Presumption

Appellants / plaintiffs assailed gift deed, 27 years after its execution in favour of respondent / defendant, on the plea of fraud

Validity

Appellants / plaintiffs alleged fraud and they had to give particulars of fraud and also provide sufficient material and evidence to support such allegation, whereafter, the burden shifted upon respondent / defendant to prove genuineness of transaction allegedly based on fraud

In absence of any particulars, material or evidence to support allegation of fraud, lawful presumption attached to official record in the shape of gift, statement of donors and continued possession of suit land with respondent / defendant could not be ignored

Long standing entries in revenue record under Article 49 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 especially in register of record of rights, carried presumptions of truth and could not be controverted by mere oral evidence unless proved otherwise by sufficient and convincing evidence

Judge in Chambers of High Court, after careful scrutiny of facts and evidence produced by parties and with proper understanding of legal positions had rightly held that appellants / plaintiffs failed to establish fraudulent gift and mutation of suit land in favour of respondent / defendant in revenue record

Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by High Court, as the same was un-exceptionable

Appeals were dismissed.

Accused persons were convicted by Trial Court and were sentenced to death, whereas 13 co-accused persons were acquitted of the charge

High Court maintained conviction of accused persons but altered the sentence to imprisonment for life

Validity

No report of concerned Court was produced in prosecution evidence that CCTV cameras were not installed inside the courtroom on the day of occurrence

Even CCTV footage of cameras installed in corridor outside the courtrooms was not produced in prosecution evidence in order to establish that accused persons were present at the spot or they could be seen in camera recordings while entering and coming out of courtroom at the time of occurrence

Excuse was made in such respect by the prosecution that CCTV cameras installed in corridors outside the courtroom were out of order on the relevant day but no report of District Courts was produced in such respect by prosecution in support of its claim

Important piece of evidence was withheld by prosecution without any valid justification, therefore, an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 could validly be drawn against prosecution that had the above-mentioned piece of evidence (CCTV camera recordings) been produced in evidence, the same would not have supported prosecution case

Single circumstance which creates doubt in prosecution story is sufficient to acquit accused

Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused persons and acquitted them of the charge, as the case was repleted with number of circumstances, which had created serious doubts in prosecution story

Appeal was allowed.

Trial Court convicted both the accused persons and sentenced one to death while the other was given imprisonment for life

High Court reduced the sentence of accused from death to imprisonment for life whereas the other was acquitted of the charge

Validity

Allegation of sodomy lacked corroboration due to absence of DNA report or chemical examiner's findings, despite the claim of prosecution that anal swabs were submitted for testing

Critical DNA profiling and chemical report that could have supported the charge of unnatural lust were missing

Court could infer under Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 that unproduced evidence would be unfavorable to the party withholding it and missing documents would not have supported prosecution's case

Motive was not established, the last seen evidence was unreliable, recoveries were doubtful and medical and forensic links were either suppressed or infirm

Chain of circumstantial evidence stood fractured

Where prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, each link in the chain was to be proved to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt

Failure to establish any one link was sufficient to vitiate the entire case

There were legal limitations of Article 40 Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and prosecution had failed to satisfy strict conditions for admissibility and reliability of custodial recoveries

Chain of circumstances necessary for conviction was not satisfactorily established

Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused and declined to interfere in acquittal of co-accused by the High Court.

Validity of a marriage remains unaffected even if the parties have not expressly mentioned it in the marriage contract because, in such eventuality, reasonable dower, 'Mehr-ul-Misel, is presumed

Dower is given by the husband to the wife and its determination would be subject to consent of the wife

Dower is the exclusive right of a bride, which is relatable to a thing which has marketable value

It can either be in the form of cash or property or both

It may be prompt or deferred

If the parties have not specified the nature of the payment of dower, then it is presumed to be prompt as provided under S. 10 of the Ordinance

Dower is an essential condition for giving effect to a valid marriage contract

It becomes the exclusive property of the wife because it has many benefits for both the parties

It is financial security for the wife and its determination must be guided by informed understanding of the bride regarding her rights

An unconditional declaration of dower in the form of immovable property leads to creating the exclusive ownership of the bride upon the execution of the Nikahnama and she cannot be deprived of her rights relating thereto in any manner

Dower in the form of cash is distinct from its other forms.

Plaintiff / bank filed suit for recovery of finance but defendant / customer raised the plea of signing of blank documents

Validity

Where executant admis execution of an instrument, he cannot be allowed to plead that he in fact executed blank papers

Law of estoppel did not allow defendant / borrower to admit execution of finance documents and at the same time dispute its contents by stating that at the time of execution of the instruments, they were left blank and were later filled in

Defendant / borrower defaulted in discharge of principal sum

Such default not only incurred cost of funds under S. 3(2) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 rather was actionable under S. 9 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001

Plaintiff / bank was entitled for cost of funds from pleaded date of default

Statement of accounts annexed with plaint were certified in accordance with law, which was prima facie evidence of entries contained there in under S. 4 of Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891

Application for leave to defend the suit was rejected

Suit was decreed in circumstances.

