Relevance

According to Section 5 of the Act, a right of pre-emption arises in the case of a sale, which, as defined in Section 2(d) of the Act, refers to a permanent transfer of ownership of immovable property in exchange for valuable consideration

However, this definition explicitly excludes situations where agricultural lands are exchanged for purposes of better management

While the law of pre-emption can be evaded through lawful means, there is nothing inherently illegal about executing an exchange when a vendee or buyer fears that a straightforward sale in his favour might be pre-empted.

While courts are inclined towards deciding matters on merits rather than technicalities, this principle does not override statutory limitations unless compelling justification is shown; otherwise, limitation law would be rendered otiose and the principle of finality of adjudication defeated.

Mere assertion of a party that a document being a thirty years old document cannot be accepted as gospel truth unless its contents are duly proved by the beneficiary in accordance with law, particularly when the same is denied by the opposite party.

Briefly, petitioner filed a constitutional petition challenging an order whereby his name was placed on the Passport Control List (PCL) and dismissed his review application

Petitioner's name had been placed on the PCL in connection with a criminal case, on the premise that he was not joining investigation, whereas it was undisputed that the petitioner had appeared before the competent court and had been granted bail

Issue requiring determination before the High Court was "whether, in the circumstances of the case, mere registration of a criminal case and an apprehension of non-appearance could lawfully justify the placement or continued retention of a citizen's name on the PCL under R.22(2)(b) of the Passports Rules, 2021, particularly when the accused was already on bail?"

Held: Petitioner was on pre-arrest bail, and this legal status carried the presumption that he was cooperating with the investigation and trial

Right to freedom of movement was a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution, and any restriction on liberty had to satisfy the test of procedural fairness

The inclusion of a citizen's name on the PCL, particularly, under R.22(2)(b) of the Rules, constituted a serious interference with this right and could not be left to the unstructured and unchecked discretion of the executive authorities

Mere involvement in a criminal case was insufficient to justify a restriction on international travel, especially when the accused was admitted to bail by a competent court

Contention raised by the law enforcement authorities that the trial was underway and the petitioner might not appear on dates of hearing before the Trial Court, therefore, his name had to remain on the PCL, was inherently flawed inasmuch as such reasoning undermined the entire concept of bail

Once a person had been granted bail, the legal presumption was that he was not fleeing justice

Impugned order was set aside and respondent authorities were directed to remove petitioner's name from the PCL

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Facts: Applicant company filed application under S. 6 of the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011 for recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award made by China International Economic and Trade Administration Commission (CIETAC), arising from agreements between the parties containing an arbitration clause

Respondent resisted enforcement on objections including limitation, alleged procedural impropriety under CIETAC rules, and competency/authority of the person instituting proceedings

Issue: "Whether the CIETAC award was liable to be recognized, made rule of Court, and executed as a decree under the 2011 Act, despite the above-mentioned respondent's objections?"

Held: There was no cavil articulated to the arbitration agreement and / or award qualifying within the parameters of section 1 of the Act, 2011

It was also undenied that the respondent had failed in its challenge to the award before the Beijing Fourth Intermediate Peoples Court

The crux of the respondent's defense was that the present proceedings were barred by limitation; per Art. 178 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908

The Act, 2011 came into force on 19.07.2011

Section 1 thereof demonstrates that it is to encompass arbitration agreements made before, on or after the said date and covered foreign arbitral awards made post 14.07.2005

Therefore, any qualifying arbitration agreement, irrespective of date of execution thereof, culminating in an award made after 14.07.2005 could be recognized and enforced

Retrospective nature of the Act, 2011 had been recognized and given effect to

Even otherwise, the provision under reference prescribed a period of limitation for filing of an award per the Arbitration Act, 1940 and had no discernible nexus with enforcement under the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011

The validity of the proceedings had been adequately addressed and since no reference was made to the relevant record, therefore, no occasion arose to displace and / or distinguish the pertinent deliberations and the findings

