Summary: Summary pending

Summary: A company being licensed under The Punjab Poultry Productions Act, 2016 is still subject to the licensing requirements U/S 15 of The Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011. The Two statutes can coexist validly. 509Criminal Proceedings 46365/24 Abdullah Zulfiqar Vs Director General FIA etc Mr. Justice Tariq Saleem Sheikh 29- 04- 2025 2025 LHC 8155

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Complainant and injured eye witnesses if conceal vital facts of the occurrence then they cannot be relied for conviction and furthermore if medical evidence is not certain about time between injury and death as well as death and autopsy then it cannot be used in support/confirmation of ocular account qua time of occurrence as well as death. 507Writ Petition- Criminal Proceedings- Quashing of F.I.R. 665-25 M/S SAK 555 TOBACCO MERCHANT ETC VS FOP ETC Mr. Justice Asjad Javaid Ghural 30- 04- 2025 2025 LHC 2801

Summary: i) Classification of Statutes; General & Special Statutes. -- ii) Tests of Repugnancy or Inconsistency between two Statutes or Provisions. -- iii) Irreconcilable Statutes or Provisions. -- iv) Repeal, Express or Implied. -- v) "leges posteriors priores contrarias abrognt (subsequent laws repeal prior contrary laws)" -- vi) Provisions contained in the NEPRA Act, 1997 will subside the conflicting provisions of Electricity Act, 1910 whenever there is conflict in two and both cannot be harmoniously construed, therefore, the opinions expressed in the judgments reported as "GEPCO and others v. Pakistan Television Corporation and others" (PLD 2018 Lahore 399) and "Faisalabad Electric Supply Company through Director v. Muhammad Jamil and 6 others" (PLJ 2017 Lahore 309), is correct enunciation of law on the subject. 506Crl. Appeal 79724/21 Ghulam Qadir . Vs State Etc Mr. Justice Farooq Haider 30- 04- 2025 2025 LHC 2815 2025 YLR 1911 (Lahore)

Summary: 505Utility Services 2497402.40246-

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (On appeal against the judgment dated 10.01.2018 of the High Court of Balochistan, Turbat Bench in Criminal Appeals Nos. (T) 32 and 34 of 2017). (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Re-appraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Night time occurrence---Source of light not proved---Identity of accused not proved---Accused persons were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Trial Court convicted the accused persons for qatl-i-amd and sentenced them to imprisonment for life---High Court maintained the conviction and sentence---Validity---Occurrence took place in the night of 07.12.2015 at 11:48 p.m. and although the incident was unseen, the witnesses claimed to have seen the petitioners fleeing from the scene, one of them armed and the other empty-handed---Absence of any substantial moonlight on that fateful night necessitated a discussion into the source of light which could have made the identification of the petitioners by the witnesses possible---Complainant stated in his complaint to the police and again in his examination-in-chief that he had seen the petitioners running away from the street, in the light being emitted by a bulb---Witness accompanying the complainant stated in his examination-in-chief that he also had seen the petitioners fleeing in the same way, one armed and the other unarmed, in some light---Said witness later clarified during cross-examination that it was certainly in the light of a bulb that he had seen the petitioners fleeing and not in the light being emitted from some torch---Both witnesses had also accentuated during their respective cross-examinations that there was certainly some bulb installed at the scene of occurrence---Complainant during his cross-examination had denied that he had seen the petitioners fleeing while armed with pistol and he identified them in the light of bulb---Said express statement by the complainant had two effects; firstly, it became clear that the petitioners were not identified in the light of a bulb, which clearly contradicted the complainant's statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C., as well as the FIR---First Information Report was also silent about any other source of light---Furthermore, no recovery had been made in regard to a supposed alternate source of light and the site map again did not mention any source of light or place from where such source might have been recovered---Identification of the petitioners was thus not free from doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Re-appraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions in the statement of Investigating Officer---Accused persons were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Trial Court convicted the accused persons for qatl-i-amd and sentenced them to imprisonment for life---High Court maintained the conviction and sentence---Validity---Investigating Officer stated during cross-examination that in the FIR, a bulb had been mentioned as the source of light and then corrected himself by stating that the light source was a torch---In the same breath, the Investigating Officer sought to explain the apparent contradiction by stating that there was no difference between the two---Investigating Officer then stated that there was a difference between a bulb and a torch but argued that the witnesses were illiterate and did not know the difference between the two---At the very outset, the Investigating Officer's explanation in regards the light source being mentioned as a bulb at one place and a torch at the other, was self-contradictory---Highlighting that contradiction further, eye-witness had mentioned a bulb as the light source, despite having earlier stated before the police that it was a torch---Evidenced by the fact that during cross-examination said witness denied that he mentioned a torch as the light source in his statement to the police but when the record was referred to, it was shown to be otherwise---Said facts constituted yet another doubt in regard the identification of the petitioners---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Re-appraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapon of offence on the pointation of accused---Inconsequential---Scope---Accused persons were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Trial Court convicted the accused persons for qatl-i-amd and sentenced them to imprisonment for life---High Court maintained the conviction and sentence---Validity---Statedly, on 21.12.2015, the petitioner disclosed that on the night of the occurrence before dawn, he had hidden away the weapon of offence, a pistol, in a pile of garbage outside his home and that he could guide the police to its recovery---Recovery witness explained during his cross-examination that the petitioner led him, another recovery witness and Police Officers from the police station to outside petitioner's house---Here, the recovery witness's account begun to vary as he stated firstly that the place of recovery/pile of garbage was outside the petitioner's home, he however stated immediately after that the petitioner entered his home and that the garbage was inside petitioner's home---Again surprisingly, the site-map for the recovery proceeding indicated that the pistol was recovered from outside the petitioner's home---Said contradiction, thus, could not be reconciled, rendering the recovery witness account quite doubtful---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Re-appraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapon of offence and crime empties---Inconsequential---Accused persons were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Trial Court convicted the accused persons for qatl-i-amd and sentenced them to imprisonment for life---High Court maintained the conviction and sentence---Validity---Record showed that a pistol was recovered from the petitioner's home---Two crime empties were statedly recovered from the scene on 08.12.2015---Weapon of offence, a pistol, was allegedly recovered on 21.12.2015---Record however showed that both the articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory together on the same day, i.e. 12.02.2016, pursuant to which the Forensic Science Laboratory Report recorded a positive result, that the empties had been fired from the pistol---Not only there was a proven inordinate delay in dispatching the articles but the police's failure to send the empties to the Forensic Science Laboratory before the recovery of the weapon of offence also stood established---No reliance could be placed upon the result of Forensic Science Laboratory Report where the crime empties were sent for Forensic Science Laboratory testing after the recovery of the weapon of offence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Re-appraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt--- Recovery of Call Data Record (CDR) of accused and deceased---Inconsequential ---Accused persons were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Trial Court convicted the accused persons for qatl-i-amd and sentenced them to imprisonment for life---High Court maintained the conviction and sentence---Validity---Prosecution's claim was that the petitioners lured the deceased to their home and then killed him---In that respect the Investigating Officer stated that he recovered the deceased's personal mobile phone and also recovered the petitioner's mobile phone---Record did not disclose whether the mobile phones purportedly recovered were in the use of the deceased or accused as acknowledged by the Investigating Officer during the cross-examination---Record did not mention which SIMs were taken from the recovered mobile phones and in whose name the corresponding mobile number was issued---Admittedly, it had not been proved whether the mobile phones allegedly recovered from the deceased and the petitioners were in their personal use, nor had it been proved which SIMs were recovered from the mobile phones and to whom they were issued---Again, the