Possessing narcotics

Accused had stated that in case, the High Court, while maintaining the conviction, reduced the sentence to one already undergone, accused would not press the instant appeal

Sample drawn for chemical examination, represented the recovery of charas from accused to the extent of 10 grams

Accused who was more than 60 years of age, had no previous conviction record; he had undergone agony of the pendency of the appeal since 2006

Request of accused was acceded to the extent of reducing the sentence to one already undergone by him, maintaining his conviction, in circumstances.

Personnel of Criminal Investigation Agency (CIA), no doubt, under S.156(1), Cr. P. C., had no power to iii vestigate a cognizable offence, but in the present case F.I.R. had been lodged at concerned police station and challan had also been submitted before the court by the S.H.O. of the said police station

Even if it was presumed that Sub-Inspector C.I.A. was not competent to investigate the matter, it would amount only to an irregularity which would not affect the trial, particularly when neither any prejudice or injustice had been caused to the accused, nor he had raised such objection during the trial

Trial Court had discussed the evidence in its true perspective and based its decision on valid reasons

Section 103, Cr. P. C. was not applicable to narcotic cases by virtue of S.25 of Control of . Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Prosecution witnesses had given straightforward and confidence-inspiring evidence, who had no malice or animus against the accused

Planting of forty Kilograms heroin on the accused by the police was not believable

Section 36 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, did not require dispatch of the whole recovered lot to Chemical Examiner for analysis, as a sample thereof was always treated as a part of the total

Sending of 40 grams out of 40 Kilograms of heroin as sample to Chemical Examiner, therefore, was not questionable

Defence plea was absurd, improbable and unreasonable

House of recovery was owned by the wife of accused

Impugned judgment did not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Different quantities of 'charas' were allegedly recovered from the possession of accused and their co-accused in two episodes; at one and the same time and place of occurrence; for which different recovery memos were prepared by the Investigating Officer at the spot

Law, in such circumstances, required that each accused should have been separately charged for possessing the 'charas' allegedly recovered from them

Framing of joint charge against accused persons with regard to separate recovery of charas weighing '1020 grams' from their co-accused recorded through a separate recovery memo was likely to cause prejudice to accused's case

Charge framed by the Trial Court, was liable to be altered on the basis of material available on the record

Impugned order of the Trial Court declining the request of accused persons for amendment in the charge was against law and facts, based on misappraisal of the incriminating material available on the record likely to cause prejudice to the case of accused, not sustainable in the eye of law and was liable to be set aside

Impugned order was set aside with direction to the Trial Court to amend the charge on the basis of incriminating material available on the record, in accordance with law.

Application filed by accused after closure of prosecution evidence for summoning certain persons as court witnesses had been dismissed by Trial Court vide impugned order

Court, after being satisfied with the prosecution evidence that the same was sufficient to arrive at a just conclusion was under no compulsion for summoning anyother witnesses

Trial court, however, in addition to the evidence already recorded had ordered to summon the Medical Officer and the Ward Incharge considering them as necessary witnesses

Other nine persons, were left on the option of accused to produce them as defence witnesses by the court

Impugned order did not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever

Accused, if so advised, could avail the opportunity of producing the aforesaid persons in defence to supplement defence version

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Memo. was prepared as to the arrest of accused and recovery of the recovered material on the spot before the official witnesses

From secured narcotic substance consisting of five hundred pieces, a sample of one gram each was parcelled and sealed separately for chemical examination

Case appeared to be one of further inquiry on the ground that no public witness was associated for arrest and recovery etc. and to the memo. in question

Said memo. was silent as to the number of rods and pieces secured as sample

Expert report had shown that one envelope parcel was received as stuffed with multiple pieces of charas weighing five hundred grams as net weight

Thirty grams out of the said five hundred grams appeared to have been consumed in the analysis whereas the remaining was kept for being dispatched to or collected from the office of Chemical Examiner

