Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: S.365-A,120-B,109 PPC,21(i) ATAAppreciation of evidence,Judicial confession not made according to law, benefit of doubt( Acquitted)

Summary: S.302 PPCMere abscondence is not a ground for conviction, prosecution failed to prove the case ,benefit of doubt( Appeal dismissed)

Summary: Applicability of law and use of residential premises as commercial one and that too without permission of commissioner.

Summary: Ss. 107, 109 Local Govt. Ordinance, 2011.Establishment, allocation and utilization of local funds.

Summary: The court found that the respondents/plaintiffs had successfully proven the execution of the agreement to sell through the testimony of the attesting witness and the scribe of the agreement. Furthermore, the appellant/defendant No.1's contradictory statements and claims made in his examination in chief and cross-examination did not hold up, especially given the timing of the alleged oral gift and the possession of the property. The court also emphasized the importance of adhering to the pleadings and not introducing new evidence or claims beyond what was originally stated in the written statement. In this case, the appellants/defendants had tried to change their stance during the trial, which the court did not accept. As a result, the court upheld the findings of the lower court, supporting the respondents/plaintiffs' case regarding the execution of the agreement to sell.

Summary: Bail denied---CrPC allowed an accused person to seek post-arrest bail if they have been in custody for more than two years continuously and if they are not considered a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal. The case involved an honor killing, where the petitioner was implicated in the murder of his own daughter. The court considered whether the act of killing one's own daughter in the name of honor constituted an act of a desperate and dangerous criminal. The court observed that such acts, where family members are involved in honor killings, must be strongly condemned. Granting post-arrest bail in such cases could lead to an increase in such incidents, and it would not be in line with the principles of justice and protecting women's rights. In this particular case, the girl had been murdered for contracting a marriage of her choice, and the court noted the brutal nature of the crime. Consequently, the court refused to grant post-arrest bail to the petitioner, stating that doing so would not be in the interest of justice. The petitioner's request for post-arrest bail was dismissed, and the court upheld the principle that honor killings should not be tolerated in society.

Summary: The court addressed whether interest income earned by the applicant from financial institutions should be assessed under Section 30 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, or whether it should be assessed under another section. The court reviewed various sections of the ordinance and concludes that interest income is to be assessed under Section 30 as income from other sources and not under the provisions related to business income. Additionally, the court dismissed the applicant's argument regarding the claim of set-off against interest income, as this issue was not raised or adjudicated by the learned Tribunal and was not included in the references discussed in the judgment. Ultimately, the court dismissed the reference applications filed by the applicant and instructs the office to send a copy of the judgment to the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue.

Summary: Ss. 194C, 194 & 196 of Customs Act (IV of 1969)---R. 4 of Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2006, ---Procedure of Appellate Tribunal---Interpretation of S. 194C of the Customs Act, 1969---Judicial and administrative powers of the Chairman---Constitution of Benches---Exercise of discretion by Chairman---Cases of urgency / exigency---Scope--Customs Act (IV of 1969)-------Ss. 194C, 194 & 196---Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules,2006, R. 4---Procedure of Appellate Tribunal---Interpretation of S. 194C of the Customs Act,1969---Judicial and administrative powers of the Chairman---Constitution of Benches---Exerciseof discretion by Chairman---Cases of urgency / exigency---Scope---Question before the HighCourt was "whether Chairman of the Appellate Tribunal, without constituting a two-memberbench in terms of S. 194C of the Customs Act, 1969 had the jurisdiction to decide the matter as aSingle Member bench in cases of urgency"---Held, that while S. 194 of the Customs Act, 1969postulated and defined the powers of the Federal Government for constituting the AppellateTribunal, the appointment of judicial and technical Members and appointment of one of them asChairman, thereof ; thereafter constituting benches was the prerogative of the Chairman of theTribunal and procedure for distributing work among the benches had been provided under R.4 ofthe Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2006---FederalGovernment had no authority to constitute benches and distributing business among benches----While it was the sole discretion of the Chairman to distribute business among members of the Tribunal, but before doing so, he shall record reasons and after application of a judicial mind,entrust a case to any single member, subject to condition that only those matters shall beentrusted which have already been allotted to a bench of two members and said member /assignee was part of such a bench---Provision of S. 194C of the Customs Act, 1969 and Rulesframed thereunder were silent about the discretion of the Chairman, as he was only empoweredto the extent of administrative measures, but as far as judicial proceedings were concerned,powers of the Chairman and Member were equal, therefore, the Chairman could not himselfretain a case without constituting a bench of two or more Members and in case if any Memberdue to any reason was not available; only then, before adjudicating the lis, the Chairman withreference to exigency and urgency of the matter and after recording reasons thereof, may hear thecase, otherwise the order passed by him would be presumed to have been passed by a SingleMember, which was not permissible in law---Impugned order passed by the Chairman wastherefore coram non judice and not sustainable in law, and was set side---High Court directed theChairman to reconstitute the bench and fix the matter for de novo hearing---Reference wasanswered, accordingly.Director, Intelligence and Investigation (Customs and Excise), Faisalabad and another v.Bagh Ali 2010 PTD 1024 rel.

Summary: Summary pending