Prompt dower is to be paid wither at the time of marriage or on demand, whereas, deferred dower is to be paid at such date or time as may be mutually agreed between the parties and in the absence of any date, it is to be paid on the happening of a certain event like divorce

Practice of husband delaying payment of dower amount is deprecated and dower can be demanded anytime during the subsistence of marriage and the husband is under obligation to pay it

Where no detail about the mode of payment of dower are specified in nikahnama or the marriage contract, the entire amount of dower shall be presumed to be payable on demand.

This presumption remains in place unless compelling documentary evidence is presented to challenge it.

Accused were charged that they while armed with knives, assaulted the complainant party, due to which brother of complainant died and one person was injured

In the instant case, the occurrence took place on 11.01.2020 at 5:45 p.m.

Inter-se distance between the place of occurrence and the police station was 1.5 kilometers

Incident was reported by the complainant, brother of the deceased, through his written complaint to Police Officer at 6:15 p.m., at THQ Hospital, who referred the written complaint to police station, through a Constable (not cited as witness), on the basis whereof, formal FIR was chalked out by Police Official on 11.01.2020 at 06:30 p.m.

From the evidence of the complainant, it revealed that the complainant straightaway went to THQ Hospital for medical treatment of both the injured

On reaching the hospital, brother of complainant succumbed to the injuries and the complainant reported the incident to the police at THQ Hospital

Complainant got drafted application for registration of a criminal case from his cousin

Non-mentioning of this fact in the application/complaint indicated that the complainant had not stated the complete truth

Complainant had not deposed that when and how his cousin came to know about the incident and as to when he reached THQ Hospital and wrote the application

Said cousin of complainant was cited as witness

First Information Report came into existence later on, after due deliberation and consultation

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Suit for possession of suit property filed by appellants / plaintiffs was decreed in their favour and appeal was dismissed by Lower Appellate Court

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below

Validity

Registered instrument as a sale deed was a title of suit property and could not be ignored despite the fact that it was challenged belatedly by respondent / plaintiff and such challenge failed not only at trial stage but also at the Lower Appellate stage

Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court decided all questions based on material and evidence placed before them with well-reasoned justification to arrive at such conclusion and within their jurisdiction

Supreme Court set aside the order passed by High Court and restored that of the Courts below

Appeal allowed.

Accused was convicted for qatl-i-amd and Trial Court sentenced him to death but High Court converted the sentence into imprisonment for life

Validity

Un-explained delay in lodging FIR created doubt in prosecution's case and benefit of the same had to be extended and construed in favour of accused

Statement of complainant suffered from material contradictions which had created serious doubt about his presence at the spot at the time of occurrence as well as veracity of his statement

Complainant's statement was not corroborated by any tangible substance, therefore, his testimony could not be made basis for recording conviction for offence entailing capital punishment

Two persons who according to complainant had also witnessed occurrence were abandoned by prosecution for no good reason

Adverse inference was drawn under Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 to the effect that had the two witnesses been produced by prosecution, they would not have supported prosecution's case

Such infirmities, glaring omissions and contradictions in prosecution's case led to the conclusion that prosecution had failed to prove charge against accused beyond reasonable doubt

For giving benefit of doubt it is not necessary that there should be so many circumstances, rather a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind is sufficient for extending its benefit to accused not as a matter of concession but as of right

Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded by Courts below which were result of misreading and non-reading of evidence and accused was acquitted of the charge

Appeal was allowed.

Testimony of Investigating Officer was sufficient to prove that time consumed in consultation and deliberation caused delay in lodging FIR

If complainant and his wife were present at the spot and had witnessed the incident, there was no reason for them to make consultation and deliberation as to who should be the complainant of case, rather on arrival of police they could have straightaway narrated the occurrence and charged the accused

Occurrence had not taken place in the mode and manner as alleged by complainant and prosecution witnesses

Both alleged eye-witnesses were close relatives of deceased and were procured witnesses

False implication of accused person on the basis of motive of previous blood feud could not be ruled out

Motive was a double edged weapon, which could be used either way and by either side i.e. for real or false involvement

Prosecution failed to prove charge against accused persons as there were infirmities, glaring omissions and contradictions in prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt

For giving benefit of doubt it is not necessary that there should be so many circumstances rather a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind is sufficient for extending its benefit to accused not as a matter of concession but as of right

Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused persons and they were acquitted of the charge

Appeal was allowed.

Complainant did not furnish detailed description of currency notes and their denominations which had raised questions regarding authenticity of payment of ransom as claimed by the complainant

Failure to provide specific details about ransom money, such as denomination and serial numbers, diminishes reliability of entire ransom allegation

Prosecution's failure to identify the place where ransom money was paid had created doubt in prosecution's case

Prosecution witnesses in whose presence ransom amount were paid to abductors were abandoned

Persons from whom complainant allegedly managed/collected ransom amount were neither cited as prosecution's witnesses nor produced in witness box

Testimony of witnesses who were present at critical moments of crime, such as payment of ransom, was inevitable for corroborating complainant's narrative

Failure to produce such witnesses had cast doubt on veracity of complainant's version and raised reasonable suspicion about nature of the incident

Non-production of such material witnesses also amounted to withholding of best available evidence, therefore, adverse inference within the meaning of Article 129 (g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 was drawn against prosecution that had those witnesses been produced they would not have supported prosecution's case

Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused persons and they were acquitted of the charge

Appeal was allowed.

Accused was alleged to have abducted and raped a minor girl with the help of three co-accused persons; one stood acquitted and two absconded

Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to imprisonment for life

Validity

Mother of abductee, her brothers, and other persons who allegedly accompanied the complainant in the process of recovery of abductee were not produced by prosecution

Old lady who allegedly informed father of the victim girl was a material witness and it amounted to withholding of best available evidence

Adverse inference within the meaning of Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 was drawn against prosecution that had the persons been produced in witness box they would not have supported prosecution's case

Testimony of lady doctor, in absence of any other evidence of unimpeachable character, was not sufficient to prove that sexual intercourse was committed with victim girl by accused

Vaginal swabs taken from victim girl were sent to Chemical examiner after a delay of three weeks for which no explanation, much less, plausible, had been furnished by prosecution

Accused though was examined for potency, however, his semen had not been sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for matching with the semen stained swab obtained from victim girl

Positive Chemical Examiner Report was of no help to prosecution

Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused and acquitted him of the charge, as prosecution failed to prove guilt through cogent and confidence inspiring evidence

Appeal was allowed.

Accused persons were convicted by Trial Court for qatl-i-amd; one was sentenced to death whereas the other was sentenced to imprisonment for life

High Court maintained the conviction but converted death sentence into imprisonment for life

Validity

Complainant and other prosecution witnesses in their statements recorded at trial, made dishonest improvements for assigning specific roles to each accused

Such improvements created serious doubt about veracity of their testimony and it was not safe to place reliance on such statements

Eleven crime empties allegedly recovered from crime scene and one 30 bore pistol allegedly recovered on the pointing of one accused were sent together to Forensic Science Laboratory, wherefrom report was negative

No private witness of locality was associated to attest alleged recovery of crime weapon on the pointing of accused

Due to non-association of any private witness of locality to attest recovery of alleged weapon of offence, and due to lack of independent corroboration, the recovery was disbelieved

Prosecution did not produce an injured passerby and an eye-witness of the occurrence

Adverse inference was drawn under Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 to the effect that had such witnesses been produced by prosecution at the trial, they would not have supported version of prosecution

Alleged motive lacked force necessary to connect accused persons with the commission of offence

Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentences awarded to both the accused persons as prosecution failed to prove charge against them beyond reasonable doubt

Appeal was allowed.

When available evidence has been withheld by a party, an adverse presumption as enunciated under Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 would arise against such party that had the witness appeared in the witness box, he would not have supported the stance of that party.

In case of gift of immovable property by husband to wife, the fact that husband continues to live in the house gifted or receives rents after the date of gift do not invalidate the gift

Presumption is that rents are collected by husband as a rent collector on behalf of the wife and not on his own accord.

Claim of the plaintiff, that the sellers / vendors (two in number) sold the suit property to him vide the agreement and promised to transfer the suit-property after redemption of mortgage charge from the Bank, was concurrently rejected

Validity

To presume the signatures and every other part of such document which purports to be in the handwriting of any person and that it is executed by the person by whom it purports to be executed, Court should be very careful about applying any presumption under Art. 100 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, in favour of old documents when the same are produced during the trial of a suit, in which the proprietary rights are set up and the Court in its discretion can refuse to apply presumption where evidence in proof of the document is produced and then it is disbelieved

The word 'may' used in Art. 100 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, signifies that presumption envisaged therein does not follow as a matter of course

Two Courts below have disbelieved the evidence of the petitioner and the High Court also found that the evidence of the petitioner was not credible

Revision, filed by the plaintiff, was dismissed in limine, in circumstances.

Where a party to the suit does not appear in the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross-examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct.

Accused were charged for causing loss to public exchequer of an amount of Rs. 312.5 million by revising the layout of the Society, thus committing the offence of corruption and corrupt practices

As per record, the prosecution gave up eight witnesses without explanation

Under Art.129(g) Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, an adverse inference could be drawn that in their evidence they would not have supported the prosecution case

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

There is a presumption of marriage based on continued and prolonged cohabitation unless the same is dislodged by cogent reason.

