Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: S.419,420,468,471 PPC 30 NADRA Act,14 FA,5(2) PC ActHeinous offence & prima facie connected with commission of offence (Bail dismissed)

Summary: S.14 Limitation Act 1908Condonation of delay in limitation

Summary: The petitioner, challenged the imposition of advertisement fees by the City District Government of Multan. They argued that these fees were illegal, lacked jurisdiction, and violated the constitution because they did not have a clear connection (quid pro quo) between the services provided and the charges. Additionally, the petitioner objected to the outsourcing of fee collection to private contractors. The respondents contended that the petitioner had an alternative legal remedy available, including the right to appeal under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001. They argued that the imposition of advertisement fees was authorized by law and was governed by rules and by-laws. The court's judgment highlighted that the petitioners had not utilized the available alternative remedy of appeal. It emphasized that factual disputes and evidence-related matters should be addressed through the proper legal channels. As a result, the court directed the petitioners to pursue the remedy of appeal within 20 days and granted a stay on any coercive measures against them during this period.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: S.195,223 Customs Act,1969:Disputed facts beyond the scope of reference u/s 196 of the Act

Summary: Bail allowed in FIR registered under Sections 23 & 27 of Drugs Act, 1976 read with Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act, 2012

Summary: Acquittal allowed -- Nazir Ahmed, engaged in goods transportation and owner of a truck, had his truck intercepted near Chenab Tool Plaza, Multan, loaded with various merchandise. The Customs authorities alleged the goods and the truck were subject to confiscation under the Customs Act, leading to a legal process resulting in an order to confiscate the goods and the vehicle by the Customs Appellate Tribunal. However, an appeal was filed wherein part of the goods was released, but there was no specific mention about the release of the truck in the judgment. The main contention of the applicant (Nazir Ahmed) was that as per the judgment's operative part, where the appeal was accepted, no adverse finding regarding the confiscation of the truck had been stated. Therefore, the vehicle should have been released. The respondent's argument was that the vehicle was exclusively used for transporting smuggled goods and was rightfully confiscated. The High Court, after examining the records, found that the truck had no previous record of being involved in smuggling. Additionally, it wasn't being used exclusively for transporting smuggled goods. The Court cited legal provisions and case law to support its decision that the vehicle should not have been confiscated without proper consideration and evidence, and that the principles of natural justice were not fully adhered to in this case. Ultimately, the Court ruled in favor of the applicant, ordering the release of the confiscated vehicle. The Court directed the office to send a copy of the order to the Customs Appellate Tribunal.