The documentation demonstrating the power and authority of the person filing the present proceedings, power of attorney etc., could not be impeached before the High Court

Irrespective of the internal management rule, maintained by the Supreme Court time and time again, the documentation annexed was found to be adequate for its intended purpose

No infirmity with the arbitration agreement and / or the award could be identified, within the mandate of Art. V of the New York Convention

The foreign arbitral award was recognized as binding and enforceable against the respondent company, hence made rule of Court

The applicant was granted judgment in the amount mentioned in the award, which was to be executed as a decree of the High Court

Application filed per S. 6 of the Act, 2011 was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused questioning locus standi of the victim by taking a plea that complaint concerned only office management issues and did not amount to sexual harassment

Relevance

Ambit and sphere of 'sexual harassment'

Harassment, when manifested through sexually demeaning attitudes, is fundamentally aimed at degrading and dehumanizing an individual by subjecting them to exploitation, humiliation, and hostility grounded in their gender

Such conduct constitutes a form of gender-based discrimination

When these attitudes are exhibited within the workplace, they cross the threshold into actionable harassment, as they interfere with the victim's ability to perform professional duties and create an environment that is intimidating, hostile, or offensive

The resultant atmosphere not only undermines individual dignity, but also corrodes the institutional culture meant to uphold equality and respect

Definition of harassment has been expanded to include physical and discriminatory behaviour which also testifies to the purposive meaning of S. 2(h) of the Act, 2010

The purpose of harassment laws is to address gender-based discrimination at the workplace and not to limit it to sexual forms of harassment, which includes a broad range of conduct and behavior, resulting in workplace problems with serious consequences, one of the main being gender inequality.

Suit for specific performance instituted by the petitioner was dismissed by the trial as well as appellate courts concurrently

Contention of the petitioner was that since the scribe of the document had been produced, therefore, requirement of Arts. 17 and 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahdat, 1984 (Order) had been fulfilled

Validity

Out of four witnesses to the document only one attesting witness was produced, who too was disbelieved by the courts below and there was no explanation for non-production of the other marginal witnesses

Mandatory requirement of Art. 79 of the Order had not been met as such document could not be proved nor could the petitioner produce admissible or credible evidence to prove the existence of any bargain of sale between the parties or about the payment for consideration, thus, the opinion of expert even if brought on record could not serve any purpose as a substitute for the mandatory requirements of law of evidence

Testimony of the scribe could not be equated with that of an attesting witness as both of them had signed the document in different capacities and with a different state of mind and such scribe did not meet the requirement of Art. 79 of the Order

Adverse presumption under Art. 129(g) of the Order against the person intending to prove the document had to be drawn against the petitioner

Petitioner could not make out any case for interference in the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below and the findings of the courts below were based on correct analysis and appreciation of evidence

Civil revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Although the petitioner was found involved during police investigation but it is settled law that ipse dixit of the police regarding the guilt or innocence of an accused could not be depended upon as the same would be determined by Trial Court on the basis of evidence available on record

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed and petitioner was admitted to bail.

When car was not found for attachment, the petitioner was directed to produce said vehicle, failing which, Robkar was directed by the Executing Court to be issued to the concerned In-charge Anti Car Lifting Cell for locating whereabouts of said car and to take over possession thereof

Later, not only concerned SHO was directed to produce said car, but warrants of attachment of another owned car were also issued

Petitioner / judgment-debtor agitated the mode and procedure adopted by the Executing Court for satisfaction of the decree

Validity

Conduct of the petitioner was very much relevant in the controversy in hand

Decree involved maintenance allowance of petitioner's own kids and pertained to the year 2012 but he had not bothered to satisfy the same on his own, rather he had been consistenly made efforts to frustrate execution proceedings to avoid satisfaction thereof

Petitioner time and again choose to set in field tactics to handicap proceedings conducted for auction of his immoveable property and had not even hesitated to put up every effort for bringing even custody of his attached vehicles in absolute disguise

Thereafter, the Executing Court initiated process for attachment and auction of his aforementioned immoveable property and vehicles

Said circumstances existing in the present case lead to an irresistible conclusion that the petitioner was capable of satisfying the subject decree, but he deliberately and intentionally was avoiding to do so, forcing even his own kids to starve

Person showing such a callous attitude, in particular, towards discharge of his parental obligation was not entitled for any discretionary relief and so was the case with a person who himself was not ready to follow and comply with the law

Executing Court was justified to pass the orders which were rightly maintained by the Appellate Court

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Evidence of a Notary Public was not relevant for proof of execution of a contract of sale/agreement as the same was not required by any law to be verified by a Notary Public.

When a counsel submits affidavit mentioning the reason of non-appearance, it must be given due weight by the Courts /Commission and it is presumed that the same is based on true facts

Affidavit of the counsel alone is sufficient to accept the plea of the counsel, particularly when the record fully supports the version taken in the affidavit.

Qatl-i-amd, tazir after waiver or compounding of right of qisas in qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Co-accused was acquitted on same set of evidence

Relevance

Accused were charged that they in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of the deceased and caused injuries to a female by means of hatchet blows and throttling on the allegation of siyahkari

Record showed that the co-accused had been acquitted by the trial Court, though he was armed with hatchet at the time of incident

Trial Court had failed to assign cogent reasons for convicting the accused on same set of evidence

If a witness was found lying in respect of a particular matter regarding the same incident, rest of his/her statement regarding the same incident would not be believed, as criminal jurisprudence rested on the principle falsus in uno falsus in omnibus

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

Prosecution case was that 78 kilograms charas and 08 kilograms heroin were recovered from the possession of accused persons

Defence objected that the pleas of the accused persons were never signed by them and that they had never made any plea before the Trial Court

Validity

Presumption of truth was attached with the record kept and maintained by the Court

Not obtaining signature or thumb-impression of the accused persons over defence plea did not tantamount to an illegality that would vitiate the trial and the same was even otherwise curable under S. 535, Cr.P.C.

Had the plea been of guilty, prejudice would have been caused to the accused persons which would not have been curable under S. 535, Cr.P.C., as the same meant an admission of all the facts furnished by the prosecution, however the plea of not guilty did not prejudice the case of the accused persons in any manner

Circumstances established that the prosecution succeeded in proving its case against the accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was accordingly dismissed.

For effective administration of criminal justice, it was most important that prosecution was allowed a meaningful opportunity to carry out and conclude the investigative process, as apart from readily available evidence in the aftermath of an incident, it may find incriminatory material that may possibly become available pursuant to disclosures in custody.

Test to be essentially applied in one case may absolutely be irrelevant in another, as the crimes were seldom committed in identical situations

Criminal cases were to be decided on their peculiar facts and circumstance as such the rules laid down in earlier cases could not be applied in subsequent cases in an 'omnibus' manner.

Abscondence of accused is a relevant fact and can be used as corroborative piece of evidence but such fact cannot be read in isolation, as the same had to be read along with substantive piece of evidence.

Murderous assault as defined in S. 324, P.P.C. drew no anatomical distinction between vital or non-vital parts of human body

Once the triggered was pressed and the victim was effectively targeted, "intention or knowledge" as contemplated by S. 324, P.P.C. was manifested

Course of a bullet was not controlled or steered by assailant's choice nor could he claim any premium (at bail stage) for poor marksmanship.

Plea on behalf of father that the mother lived with her parents and was financially dependent on them, therefore, presumably she was not able to support the minor

Held, that such presumption was contrary to law since the father was legally obliged to maintain his child

Poverty on the part of a lady was no ground to disentitle her from the custody of minor

Supreme Court directed the father to immediately and peacefully hand over the minor girl to her mother

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.

Grant of leave is not a matter of course or right, rather the defendant has to show/disclose a plausible defence, which may give rise to a triable issue and if he succeeds then leave to defend is to be granted unconditonally

Plausible defence which gives rise to triable issue must be cogent, fair, bona fide, reasonable and disclosed upon an affidavit

Court at the time of determining the factor of plausible defence, has to consider substantial question of law, jurisdiction of court, complex question of limitation, instrument not properly stamped or not attested by two witnesses or the same is issued without consideration or element of fraud requiring inquiry

Leave may be rfused and suit be decreed if plausible defence is not made out

Conduct of defendant is very much relevant in granting or refusing leave to appear and defend the suit.

Petitioner assailed order of Trial Court whereby it, during the course of trial in complaint case, sustained the objection of the complainant and refused to allow the petitioner to put a specific question regarding the first version of accused to investigating officer

First version of accused recorded immediately after the occurrence was relevant in view of Art. 27 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

First version of the accused was the only material which could be brought on record during the course of trial

Answer of question put to investigating officer regarding first version of the accused was available as documentary evidence, which was otherwise admissible and could be taken into consideration by the Trial Court while passing final judgment

Trial Court was not justified in declining the petitioner to put question to Investigating officer with regard to the first version of accused

Trial Court was directed to allow the petitioner to put the question

Petition was allowed, accordingly.

Evidence of expert is weak type of evidence and is only confirmatory or explanatory of direct or circumstantial evidence

Confirmatory evidence cannot be given preference when confidence inspiring evidence is available.

Recovery of Kalashnikov and positive report of Firearms Expert was relevant in circumstances.

List of different criminal cases registered against the accused and his co-accused persons was placed on record by the complainant

Supreme Court observed that it was only seized of the present bail application filed by the accused and the effect/impact of the previous criminal record against accused and his co-accused was not relevant for disposing of the present bail petition

Accused was granted bail accordingly.

Weapon of offence was recovered soon after the occurrence, from the possession of accused who was present at the place of occurrence

Defense had not disputed the recovery of crime weapon from his possession soon after the commission of crime

Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

Qatl-i-amd, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender, common intention

Appreciation of evidence

Recovery of weapon of offence

Relevance

Eight empty shells with a bullet's lead of TT pistol were recovered from the place of occurrence and weapon of offence (pistol) was recovered from the house of accused

Recovery witness stated that pistol was produced by the accused from his bed and other inmates of house also resided there

Question arose as to why police did not search the house of accused from the date of his arrest till the recovery of the pistol which was lying on his bed was not removed by any other inmates of the house

Recovery of pistol, which was not hidden in any secret place, but from room of a jointly owned house, on the pointation of accused was not free from doubt

Record showed that pistol and crime empties were sent to firearm expert after the delay of one and half years

Said delay had not been explained by the prosecution, which cast serious doubt in the prosecution case

Recovered pistol and empties were sent together, which destroyed the prosecution case

Report of firearm expert, in circumstances, was of no avail to the prosecution

Recovery witness deposed that he had no knowledge that who pointed out the place of recovery

Said witness stated that brother-in-law of the deceased was accompanying them but said person was not cited as witness

Circumstances established that alleged recovery was not free from doubt, benefit of which would resolve in favour of accused

Accused were acquitted in circumstances by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by Trial Court.

Report of Forensic Science Laboratory showed that recovered 30-bore crime empties were not fired from the pistol, which was recovered from the possession of accused

Such recovery of weapon of offence was of no avail

Conviction and sentence recorded by Trial Court were set aside in circumstances.

Petitioners contended that under Art. 156 of the Limitation Act, 1908 period of limitation for setting aside an ex-parte decree would be reckoned from the date of drawing decree sheet

Respondent/decree holder contended that application of petitioners to set aside ex-parte decree was time barred

Validity

Principle envisaged under Art. 164 of Limitation Act, 1908 was that the period for filing an application to set aside an ex-parte decree by a defendant, would be 30 days and same would be reckoned from the date of decree or where the summons was not duly served then from the date of knowledge of the decree of the applicant

In the present case, predecessor in interest of petitioners, was not only served in accordance with law, but one of the present petitioners also appeared but did not contest the suit, thereafter, case was remanded by High Court

Admitted fact alleged by petitioners themselves was that they had been litigating inter se the same property, whereby, same decree had obtained and did not opt to contest the suit

Act and omission of petitioners spoke loudly that they were vigilant with regard to the matter being sub-judice before a competent court of law

Contention of petitioners that the formal decree sheet had been drawn up at later stage and the period of limitation would be reckoned from the date of signing formal decree sheet was misconceived

Limitation provided under Art. 156 of the Limitation Act, 1908 for the propose of appeal, the principle could not be extended to an application under O. IX, R. 13, C.P.C., as in filing appeal a copy of decree and judgment was mandatory to be annexed with the memorandum of appeal and without filing attested copy of decree, appeal could not be treated as competent

No such provision existed to the effect that copy of decree would be annexed with application under O. IX, R. 13, C.P.C. by defendant to set aside an ex-parte decree

No time was prescribed for signing a decree, in view of O. XX R. 7, C.P.C. the decree would bear the date, the day on which the judgment was pronounced

Defendant, irrespective of the fact that whether any decree had been drawn up in accordance with O. XX, R. 6, C.P.C., would move application for setting aside ex-parte decree within prescribed period under Art. 164 of Limitation Act, 1908 and would not wait till formal decree was drawn up, as it was not the requirement of law, to annex attested copy of the decree with application under O. IX R. 13, C.P.C.

As far as the date of decree was concerned, irrespective of the fact, when the decree was signed, it would be construed to have been signed on the day the judgment was pronounced and the period of limitation would be reckoned for the purpose of application under O. IX R. 13, C.P.C., from the date of decree and not from the date of formal drawing up the decree sheet

Parties to the suit, in the present case, were close relatives, therefore, it could not be presumed that they were not aware of the suit

Moreover, predecessor in interest of petitioners was present in the High Court when case was remanded

Application of the petitioners under O. IX R. 13, C.P.C., was time barred by a delay of more or less than seven years

Revision petition was dismissed accordingly.

Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing shajjah-i-khafifah, causing shajjah-i-mudihah, house trespass in order to commit offence and for hurts, rioting armed with deadly weapons, criminal intimidation and keeping and displaying arms

Appreciation of evidence

Appeal against acquittal

Blood-stained clothes

Relevance

Blood-stained clothes of the injured, father of complainant and blood stained piece of bed linen used by the injured had been chemically examined, which was positive

Said report also confirmed that the occurrence took place inside the house, which had provided reasonable corroboration to the case of prosecution against the accused

Appeal against acquittal was allowed accordingly.

Finding of innocence by police had no force as investigating officer deposed that twenty three persons appeared for defence of accused but did not record their statement

Accused was arrested after five years of the occurrence

Such circumstances suggested that accused was guilty

Finding of police about innocence of accused had no evidentiary value as same was recorded without any solid material

Opinion of the police was not binding upon the court

Appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Appeal was allowed and conviction and sentence awarded to the accused by the Trial Court were set aside.

Recovery of car, mobile phones, copy of I.D. card, copy of driving licence and copy of registration book were effected at the instance of accused were inconsequential

Both the accused were not owner of the place from where the said recoveries were effected

Circumstances suggested that joint recovery of car and other things belonging to the deceased could not be taken into consideration against the accused, being unimportant

Appeal was allowed in circumstances and conviction and sentence recorded by Trial Court were set aside.

