Summary: S. 151 CPC court at any stage of proceedings can pass an order to serve the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of law or the court. Art. 47 Qanoon-e-shahadat Order, 1984 though empowers the Court to read/rely upon evidence of a witness record in previous proceedings subject to some conditions.

Summary: Acquittal --- (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)-------S. 9(c)---Possession and trafficking of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit ofdoubt---Failure to establish conscious possession of narcotic---Effect---Allegedly 40-kilogramscharas in two bags were found beneath the seats of accused persons---Neither the recovery memonor the FIR contained the seat numbers and even no tag or documentary evidence had come onrecord connecting the accused with the said bags---Mere presence of the accused persons in thepassenger bus or recovery of bags beneath their seats was not enough to fix the responsibilityupon the accused persons for transporting huge quantity of narcotics---Prosecution had notestablished physical and conscious possession on the part of the accused---Circumstances of thecase cast reasonable doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case, benefit of which wouldresolve in favour of accused persons---Appeal was allowed and conviction and sentencesrecorded by Trial Court were set aside.Jameela v. State PLD 2012 SC 369 rel.(b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)-------S. 9(c)---Possession and trafficking of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Recoverywitness, credibility---Prosecution witness had alleged that accused persons had claimed theownership of the two bags of contraband at the time of checking---Validity---If the accusedpersons had any nexus with the said bags containing huge quantity of contraband, they wouldnever have claimed the ownership of the same or at the best, they could have kept mum---Saiddeposition of prosecution witness was neither believable nor appealed to the logic, hence thesame was highly doubtful---Appeal was therefore allowed and conviction and sentences recordedby Trial Court against accused persons were set aside in circumstances.(c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)-------Ss. 9(c) & 25---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103---Possession of narcoticsubstance---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Applicability of S. 103, Cr.P.C.---Contraband was allegedly recovered from two bags found beneath the seats occupied by the accused persons---No private witness was associated in the recovery proceedings despite the factthat many passengers were travelling in the said bus at that time---Investigating Officer did notcall any passenger, driver or cleaner to attest the arrest and recovery proceedings, which wasviolation of S. 103, Cr.P.C.---Fact remained that S. 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act,1997, excluded the applicability of S. 103, Cr.P.C. in narcotics cases, but great care and cautionwas to be taken for association of a private witnesses if available at the time of arrest andrecovery---Circumstances of the case had created serious doubt in the case of prosecution,benefit of which resolved in favour of accused---Appeal was allowed and conviction andsentences recorded by Trial Court against accused persons were set aside in circumstances.State through Advocate-General N.-W.F.P. v. Gulla 2011 PCr.LJ 696 rel.(d) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)-------S. 9(c)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103---Possession of narcotic substance---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery witness failing to identify accused persons---Effect---Prosecution/recovery witness had failed to identify the accused persons during trial whichsuggested that prosecution recovery witness was not present at the time of recovery proceedings,thus creating serious doubt about recovery of contraband---Benefit of such doubt would resolvein favour of accused---Appeal was allowed and conviction and sentences recorded by Trial Courtagainst accused persons were set aside, in circumstances.2003 SCMR 1419 rel.(e) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)-------S. 9(c)---Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, R. 4(2)---Seizure of narcotic---Chemical analysis of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit ofdoubt---Record showed that case was registered on 29th March, 2015 and recovery of allegedcontraband was also effected on the same date---Investigating Officer ought to have sent thesamples for analysis within 72 hours to the Forensic Science Laboratory as required by R. 4(2)Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001---Report of ForensicScience Laboratory had shown that samples were sent to it on 3rd March, 2015, much prior to itsrecovery as well as registration of the case---Said glaring contradiction had seriously damagedthe case of the prosecution---In said circumstances, Forensic Science Laboratory's report, incircumstances, had lost its evidentiary value and no implicit reliance could be placed thereon---Appeal was allowed and conviction and sentences recorded by Trial Court against accusedpersons were set aside in circumstances.(f) Criminal trial-------Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Principle---Many circumstances creating doubtwas not necessarily required---Accused was entitled to get benefit of slightest doubt.

Summary: Appeal against life imprisonment. There are material contradictions in the prosecution witnesses testimony. The incident did not take place as stated by the prosecution and there is a doubt about the time of occurrence and presence of the witnesses, which makes evidence of the complainant and eye witness doubtful?.The motive, as alleged, was an afterthought and has not been attributed to the appellants.The prosecution has failed to prove all alleged recoveries and thereafter, its safe custody. ---Appeal stands accepted.