No record was available as to whether the Police had collected the same or not; or whether such material with its wrapper was in existence or not

F.I.R. and the memo. in question both carried reference of departure entry, but not that of arrival entry

Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Alleged narcotics was recovered by the Police lying on the seat of the rickshaw which could be the property of accused who made their escape; or accused who was apprehended by the Police, but accused being rickshaw driver had no concern with the alleged recovered narcotics substance

Driver was unaware about narcotic substance lying in the bag which was kept by the passenger's seat in the rickshaw and it was yet to be determined by the Trial Court after recording the evidence, whether accused had the knowledge about the narcotics substance lying on the back seat of the rickshaw, with passengers or not

Punishment of alleged offence could be of life imprisonment or death sentence, but it was yet to be determined after completing proceedings

Co-accused had been granted bail and case of accused was on better footing than co-accused

Accused was also entitled for same concession on the principle of rule of consistency

Accused (Rikshaw Driver) having no concern with the alleged recovered property, he was granted bail, in circumstances.

Accused who claimed that he was child at the time of occurrence, filed application that his trial be separated from trial of other accused persons

Application was dismissed by the Trial Court

Validity

Medical Board duly constituted gave opinion that age of accused was between 18-19 years at the time of his medical examination

Assuming that the age of accused had been accurately determined by the Medical Board the alleged incident had taken place 3 months and 16 days prior to date of said medical examination

On the date when alleged offence took place, accused had been opined by Medical Board to be between the age of 18 years, 8 months and 14 days

Law was to be interpreted in favour of accused as same was for the protection of accused and such protection could only be afforded to accused, if he was given the benefit by accepting lower of the age determined by the Medical Board

Margin of one year in the opinion of Medical Board, could not be overruled

Accused had to be given the benefit of the law

Application was allowed.

Accused though had been nominated in the F.I.R. on the basis of alleged spy information, yet nothing was recovered from him on the spot, as he had escaped from the spot

Bag containing "Charas" was found lying on the spot

F.I.R. did not show as to how police had identified the accused with parentage

Case against accused needed further probe

Court in appropriate cases had the power to grant bail despite the embargo under S.51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Bar contained under the said section was attracted only when reasonable grounds existed for believing the accused being guilty of the alleged offence

Quantity of the contraband material could be given importance only when the same was lined with the accused by cogent evidence

No reasonable grounds were available to believe that accused was involved in the alleged crime

Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.

Quantity of the contraband and material can be given importance only when the same is linked with the accused by cogent evidence.

Accused was child at the time when alleged crime took place; he was found in a room where narcotic substances were being packed

Ten packets of charas, each weighing 1.25 Kilograms, were recovered from the bag which the accused was packing

Accused was a menial worker and was hired by someone for packing the stuff

Trial record was absolutely silent as to who was the person who owned the narcotic substance or the house

Accused was in jail since 2004 and according to Jail Roll, accused who was ordered to undergo life imprisonment, had served period of 17 years and 6 days including remissions and a period of 9 years, 11 months and 24 days were still to go

Jail Superintendent had also stated that conduct of accused had been satisfactory all along

Accused being juvenile at the time of his arrest deserved leniency and benefit of S.11 of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000

Accused was directed to be released on probation to the custody of his guardian or other respectable person from the area, who would stand surety in the sum of Rs.5,00,000 to the satisfaction of the Nazir of High Court

Accused would be kept on probation for period of 5 years and would be duly bound to report to the Trial Court on first Monday of every month till expiry of the period of probation.

Alleged recovery of 1050 grams of charas was marginally exceeding boundary of 1000 grams, which did not fall within the prohibitory clause

Was yet to be decided at the trial as to whether case of accused attracted the provisions of Ss.9(b) or (c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Accused had not been convicted in any of the case in which he was facing trial

Accused could not be denied the concession of bail only for the reason that he was facing trial in some cases

No private witness had been associated by the police at the time of arrest and recovery, which had made the case of prosecution doubtful and entitled accused to be admitted to bail

Accused having made out a case of further inquiry in terms of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C., he was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Accused though was directly involved in the narcotics case, but a suckling baby was along with the accused who had been behind the bars for the last two months

Welfare of minor at such a stage would be taken into account

Punishment provided for the offence, was either death or life imprisonment because the quantity of narcotic recovered from her possession exceeded more than 1 Kilogram

Accused, in circumstances, though could not be released on bail as laid down in S.51 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, but there was a suckling baby of accused who was kept in jail and was innocent

Concept of "welfare of minor" was incompatible with jail life

Instead of detaining the innocent child/infant in the jail for the crime allegedly committed by his mother, it would be in the interest of justice as well as welfare of minor, if the mother was released from the jail

Holy Prophet in case of "Ghamidiyyah" had suspended the sentence of pregnant woman, not only till delivery of the child, but also postponed same till suckling period i.e. two years, for the welfare of the child which showed paramount importance and significance of the right of a suckling child in Islam

Held, woman having suckling child, should not be detained and granted bail, in such circumstances

Order accordingly.

Counsel for the accused after having argued the case for his acquittal had confined himself for reduction in sentence of accused in view of the report of the Chemical Examiner

Twenty K.G. Poppy Heads had been recovered from the possession of accused

Sample of ten grams of the substance sent to the Chemical Examiner was found to be "Crushed poppy heads" which could be used to cause intoxication, as the same had traces of Morphine and Codeine

Under S.2(s) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, 'narcotic drug' meant Coca Leaf, Cannabis, heroin, opium, poppy straw and all manufactured drugs

Poppy straws were also included in the definition of 'opium' as provided under S.2(t)(i) of the said Act

Under S.2(w) 'poppy straw' were shown all parts except seeds of opium poppy after mowing

Poppy heads or poppy straw thus were narcotic drug and offences relating to them were punishable under the Act

However, poppy heads having traces of Morphine and Codeine, recovered from the accused, could not be equated with the actual substance popularly known as "Opium" or "heroin" etc. which contained much higher quantity of Morphine

Conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to accused were consequently maintained, but his sentence of fine was reduced from Rupees 2,00,000 to Rs. 50,000 only in circumstances.

Accused persons who were arrested, tried on the charge of possessing different quantities of heroin and were convicted for imprisonment for life in `Srilanka' had been repatriated to Pakistan to serve out the sentence

Contention of convicts was that they had already undergone the maximum sentence which could be imposed upon them in Pakistan, had they been apprehended, charged and tried for the similar offence in Pakistan

Held, to claim benefit of such transfer, there had to be a treaty for mutual transfer for offenders between Pakistan and Srilanka, which existed and had provided that the offenders, who were tried in one country, could be transferred to the other country to undergo the remaining portion of their sentence

Irrespective of the severity of sentence awarded to a convict in the country of crime and conviction, on being transferred under bilateral arrangement to Pakistan, such convict was entitled to undergo such sentence as was compatible with the laws of Pakistan

Compatibility of sentence could only be adjudged and determined by the court of competent jurisdiction in Pakistan

Under Transfer of Offender Ordinance, 2002, enforcement of the sentence of the imprisonment that was imposed on any offender, who was transferred to Pakistan, was to be governed by the laws of Pakistan; and in case the duration of .the sentence of imprisonment inflicted on any offender that could be transferred to Pakistan by a country having signed bilateral treaty for the transfer of offender was incompatible with any law of Pakistan; theca the court of competent jurisdiction could examine and make it akin to the sentence that could be awarded for the similar crime as in vogue in Pakistan

Offender who was transferred to Pakistan in terms of S.9 of Transfer of Offenders Ordinance, 2002, was entitled to be given benefit of remission of sentence as per laws in force of the country of conviction up to the date of transfer to Pakistan

On transfer, such convict was also entitled to the benefit of remission in left over sentence or pardon as could be declared by the President of Pakistan; or by any other Authority under any law in Pakistan.

