Judgments

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.

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.