Summary: Defination of services envisaged under Section 153(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 2001 and defined in its subsection (9), include services other than of Professionals; services under contract are not includable in clause (c) of Section 153(1).

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 22-A(6) Justice of Peace—Scope of powers—Jurisdiction to direct police in investigation matters. The Justice of Peace has limited jurisdiction under S. 22-A(6), Cr.P.C., which extends to issuing appropriate directions to the police regarding (i) non-registration of a criminal case, (ii) transfer of investigation, and (iii) neglect, failure, or excess committed by police authorities. However, the Justice of Peace cannot interfere with the police investigation by directing the inclusion or exclusion of specific penal sections in the challan. It is the prerogative of the investigating agency to determine the appropriate offence based on evidence collected, and only the trial court has the authority to amend charges at the stage of framing the charge. The order of the Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace directing the police to submit a challan under S. 302, P.P.C., instead of S. 322, P.P.C., was thus without lawful authority and was quashed. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 22-A(6) & S. 561-A Alternative remedy—Maintainability of writ petition—Jurisdictional error. A writ petition is maintainable when an order is passed without jurisdiction, even if an alternate remedy under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C., is available. When a tribunal or authority acts beyond its jurisdiction or its order is coram non judice, the High Court has the power to set aside such an order, regardless of the availability of alternate remedies. The Justice of Peace exceeded his jurisdiction by directing the police to submit a challan under a particular penal provision, an act outside the scope of S. 22-A(6), Cr.P.C. The High Court, therefore, rightly quashed the impugned order. (c) Investigation Process—Powers of Investigating Officer and Trial Court: Addition or deletion of penal offences—Role of Justice of Peace—Exclusive jurisdiction of the trial court at the stage of framing charges. The investigating officer has the exclusive jurisdiction to determine the appropriate offence during investigation, and the trial court, at the time of framing the charge, has the discretion to add or delete any offence based on the material before it. The Justice of Peace does not have the authority to interfere in the process of investigation by directing police officers on the nature of the offence. The trial court is competent to examine the material on record and frame charges accordingly. ----Cited Cases: • Muhammad Javaid Khan v. Additional Sessions Judge, Multan (2007 PCr.LJ 124) • Ghulam Haider v. Additional Sessions Judge (2006 YLR 2772) • Messrs Shamim Bibi v. Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore (2008 YLR 2017) • Khizar Hayat v. I.G. Punjab (PLD 2005 Lah. 470) • Sheikh Muhammad Shahzad v. Naveed Anwar Sethi (PLD 2006 Lah. 460) • Gul Waiz v. Zuhra Bibi (2010 PCr.LJ 45) ----Disposition: Writ petition accepted; impugned order of Justice of Peace quashed; trial court directed to proceed in accordance with law.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Service matter, regarding show -cause notice and suspension

Summary: Delay in recording the statement of a witness by the police without furnishing any plausible explanation is fatal to the prosecution case and the statement of such witness is not to be relied upon. ---- ''There is a vital contradiction with regard to the place of the incident and source of light. There is no direct evidence to show that where the occurrence took place. As per prosecution case, all documents were prepared at the spot and not in the police station. This shows that the occurrence had not taken place at the time as prosecution alleged. The motive established by the prosecution was not proved, which as alleged could not be considered against the appellant. It has been observed that delay in recording the statement of a witness by police without furnishing any plausible explanation, is fatal to the prosecution case and the statement of such witness is not to be relied upon. The ocular account produced by the prosecution included injured witnesses is not of worthy credence and same cannot be believed against the appellant. It seems that the truth was seen buried under deep debris and a different story was structured perhaps to lug the appellant into trial under the serious offence. Criminal Appeal allowed.''

Summary: Bail allowed u/s 302, 324, 148, 149, 109 337-F(iii), 337-F(v), PPC.The order suggests that Zeeshan Akbar sought post-arrest bail, and there are arguments presented by both the petitioner's counsel and the prosecution. The judge considered various aspects, including the nature of the injuries, inconsistencies in evidence, and the fact that the co-accused had already been granted bail.Ultimately, the judge granted bail to Zeeshan Akbar, subject to the petitioner furnishing bail bonds. The observations made in the order are tentative and won't affect the trial proceedings.