Applicants / plaintiffs sought cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of respondents / defendant by their predecessor-in-interest who had been appointed general power of attorney

Plea raised by applicants / plaintiffs was that sale deed was registered by the attorney after the death of their predecessor-in-interest

Validity

Agreement which was produced as evidence, showed that possession was handed over to predecessor-in-interest of respondents / defendants as part performance of the contract

Even if the document regarding death of predecessor-in-interest of applicants / plaintiffs was considered, the power of attorney in favour of predecessor-in-interest of respondents / defendants, coupled with interest for consideration under Ss. 199, 200, 201 & 202 of Contract Act, 1872, remained valid

Power of attorney, under which respondents / defendants claimed the Sale Deed was executed, could not be considered revoked, cancelled, terminated, or vanished

Presumption of truth, under S. 49 of Registration Act, 1908 was attached to such documents and applicants / plaintiffs could not challenge their execution solely on the basis of oral evidence

Applicants / plaintiffs did not demonstrate any legal impropriety, substantive irregularity, or instances of misinterpretation or oversight of evidence in judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below

There was no jurisdictional flaw nor were concurrent factual determinations adverse to the applicants / plaintiffs

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction declined to interfere in concurrent findings of facts passed by two Courts below as there was no legal error or other jurisdictional defect

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Under Arts. 79 & 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, presumption is attached to registered documents and they are presumed to be genuine unless proved otherwise.

Respondent / plaintiff claimed to be owner of suit property on the basis of sale deeds registered more than thirty years ago

Trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court decreed the suit and appeal in favour of respondent / plaintiff

Validity

Sale deeds over 30 years old carried presumption of correctness under Art. 100 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Substantial evidence was required to cast aspersion on genuineness of such sale deeds and a presumption of truth was attached to documents registered under Registration Act, 1908

Applicants / defendants were required to rebut such presumption at the trial, which they had failed to do conclusively

Both the Courts below had appropriately and lawfully evaluated the evidence available on record and correctly decreed suit of respondent / plaintiff to the extent of his entitlement of possession

Such conclusion was based on a comprehensive analysis of evidence

Legal heirs of deceased owner of suit property were bereft of any further right to claim any share in suit property

High Court declined to interfere in judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Respondent/plaintiff claimed to be owner of suit plots and alleged that his real brother applicant/defendant sought leases of certain plots in his name in collusion with authorities, after getting leases cancelled from his name

Suit was dismissed by Trial Court but Lower Appellate Court decreed the same in favour of respondent/plaintiff

Validity

Collusion between applicant/defendant and authorities was not proved, therefore, presumption under Art. 129 (e) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 was applicable that official act had been regularly performed

Leases in favour of applicant/defendant were given by authorities as per rules and procedure

Rent cases filed against respondent/plaintiff and different tenants were decided in favour of applicant/defendant and judgment passed by High Court was in field

Lower Appellate Court did not exercise jurisdiction properly and reached a wrong conclusion by misreading evidence which was beyond the parameters of law

High Court set aside judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court and restored that of Trial Court

Revision was allowed in, circumstances.

When available evidence has been withheld by the prosecution and there is no plausible explanation for the non-production or withholding of the same in Court, an adverse inference or assumption against the prosecution can be drawn under Art.129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and it can easily be presumed that no such material is in existence.

Claim of the appellant/plaintiff was that on the request of respondents/defendants he arranged a loan of ten million rupees for which a guarantee agreement and promissory notes were executed

Trial Court dismissed the suit of the appellant/plaintiff on the ground that he failed to prove execution of alleged documents

Validity

Record revealed that respondents had strongly denied the execution of both the agreement and promissory notes so much so that they filed an application under Art. 60 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, for analysis of documents from the Forensic Science Lab ('the FSL'), in which regard, in the opinion of expert, (appellant') asserted signatures (in Urdu as well as in English) of both the respondents did not tally with the specimen/routine signatures supplied by them

Although the initial presumption under S. 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act 1881') that a negotiable instrument was made or drawn, or accepted or endorsed for consideration, yet the said presumption was rebuttable, but in the present case, the respondents had straight away denied the execution of alleged promissory notes, therefore, the appellant had to discharge the said burden that the promissory notes had been duly executed and signed by the respondents

Opinion by the FSL after analysis of documents created serious doubts regarding execution of the promissory notes

Appellant had failed to prove payment to the respondents and execution of promissory notes

Contents of the promissory notes read that payment in millions was made, surprisingly, "in cash" at Court premises (Katchehri), therefore, the complete edifice upon which the appellant had built his case stood crumbled

Even alleged agreement having been exhibited by the appellant was not notarized in accordance with applicable laws which created another doubt regarding its authenticity

