Prerequisites

The obligation of a grandfather to maintain his grandchild is dependent upon two conditions (i) the father of the child must be a poor person who has no financial resources to maintain that child, and (ii) the grandfather of the child must be a person who is financially in easy circumstances

In case either of these conditions is not fulfilled, the grandfather is not under any obligation to maintain his grandchild

A child who claims his maintenance from his grandfather has to prove these two conditions, and the grandfather must be provided with an opportunity to defend the claim made against him by rebutting the existence of either of these two facts

This is the requirement of the fundamental right guaranteed by Art.10A of the Constitution which mandates that for the determination of his civil rights and obligations, a person shall be entitled to a fair trial and due process.

Prior to institution of the suit the plaintiff is mandated to issue a notice under S.8 of the Ordinance, 2002 within the time stipulated in the said provision.

From the contents of the petition, it appeared that in the main suit respondents were not personally served with any process nor preconditions prescribed by Rr. 17, 18 & 19 of O. V of the C.P.C were fulfilled and in a mechanical way an order for service through publication was issued whereafter the ex parte proceedings order was made against respondents

Without diligent and honest compliance with the prerequisites of O. V, Rr. 15 to 19 of the C.P.C and in the absence of any legally admissible report duly attested by witnesses and verified on oath by the process server and without recording the statement of the process server to verify the manner in which the efforts were made for procuring the personal service or a proper declaration by the Court as to why the service in the ordinary mode and manner could not be effected, the passing of an order of substituted service in a mechanical manner had never been encouraged or considered lawful or effective nor such service could be deemed to be legal for all intents and purpose.

No provision of law existed preventing an investigating agency from conducting reinvestigation or even multi-investigations after discharging an accused in earlier investigation

Such is subject to condition that investigator has discovered some new evidence connecting accused with commission of offence which were not in his knowledge during earlier investigation

If investigating agency intends to reinvestigate case, right course is to seek permission form Magistrate or a Court which passed for closure for earlier investigation.

If dispute is between third party on one hand and real owner and benamidar on other hand, then its consideration would lose its importance

Conduct of parties and surrounding circumstances in such a situation, are to be kept in view

To determine whether a transaction was a benami one or not, source of consideration money and possession of title documents are essential elements to determine nature of transaction

Where dispute arose between benamidar and real owner or in case of third party some traits for benami transaction are; (i) source of consideration; (ii) from whose custody original title deed of property is produced and who possesses prior deed by which vendors proved their own title; (iii) who is in possession of property and; (iv) motive for benami transaction

Benami being neither a law nor rule, extreme caution is to be observed when a genuine transaction is to be made in good faith

Said facts are to be taken into consideration to arrive at a just and fair conclusion whether transaction is benami or not.

For purpose of rejection of plaint court needs to confine to contents thereof for purposes of determining if it discloses a cause of action, not barred by law and that it was improperly valued or insufficiently stamped and on being called upon to make up deficiency of definite amount of court-fee if deficiency is not made up.

Unless blood-stained earth or cotton and blood stained clothes of deceased/victim are not sent with same for opinion of serologist to effect that it was human blood and was of same group which was available on clothes of deceased/victim and blood-stained earth/cotton, such inconclusive opinion cannot be used as a piece of corroboratory evidence.

Eye-witnesses cannot corroborate themselves but corroboratory evidence was to come from independent source and be supported by independent witnesses other than eye-witnesses.

Only that action is to be accepted as terrorism which action falls within purview of S. 6(2) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Such action which is committed with a 'design' or 'purpose' specified in S. 6(1)(b) or (c) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 irrespective of gravity of an offence, shocking nature of violence committed or mere fear and insecurity generated or likely to be generated by commission of a brutal, gruesome or heinous act are not to be treated as yardsticks for determining whether action is labeled as 'terrorism' or not.

In order to affect compromise in case of Ta'zir, it must be complete in all respects, otherwise same cannot be considered for purpose of acquittal.

