Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: S.365-A PPCDelay in lodging FIR, doubtful identification parade (Appeal dismissed)

Summary: S.302,324,353,34 PPC,7 ATAThree accused charged for single injury,Indiscriminate firing,no specific role,benefit of doubt(Appeal dismissed)

Summary: S.9C CNSA,5 Exp Act,7 ATAAppreciation of evidence, prosecution failed to prove the case, benefit of doubt (Acquitted)

Summary: Acquittal granted ---- (a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) — ----Ss. 496-A & 328—Elopement and child abandonment—Conviction and sentence—Appellant Ibrar Ahmad was convicted under S. 496-A, PPC, for eloping with a married woman and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 30,000/-—Appellant Mst. Sheema was convicted under S. 328, PPC, for alleged abandonment of her minor children and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 30,000/-—Trial Court relied on the confessional statement of accused Ibrar Ahmad, which he later retracted, but the High Court held that a voluntary and legally recorded confession retains its evidentiary value even if retracted—Conviction under S. 496-A, PPC, upheld, but sentence reduced to three years rigorous imprisonment in light of appellant’s young age and lack of prior criminal record—Fine reduced to Rs. 10,000/- with ten days' simple imprisonment in default of payment. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — ----S. 164—Judicial confession—Retraction—Evidentiary value—Appellant Ibrar Ahmad’s confession recorded by a Judicial Magistrate was found to be voluntary and in compliance with procedural safeguards—High Court reaffirmed that a retracted confession, if made voluntarily and supported by corroborative evidence, can be the sole basis for conviction—Reliance placed on Muhammad Ismail v. The State (1995 SCMR 1615) and Miss Najiba v. Ahmed Sultan (2001 SCMR 988). (c) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) — ----S. 328—Exposure and abandonment of child—Scope—Temporary absence of a mother does not constitute abandonment under S. 328, PPC—High Court held that for an offence under S. 328, PPC, prosecution must prove that the accused deliberately abandoned a child under twelve years of age in a situation of real danger—Appellant Mst. Sheema’s minor children remained in the care of their paternal family and were not exposed to any imminent harm—Conviction under S. 328, PPC, was set aside, and appellant was acquitted. (d) Administration of justice— ----Strict interpretation of penal provisions—Penal statutes must be construed strictly—High Court observed that broad or liberal interpretations of criminal statutes should be avoided to ensure fair administration of justice—Temporary neglect of children, without evidence of actual danger or intent to abandon, does not fulfill the requirements of S. 328, PPC—Appeal allowed to the extent of acquitting appellant Mst. Sheema. Disposition: Conviction of appellant Ibrar Ahmad under S. 496-A, PPC, maintained, but sentence reduced from seven years to three years rigorous imprisonment, with a fine reduction from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- or ten days' simple imprisonment in default. Conviction of appellant Mst. Sheema under S. 328, PPC, set aside—She was acquitted and ordered to be released. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Ismail v. The State, 1995 SCMR 1615 • Miss Najiba v. Ahmed Sultan, 2001 SCMR 988

Summary: Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----Ss.18(3), 30, 79, 104 & 131---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.42 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2---Notification S.R.O. 18(I)/2015, dated 14-1-2015---Suit for declaration and injunction---Interim injunction, grant of---Rate of duty---Determination---Principle---Plaintiffs imported goods from foreign supplier under contract executed prior to issuance of Notification S.R.O. 18(I)/2015, dated 14-1-2015---Plea raised by plaintiffs was that authorities be restrained from applying/deducting regulatory duty in terms of notification S.R.O. 18(I)/2015, dated 14-1-2015---Validity---Manner and method of date of determination of rate of duty on goods imported into Pakistan were subject to Ss.79 & 104 of Customs Act, 1969, and date of determination of rate of duty on goods exported was subject to provisions of S.131 of Customs Act, 1969---Imposition and collection of regulatory duty on "import" and "export" was different and distinct and no analogy could be drawn for interpreting the provision of one section of the statute with the other section in the same statute by referring to case-law dealing with one particular levy---Provisions of notification S.R.O. 18(I)/2015, dated 14-1-2015, were applicable on shipments of plaintiffs in terms of S.30 of Customs Act, 1969, irrespective of the fact that plaintiffs had entered into contract for purchase of consignments with foreign suppliers and opened letter of credits prior to 14-1-2015---High Court declined to grant interim injunction against applicability of notification S.R.O. 18(I)/2015, dated 14-1-2015---Suit was dismissed in circumstances.

Summary: The petitioner challenged a judgment and decree passed by the Family Court in Tandlianwala in favor of the respondents, which had resulted from the petitioner's non-appearance and failure to submit a written statement. The petitioner argued that the Family Court had no authority to close his right of defense, but the court disagreed, stating that while there is no explicit provision in the Family Courts Act of 1964 allowing the closure of a party's defense, the court can take such action to promote the ends of justice. The court noted that the petitioner had ample opportunities to submit a written statement but failed to do so. Ultimately, the court found no merit in the petitioner's case and dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the petitioner's conduct had hindered the legal process. The judgment sheet cites relevant legal precedents to support its decision.

Summary: The background of the case involved Mst. Shaista Jabin filing two separate suits against Wahab Ahmad, one for maintenance and restitution of conjugal rights and another for recovery of dowry articles. The Family Court consolidated these suits and framed consolidated issues. During the proceedings, Mst. Shaista Jabin applied to include additional witnesses in the list, which the petitioner, Wahab Ahmad, opposed. The key legal issue revolved around whether the Family Court had the authority to permit the inclusion of witnesses not initially listed in the plaint. Section 7 of The Family Courts Act, 1964 was cited, which allows parties to call witnesses at a later stage with the court's permission if it is deemed expedient in the interest of justice. The court concluded that the provision in section 7 of The Family Courts Act, 1964 was not rigid and allowed for the inclusion of witnesses later on if it served the interests of justice. It distinguished this provision from the corresponding provision in the Civil Procedure Code, emphasizing the discretionary nature of the Family Court's authority. The court also highlighted that the Family Courts Act aimed to provide a speedy mechanism for resolving family disputes and was exempt from certain procedural rigors, making it adaptable to the needs of the case. In the end, the court upheld the Family Court's order, stating that it was issued for the advancement of justice and did not prejudice either party. The writ petition was dismissed.

Summary: Summary pending