Even the Oath Commissioner, who according to the appellant had attested promissory notes, was not produced

Appellant also failed to prove his source and capacity to make payment, therefore, the presumption contained in S. 118 of the Act, 1881 stood rebutted

No infirmity in reasoning and no perversity in interpretation of relevant provisions of law had been noticed in the impugned judgment and decree passed the Trial Court

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Claim of the appellant/plaintiff was that on the request of respondents/defendants he arranged a loan of ten million rupees for which a guarantee agreement and promissory notes were executed

Trial Court dismissed the suit of the appellant/plaintiff on the ground that he failed to prove execution of alleged documents

Validity

Record revealed that respondents had strongly denied the execution of both the agreement and promissory notes so much so that they filed an application under Art. 60 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, for analysis of documents from the Forensic Science Lab ('the FSL'), in which regard, in the opinion of expert, (appellant') asserted signatures (in Urdu as well as in English) of both the respondents did not tally with the specimen/routine signatures supplied by them

Although the initial presumption under S. 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act 1881') that a negotiable instrument was made or drawn, or accepted or endorsed for consideration, yet the said presumption was rebuttable, but in the present case, the respondents had straight away denied the execution of alleged promissory notes, therefore, the appellant had to discharge the said burden that the promissory notes had been duly executed and signed by the respondents

Opinion by the FSL after analysis of documents created serious doubts regarding execution of the promissory notes

Appellant had failed to prove payment to the respondents and execution of promissory notes

Contents of the promissory notes read that payment in millions was made, surprisingly, "in cash" at Court premises (Katchehri), therefore, the complete edifice upon which the appellant had built his case stood crumbled

Even alleged agreement having been exhibited by the appellant was not notarized in accordance with applicable laws which created another doubt regarding its authenticity

Even the Oath Commissioner, who according to the appellant had attested promissory notes, was not produced

Appellant also failed to prove his source and capacity to make payment, therefore, the presumption contained in S. 118 of the Act, 1881 stood rebutted

No infirmity in reasoning and no perversity in interpretation of relevant provisions of law had been noticed in the impugned judgment and decree passed the Trial Court

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Such presumption is rebuttable and cannot extend to disputed document.

Non-mentioning CNICs of the vendor and the vendee in both the deeds and non-bearing of the signature of the vendor/respondent on the subsequent deed

Effect

Plaintiff/Petitioner claimed ownership of half of the share of the disputed property by virtue of dower, which was transferred in the name of the respondent (brother-in-law of petitioner) through two sale deeds based on fraud

Contention of the respondent was that since the marginal witnesses of subsequent deed had been produced along with scribe of both the deeds therefore, requirement of law had been fulfilled

Validity

Under Art. 17(2) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 (Order) in the matters pertaining to financial or future obligations, if reduced into writing, the instrument shall be attested by two men, or one man and two women, so that one may remind the other, if necessary and evidence shall be led accordingly

Such document cannot be used as a document until at least two attesting witnesses have been called for the purpose of proving its execution

None of the marginal witnesses of the initial deed was produced notwithstanding both the witnesses were alive at the time of trial as per the testimony of respondent without advancing any plausible reason

Non-examination of the marginal witnesses would certainly be hit by the mischief of the provision of Art.129(g) of the Order and as such an adverse inference would be drawn that had those witnesses been examined before the Court they would not have supported the stance of respondent

Under Art.79 of the Order non-examination of the marginal witnesses of initial deed despite being alive, the said deed had automatically lost its worth, therefore, the subsequent deed had also crumbled down in the given circumstances, notwithstanding that both the deeds did not contain the CNICs of the vendor and the vendee and even the subsequent deed did not bear the signature of the vendor/respondent

Respondent could not prove his stance through cogent, reliable and confidence inspiring evidence

Although respondent produced scriber/writer of both the deeds, yet a scriber could not be considered as a witness of a document vis-a-vis its marginal witnesses

Findings of the Appellate Court were the result of gross illegality and material illegality

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

Appellant / defendant was aggrieved of judgment and decree passed by Trial Court for recovery of amount mentioned in cheque which was dishonored on presentation

Plea raised by appellant / defendant was that he issued the cheque merely as surety

Validity

Appellant / defendant undertook to pay Rs.1,500,000/- without requirement of any reference to principal debtor

There was nothing on record suggesting that anything contrary had been settled between the parties

Witnesses were cross-examined in length but nothing adverse or sufficient to rebut the presumption arising under S. 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was noticed

Appellant / defendant admitted signing second agreement and did not deny issuance, presentation and dishonoring of the cheque

High Court declined to interfere in the judgment and decree and imposed cost upon appellant / defendant as Trial Court had reached the correct conclusion

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Appellants / plaintiffs being customers of respondent / defendant bank alleged that their fix deposit receipts were unauthorizedly encashed