Remedy provided in terms of O.XL, R.1, C.P.C. by its very nature is onerous which is to be exercised providently.

Any unauthorized statement giving illegal benefit to a person if got recorded by counsel against record as well as law, such statement cannot be considered valid/qualified admission in that regard.

Admission must be categorical and undertaken in a clear and express manner.

Evidence of extra judicial confession is a fragile piece of evidence and great care and caution has to be exercised in placing reliance on such a confession

Such confession is always looked at with doubt and suspicion due to ease with which it may be concocted

Legal worth of extra judicial confession was almost equal to naught, keeping in view nature, course of events, human behaviour, conduct and probabilities in ordinary course

Extra judicial confession could be taken as corroborative of charge if it, in first instance, rang true and then found support from other evidence of unimpeachable character

If other evidence lacked such attribution it had to be excluded from consideration

For awarding conviction on basis of extra judicial confession threefold proofs are required i.e., firstly, it was in fact made; secondly, that it was voluntarily made; and thirdly, it was true

Judicial or extra judicial confession could be made sole basis for conviction of an accused if court was satisfied and had believed that it was true and voluntary and was not obtained by torture, coercion or inducement.

Admission, even though if considered to be legal one, is a relevant fact which clearly connotes that admission is not conclusive against party making it

Oral admission as to contents of document is not relevant, unless and until party proposing to prove them shows that he is entitled to give secondary evidence of contents of such document in terms of Art. 35 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 or unless genuineness of document along with contents has been proved.

Admission, even though if considered to be legal one, is a relevant fact which clearly connotes that admission is not conclusive against party making it

Oral admission as to contents of document is not relevant, unless and until party proposing to prove them shows that he is entitled to give secondary evidence of contents of such document in terms of Art. 35 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 or unless genuineness of document along with contents has been proved.

Deputy Collector of Customs provisionally released the goods of appellant and transmitted the goods declaration to the Directorate General of Valuation for determination of value

Deputy Collector of Customs thereafter determined the liability of appellant on the basis of value determined by Assistant Director, Directorate General of Valuation

Appellant filed representation to the Director, Directorate General of Valuation but it was not decided

Appellant thereafter assailed the order of Deputy Collector of Customs before Collector of Customs (Appeals), who dismissed the same on the ground of limitation

Validity

Officer of Customs, for opting provisional assessment of goods under S. 81(1), Customs Act, 1969, must have evidential invoice of higher value of the identical/similar goods, imported from the same country and within the same period as enunciated in R. 107(a) of Customs Rules, 2001

Recourse to provisional assessment could not be made merely on assumption/presumption or opinion that the value of the imported goods did not seem to be fair

Appellate Tribunal held that the Deputy Collector of Customs was not within his right to opt for provisional assessment of the imported goods

Appellate Tribunal set aside the orders passed by officers of customs and allowed the appeal.

Prosecution is required to prove firstly, that accused is absconder; secondly, that court or any Authority or Officer has issued process under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999; thirdly, that accused has absconded with intention to avoid service of such process; and fourthly, manner in which he evaded or avoided service on himself or concealed himself with intention to screen out from proceedings or punishment under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999.

To succeed in action for damages on plea of malicious prosecution one has to establish that he was prosecuted by opposite party; prosecution ended in his favour and opposite party acted without reasonable and probable cause; opposite party was actuated by malice, proceedings had interfered with one's liberty, and that it affected his reputation and he suffered damages on account of such prosecution.

Conviction and acquittal must always be specific with reference to offence because it is never crime number/FIR for which one is tried but offence(s) which accused is claimed to be guilty

Legally every offence has its own ingredients (allegation) as well as consequences thereof

Either charged accused is to be acquitted of every single charged offence else it has to be within competence of court(s) to convict accused for any offence regardless of his acquittal from some of charged offences

Law permits conviction for offence not specifically charged but found proved

Mandatory requirement of a valid judgment (within meaning of section 367 Cr.P.C.) is that acquittal must be with reference to offences while conviction must not only be with reference to offence but must specify section thereof.

