فیصلے

Accused was not in possession of disputed property, provision of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 were not applicable.

Parties belonged to Christian faith, quantum of maintenance allowance was to be in conformity with Section 36 of Divorce Act, 1869,

Trial Court had not provided opportunity despite controversial questions of facts and law. Decided the case in hasty manner.

Abducted negated the allegations leveled in the FIR

Recovery of lethal weapon, medical report of injured and deceased, members of unlawful assembly, not entitled for concession of bail

Limitation u/s 5 of Limitation Act, 1908 would not be applicable in special enactment

FBR may by an order fix quantum of fine in lieu of confiscation or any goods imported in violation of S.15 or Notification u/s 16 of Customs Act, 1969

Allegation against accused of causing internal injuries to deceased wife was not proved as she was not examined

Accused was arrested on spot a/w recovery of contraband, report of FSL was positive, no mala fide was shown

Nothing incriminating was recovery from the possession of accused, medical evidence did not corroborate

Delay in sending incriminating articles to Expert could not treated fatal in absence of objections of having tempered or manipulated

Trial in absentia was against the provision of Articles 9 and 10 of the Constitution

The offences were heinous in nature and fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C

Impugned order was administrative/supervisory in nature, could not be challenged u/s 435, 439 Cr.P.C but could be challenged u/s 561-A Cr.P.C

Second application was maintainable on any of grounds provided by S.13 of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ord. 1959

Statement of attorney of defendant lacked fulfillment regarding prerequisites of gift

Punishment provided for the alleged offence was upto 14 years, disentitles the accused of bail

Constitution of valid agreement there must be at least two persons i.e promisor and promise as required u/s 2 of Contract Act, 1872

Disclosure of co-accused was discovery of new facts as per Art. 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahdat Order, 1984, sufficient to disentitle the accused from concession of bail

Non-sending of pistol to expert was an omission on the part of I.O and was not fatal to the prosecution case

Loss suffer by petitioners could not be determined by the Court in its constitutional jurisdiction

Omission to examine a witness would not discredit the account given by other eyewitnesses

Section 384-4 PPC carried maximum punishment of seven years and did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497 Cr.P.C

Kalshnikov and detonator were not sent to the Expert for examination and police search was in violation of S.103 Cr.P.C

Huge quantity of hashish could not be expected to have been planted on accused in absence of any ill-will or animosity

Review application was not competent as new or important matter or evidence had been disclosed

Accused was not tried for the same offence. Trial of the accused was not barred u/s 403 Cr.P.C or on principle of double jeopardy.

Mere possession of forged document was not an offence unless the same was used fraudulently

Procedural requirement had not been followed by the trial Court as provided u/s 32 or 33 of CNS, Act, 1997

Accused had not produced any evidence to prove that the bags were loaded by the co-accused

Trial Court despite coming to conclusion that private partition has already been effected, directed authorities to partition property

Findings on question of fact and law recorded by court of compe- tent jurisdiction could not be interfered in revisional jurisdiction

Circumstantial evidence did not lead to the conclusion that each chain of incident was linked with to prove the guilt

Verification of petition and annexure was required to be done under Order VI Rule-15 C.P.C

In case of decision of existing of relationship of landlord and tenant, rent deposited in Court would be refunded to tenant

Vicarious liability of the accused would be determined at the trial after recording evidence

Compromise. Nothing on record to impede the process of compromise and punish the accuse u/s 311 P.P.C.