (b) Appellate Jurisdiction---Scope of review: ----Supreme Appellate Court, upon hearing arguments and reviewing the material on record, partially upheld and partially set aside the Chief Court's judgment---Rate of PKR 9,00,000 per Kanal as compensation was maintained---Rate of PKR 12,00,000 per Kanal for commercial land, fixed by the Chief Court, was set aside. ----Disposition: Petition was converted into an appeal and partially allowed. The order dated 19.04.2016 in Civil First Appeal No. 25/2015 was maintained to the extent of the compensation rate of PKR 9,00,000 per Kanal, and the additional rate for commercial land was set aside.

Summary: Bail granted----(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 497(2)----Bail----Further inquiry----Benefit of doubt at bail stage----Accused booked under Ss. 302, 341, 147, 148, 149, 337 & 34, APC, for alleged involvement in a murder case----Specific role not attributed to the accused during investigation----Witnesses recanted statements recorded under S. 164, Cr.P.C., claiming coercion and torture----Medical/postmortem report inconclusive regarding the cause of death, suggesting injury could have resulted from falling on a hard surface----No direct evidence connecting the accused to the offence----Repeated reinvestigations ordered at the complainant's request indicated uncertainty regarding the accused's involvement----Held, matter falls under the ambit of "further inquiry" as per S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.----Keeping the accused behind bars indefinitely without trial amounts to punishment without conviction----Benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused even at the bail stage. ----Cited Cases: Muhammad Ghalib v. The State [1993 SCR 122] Mst. Jamila Begum v. Ghulam Hussain [1994 SCR 104] Farzana Begum & others v. Sohail Umer & another [2017 SCR 420] Zaheer Ahmed & another v. Ibrar Hussain & 7 others [2014 SCR 1667] Kareem Dad v. Zaheer & another [2004 SCR 36] ----Disposition: Revision petition accepted. Accused granted bail subject to furnishing bail bonds of Rs.500,000 each with two sureties and personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending