Judgments

S. 17 CPC, Section 11, C.P.C. was applicable to the proceedings under West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964.

Art. 64 Qanun-e-Shahdat Order, 1984 Specific Relief Act Ss.39, 42 & 54. In his local certificate, identity card and the entire documents pertaining to his employment, deceased was shown as son of Baz Muhammad, therefore, trial court rightly passed decree.

O.XX, R.5 of CPC Ss.29, 42 & 54 specific Relief Act. Trial Court neither accepted the evidence of either party nor rejected the same, such appeals were accepted and cases were remanded.

Islamic Law. Pre-emptor on coming to know about suit sale on 17-1-2008 was legally required to have made first Talb on same date and time, but he remained kept quiet till 11-3-2009, therefore, such negligent conduct of pre-emptor was not condonable. Law would favour vigilant and not indolent.

S. 79 Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) Ss. 42 & 54 Suit by or against the government or public officers in their official capacity is not maintainable if government is not made party.

S. 3 of Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005), Ss.265-K & 417 PPC. Civil litigation regarding the subject property was subjudice before the civil court and present criminal proceedings appeared to be an attempt to prevent the civil proceedings.

Ss. 194-C(4) & 196 of Customs Act,1969. Contention on behalf of Collector Customs (appellant) was that jurisdiction of Single Member of Appellate Tribunal to hear an appeal valuing Rs.100,000 and not Rs.500,000. Impugned order was set aside.

Art. 40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Disclosure made by accused followed by the recovery of blood-stained axe at the instance of accused was an admissible piece of evidence within the meaning of Art.40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.

S. 302(b) PPC & Ss. 7, 17, 20 & 24(2) Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. Legally, it was the 'charge' that would determine the forum of appeal.

O.XVI, R.1. CPC. Applicant's plea was that witness allowed by High Court was absconder in a criminal case; therefore, he wants to produce another witness. Revision dismissed.

S.3 of Limitation Act, 1908. Matter of limitation was not required to be left to pleadings of parties.

O.VII, R.14 CPC. Document tendered in evidence neither relied upon nor referred to in pleadings by a party, therefore, such a document is inadmissible in evidence.

S.3 of Limitation Act, 1908. Matter of limitation was not required to be left to pleadings of parties

SS. 193, 194 & 199--Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Filing of complaint under S.195, Cr.P.C.-- In case of offences contemplated under S.195, Cr.P.C., only the public authority or concerned court had the right to file a complaint.

9-C of CNS, Act. Accused was driver of the vehicle in question, as such; his case is not at par with that of co-accused, who had taken lift.

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54-Defendants failed to point out any illegality in judgments and decrees passed by two courts below, therefore, revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Arts. 18, 70 & 72 Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984). Unless document is tendered in evidence and exhibited, the same cannot be taken into consideration.

O.XLI, R. 31 & S. 42 Specific Relief Act. Where a decree was to be reversed, the Appellate Court was bound to reappraise the evidence with reference to the issues by forwarding cogent reasons in support of its findings.

Ss.33 & 35 of Registration Act, S.17 of Specific Relief Act. Act of Trial Court sending the agreement for expert opinion was rational, logical, legal and amounted to having a positive approach for resolving legal intricacies.

Islamic law. Talbs were sin qua non for enforcement of right of pre-emption and admittedly the same had not been performed by the plaintiff, therefore, the revision petition was accepted and concurrent findings were set aside.

S. 302(b) of PPC. Mere non-recovery of crime weapon, could not be treated a circumstance to vitiate the prosecution case.

O. IX, R. 8 & O.XVII, R.3. Dismissal of suit for non- prosecution on a date fixed for arguments on plaintiff's application for production of certain documents in evidence was not legally justified.

Ss. 302(b) & 324, Ss. 6 & 7 ATA. Prosecution evidence was consistent, straightforward, confidence-inspiring, corroborative to each other and flawless, therefore, the appeal was dismissed. In absence of any mitigating and extenuating circumstances justifying the imposition of lesser punishment, sentence of life imprisonment awarded to accused was converted to that of death sentence.

Ss. 42 & 54 of Specific Relief Act, 1877. Plaintiff claimed a piece of barren land was given by a deceased brother of plaintiff by means of an agreement. Suit for declaration was not competent and plaintiffs were required to have filed a suit for specific performance of agreement.