Accused had neither denied the possession of the same nor had shown that the case made out against hint by the prosecution was false; and said charge had illegally been foisted upon him

Ample opportunity of hearing was provided to accused by the Trial Court to explain his view point and nothing incriminating in that regard had been proved by accused

Accused vide application, addressed to the Special Court had categorically stated that the admitted his crime, but only had requested the court to give him the lesser punishment as he was having small kids "

After receiving the said application, the Trial Court granted hire some time to think over the matter, but his deposition remained unchanged

Trial Court after taking a very lenient view granted a sentence of 4 years only and a fine Rs.20,000

Trial Court having already taken a lenient view by awarding lighter sentence to accused no case of interference had been made out, in circumstances.

Recovery of "Charas" in the present case, was not disputed and therefore delay without any suggestion of tampering with the samples, per se, will not be sufficient to make the report of Chemical Examiner unreliable.

Police officials are good witnesses and they can be relied upon if their testimony remains unshattered during cross-examination.

Examination of private persons was not the requirement of law in terms of S. 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Reluctance of general public to become witness in such cases was now a judicially recognized fact and no option was left but to consider the statements of official witnesses, for which there was no legal bar

Police officials were as good witnesses to be relied upon, if their testimony had remained unshattered during cross-examination

Recovery of "Charas" having not been disputed, delay in sending the samples to Chemical Examiner without any suggestion of tampering with the same per se, would not make the report of Chemical Examiner unreliable

Prosecution evidence with regard to the recovery of "Charas" from the accused inspired confidence and did not suffer from any legal infirmity, material contradictions or dishonest improvements

Prosecution witnesses had no enmity with the accused to involve them in a false case

No mitigating circumstance was available to reduce the sentence of accused

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Single circumstance, and not many creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of accused, would entitle him to benefit of doubt, not as a matter of grace and concession, but as a matter of right.

Veracity of the F.I.R. and memo. of recovery and arrest, meant to connect the accused with the crime having not been unanimously proved by the prosecution witnesses, the same had made the prosecution case doubtful

Absence of prosecution evidence regarding sending of the sample of contraband "Charas" to Chemical Examiner, or it being highly contradictory, had made his report unreliable

Material allegedly recovered from the accused was not produced in the court at the trial, rather some other material had been introduced in evidence, for which there was no explanation

Packet of "Charas" from which sample was statedly taken had been produced in the court in unsealed condition and thus tampering thereof could not be ruled out

Only one circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of accused would be sufficient to make him entitled to benefit of doubt, whereas many such circumstances were available in the present case, which did not justify the conviction of accused

Accused were acquitted in circumstances.

Proviso to S.32(2) of Contra; of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had laid down prerequisite conditions that no vehicle, vessel or other conveyance would be liable to confiscation, unless it was proved that the owner thereof knew that the offence was being or was to be committed; in fact knowledge was a point of fact and was to be adjudicated in accordance with law in a normal procedure of dispensation of justice by putting the owner on notice and not necessarily the accused

No effort was made to ascertain and determine the question that appellant knew that the offence was being or was to be committed

All those procedural pre-requisite had not been observed by the Trial Court and order had been passed for confiscation of vehicle in question

Requirements of S.32 or 33 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had not been followed and observed in circumstances

In view of illegality committed by the Trial Court, impugned order was set aside to the extent of confiscation of vehicle, in question and matter was remanded to the Trial Court for proceeding in accordance with law and decision of the case.

