Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: S.9C CNSAOverwhelming evidence (Appeal dismissed)

Summary: S.302,34 PPCProsecution failed to prove distinct role of the present accused (Acquitted)

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 365-B, 34 & 511---Kidnapping, abduction or inducing woman to compel for marriage and common intention----Bail, refusal of---Accused sought post-arrest bail on the ground that complainant had executed/sworn affidavit of "no objection" to the grant of bail in favour of accused---Complainant had named the accused in FIR and abductee was his real niece---Contention was that affidavit of "no objection" to the grant of bail had been sworn by the complainant amounted to exonerating of accused from the charge and it also amounted to retracting from the contents of FIR---Validity---Once the contents of FIR were shattered then the door would be open for all accused persons to take benefit of doubt at the trial or even at bail stage---Affidavit sworn by complainant in favour of accused at bail stage could not be considered as a case of free will and if it was so, it was the most shameful act of the complainant that he was ready to exonerate the accused in a crime of abduction of his real niece, knowingly---Accused was not pressing the bail application as the Court tried to dig out the real reasons for swearing affidavit in favour of accused by the complainant---Bail application was dismissed, in circumstances, as not pressed.

Summary: (a) Gift-------Gift deed was executed by pardanasheen lady---Effect---Contention of plaintiffs was that alleged gift was not executed and signed by the donor---Suit was dismissed by the Trial Court but was decreed by the Appellate Court---Validity---Plaint and evidence produced by the plaintiffs were silent with regard to ingredients of gift---Plea of pardanasheen lady was available only if she had denied the execution of document---Stranger to the gift could not dispute that execution of the same was not proper since it was executed by a pardanasheen lady---Mere fact that donor was a pardanasheen lady was not fatal to the execution of gift as she had gifted the property in presence of her nephew and other independent witnesses to the donees---Findings recorded by the Appellate Court were contrary to record and evidence as well as law which were set aside---Second appeal was allowed in circumstances. [Paras. 12, 15 and 16 of the judgment](b) Islamic law-------Gift---Ingredients---Ingredients of gift were offer, acceptance and delivery of possession of corpus of gift. [Para. 12 of the judgment] Bashir Ahmed v. Mst. Taja Begum and others PLD 2010 SC 906; Syed Abdullah Shah and 3 others v. Abdul Ghaffar and another PLD 1988 Quetta 60; Mst. Farrukh Sultana v. Messrs Darul Aloom Amjadia 1989 MLD 3795; Muhammad Ibrahim v. Province of Sindh through D.C.O. Revenue and 4 others PLD 2013 Sindh 501; Noor Muhammad and other v. Mst. Azmat-e-Bibi 2012 SCMR 1373 and Abdur Rehman v. Khalilur Rehman and others 1996 (W.P. Pesh.) 121 distinguished. Mst. Bai and 3 others v. Province of Sindh and others 2014 YLR 1244 and Muhammad Sadiq and others v. Bashir Ahmed and others 2004 SCMR 1734 rel.

Summary: Evidence of identification parade was of no value due to the inherent defect that the witness had not described the role of accused in the occurrence while identifying them. The alleged identification of the appellants by PW-1 for the first time during identification parade is too vague and too weak to be relied upon when PW-1 had not mentioned the description, features and complexion of the accused present in Suzuki. The delay in holding identification parade has not been explained by the prosecution and same cannot be relied upon. There is no evidence that they committed the offence of abduction or they were members of the group of accused who committed the offence. It is golden principle of law that the Court should let off 100 guilty but should not convict one innocent person. Criminal Appeal accepted.

Summary: ''The trial court shall calculate the sale consideration mentioned in the registered sale deed or mutation or any other document and if these documents are not available then through other reliable source it has to calculate the same and then to direct the vendee/preemptor to deposit a specific amount within a stipulated period, however, the period for deposit must be reasonable.'' ---Background: The respondent, Dr. Niaz Ali Khan, filed a suit claiming the right of preemption over a property. A mistake was made in the plaint where the sale consideration was stated as Rs.14,00,000 instead of the actual Rs.14,40,000.Trial Court Decision: The trial court dismissed the preemption suit due to the respondent's failure to deposit the correct 1/3 preemption amount, as mandated by Section 24 of the NWFP Preemption Act, 1987.Appeal and Revision: The respondent's appeal was successful in the Additional District Judge's court, which allowed the rectification of the mistake. However, the appellants challenged this decision in the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed their revision petition.Supreme Court Judgment: The Supreme Court, in its judgment, emphasized the need for clear and precise judicial directions regarding the deposit of preemption amounts. The Court noted that the initial mistake was bona fide and that the respondent had made a substantial deposit in compliance with the court order.Directions for Future: The Supreme Court directed that trial courts should calculate the sale consideration explicitly and instruct the preemptor to deposit a specific amount. This measure aims to avoid confusion and litigation over technical mistakes.Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no legal error in the High Court's judgment. It allowed the respondent 20 days to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.13330 to rectify the deficiency.

Summary: ''After the induction of Article 10A in the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, it would postulate that opportunity of fair trial had not been afforded to the respondent-worker by depriving him his right of cross-examining the witnesses in inquiry as such it could be held that principles and procedures of due process of law and fair trial had not been followed, which are against the principle of natural justice.'' ---- Facts:Abdul Waheed Abro, a cashier at M.C.B. Bank's Rohri branch, was accused of failing to credit an amount of Rs.187,434/- on May 28, 2003. Following an inquiry, he was dismissed from service on August 9, 2003. Abro challenged his dismissal at the Labour Court, which ordered his reinstatement without back benefits. Both parties appealed to the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, which modified the Labour Court's decision by converting the dismissal into a stoppage of increments for three years but maintained the reinstatement. The Bank's constitutional petition against these decisions was dismissed by the High Court of Sindh, leading to the present petition for leave to appeal.---Issues:--Whether the inquiry conducted against Abro was fair and allowed him proper opportunity to defend himself.--The effect of the legal framework changes on the pending litigation.--The appropriateness of the penalty imposed by the Tribunal.----Holding:The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, thereby upholding the High Court's decision which confirmed the Tribunal and Labour Court's orders for reinstatement and modified penalty.---Rationale:Fair Inquiry: The Supreme Court found that Abro was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend himself, as he was allowed to cross-examine only one of the six witnesses presented during the inquiry. This lack of opportunity violated the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair trial as enshrined in Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan.--Legal Framework Changes: The Court dismissed the Bank's argument regarding the effect of the repeal of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002. It applied Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which ensures that actions taken under a repealed law continue to have effect under the new legal regime, thus preserving the validity of the proceedings against Abro.--Penalty Appropriateness: The Supreme Court did not find merit in the Bank's argument concerning the imposition of the penalty by the Tribunal. It highlighted that the primary issue was the lack of a fair inquiry, which rendered the question of penalty secondary.--Conclusion:The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the lower courts, emphasizing the importance of fair trial rights and the principle of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings. The Bank's failure to provide a fair inquiry process was the critical factor leading to the reinstatement of Abro, with the modification of the penalty being a secondary consideration.--Precedents Relied On:Muhammad Ataullah vs. Islamic Republic of Pakistan and 2 others (1999 SCMR 2321)Air League of PIAC Employees through President vs. Federation of Pakistan M/o Labour and Manpower Division, Islamabad and others (2011 SCMR 1254)

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.