Summary: Amendment made in KPK provincial Ombudsman Act,2010 vide KPK provincial Ombudsman(Amendment)Act,2013..its validity

Summary: S,42 SRA:Declaratory suit--pleadings not a substantive piece of evidence unless proved in court or admitted by other party

Summary: S.42 SRA,S.5,14 Limitation Act:Declaratory suit-proceedings before wrong forum--exclusion of time of proceedings in court without jurisdiction--scope,appeal--limitation

Summary: The appeal arose from a judgment dated 04.12.2010, in which Munir was convicted under section 302(b) PPC (Pakistan Penal Code) for the murder of Muhammad Sharif. He was sentenced to death and ordered to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation to the deceased's legal heirs.The incident occurred on 21.04.2008, when Muhammad Sharif and his mother, Mst. Sarwar Bibi, were demolishing a joint wall adjacent to their property. An altercation had taken place between them and the accused, including Munir, the day before. During the demolition, the accused, armed with weapons, chased Muhammad Sharif and his mother. Munir shot Muhammad Sharif in the left eye, resulting in his death.The trial court acquitted Munir's co-accused, Muhammad Shabbir and Bashir Ahmed. However, it convicted Munir based on the testimony of the complainant, Abdul Aziz, and other witnesses, along with medical evidence provided by Dr. Shafique Ahmed.Munir appealed the judgment, claiming discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses and alleging that the evidence did not prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.The Lahore High Court reviewed the evidence and found that the prosecution had presented a strong case against Munir. However, it also noted some mitigating circumstances, such as the absence of evidence for the motive alleged by the prosecution and the false prosecution case against Munir's co-accused.Taking these factors into account, the court modified Munir's sentence from death to life imprisonment. It upheld the compensation order and sentence in default and granted Munir the benefit of section 382-B of the Criminal Procedure Code. As a result, Munir's appeal was dismissed, and the death sentence was not confirmed in the Murder Reference No. 18 of 2011.

Summary: The judgment relates to a murder case in which Muhammad Munir was convicted under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and sentenced to death for the murder of Muhammad Sharif. Muhammad Shabbir and Bashir Ahmed, co-accused, were acquitted by the trial court.The prosecution's case was based on the testimony of Abdul Aziz, the complainant and brother of the deceased, and Abdul Rehman. They stated that while demolishing a wall on their land, a dispute arose with the accused, and a fight ensued. During the altercation, Munir Ahmed fired a gunshot, resulting in the death of Muhammad Sharif.The defense argued that the prosecution's case lacked sufficient evidence and was based on false testimony. They also questioned the recovery of the gun and cartridges from the appellant.After evaluating the evidence, the court upheld Munir Ahmed's conviction but altered his sentence from death to imprisonment for life. The court found some mitigating circumstances in the appellant's favor, such as doubts about the recovery of the gun and the absence of any previous enmity or motive between the parties. Therefore, the court dismissed the criminal appeal and answered the murder reference in the negative, declining to confirm the death sentence. The benefit of section 382-B of the Criminal Procedure Code was also extended to the appellant.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure: ---CPC, Order 41, Rule 31—Jurisdiction of appellate court—Petitioners' claim of misinterpretation of law and misreading of evidence by courts below—Petitioners contended that the learned District Judge and Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court had erred in their judgments by overlooking an admission regarding a gift made by Mr. Abdullah to Shafa Ali—Claim of improper exercise of jurisdiction under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC dismissed—Court found no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court, which upheld the findings of the lower courts. (b) Property Law: ---Sharie Share—Deprivation of Sharie share through gift—Legal heirs of Mr. Shafa Ali, Mr. Ibrahim, and Mr. Abdullah contested their share in the suit property—Respondents' claim for Sharie share against the petitioners' defense of gift made by Abdullah in favor of Shafa Ali—Issue of whether the gift was valid and whether respondents were entitled to their Sharie share—Court upheld the respondents' claim based on the findings of the lower courts, affirming their entitlement to the Sharie share in the suit property. (c) Appeal and Review: ---Leave to Appeal—Petition for leave to appeal—Petitioners sought to challenge the concurrent findings of the lower courts, specifically the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court, which dismissed their revision petition—Supreme Appellate Court, after hearing the parties and reviewing the case, found no grounds for interference and converted the petition into an appeal, which was subsequently dismissed. ----Disposition: Appeal dismissed; the impugned judgment dated 10.10.2013 passed by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court and the concurrent findings of the lower courts are upheld.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending