Penalties

2020 MLD 1407 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 26 & 33Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10-AFiling of claimsPenaltiesFair trialNon-compliance of the order passed by Consumer CourtScope

Complainant complained that he purchased two breads from a shop and after eating the same at dinner, he felt some pain in his stomach, resultantly, he started vomiting and could not sleep comfortably during the night

Validity

No report of doctor was available on record to ascertain whether actually the complainant had fallen ill on the said date because of eating such breads

Trial Court had issued certain directions to the accused for compliance within thirty days but after almost two months, when the case was fixed for compliance of aforesaid order, Trial Court had issued notice for non-compliance and its reply was ordered to be submitted within one hour, which was quite unjust and improper as well as against the principle of natural justice and in violation of Art.10-A of the Constitution, which provided fair trial

Complainant had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

2020 PCrLJ 1225 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Judicial Precedent

Ss. 8, 9, 10, 22, 29 & 34Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 164, 364, 243 & 103Restriction on hunting, killing or capturing animals in Wildlife ReserveActs restricted in a National ParkRestriction on killing or capturing of Protected or Game animalsControlled hunting areasUnlawful possession of animals, trophies or meatPenaltiesPower to record statements and confessionsExamination of accused how recordedConviction on admission of truth of accusationSearch to be made in presence of witnessesAppreciation of evidenceScopeAccused allegedly got recovered a head of Ibex from his cattle shed

Magistrate had neither properly recorded the confessional statement of accused nor had he certified the statement under the mandatory provisions of S. 364(2), Cr.P.C.

Magistrate was obliged to ask the accused after he had made admission of the charge to show as to why he should not be convicted and sentenced

Purpose of S. 243, Cr.P.C. was to avoid involuntary admission

No independent marginal witness was present at the time of recovery of the head of Ibex

Constitutional petition was allowed and the impugned orders were set aside.

2016 CLD 569 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 17, 18(1) & PreambleConstitution of Pakistan, Arts. 2-A, 9, 14, 199(1)(c) & 247Environmental Protection OrderPenaltiesAdministration of Tribal AreasSecurity of personInviolability of dignity of man etc.

Environmental Protection Agency served notice under S. 17 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Environmental Protection Act, 2014 upon the petitioner and directed him to stop all activities of his Mill immediately

Petitioner challenged the vires of the impugned order on ground that Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Environmental Protection Act, 2014 had not been extended to Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (PATA)

Validity

Petitioner's mill was situated in PATA, and, under Art. 247 of the Constitution, Environmental Protection Act, 2014 had not been extended to PATA, however the break or further non-extension of the environmental laws did not grant licence to any person to threaten the health or life of the locales by his actions/activities

Present case was not only in between the petitioner and the Agency, but the locales of the vicinity had also filed several complaints in that regard

Petitioner's mill was situated in a thickly populated area

Location of the mill showed that public's basic rights were also involved, which was a feature of the environmental assessment

High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 199(1)(c) of Constitution, might grant relief to the extent of stopping the functioning of factories, which created pollution and environmental degradation

Article 9 of the Constitution ensured safety against any attack or danger or apprehension on life of a person

Likelihood of any hazard to life by air pollution that was dangerous to human health and surrounding environment could not be ignored

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2016 PLD 112 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

S. 9(3)PenaltiesScope-Damages under general law-Permissibility

Compensation under Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995, is only to be given in case of unfair trade practice, if the same is proved after holding enquiry by the Authority

Section 9(3) of Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995, however, imposes restriction to award compensation by the Authority only to the extent the consumer has suffered any damage or loss through the act of the unfair trade practice; hence, general damages cannot be awarded rather actually suffered loss or damage is to be considered as measuring factor to award the same only to the consumer

Consumer's right to claim special or any other kind of damages under general law is, therefore, protected, notwithstanding award of the claim by the Authority under Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995, therefore, consumer can file separate claim/suit in the court of general jurisdiction for his relief.

2016 PLD 112 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss. 8 & 9(3)Procedure for disposal of complaintScopePenalties

Authority, while adjudicating upon the complaint under Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995, especially awarding compensation in terms of S.9(3) of the Act, 1995, would conduct enquiry which includes, framing the points of determination/issues, requiring oral evidence or evidence through affidavits, allowing the parties to cross-examine the witnesses and produce documentary evidence, calling for record from any authority, company, office, summoning any expert witness to resolve the technical question of issue related to proposition in hand and principles of, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 had to be applied in essence.

2016 PLD 112 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss. 9(3) & 9(4)PenaltiesCompensation. award ofRequirements

For purposes of compensation, speaking order in terms of Ss 9(3) and 9(4) of Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995 has to be passed, keeping in view the entire pleadings, evidence, documents and technical expert evidence if any.

2007 PTD 2234 CUSTOMS,CENTRAL-EXCISE-AND-SALES-TAX-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL Judicial Precedent

Ss.34(1) & 33(5)(a)DefaultPenaltiesPayment of arrears of sales tax in easy instalments after due permission

Assistant Collector accepted the payment but ordered that the said arrangement was provided to facilitate in the discharge of sales tax liability only and there was no specific order regarding waiver of additional tax and penalties; consequently, taxpayer was ordered to deposit additional tax along with penalty

Validity

Additional tax and penalty were imposed simply on the ground that there was no specific order regarding waiver of additional tax and penalty

Admittedly, there was no specific order that additional tax and penalty should be recovered in instalments

Absence of any such specific order regarding recovery of additional tax and penalty would go in favour of appellant/taxpayer

Competent authority having allowed the appellant/taxpayer to pay the due sales tax in instalments, it meant that the competent authority had waived the additional tax and penalty

:Had the appellant/taxpayer failed to pay the due sales tax as per schedule of instalments allowed, then he could have been burdened with additional tax and penalty

Appellant/taxpayer having discharged the liability in instalments as allowed by the competent authority so the appellant/taxpayer could not be burdened with additional tax and penalty.