Summary: In the case referenced (Messrs Bissma Textile Mills), it was established that a person cannot be held liable for something they have not been formally informed of. Issuing Show Cause Notices (SCN) is a mandatory requirement in the relevant rules, and failure to provide such notice is considered fatal and cannot be remedied. The respondents in this case failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the law, making the impugned notices (challenged notifications) illegal and without lawful authority. The law requires that individuals be given an opportunity to be heard before tax can be demanded, as stated in Section 8(1) of the relevant law. The notices issued by the respondents are characterized as demand notices rather than proper assessments, and they do not fulfill the legal requirements for assessment. It is emphasized that when the law prescribes a specific procedure, it must be strictly followed. Even if the demand notices were considered orders, they cannot be issued without providing an opportunity for a hearing. Such orders are deemed void and must be rectified. The legality of the Rules of 2014 is also discussed, with the interpretation that certain provisions are directory rather than mandatory. This means that there is flexibility in their application based on specific circumstances. Overall, the judgment appears to dismiss challenges to the constitutionality of certain legal provisions but allows for the revision of notices to ensure compliance with the law's procedural requirements.

Summary: Balochistan Civil Courts Ordinance (II of 1962)-------S. 18---Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1887), S. 11---Partition Act (IV of 1893), S. 4---Suit forpossession through partition---Forum of appeal---Determi-nation of---Principles---Forum ofappeal was to be determined on the basis of original value of the suit---Pecuniary jurisdiction ofDistrict Judge was subject to valuation in the plaint---Appeal against the decree or order of CivilJudge would lie to the District Judge if the value of original suit in which such decree or orderwas made did not exceed Rs. 5,00,000/- and to the High Court in any other case---If defendantquestioned the original value of the suit or Court disagreed with the determined jurisdiction valueof the suit assessed by the plaintiff then the Trial Court could pass order fixing the value afterframing issue and providing an opportunity to the parties to produce evidence---Pecuniaryjurisdiction of the Court had to be determined with reference to the valuation given in the plaintand could not be connected to the escalation in the price of the property during pendency of thesuit---Valuation of the property for the purpose of jurisdiction would be same as mentioned inthe plaint unless determined by the Trial Court after framing issue---Suit for the purpose ofjurisdiction and court-fee was valued as Rs. 37.50/---Neither the defendant questioned nor theTrial Court had determined the original jurisdiction value of the suit by way of framing of issue---Valuation of suit for the purpose of jurisdiction in the matter of appeal would be the same asmentioned in the plaint---Petitioners had rightly availed remedy of appeal before the DistrictJudge but order of return of memo of appeal had been passed which was not sustainable---Impugned order was set aside and appeal filed would be deemed to be pending before theAppellate Court---Appellate Court should decide the matter in accordance with law within aperiod of two months---Revision was allowed in circumstances.1999 SCMR 394 and 2005 SCMR 1933 ref.

Summary: Background:The appeals by leave of the Court stem from the High Court's judgment dated August 8th, 2016, wherein writ petition No.1670 of 2015, filed by respondent No.1, was accepted. The appeals were consolidated for disposition.----Issues:Whether the advertisement for the post of Vice Chancellor was violative of relevant statutes and regulations.Whether the doctrine of laches applies to the challenge against the advertisement.Whether the process conducted by the Search Committee for the selection of the Vice Chancellor was in accordance with statutory provisions.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Court found that the advertisement for the Vice Chancellor position was indeed violative of section 10(1) of Act, 2014 and the Statutes framed by the Higher Education Commission (H.E.C.). Additionally, the Court noted that the process conducted by the Search Committee for candidate evaluation was also in violation of relevant statutes and regulations.Despite the argument that the challenge to the advertisement was subject to the doctrine of laches, the Court rejected this notion, citing the continuous wrong caused by the violation of statutory provisions.The Court emphasized the importance of following prescribed methods for performance as laid down by law, highlighting several precedents. It directed that the post of Vice Chancellor be advertised in accordance with statutory provisions and that the appointment process be completed within a specified timeframe. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Pending

Summary: The trial court had initially dismissed the suit, but the respondents appealed the decision to the District Judge, Nankana Sahib, who ruled in their favor, stating that the mutation of inheritance had been wrongly sanctioned in favor of the petitioner. The petitioner then filed this civil revision. In the civil revision, the petitioner argued that the lower appellate court's decision was unlawful and based on a misinterpretation of the evidence. However, the court found that the petitioner failed to specifically deny the key fact that Babu, his father, had died prior to Barkat Ali's death. Consequently, the court ruled that the mutation of inheritance should have been in favor of the respondents, who were closer relatives to Barkat Ali, and that the question of limitation did not apply in this case. The court ultimately upheld the lower appellate court's decision, dismissing the petitioner's case. This civil revision case revolves around a dispute over inheritance, with the court ultimately ruling in favor of the respondents and upholding the decision of the lower appellate court.