Prosecution witness who was put to cross-examination had successfully answered the question put to him regarding recovery of contraband

Recovery witnesses remained constant on material points regarding the time, place and the manner in which the recovery was effected from accused persons

As far as presence of accused persons at the spot and recovery of 12 kilograms of Charas from the dickey of the car was concerned, counsel for accused persons had remained unable to point out any material contradiction which would lead the Court to understand that the recovery of narcotic substances and presence of accused persons was not established at the spot

Even otherwise none of the prosecution witnesses had any enmity to falsely implicate accused in the case by planting a huge quantity of Charas upon them

Said recovery had found full support from the report of the Chemical Examiner, which was positive and available on the record

Counsel for accused had failed to create any dent in the prosecution version

Investigation even if was conducted by an incompetent Police Officer, could not be challenged during the trial as per S.156(2), Cr.P.C.

Accused had failed to show that as to what prejudice was caused to them by conducting of investigation by the complainant/Police Official

Conviction recorded against accused persons by the Trial Court, was maintained, in circumstances, however, it was found that the samples were not taken from each slab

Contraband weighing 10 grams which was allegedly separate& from each packet, was not from the whole contraband

Accused persons, in circumstances, could not be sentenced while taking into consideration the total contraband and the proviso of S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, would not attract

Case was not fit for maintaining the sentence of imprisonment for life which was reduced to imprisonment for 14 years each

Fine however was maintained.

Intention of the legislature was evident from its different provisions that it was designed to curb the menace of narcotic drugs in the society, which was speedily increasing day by day

Offence with regard to narcotics, was not only against the society, but the mankind as well and thus entailed heavy punishment

Side of accused had not been able to show anything to say that accused had been involved in the case for any ulterior motive of the complainant or others

Each criminal case was to be adjudged in the background of its own facts and circumstances

Accused, in view of circumstances, was not entitled to bail; his bail petition was dismissed.

Complainant in the case had acted in his dual capacity as complainant and Investigating Officer, while prosecution witness was his sub­ordinate

Two co-accused who were also tried by the same court, were acquitted in the same judgment by disbelieving evidence of the complainant and the witnesses against them and that position was intact as no appeal against acquittal had been filed by the department

Accused was cross-examined by the Special Public Prosecutor, but no material point was collected by the prosecution from cross-examination of accused

Evidence of defence witnesses also supported the version of accused about his false implication by the complainant

Accused took efforts to establish his innocence, but defence plea of accused was not considered by the Trial Court and he was convicted

Accused having been fully established to have been falsely implicated by the complainant at the instance of one with whom accused had dispute, his conviction could not be sustained and same was set aside.

F.I.R. had alleged that accused a woman was apprehended and 5 Kgs of charas was alleged to have been recovered from her possession and that she was apprehended by complainant party on the pointation of co-accused who during the course of interrogation alleged that she had purchased the narcotics from the accused

Accused, in circumstances was in custody for the last more than 8 months; and trial had not been con­cluded

Accused in circumstances was entitled to bail under fifth Proviso of S.497, Cr. P. C.

Accused having made out a case for grant of bail, she was granted bail, in circumstances.

Applicant had neither given any plausible or justifiable reasons for delay in filing appeal, nor had explained delay of each day

Appellant having not been able to make out a case for condoning the delay in filing of the appeal, appeal and application for condonation of delay were dismissed.

Police allegedly recovered nine plastic bags containing charas weighing nine maund and seven Kgs. from the truck in the shape of 358 slabs

Accused were apprehended from the truck in question, and Mashirnamas of arrest and recovery were prepared and one slab from each plastic bag was taken as sample and sealed separately

Weight of each slab was not mentioned in the F.I.R. in such a. situation accused could not be held responsible for the whole consignment of charas, even if the Chemical Examiner's report was positive

Mitigating circumstance, in the present case, was available with defence for lesser punishment as prosecution had failed to bring on record any document to show that accused were involved in such-like cases previously

Chance should be given to accused persons to rehabilitate themselves and to pass a good life in future

Mitigating circumstances in the case had suggested that accused were entitled to be awarded lesser punishment

Sentence and conviction awarded to accused by the Trial Court, was altered from life imprisonment to R.I. for 14 years and sentence of fine was also altered from Rs.500,000 to Rs.100,000 each.

Accused had placed at the mercy of the court and stated that he would not press his appeal and requested that maintaining his conviction, his sentence be reduced to one already undergone

Accused had contended that he was first offender and being the only bread earner of the family, deserved a lenient view

Jail roll showed that accused had served out more than 12 years including remission

State Counsel had no objection in case the conviction of accused was maintained and sentence was reduced to already undergone

Accused had served out substantive sentence of three years, eight months and eight days and had earned remission of eight years, two months and two days, which made the total served out period of more than twelve years

Seven bundles of charas weighing 1 Kg each was recovered from accused and each bundle contained number of rods, but only 10 grams were taken from each packet for chemical analysis

Accused being first offender had repented

Taking lenient view, while maintaining the conviction, sentence of accused was reduced to one already undergone and remitted the fine.

"Charas" weighing 1100 grams in the shape of different pieces was allegedly recovered from the possession of accused, out of which 200 grams were separated for chemical analysis

F.I.R. did not disclose whether the sample was taken from each piece of narcotic substance or not

Even the shape, size and number of pieces of the alleged contraband were not disclosed in the F.I.R.

Under the law even at bail stage amount of narcotic taken as sample and not the entire recovered lot, would be taken into consideration

Punishment under section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, having been provided on the basis of quantum of recovered narcotics, prosecution was obliged to prove the entire recovered lot as narcotics

Slight change in the quantity of substance could affect very seriously the life of human being

Allegation of prosecution in respect of recovery of a specific substance, therefore, was to be checked very strictly and to be proved beyond doubt

Case against accused at this stage apparently fell under section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and his guilt needed further inquiry, as the entire recovered substance was yet to be proved as narcotic at the trial

Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.

When evidence of the plaintiff was partly recorded, defendant moved an application wherein he offered that if the plaintiff and his son took oath before court, placing their hands on Holy Qur'an that disputed shop was not sold by the plaintiff in 1974 and no sale consideration was received by the plaintiff from defendant, then defendant would have no objection on passing decree in favour of the plaintiff

Trial Court recorded statements of the parties, and oath was administered; and in consequence suit was decreed

On filing appeal by the defendant, Appellate Court, set aside judgment and decree of the Trial Court and remanded case for trial and decision on merit

Appellate Court was of the opinion that oath was not administered according to the offer

Validity

Trial Court had properly performed the duty of recording statements of the parties

Parties also, during the period intervening between the application of defendant for oath and actual oath taken, had sufficient opportunity to cool mindedly contemplate over the offer and acceptance

None of them could resile from their considered decision to get the case decided on oath

Oath in the case was taken exactly in accordance with offer made and explained in the statement of the defendant

Since the offer of oath extended by the defendant was accepted by the plaintiff and his son and oath was taken in open court exactly according to the demand, it was binding on the defendant

Judgment of Appellate Court was violative of settled law

Defendant had to face the result of his offer and the consequent oath taken by the plaintiff as law did not allow defendant to resile therefrom

Appellate Court could not appreciate and apply law in disposal of appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court

Impugned judgment of the Appellate Court, was set aside and that of the Trial Court was restored.

Counsel for the plaintiffs had contended that they be granted one opportunity to lead entire evidence subject to payment of reasonable costs and counsel for defendant agreed to the proposition, subject to the condition that the suit be expeditiously decided

With concurrence of the counsel for the parties, the judgments and decrees passed by the Trial Court and Appellate Court were set aside subject to payment of costs to the defendant

Parties were granted one opportunity to conclude entire evidence and suit would be decided on merits, in accordance with law expeditiously.