Conditions of order being erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue are two limbs of 'erroneous and prejudicial' as envisaged in S. 122(5A) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Such conditions simultaneously coexist, if one limb is missing then proceedings initiated under S. 122(5A) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 becomes null and void.

Prerequisite to exercise such powers is that when delay is apparent in decision of appeal.

Respondent joined the said post and on completion of tenure when the notification of his repatriation was issued, he challenged the said notification before the High Court which was admitted for regular hearing

Validity

Respondent accepted the tenure of the post for three years' period and on completion of his term, when his repatriation process to the parent department was initiated he had come forward to disturb the whole process

Respondent's writ petition was hit by the principle of laches and acquiescence according to the material brought on record by the petitioner and the writ petition in that state of affairs had to be rejected as being devoid of any substance for admission for regular hearing

Respondent/petitioner was duty bound to make out prima facie case and if he failed, the writ petition could be rejected at preliminary stage

Provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 were applicable to the writ proceedings

Appeal was accepted in circumstances.

Peace of mind, purpose and objective of act of divorce had to be made known to the witnesses present at the spot by the husband which were the prerequisites of pronouncing of divorce.

Prerequisites of judgment could be a precise and brief statement of the case; points for determination; findings of the court on each issue and reasons leading to such findings.

Before filing suit to pre-empt the sale, prerequisites were that the plaintiff must perform Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad and thereafter plead the same in the plaint referring therein the notice of Talb-i-Ishhad.

For invoking the provisions of mis-declaration, prima facie, an element of "mens rea" should be present meaning thereby that there should be an attempt of wilful and deliberate false declaration

Importer who had made a correct declaration on bill of entry or opted for first appraisement for determination of correct description, PCT heading of quantity of goods could not be charged for mis-declaration

Consignment was found to contain goods for description other than the one declared falling under separate PCT heading but chargeable to same rate of customs duty, importer, in circumstances, could not be charged for mis-declaration

Case of mis-declaration could not be made when the description of goods was as per declaration but incorrect PCT heading had been mentioned in the bill of entry and there was no change in the rate of customs duty as a result of ascertained PCT heading.

Allegation against the appellant was that he imported ester of Acrylic Acid attracting customs duty, sales tax but with a view to availing inadmissible benefits of zero percent/exemption from customs duty he misdeclared the imported items as Methyl Acrylate

Customs authorities found the appellant guilty of deliberate mis-declaration and passed an order for recovery of exempted amount of customs duty, sales tax and income tax and Collector of Customs (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the appellant

Appellant in filing goods declaration had not made any false statement regarding the description, quantity of the goods

Appellant was not charged with allegation of any collusion by the customs authorities, therefore show-cause notice under S. 32(2) of the Customs Act, 1969 could not be acted upon

Validity

Appellant transmitted goods declaration with the Model Customs Collectorate (MCC) of Pakistan Customs Computerized System (PACCS) containing description "Methyl Acryalate" on the basis of commodity name in letter of credit, invoice, B/L, certificate of origin and he incorporated the said information of the Goods Declaration (GD) under Pakistan Customs Tariff (PCT) heading with the exemption of customs duty, Sales tax on the basis of infield notifications and Income Tax against certificate issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax

Software of the Pakistan Customs Computerized System (PACCS) had been designed by the agility in such a manner that upon receipt of the goods declaration the system co-relates each declaration with the corresponding Pakistan Customs Tariff (PCT) heading, the claimed notifications and the exemption certificate, which were fed therein either by the FBR/Project Director or Commissioner of Income Tax at their own and after finding those in accordance with the declaration the system pass assessment/clearance order in exercise of its inbuilt vested authority, such fact stood validated from examination of the import documents and goods declaration

Appellant had made no misdeclaration in material and invoking the provisions of S. 32 by customs authorities was erroneous in circumstances

Show-cause notice issued to appellant did not remotely hint the submission of any false documents or statement while transmitting goods declaration with the Model Customs Collectorate (MCC) of Pakistan Customs Computerized System (PACCS) or about the collusion with the project official of Pakistan Customs Computerized System (PACCS) rendering the show-cause notice and the subsequent proceeding void ab initio

Order-in-original passed by customs authorities and order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) was set aside

Appeal was allowed.