Trial Court dismissed the suit

Validity

One appellant / plaintiff denied relationship of customer altogether and the other opted not to support his case on oath by appearing as witness, therefore, adverse presumption was raised against him

There was no plausible or cogent explanation in the evidence of appellants / plaintiffs as to what occasioned such deposit receipts to be placed with bank and what in specific was "Amanat" or entrustment which could be referred to that necessitated and which had prevented the respondent / defendant bank from adjusting amounts to settle outstanding liability so as to establish any foundational breach of trust, any contract or specifically unjustified encashment as was claimed

Issue-wise findings concluded that appellants / plaintiffs failed to prove their case and the suit was rightly dismissed by Trial Court

High Court declined to interfere in the judgment and decree passed by Banking Court as there was no misreading and non-reading of evidence nor there was any legal infirmity or jurisdictional defect

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Once an acquittal is recorded in favour of accused facing criminal charge he enjoys double presumption of innocence, therefore, the court competent to interfere in the acquittal order should be slow in converting the same into conviction, unless and until the said order is patently illegal, shocking, based on misreading and non-reading of the record or is perverse.

Onus is always upon the person alleging as there is a presumption of regularity in all official acts and until that was rebutted, the actions cannot be challenged

Specific pleadings must be made with reference to particular mala fide and the same is not interchangeable with any other kind of mala fide

Person alleging mala fide against government should not be allowed a roving enquiry into the files of government for fishing out some kind of a case

Under the concept of separation of powers, investigation of a criminal case falls in the domain of police

If independence of judiciary is hallmark of democratic dispensation then on the other hand independence of investigation agency is equally important to the concept of rule of law

Undue interference in each other's role destroys the concept of separation of powers and may go towards defeating of jurisdiction

Bypassing whole procedure and methodology would not help the petitioners

There were certain alternate remedies available to petitioners which they could resort to

High Court declined to declare arrest and detention of detenus as illegal

Constitutional petition was dismissedm, in circumstances.

Appellant / defendant was aggrieved of judgment and decree passed by Trial Court for recovery of amount mentioned in cheque which was dishonored on presentation

Plea raised by appellant / defendant was that he issued the cheque merely as surety

Validity

Appellant / defendant undertook to pay Rs.1,500,000/- without requirement of any reference to principal debtor

There was nothing on record suggesting that anything contrary had been settled between the parties

Witnesses were cross-examined in length but nothing adverse or sufficient to rebut the presumption arising under S.118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was noticed

Appellant / defendant admitted signing second agreement and did not deny issuance, presentation and dishonoring of the cheque

High Court declined to interfere in the judgment and decree and imposed cost upon appellant / defendant as Trial Court had reached the correct conclusion

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Respondent/pre-emptor filed suit for possession through pre-emption which was concurrently decreed in his favour by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court

Validity

Witness of respondent/pre-emptor neither stated that he was handed over any notice/letter to affect service upon petitioner/defendant nor served the same upon him

Respondent/pre-emptor failed to prove service of notice of Talb-i-Ishhad

Non-production of acknowledgment receipt (A.D) amounted to withholding of material evidence and such flaw had grave adverse effect on the case of respondent/pre-emptor

Witness of notice of Talb-i-Ishhad was also not produced by respondent/pre-emptor nor any explanation was furnished in that regard, which amounted to withholding of the best evidence and it would be legally presumed that had the witness been produced in evidence, he would have deposed unfavourably against respondent/pre-emptor and presumption under Art. 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, would go against him

Respondent/pre-emptor failed to prove service of notice of Talb-i-Ishhad

Both the Courts below committed misreading and non-reading of evidence and had also failed to apply correct law which rendered such dicta as not sustainable in the eyes of law

High Court under S. 115 C.P.C, had jurisdiction to interfere in perverse concurrent judgments and decrees of two lower fora

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below and dismissed the suit filed by respondent/pre-emptor

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

Predecessor-in-interest of petitioners / plaintiffs was the only daughter of deceased owner of suit property, who claimed her father to be Shia by faith

Validity

Every Muslim in the sub-continent is presumed to belong to Sunni sect, unless 'good evidence' to the contrary is produced by the party contesting the same

Judicial determination of whether such presumption of faith of a party, positively stands rebutted, would be adjudged by the Court on the principle of preponderance of evidence produced by parties

No strict criteria can be set to determine faith of a person and therefore to pass any finding thereon

Courts are to consider surrounding circumstances i.e. way of life, parental faith and faith of other close relatives

Predecessor in interest of petitioners / plaintiffs failed to prove that deceased owner of suit property was professing Shia faith during his life time

Ultimate result would be that the deceased owner was Sunni by faith and the same was rightly determined and declared as such by the Courts below while passing judgments and decrees

Concurrent/coexisting possession of deceased predecessor-in-interest of petitioners/plaintiffs and after her demise, that of the petitioners/plaintiffs, her successors, would be considered

High Court declined to interfere in concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below as they had committed no illegality, irregularity and wrong exercise of jurisdiction, rather after evaluating evidence on record reached a just conclusion that defendants failed to prove their case through trustworthy and reliable evidence

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Parliament is aware of statutory positions and undertakes an amendment to alter the status, existing prior to amendment having taken place.