Plaintiff sought declaration to the effect that she was exclusive owner of the suit land and that defendant, who was her sister had transferred her share to the plaintiff by oral sale and exchange

Defendant hotly contested the suit

Special attorney and son of plaintiff appeared in court and proposed that in case son of defendant appearing in the court would take oath on Holy Quran that he did not receive amount from the defendant in relation to transfer of the suit land to her as part payment, suit of the plaintiff be dismissed and in case son of defendant refused to take oath, the suit be decreed

Son/general attorney of defendant accepted said offer and on taking his oath, suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed

First appeal filed by the plaintiff was allowed by the Appellate Court and setting aside dismissal order, remanded the case for deciding the suit after recording evidence of the parties on merits

Validity

Son/attorney of plaintiff had competently made offer as he was duly authorized in special power of attorney executed in his favour

Appellate Court below, however, had correctly stated that statement made by son of defendant was not in accord with offer made by the attorney of the plaintiff

Haste with which the Trial Court proceeded, was evident from the fact that it failed to note that the statement of son/attorney of the defendant was not in accord with the offer made by the attorney and son of the plaintiff.

Agreement regarding which permission was sought to produce witness, was produced by the defendant herself in evidence before the Trial Court; it was her duty to prove said document by producing said witness in the Trial Court

No body had objected to or challenged the production of said witness in the Trial Court

If by option an omission was made by a litigant, it could not be permitted to be rectified through additional evidence under O. XLI, R.27, C.P.C.

Such was a case which could squarely be treated to be one of filling of lacunas left in the trial.

Plot in question was initially a residential plot which was converted into commercial plot on the basis of notification, whereby the whole road had been declared commercial

Plaintiffs assailed commercializing of plot and construction of Compressed Natural Gas station over the same

Validity

Plot in question was situated in a known residential area and was converted into commercial plot for using the same for Compressed Natural Gas filling station

Bye-laws Nos. 3 and 7 of Karachi Town Planning Regulations and Change of Land Use and Master Planning Bye-laws, 2003, provided for publication of advertisement in two different newspapers and holding of open Katchary by Union Council and plot changed for commercial purpose was not be permitted to be used for storage of dangerous inflammable matters, or other dangerous articles

Compressed Natural Gas Station was allowed to be installed in violation of bye-laws Nos.3 and 7 of Karachi Town Planning Regulations and Change of Land Use and Master Planning Bye-laws, 2003 and it was sufficient to hold that plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case and balance of inconvenience was also in their favour and if Compressed Natural Gas Station was allowed to be operated the only sufferers would be the residents of the area

Application for grant of injunction was allowed in circumstances.

Land in question fell within the ambit of Katchi abadi as such declaration sought by plaintiff in his suit in any way could not be granted

Plaintiff himself did not possess any legal character over property in dispute as required- under S.42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877, to claim ownership, unless the same had been allotted to him by government under the provisions of Sindh Katchi Abadis Act, 1987

Suit filed by plaintiff was not maintainable and the same was rejected

Application was allowed accordingly.

Said objection was resisted by the plaintiff on the ground that documents pertaining to the suit property having been sought to be declared as Benamidar, Art.120 of Limitation Act, 1908 would be applicable in the case

Validity

Limitation being a mixed question of law and fact, required evidence

Objection was ruled out by High Court subject to all just exceptions and case was directed to be admitted for hearing the objection.

Plaintiffs had claimed that suit land fell in their sole ownership and occupation of their forefathers by way of private partition and alleged that they were in possession of suit land as owners and that entries of Revenue Record as owners in the name of defendant be declared illegal and liable to he corrected in favour of plaintiffs

Both the Trial Court and Appellate Court had dismissed the suit for want of evidence

Validity

Plaintiffs filed documents which were thirty years old

Said documents though were not registered documents, but they carried presumption of truth as Article 100 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 was applicable in the case as said documents were produced from proper custody in evidence

Said documents had been written on stamp papers in `Dogra Regime', containing no forgery in their recital

Document in question appeared to be genuine, there should have been no hesitation for the court to presume the said document as genuine document being 30 years old

Evidence produced by the defendants, was not supporting their claim and same could not inspire confidence

Impugned judgments concurrently passed by the courts below, were set aside and decree in favour of plaintiff was granted as prayed for in original suit.