Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 409, 467, 468 & 471---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5 (2)---Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance (IX of 1984), S. 10---Criminal breach of trust, forgery, using forged documents and criminal misconduct---Appreciation of evidence---Dishonest improvements in evidence---Report of handwriting expert, absence of---Accused was alleged to have collected cheques from government department and got them en-cashed in fake accounts---Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused to seven years---Validity---There was no material available on record that accused ever visited government office for collection of cheques in question---Despite availability of CCTV footage no effort was made to bring it on record; even alleged signatures of accused on receipt for collection of cheques in question was not sent to Handwriting Expert to substantiate the charge---Merely on the basis of oral allegation conviction and sentence of accused could not be sustained on such charge---Prosecution witness while appearing in witness box made dishonest improvements on a material point from his previously recorded statement which was duly confronted to him---If a witness makes dishonest improvements in his / her statement, such statement loses significance in the eyes of law---High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused, as prosecution had failed to prove the charge---High Court extended benefit of doubt to accused and acquitted him of the charge---Appeal was allowed, in circumstances. Shahbaz v. The State 2016 SCMR 1763; Tariq v. The State and others 2017 SCMR 1672; Imtiaz alias Taj v. The State and others 2018 SCMR 344; Sardar Bibi and another v. Munir Ahmad and others 2017 SCMR 344; Muhammad Saleem v. Muhammad Azam 2011 SCMR 474 and Muhammad Mansha v. The State 2018 SCMR 772 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 409, 467, 468 & 471---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5 (2)---Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance (IX of 1984), S. 10---Criminal breach of trust, forgery, using forged documents and criminal misconduct---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Accused was a bank official who was alleged to have received 46 cheques of different government departments and got transferred huge amount in the account of co-accused after getting clearance from NIFT---Trial Court acquitted the accused of the charge---Validity---At the time of processing 44 cheques accused was serving in the bank as a cashier---All employees in banks performed duties according to their job descriptions and there was a teller limit for every employee---Teller limit of accused was Rs. 250,000/- whereas all 44 cheques were beyond such limit---It was duty of bank manager or operation manager to process most of the cheques and due to any inability on their part to monitor such transaction, accused who was a low paid employee could not be made a scapegoat---Due to inefficiency or negligence of superior colleagues of accused, he could not be held responsible---High Court declined to interfere in acquittal of accused---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Zaheer Abbas for Appellants. Zubair Afzal Rana for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 155315 of 2018). Shahid Ahmad Ranjha, Deputy Attorney General for the State. Syed Suleman Haider Jafferi for the Complainant (in Criminal Appeal No. 136408 of 2018). Date of hearing: 7th May, 2025. Asjad Javaid Ghural, J .--- Through this common judgment, I intend to decide above captioned criminal appeals under Section 410 Cr.P.C. preferred by appellants Attique-ur-Rehman and Faisal Iqbal, whereby they have challenged the vires of judgment dated 23.12.2017 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, (Offences in Banks-II), Lahore in case FIR No.110/2014, in respect of offence under Sections 409,467,468,471,477-A and 34 P.P.C read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, (PCA) registered at P.S. FIA, Faisalabad whereby they were convicted and sentenced as under:-

Summary: When, according to eyewitness accounts, the deceased, who was in an injured condition, was taken to the hospital, he succumbed to his injuries on the way. However, the inquest report prepared at the place of the occurrence indicates that the dead body was lying on the ground. This suggests that none of the cited eyewitnesses, including the complainant, were present at the place of occurrence. Attempts were made to justify the delay in registering the case, which was spent on inducing and procuring witnesses and subsequently tailoring the prosecution's story.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: The due process for fixation and enhancement of rent of leased properties by a Market Committee under the Punjab Agricultural Marketing Regulatory Authority Act, 2018 dilated.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: When, according to eyewitness accounts, the deceased, who was in an injured condition, was taken to the hospital, he succumbed to his injuries on the way. However, the inquest report prepared at the place of the occurrence indicates that the dead body was lying on the ground. This suggests that none of the cited eyewitnesses, including the complainant, were present at the place of occurrence. Attempts were made to justify the delay in registering the case, which was spent on inducing and procuring witnesses and subsequently tailoring the prosecution's story. 489Crl. Misc.- Crl. Misc (Applications) 3762-M-25 MUHAMMAD SAJID ETC VS STATE ETC Mr. Justice Tanveer Ahmad Sheikh 06- 05- 2025 2025 LHC 4520

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: The due process for fixation and enhancement of rent of leased properties by a Market Committee under the Punjab Agricultural Marketing Regulatory Authority Act, 2018 dilated. 487Civil Revision- Civil Revision (Against Decree) u/s. 115, C.P.C. 654-13 QAMAR UL ISLAM VS PROVINCE OF PUNJAB ETC Mr. Justice Jawad Hassan 07- 05- 2025 2025 LHC 3173 2025 CLC 1456 (Lahore)

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending