Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: S.302,324,337-F(ii),148,149 PPCAppreciation of evidence,statement of eye witness doubtful,prosecution case doubtful,benefit of doubt(Acquitted)

Summary: Factum of deliberation is proved from the contents of the FIR---The contention that deliberation and consultation was made by the complainant before lodging the FIR regarding nominating the accused person, cannot be ruled out---In two successive investigations, the petitioner was declared innocent and supplementary challan under section 173 Cr.P.C has been submitted---The complainant has not filed any private complaint, which reflects that he is satisfied with the investigation conducted by two Senior Police Officers---Bail petition accepted.

Summary: The special procedure provided under section 19(1) of the Ordinance 2001, for execution of decrees passed under the Ordinance 2001, will exclude the general provisions of Article 181 of the Limitation Act and Section 48 of the CPC.

Summary: After hearing the arguments and perusing the record,it has observed that the FIR has been lodged with allpromptitude, without wasting a single moment, within 45minutes of the occurrence despite the fact that it was nighttime, and the petitioner has been nominated with specificrole of causing fire arm injury on the chest of the deceasedwhich culminated into his death. The occurrence as suffusedin the FIR finds support from the statement of the P.Ws. recorded under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. coupled with themedical evidence which is also in line with the ocularaccount. Though the findings of the police can be taken intoconsideration while dealing with the bail matters, yet in thiscase, ex facie, the investigation conducted by the police,seems to be pregnant with mala fides, as the petitioner hasbeen declared innocent on the basis of oral plea of alibiwhich is not the mandate of law, even otherwise, such pleacannot be taken into account at bail stage as same is uncalledfor under the law. The fortification can be sought fromShoukat Ilahiís case (2010 SCMR 966), in which it has beenheld that, ìaccused having been declared innocent by policeduring investigation alone was not a valid ground for grantof bail---none of grounds valid for grant of bail in a casefalling under the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C., wasavailable to accused---Accused had not raised the plea ofalibi at the time of moving his bail before arrestapplication, meaning thereby that he had no such defence atthat time---Even otherwise, accused had relied upon theevidence of a large number of witnesses in support of hisplea of alibi, which could not be evaluated at present stageand would be assessed at the trial.î Moreover, the dischargereport submitted by the police before the learned AreaMagistrate has not been agreed with, which order holdsfield, as according to law the innocence or guilt of theaccused has to be adjudged by the learned trial Court afterrecording evidence of witnesses produced by the parties andevaluating the same; in this regard safer reliance can beplaced on Imtiaz Ahmedís case (1986 SCMR 192), in whichit has been held that, îInvestigating Officer could not be ajudge---Innocence and guilt of accused had to be adjudgedby trial Court after recording evidence of witnessesproduced by parties and evaluating same.î At bail stage,only tentative assessment of the record is required anddeeper appreciation is not warranted, which is the domain of learned trial Court after recording evidence of the partiesat trial. Sufficient incriminating material is available on therecord, prima facie, connecting the petitioner with thecommission of crime. The case law referred to by learnedcounsel for the petitioner, with utmost respect, does notattract and render assistance to the petitionerís case, ratherboomerangs to his stance, because it is held in thesejudgments that ìOpinion of Police when relevant---Policeinvestigation, no doubt, is not binding on any Court, but itbeing the first agency coming into contact with theaggrieved party and accused party during investigation, itsopinion is relevant if the same does not smack of malafides.î But in the present case, as observed supra, thepetitioner has been declared innocent only on the basis of hisoral plea of alibi, which is not the myth and demand ofcriminal law, rather illuminates mala fides on the part ofInvestigating Agency. Even otherwise, each and every casehas its peculiar facts and circumstances and the Court has toassess the same according to the demand of administrationof justice. Therefore, while placing reliance on ImtiazAhmedís case (1986 SCMR 192), Mst. Qudrat Bibiís case(2003 SCMR 68) and Shoukat Ilahiís case (2010 SCMR 966),this application is, having no merits, dismissed.7. Before parting with this order, it is, however, clarifiedthat the findings recorded supra are tentative in nature andwill have no adverse effect whatsoever in any manner on thetrial of the case

Summary: The case, initiated under suo moto action, involves the illegal sale of Auqaf properties by the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board (ETPB), Mr. Asif Akhtar Hashmi. The judgment addresses two main transactions: one involving the Defence Housing Authority (DHA) Lahore, and the other concerning the DHA Islamabad.In the DHA Lahore case, the Court found the transaction of evacuee trust land in Mauzas Lidhar, Mota Singh Wala, and Dera Chahal to be unlawful and contrary to Section 4(2) of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management & Disposal) Act, 1975. The original agreement for DHA to acquire this land from the ETPB, with a 33% exemption of residential plots and 100 commercial plots, was altered to a 25% exemption without proper legal procedure, causing a significant loss to the ETPB. The Court gave DHA the option to adhere to the original terms within 30 days or return the land to ETPB. The Court also directed the Senior Member Board of Revenue, Punjab, to demarcate the properties and ensure the restoration of excess land acquired by DHA.Regarding the DHA Islamabad case, the Court declared the investment decision of Rs.986 million by the ETPB, under the chairmanship of Mr. Asif Akhtar Hashmi, as unlawful and contrary to the financial instructions and Section 4(2) of the Evacuee Trust Properties Act. The Court noted that the investment in "Elysium Ranches DHA, Islamabad" was made without verifying the project's existence. The amount was recovered as per the Court's order and directed to be transferred to ETPB's account.The Court directed the Secretary, Ministry of Minorities Affairs, to arrange a forensic audit of the ETPB for the last five years and to initiate civil and criminal actions against those responsible for the irregularities. The judgment also called for the appointment of a new Chairman for the ETPB and expedited inquiry and action against the former Chairman, Mr. Asif Akhtar Hashmi, and others involved in these transactions.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.