names of the deceased and petitioners were absent from purported Call Data Record except in the form of handwriting subsequently interpolated into the document---Importantly, the instant Call Data Record was in the form of a standard computerized document which, admittedly, could be printed and prepared with the help of any computer---Thus, it was also of foremost importance that the Call Data Record must bear the endorsement/authentication of the cellular/telecom company which had issued it---Bare document such as the Call Data Record without any signature of the concerned officer of the cellular/telecom company issuing the Call Data Record could not be considered for the purposes of trial and relied upon until and unless it would bear the company's seal or a letter of its authentication---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Azeem Khan v. Mujahid Khan 2016 SCMR 274; Khalid Perviz v. State 2021 SCMR 522; Rehmatullah and others v. The State 2024 SCMR 1782 and Asmat Ullah Khan v. The State PLD 2024 SC 1119 rel. (f) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Principle---Reasonable doubts in the prosecution case would accrue as of right to the accused, thus they would be entitled to the benefit of the same. Ahmed Ali and another v. The State 2023 SCMR 781 rel. Muhammad Amjad Iqbal Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in both cases). Nemo for the Complainant. Syed Pervez Bokhari, State counsel for the State. Date of hearing: 30th April, 2025.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 376---Rape---Bail, refusal of---Allegation against the accused-petitioner was that he committed rape with the daughter of the complainant---In the case in hand a promise of the marriage was allegedly made by petitioner with victim, as such he obtained her consent on the basis of fraud and allurement and under that pretext victim submitted her body and allowed the petitioner to have sexual intercourse with her---Such like consent is not a consent in the eye of law, which has been obtained by practicing a deception---Victim was subjected to sexual intercourse from time to time by petitioner against her will and without herconsent, as such ingredients of the offence of rape as envisaged in S.375, P.P.C, were squarely fulfilled---Victim had given birth to an illegitimate child, who was at present of the age of 5/6 months---D.N.A. report in the case was positive, which established the petitioner as biological father of said child---Thus, there was no need of any further evidence to establish the offence---Statement of victim recorded under S.161 & 164, Cr.P.C., alone sufficient, which got full corroboration and confirmation from Medico-Legal Report and D.N.A. test report and fact of giving birth to a child by the victim---Prima facie involvement of petitioner in the crime stood fully established---No inference other than that of the guilt of accused could be drawn---No an iota of the material was there to suggest that the case was requiring further inquiry---Act of the petitioner had put prestige and honour of the family of victim on crossroad and spoiled whole of the life of victim and particularly that of child, which presented a dreadful picture---Circumstances did not permit to extent any leniency in favour of the petitioner---Petition was dismissed, in circumstances. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Bail order---Observations of the Court---Scope---Observations made in the bail order are tentative in nature and should not influence the trial Court in any manner. Riasat Ali Bhatti for Petitioner. Amjad Javed, Deputy Prosecutor General along with Fareed, S.I. Complainant in person. Order Tanveer Ahmad Sheikh, J .--- The petitioner (Bashir Ahmad), being arrayed as an accused in case FIR No. 2047 of 2024, dated 14.09.2024 registered with Police Station Sabzi Mandi, District Gujranwala, for offence under Section 376 PPC, seeks his post arrest bail, after the same was refused by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala vide order dated 15.10.2024. 2. According to the story of incident, as narrated in the FIR, one Mst. Shaheen (17/18) daughter of Muzammil Hussain (complainant) was a divorcee and living with complainant. Complainant used to go out of the house in the morning for daily routine work and returned back in the evening. Mst. Maryam (15/16) another daughter of complainant was also living in the same house. One Bashir Ahmad son of Jamal made a promise of marriage with Shaheen and started to visit the house of complainant. He used to commit 'Zina' with Mst. Shaheen in the absence of complainant, which was also seen by Mst. Maryam, younger daughter of complainant. Mst. Shaheen was in the sixth/seventh month of pregnancy. When Bashir was asked to contract Nikah with Mst. Shaheen, he used to issue threats of dire consequences and filthy abuses. 3. Complainant, present before the Court, submitted that he cannot engage the services of learned counsel, hence, would rely upon the arguments of Deputy Prosecutor General/State counsel. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor and perusal of record it was observed by this Court that Bashir Ahmad (petitioner) allegedly used to commit "Zina" with Mst. Shaheen in the absence of complainant (father) and impregnated her. 5. Main thrust of learned counsel for the petitioner was mainly on the point that no time, date and detail of the occurrence was given in the FIR and there was no eye-witness to the occurrence, and even if allegations levelled in the FIR are taken as gospel truth, even then offence of fornication punishable under Section 496-B of P.P.C. was made out, which was entailing the penalty of imprisonment extending only upto five years alongwith fine, and was non-cognizable as well as bailable, because both petitioner and victim had been committing sexual intercourse with each other with their consent; offence of rape defined under Section 375 of P.P.C. was not made out; family of the victim and complainant was a habitual blackmailer. 6. I am unable to subscribe to the contention of learned counsel for petitioner, because in the case in hand a promise of the marriage was allegedly made by petitioner with Mst. Shaheen Bibi/victim (divorcee), as such he obtained her consent on the basis of fraud and allurement, and under that pretext victim submitted her body and allowed the petitioner to have sexual intercourse with her. Such like consent is not a consent in the eye of law, which has been obtained by practicing a deception. I feel no hesitation in holding that victim Mst. Shaheen Bibi was subjected to sexual intercourse from time to time by petitioner against her will and without her consent, as such ingredients of the offence of rape as envisaged in Section 375 of P.P.C. are squarely fulfilled. 7. Victim has given birth to an illegitimate child, who was at present of the age of 5/6 months. D.N.A. report in this case was positive, which established the petitioner as biological father of said child. There was no need of any further evidence to establish the offence. Statement of victim recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and 164 of Cr.P.C. was alone sufficient, which sought full corroboration and confirmation from M.L.R. and D.N.A. test report and fact of giving birth to a child by the victim. Prima facie involvement of petitioner in the crime stood fully established. No inference other than that of the guilt of accused could be drawn. There was not even an iota of the material to suggest that the case was requiring further inquiry. 8. Act of the petitioner has put prestige and honour of the family of victim on cross roads and spoiled whole of the life of victim and particularly that of child, which presented a dreadful picture. Circumstances do not permit me to extent any leniency in favour of the petitioner. 9. For the reasons recorded supra, the present petition has no force, hence dismissed. 10. Needless to mention that any observation made in the above order are tentative in nature and shall not influence the learned trial court in any manner. JK/B-9/L Petition dismissed.