Applicant's involvement in the case, notwithstanding his role attributed in FIR, had been held dubious during two investigations, result of which remained the same

Opinion of investigating officer did not bind court in any manner but its efficacy might tentatively be glanced at by taking into account material collected during course of investigation

Accused had established his plea of alibi through oral witnesses

Investigating officer had verified plea of alibi both on merits and on special oath

Nothing was recovered from accused during physical remand

Accused was no more needed by police for recovery

Sufficient reasons existed to believe that his case had constituted need for further probe into his guilt

Bail application was accepted accordingly.

Petitioner filed present petition for recovery of his wife alleging that they had married with their free will but against consent of her parents

Petitioner was living with his wife when her parents, with help of respondents including SHO, had forcibly taken his wife away and hidden her at some unknown place against her will

Respondents, having been directed by High Court to produce his wife the alleged detainee, but petitioner claimed that produced lady was not his wife

High Court directed the Inspection Team of High Court to verify identification of said girl from NADRA and to produce relevant record of NADRA regarding blood-relations of said girl and also to produce actual detainee and in case of failure in finding actual detainee to register criminal case against respondents and SHO under Ss. 365-B & 302, P.P.C. along with other provisions for attempt to misguide court by producing someone else instead of alleged detainee

Respondents eventually produced alleged detainee who admitted herself to be wife of petitioner but preferred her custody to be handed over to her father

Respondents were directed to hand-over custody of detainee to her father after execution of personal bond by him to ensure her safety

Police officials were directed to provide legal protection to petitioner

Constitutional petition was disposed off accordingly.

If alleged offence was punishable with imprisonment or fine or both, court, while examining the question of bail, was to consider the minimum aspect of the sentence i.e. fine, provided for the alleged offence in the Schedule.

Medical Board constituted by the Chairman, Admission Board, in the present case, found that disability of respondent-candidate was not of a category so as to make him eligible for admission on the reserved seat, despite the fact that he had submitted the certificate of his disability

Validity

Relevant Rules and Regulations for seats reserved for disabled candidates provided that candidate applying for such seat was required to attach a certificate from a specialist working in a Government hospital regarding the disability, however the Medical Board constituted by the Chairman Admission Board would make the final decision about the eligibility of the candidate for admission on the seat reserved for disabled students

Decision of the Medical Board in such regard was final

Medical Board, in the present case, found that the respondent-candidate did not qualify for the category of reserved seats for disabled candidates, and according to the relevant rules and regulations such decision of the Medical Board was final

Appeal was allowed accordingly with the observation that rules, regulations and criteria were to be interpreted by the University authorities itself and the Courts should avoid interpreting same.

Only fine was provided as punishment for commission of offence in terms of Ss. 69 & 70 of Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010

Labour Court had to conduct quasi-judicial criminal proceedings for implementation of the provisions of Ss.69 & 70 of the Act, and the same procedure had been adopted by the Trial Court/Labour Court in the present case

Definition of 'criminal breach of trust' as provided under S.405, P.P.C. was also relevant to further understand the charge leveled against the accused

Offences of misappropriation/embezzlement and criminal breach of trust contained the element of mens rea as the integral ingredient of the offences

Allegations against the accused was that he along with the Finance Secretary of the Union issued two cheques and deposited the same in his own account and thus deprived the Union of its valuable property/cash

Finance Secretary had deposed during the cross-examination that he had issued and deposited the disputed cheques in the account of the accused for the reason that the accused, being the Pattern-in-Chief, would incur the expenses of the Union

Accused also deposed that the disputed cheques had been deposited in his personal account, as he used to bear the expenses of the Union from his own pocket and later on amount thus spent was transferred to his account or otherwise reimbursed

Record also showed that at the relevant time when both the cheques had been issued there was a requirement for the payment of fee of an advocate for initiation of certain proceedings before certain authorities

Trial Court/Labour Court had the jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint under Ss.69 & 70 of the Act

Trial Court, applying its judicial mind, had reached the conclusion that the accused had not committed the offence

Labour Appellate Tribunal, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, could not reach at another conclusion, as the present case was not an appeal against acquittal

Revision petition was dismissed accordingly.