O. XXI, R. 32 CPC. Undertaking given by judgment debtor before High Court in first round of litigation not to interfere in smooth running of water channel and its utilization. Judgment debtor was required to honor such undertaking.

Islamic law. Pre-emptor had failed to prove first Talb-e-Muwathibat-Suit was dismissed in circumstances.

Ss. 302(b) & 337-A(ii) PPC.  If prosecution succeeds to make out a case against an accused within the ambit of S.302(b), P.P.C., then normally death sentence was to be awarded to him.

Ss. 6 & 9(c) of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Disclosure of driver and cleaner of bus followed by the recovery could be used against accused persons within the meaning of Art. 40, Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.

S. 9(c) CNS Act. Disclosure, followed by the statement recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. coupled with the recovery of contraband items are sufficient to record conviction against accused.

Ss. 47 & 48, 3 & Article 181 of Limitation Act. Appeal or proceedings instituted beyond prescribed period of limitation was liable to be dismissed u/s S. 3 of Limitation Act, 1908.

Ss. 33, 52, 68 & 69 RPA, 1976. Statements of Polling Staff, particularly the Presiding Officer and others had fully established allegations levelled by the petitioner about rigging, as such, the petition was allowed.

Ss. 47-A & 52 RPA 1976. Petitioner could not claim to be at Serial No. 1 of Priority List merely because of having his name at Serial No.1 of Form-V---Election petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Ss. 47-A & 52 of Conduct of General Election Order (Chief Executive's Order No. 7 of 2002). No legal power vested in Party President to change, alter, substitute,, amend or file a fresh Priority List after last date fixed by CEC for filing of Priority List.

 S.32 of Senate (Election) Act, 1975. Petitioner's request for recounting of votes already turned down by Returning Officer could not create a bar for maintaining election petition.

S. 115 of CPC & Ss. 42 & 54 of Specific Relief Act. Both the courts below after proper appraisal of evidence, had reached at concurrent findings of fact which neither reflected misappreciation of evidence, nor suffered from any legal infirmity. Such concurrent findings of fact were not liable to be disturbed by High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

S. 324/34 PPC.  Since allegation against other two accused persons was of ineffective firing, their case falls within the scope of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Ss. 13 & 15 of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. Seeking time for recording tenant’s statement without filing any affidavit, did not seem to be reasonable and rational.

Ss. 13 & 15 West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. Actual rate of rent was Rs.500/- but tenant had been depositing rent at the rate of Rs.150/- p.m. as such the Rent Controller had rightly accepted ejectment application filed by landlord on ground of default in payment of rent.

S. 302 of PPC. On the application of a prosecution witness who alleged that he was facing threat to his life and keeping in view prevailing conditions in the area, the witness's apprehension was genuine and justifiable, therefore, witness was allowed to be examined in jail.

S. 5 Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974). For attracting the principle of locus poenitentiae, the subject must be equipped with a valid right i.e. a legal order in favour of subject by a competent authority; and that should be communicated to an agency or office bound to carry it out.

S.392 of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, S.17(3)---Robbery and Haraabah. Motorcycle, mobile etc. having been snatched by show of force, particularly by showing pistol to complainant, that S.17(3) of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 relating to Haraabah, was applicable.

Ss.52 & 75 of RPA 1976). On the death of respondent/returned candidate the election petition would not abate, rather same would require disposal by Tribunal by initiating ex parte proceedings.

Ss. 376 & 354 PPC.  Statements of prosecution witnesses lacking consistency, therefore, accused is entitled for bail.

S.13 of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. Statement of landlord was sufficient to prove issue regarding bona fide personal need of premises by landlord.

S. 8 & 42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877. Failure of defendants to prove their possession did not entitle plaintiffs for a decree in their favour because plaintiffs had to prove their case at the strength of their own evidence and they could not take benefit of weaknesses of defendants.

Islamic law. Inheritance---Scope---On the death of owner, legal heirs became entitled for their due share under personal law without intervention of the court or authority.

Ss. 353 & 337-H(2) of Penal Code (XLV of 1860. Failure of the prosecution to produce entry in Roznamcha in Court being an inherent legal defect, had further damaged its case.

Ss.337-A, 337-D & 337-F PPC. Application for F.I.R. lodged with inordinate and considerable delay, possibility of lodging of F.I.R. after consultation and deliberation, could not be ruled out.