Appellant/defendant was granted leave to defend the suit subject to deposit of security in shape of Defence Saving Certificates

Appellant/defendant failed to comply the condition resultantly suit was decreed against him

Validity

Cheques in question had presumption under S. 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and contents of plaint and allegations made therein were deemed to be admitted

Appellant/defendant did not comply with conditional order, therefore, he was not entitled to challenge the decree before High Court on such grounds that he had taken in application for leave to defend the suit

High Court declined to interfere with judgment and decree passed by Trial Court as the Court did not err in law by passing a decree

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Appellant/defendant was granted leave to defend the suit subject to deposit of security in shape of Defence Saving Certificates

Appellant/defendant failed to comply the condition resultantly suit was decreed against him

Validity

Cheques in question had presumption under S. 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and contents of plaint and allegations made therein were deemed to be admitted

Appellant/defendant did not comply with conditional order, therefore, he was not entitled to challenge the decree before High Court on such grounds that he had taken in application for leave to defend the suit

High Court declined to interfere with judgment and decree passed by Trial Court as the Court did not err in law by passing a decree

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Receipt of partial payment was subsequent to the agreement, which amount was not shown as part of sale consideration in the agreement

Receipt did not show that the amount was paid earlier and was acknowledged later in time

If some of the respondents / defendants who executed agreement did not file written statement, there was nothing to prevent petitioners / plaintiffs from summoning them and examining them on oath

Scribe of agreement was not summoned by petitioners / plaintiffs

Agreement of sale was not proved through evidence which could have been brought / provided and the best evidence was kept away

High Court declined to stretch jurisdiction to form a view other than by Lower Appellate Court which was based on the evidence and material available on record

Limited scope was provided under S.115, C.P.C., which could only be exercised if a clear case of misreading and non-reading of evidence was made out

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Section 29 Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, created the presumption of the commission of an offence under said Act where a person is found in possession of narcotics, for the possession of which he fails to account satisfactorily

Possession comes first and accounting for it comes later

If there is no possession, there is no accounting for such possession and mere knowledge of the presence of drugs without such possession does not suffice even to raise the presumption under S.29 of the Act, 1997.

Accused were charged for making firing upon the complainant party, due to which, the brother and mother of the complainant died while complainant and his brother were grievously hurt

List of witnesses attached with challan mentioned the name of the brother of complainant and deceased

However, the said eye-witness was not produced by the prosecution without any reasonable cause

Thus presumption was that evidence which could be and was not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withheld it

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of any doubt

Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

Accused was convicted by Trial Court for committing robbery with causing death and was sentenced to imprisonment for ten years

Validity

Complainant was not eye-witness of the occurrence and no eye-witness was cited in FIR

Subsequently, complainant introduced an eye-witness through his supplementary statement

Such kind of witness nominated later on through supplementary statement was made for the purpose to strengthen case of prosecution at the behest of police or some other ulterior motives

Such aspect was enough to shatter credibility of such witness

Material witnesses of secure and safe custody as well as safe transmission of crime weapon to Forensic Science Laboratory were not produced, which was a clear violation of provision of Art. 129, Illustration (g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Prosecution failed to establish charge against accused as the evidence was suffering from infirmities and there existed sufficient doubts in the case of the prosecution

Trial Court failed to extend benefit of doubts to the accused and judgment of Trial Court was suffering from misreading and non-appreciation of evidence available on record

High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court and accused was acquitted of the charge

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Presumption of correctness was attached to entries in revenue record but strong presumption of correctness was attached to entries made in the course of first settlement

Petitioners/plaintiffs of suit were to stand on their own legs and their case could not succeed merely by exploiting weaknesses of opposite party i.e. respondents / defendants

When petitioners/plaintiffs could not prove that property in dispute had been part of property assigned to their village nor they had ever remained in possession of specific part of property in dispute, then weaknesses in plea of respondents/ defendants was not sufficient to give a decree to petitioners/plaintiffs for setting aside entries made in revenue record in the course of first settlement

High Court declined to interfere in concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below who dismissed suit of petitioners/ plaintiffs and such findings were not result of misreading and non-reading of evidence nor had caused miscarriage of justice

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Complainant was aggrieved of acquittal of accused on the plea that co-accused was convicted and sentenced on the same evidence

Validity

Evidence collected during investigation and furnished during trial was silent about presence of accused all or around scene of occurrence

Accused did not participate in commission of offence and his involvement in incident with specific role was not substantiated

Trial Court gave accused benefit of doubt not as a matter of grace but as a matter of right

Benefit of doubt was not grace but right of accused; it was not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubts

Even a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about guilt of accused made him entitled to its benefit not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right

High Court declined to interfere in acquittal of accused as there was no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdiction defect in judgment passed by Trial Court

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Order of acquittal cannot be interfered with because presumption of innocence of accused is further strengthened by acquittal

Appeal against judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so

If judgment of acquittal is clearly unreasonable, only then it is a compelling reason for interference.