Where a person claimed that he was a person in government service, he had to establish that he held a post or office in connection with the affairs of the Federation or of a Province and included an All-Pakistan Service.

To constitute an offence under S.489-F, P.P.C., dishonesty on part of the payer was a condition precedent in issuance of a cheque towards repayment of a loan or fulfilment of an obligation

Mere issuance of a cheque and same being dishonoured, by itself was not an offence, unless and until dishonesty on part of the payer was proved.

Only reason for accepting the same was the belief phenomenon of the court of law that a person apprehending death due to injury, caused to him was ordinarily not expected to speak a falsehood

To believe or disbelieve a dying declaration, was left to the ordinary human judgment

Strong, independent and reliable corroborative evidence was required for the sake of safe administration of justice

Relying blindly and without proper scrutiny on such a statement, would be no less dangerous approach on the part of the courts of law.

Petitioner was bound to annex with revision petition, the certified copies of pleadings, complete evidence, orders and judgments/decrees

Non-filing of said documents would render the revision incompetent.

Contention of the defendant was that plaintiff had not mentioned the time of knowledge and place of knowledge in the making of Talb-i-Muwathibat and the same was not mentioned in the notice of Talb-i-Ishhad

Validity

For filing a suit to pre-empt a sale, the pre-requisite was that the plaintiff must plead in his plaint and mention in his notice; the date, time and place of knowledge of impugned sale and then the jumping demand in presence of witnesses in accordance with S.13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991

Findings of the courts below were set aside and suit was dismissed

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

Before passing an order under S.145, Cr.P.C., the Magistrate had to satisfy himself that the dispute between the parties was likely to cause breach of peace and for such satisfaction, he had to record evidence of the parties and without referring to the merits or claims of the parties as to right to possess, he should hear the parties and proceed with the matter in accordance with law

Magistrate should pursue statements of parties, hear the parties and receive all such evidence as might be produced by the parties respectively and take further evidence if necessary and then decide question of possession and treat the party so dispossessed to be in possession of subject property.

For attracting provisions of S.489-F, P.P.C. it had to be shown that cheque was issued; that cheque was issued with dishonest intention; that purpose of issuance of cheque was to repay a loan or to fulfil an obligation, and that cheque was dishonoured on presentation.

Mala fide on part of the police as well as the complainant were prerequisites for grant of extra-ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail.

In order to ensure that identification parade was conducted fairly, it would become the duty of the prosecution to adopt such measures so that identifying witness could not see the accused after commission of crime till the identification parade was held immediately after the arrest of accused persons as early as possible

If role of accused was not described by the witness at identification parade, such type of identification would lose its value and could not be relied upon, if prosecution witnesses had seen the accused before identification parade

Such piece of evidence of identification parade could not be relied upon

Identification at identification parade or in court would be of no use, unless role of each accused in crime was attributed at the very outset

Absence of complete description of dummies at the test of identification parade, without their address, their occupation and without any clue, whether they were fellow prisoners or outsiders, admitted dissimilarity in height, physique, features, complexion, appearance and dress of dummies and accused persons, would render such exercise always open to serious doubts.

Criminal breach of trust, criminal breach of trust by public servant, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged document, abetment, criminal misconduct

Bail on medical ground

Pre-requisites

Correct criteria for grant of bail to an accused in a non-bailable case on medical ground is that the sickness or ailment with which he is suffering is such that it cannot be properly treated within the jail premises and that some specialized treatment is needed and his continued detention in jail is likely to affect his capacity or is hazardous to his life.