Accused, during his statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C., had admitted that he was part of the unlawful assembly with specific role

Statement of the accused recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C. could have been taken into consideration, when the occurrence was unseen one.

Field General Court Martial, convened at 'Karachi', convicted the petitioner/accused and sentenced him to punishments, including death penalty

Court of Appeal at 'Rawalpindi' rejected the appeal against the same, and the mercy petition filed against the same before the Chief of Army Staff had met the same fate

Petitioner challenged the conviction and sentences through constitutional petition and contended that both Sindh High Court as well as Rawalpindi Bench of Lahore High Court had concurrent jurisdiction in the matter

Validity

Authority of the High Court to judicially review the vires of an act or proceedings taken in connection with the affairs of the Federation, within its territorial jurisdiction, could not be doubted; however, the constitutional arrangement contemplated under Art.199 of the Constitution were to be faithfully observed in order to uphold the principle of judicial comity and harmony

In order to determine the question of territorial jurisdiction, the 'dominant purpose' behind recourse to law was to be taken into consideration

'Dominant purpose' that brought the petitioner before High Court (Rawalpindi Bench) was repudiation of a judgment originally rendered within the territorial limits of Sindh High Court and the proceedings drawn up subsequent thereto were in continuation thereof

Impugned conviction and sentences awarded to the petitioner had been returned by a Tribunal convened in the Province of Sindh; therefore, mere affirmation of the same by a functionary at Rawalpindi would not take the petitioner's case out of the territorial jurisdiction of Sindh High Court to be concurrently dealt with by some other High Court, as the Court of Appeals or office of the Chief of Army Staff were not place-specific, designated under the law

Provisions of C.P.C. were although applicable in writ proceedings, nonetheless, in criminal matters, arrangements envisaged under Chaps. II & XV of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 could not be lost sight of, which provided ordinary place of inquiry and trial of offences as well as forums to a convict

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Visual aspects are of seminal importance, which means that when someone looks at one design and then looks at the second design, and if he gets confused and it becomes hard for him to make a distinction between the two designs, then S. 3(2) of Registered Designs Ordinance, 2000 kicks in

For S. 3(2) of Registered Designs Ordinance, 2000 to be applicable, the complete and overall impression that stays in the intending purchaser's mind when he looks at the two designs is critical.

Plaintiff/wife after dissolution of marriage, along with minor son, filed suit for recovery of maintenance, recovery of dower amount and dowry articles

Family Court passing order under S. 17-A of Family Courts Act, 1964 fixed interim maintenance of minor

Defendant filed application and later Constitutional petition for modification of said interim order, which were dismissed

Family Court decreed the suit for non-compliance of said interim order of maintenance

Defendant took plea that trial court had not considered his financial position while fixing maintenance

Validity

Family Court under S. 17-A of Family Courts Act, 1964 was empowered to grant interim maintenance and in case of non-compliance of interim order, court might struck off defence of defendant and also pass final decree

Under S. 17-A of Family Courts Act, 1964, right of defendant as to further adjudication of question of maintenance was contingent right subject to fulfilment of contingency of S. 17-A

If defendant desired to contest suit, he was required to comply with interim order passed by Family Court under S.17-A of Family Courts Act, 1964

Plaintiff had specifically stated in plaint all expenses being incurred by her family on minor and quantum of income being earned by defendant

Claim or allegation of fact in plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implications in written statement, would be taken to have been admitted by defendant

As averments made in plaint as to income of defendant had not been denied by him either specifically or by necessary implication, the same were, deemed to have been admitted

Conduct of defendant (husband) regarding non-payment of interim maintenance was also relevant which showed that he had come to court with unclean hands, as he had not complied with interim order of maintenance

Constitutional jurisdiction of discretionary character could not be invoked as a matter of routine or be used as alternate of appeal or revision

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Court, while dealing with question of bail, should consider the aspect of minimum sentence for the alleged offence as provided in the Schedule.