Suit filed by petitioners / plaintiffs was based upon more than thirty years old deed of possession, original of which was not produced during trial

Lower Appellate Court reversed findings of Trial Court and dismissed the suit

Validity

Mere 30 years age of document did not provide any justification for its proof unless document was proved in accordance with Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

When document was questioned, sole ground of age of document as 30 years could not be taken as gospel truth as genuineness of document was disputed

Duty of Trial Court to determine question of its genuineness and correctness, because age of document alone did not amount to a proof but the correct contents of such document

If genuineness of document was susceptible to suspicion, Court could refuse to raise presumption and ask for proof of its contents

High Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court as petitioners / plaintiffs could not point out any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional defect in findings of Lower Appellate Court

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

In support of his allegations respondent/plaintiff recorded only his self-serving statement, and thus he failed to discharge his initial onus

Respondent / plaintiff challenged authenticity / sanctity for registered document (Tamleek Deed) by leveling allegation of fraud and misrepresentation that the same was procured by petitioner /defendants with the connivance of Sub-Registrar

When allegation of fraud and misrepresentation was level against Sub-Registrar, in such eventuality Province of Punjab and Sub-Registrar who registered the deed, were necessary parties

Neither the Province of Punjab nor the Sub-Registrar were arranged as defendants in the suit which was defective one and decree could not be passed against a person who was not a party to the lis before the Court

Respondent/plaintiff challenged registered Tamleek deed by instituting suit but presumption of truth and sanctity was attached to the registered document

Strong piece of evidence was required to cast aspiration on genuineness of such registered document

Bare words could not dislodge the presumption

Although such presumption was rebuttable but for that a party must produce evidence on the basis of standard set forth by the Supreme Court

High Court set aside concurrent judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below and remanded the matter to Trial Court for decision afresh

Revision was allowed accordingly.

Mother and minor girl were living at a place/district different from the place/district where the father moved application for custody

Guardian Court dismissed application of the petitioner/mother for setting aside ex-parte judgment and decree

Petitioner/ mother claimed that neither she was personally served nor she had any knowledge of the case proceedings

Held, that primary controversy for the Court, in the present case, was that whether the mother was served in accordance with law before decree was passed against her

Without framing issues and recording evidence, the Court below had decided the factual controversy qua residential address of the mother/petitioner while relying on the photocopy of her alleged second marriage in district 'K', produced by the respondent/father

Court also presumed the petitioner's knowledge of proceedings and service of summons on the basis that notice along with registered envelope AD were sent on her district 'K' address and that notice was also proclaimed in the newspaper having been circulated/published from relevant division

Neither the process server was produced as a witness, in the present case, to establish personal service of summons under S.8 of the Family Courts Act, 1964, upon the mother/petitioner in accordance with law, nor any reference to his (process server's) report to the said effect had been made in the impugned order

In the absence of any acknowledgement due available on record, service of the notice had been presumed by the Court below merely on the basis of postal receipt available on record

Without establishing on record that the mother/petitioner could not be served personally, reliance on publication of the notice could not be considered safe to presume service of the mother/petitioner, particularly when father/respondent himself alleged in his petition for custody that she was an illiterate villager

High Court set-aside impugned order and allowed the application of mother/ petitioner for setting aside ex-parte judgment and decree

Application of father for the custody of minor girl would be deemed to be pending, at the place mother and minor were residing, for decision afresh in accordance with law

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Widow of deceased got herself medically examined, her MLR was exhibited and she got recorded her statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C.

Injured widow was the star/direct witness who was not produced before Trial Court, leading to adverse inference against prosecution

When ocular evidence was unreliable, the strongest corroborative evidence could not cure such deficiency/lacking

When direct evidence was unacceptable, the corroborative evidence would become worthless

Prosecution evidence was not free from doubt therefore, defence version taken by accused in their statements under S. 342, Cr.P.C., was to be believed in total

Alleged recoveries of Churras (daggers) from accused persons were inconsequential

Presence of eye-witnesses was not found free from doubt and was not confidence inspiring

Benefit of doubts would go to accused as a matter of right and not as a grace and in granting such benefit, single circumstance was sufficient

High Court set aside conviction and sentences awarded to accused persons, as prosecution failed to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt and accused persons were acquitted of the charges

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.