Precedents in bail matters were of no help to a party, as it varied from case to case depending upon the facts of each case

Court had to examine as to whether accused had made out a case of further inquiry or not.

Scribe of an agreement to sell immoveable property was not a substitute for an attesting witness, and did not legally qualify to be so, therefore, his evidence may have a supportive value, but was neither in line with the mandate of law nor did it meet the test of Art.79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.

Plaintiff filed suit for possession through pre-emption claiming that he was co-sharer in Khasra numbers falling in pre-empted land as well as owner of Khasra numbers adjacent to the pre-empted land

Suit was dismissed on ground for want of proof regarding performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat

Defendant took plea that plaintiff was neither co-sharer nor was he owner of adjacent land

Held the trial Court found that Aks-Shajra Kishtwar produced in evidence showed that plaintiff was owner of contiguous Khasra numbers and defendants' witness admitted him to be co-sharer in Khasra number relating to pre-empted land

Purchaser was totally stranger to the area and nothing was mentioned in pleadings that he was native of the area

Trial court while deciding Talb-e-Muwathibat was persuaded by ignorable and immaterial omissions and contradictions

All plaintiff's witnesses had very clearly established performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat in terms of time, place, mode and manner

Any omission in sequence of events preceding or following Talb-e-Muwathibat on part of plaintiff's witnesses was not fatal to case of plaintiff

Talb-e-Muwathibat had been proved and established in accordance with law

Evidence in civil cases could not be read so as to exclude entire evidence from consideration against plaintiff on basis of slightest omissions or contradictions

Judgment and decree of courts below were set aside and suit of plaintiff was decreed

Revision petition was allowed in circumstances.

Promptly lodged F.I.R., specific role, corroboratory medical evidence, consistent eye-witness account, barbarous nature of crime and other incriminating circumstances together suggested that accused's case was not within scope of further inquiry under S.497(2), Cr.P.C.

Bail application was dismissed.

Returned candidate was cross-examined with questions relating to subjects of his Bachelor's degree to test his mental faculty and knowledge

Returned candidate was unable to answer such questions

Inference

Only inference which could be drawn in such circumstances was that returned candidate was not an able student having enough and required knowledge of the subjects, which he had passed

Election Tribunal was not supposed to assume the role of Controller of Examinations or Chancellor of the University

Secondly, it was common knowledge and a ground reality that sizeable number of people held very important official and unofficial positions in the system on the basis of their educational certificates and professional degrees without knowing the basics of the subjects which they had passed as per their certificate or degree, but it did not mean that they were holding fake degrees

Exercise of testing mental faculty of the returned candidate with reference to the subjects passed by him almost nine years ago could not be carried out nor such exercise would be desirable and permissible under the law

Election petition was dismissed accordingly.

Evidence regarding mental health of donor could devastate the very basis of a gift.

Such observations were not to be considered during trial of the accused.

Plea of accused that at the time of occurrence he was not in the country, which fact was supported by documentary evidence

Validity

Plea of alibi could not be judged at bail stage

Even otherwise police verified that picture of accused at the time of his departure from the country was available but there was no picture of his arrival back in the country

Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that accused was an ex-commando of police department, who knew all modes to save himself

Incident took place on 10-11-2012, and accused failed to explain as to why he went out of the country on 9-11-2012 and returned back on 16-11-2012, however such aspect need not be gone into at bail stage as matter was still under investigation

Accused remained a fugitive from law for almost 95 days after dismissal of bail before arrest by the Trial Court

Ample evidence was available on record to connect accused with the offence alleged, which even otherwise fell within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.

Pre-arrest bail granted to accused was recalled.

Plea of alibi could not be judged at bail stage.