Summary: Service Appeal of the Appellant was dismissed by upholding the penalty of dismissal from service imposed by the Authority since three elements i.e. the Appellant passed a judicial Order in deviation of prescribed procedure in the Circular and express mandate of CNSA; the Appellant passed judicial Order with mala fide intent for extraneous considerations which was proved on record in terms that the Appellant was in close contact with the accused persons who were beneficiary of bail granting Order; and the Appellant had acquired a general reputation of being corrupt; were established on record justifying the penalty of dismissal from service. (a) Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act, 1991: ----S. 5—Service appeal—Judicial misconduct—Dismissal from service—Appellant, a former Additional District & Sessions Judge, was dismissed for granting bail in violation of prescribed procedure under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (CNSA), relying on a fake chemical examiner report—Disciplinary proceedings found him guilty of misconduct—Tribunal held that judicial officers enjoy protection under the Judicial Officers’ Protection Act, 1850 and other laws but only when orders are passed in good faith—Where extraneous considerations and mala fide intent are evident, judicial immunity does not apply—Appeal dismissed. ----Cited Cases: Government of Sindh v. Saiful Haq Hashmi (1993 SCMR 956) Arz Muhammad Umrani v. Atta Muhammad (1993 SCMR 633) Lahore High Court v. K.M. Sohel (2001 PLC (C.S.) 1253) Mir Hassan Kalhoro v. Muhammad Chuttal (PLD 2022 Sindh 165) (b) Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1999: ----R. 3, R. 4—Misconduct—Judicial discretion—Bail granting order—Appellant, while serving as a judicial officer, granted bail based on a fabricated report, disregarding departmental circulars and legal provisions—Disciplinary proceedings revealed that the bail order was manipulated for extraneous considerations—Tribunal upheld the disciplinary authority’s decision, finding that the appellant failed to follow prescribed procedures and had a record of poor performance and allegations of corruption—Major penalty of dismissal upheld as proportionate to the offense. ----Cited Cases: Muhammad Afzal Zahid v. Lahore High Court (2025 LHC 123) (c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997: ----S. 51—Bail in narcotics cases—Judicial discretion—Scope—CNSA mandates strict conditions for bail in cases involving more than three kilograms of heroin—Appellant deviated from legal procedures, granting bail based on a manipulated chemical report—Tribunal held that judicial officers are bound by procedural safeguards, and departure from mandatory provisions indicates mala fide intent—Appeal dismissed. (d) Judicial Officers’ Protection Act, 1850: ----Scope—Protection to judicial officers—Limits—Appellant claimed protection under the Act for his judicial decision—Tribunal held that judicial immunity applies only where decisions are made in good faith—Where allegations of collusion, procedural deviation, and extraneous considerations are established, protection is not available—Appeal dismissed. (e) Service Law—Reputation of Corruption and Disciplinary Action: ----Judicial officer’s reputation—Effect on disciplinary proceedings—Where a judicial officer’s reputation for corruption is established, even if specific allegations are not conclusively proven, compulsory retirement may be imposed—However, in cases where corruption is established with supporting evidence, dismissal is justified—Tribunal found that the appellant’s record reflected sustained allegations of corruption, reinforcing the disciplinary authority’s decision—Appeal dismissed. ----Disposition: Service appeal dismissed—Dismissal from service upheld—Judicial immunity inapplicable due to mala fide intent—Allegations of procedural irregularities and bias rejected.

Summary: Acquittal granted---(a) Criminal Law—Illegal Detention and Fair Trial: ----Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Arts. 4, 9, & 10-A; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898), Ss. 342 & 340(2) Illegal detention—Right to a fair trial—Failure to produce independent witnesses—Burden on prosecution. The accused-petitioner alleged that he was illegally detained for two months before being falsely implicated in a terrorism-related offense. The Supreme Court observed that the accused presented a contemporaneous newspaper report dated 21.07.2014, which corroborated his claim of being arrested on 20.07.2014, two months before the incident recorded in the FIR dated 02.09.2014. The prosecution failed to refute this claim with any independent evidence, thereby raising serious doubts about the credibility of the police case. The Court reaffirmed that illegal detention by law enforcement agencies is a grave violation of fundamental rights under Articles 4, 9, and 10-A of the Constitution, and any conviction arising from such detention is tainted with illegality and cannot be sustained. (b) Anti-Terrorism Laws—Possession of Explosives and Standard of Proof: ----Explosive Substances Act, 1908, S. 5; Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, S. 7 Possession of explosives—Requirement of credible evidence—Burden of proof on prosecution. The accused was convicted under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for possessing 17 detonators and wire without lawful justification. The Supreme Court noted that no independent witnesses were produced, and the prosecution relied solely on police officials as witnesses, without corroboration from neutral sources. The arrest location and the vehicle details were omitted from the prosecution’s case, further weakening the credibility of the alleged recovery. The Court reiterated that in cases involving possession of explosives, the prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had both knowledge and intent to use the material unlawfully. Failure to do so entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt. (c) Judicial Evaluation of Defence Evidence: ----Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898), Ss. 342 & 340(2); Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 122 Accused’s defence—Documentary evidence—Duty of court to evaluate exculpatory material. The accused-petitioner, during his Section 342 Cr.P.C. statement, presented a contemporaneous newspaper article as evidence of his prior arrest and illegal detention. The Supreme Court emphasized that when an accused presents documentary evidence suggesting wrongful detention or fabrication of charges, the courts must thoroughly scrutinize such material instead of dismissing it outright. The newspaper article corroborated the accused’s claim, and the prosecution failed to counter this evidence, thereby entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt. (d) Importance of Independent Witnesses in Criminal Trials: ----Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898), S. 103; Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 129(g) Failure to produce independent witnesses—Adverse inference against prosecution. The entire prosecution case relied on police witnesses, without testimony from independent witnesses such as the bus driver, conductor, or passengers, despite the alleged recovery taking place at a public transport checkpoint. The failure to cite or summon independent witnesses led the Supreme Court to apply adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, against the prosecution. The Court held that when independent witnesses are available but deliberately withheld, it raises a presumption that their testimony would not have supported the prosecution’s case. (e) Burden on the Prosecution to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: ----Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 10-A; Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Arts. 117 & 119 Presumption of innocence—Burden of proof—Prosecution’s duty to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court reiterated that in criminal trials, the burden of proof lies squarely on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found that the prosecution failed to provide credible evidence linking the accused to terrorism or explosive possession, and the possibility of false implication due to illegal detention could not be ruled out. The Court emphasized that when two interpretations of evidence are possible, the one favoring the accused must be adopted. -----Disposition: The Supreme Court set aside the convictions and sentences awarded to the accused-petitioner by the Anti-Terrorism Court and the Lahore High Court. The appeal was allowed, and the accused was acquitted of all charges.

Summary: (From the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 21-3-2024, in Service Appeal No.120 of 2021). (a) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act (XXII of 1975)--- ----S. 4---Appeal before the Service Tribunal, filing of---Limitation---Appellant challenged, before the Service Tribunal, a notification vide which the respondent was granted time (notification-in-question), however, the same was dismissed being time-barred having been filed after a period of almost one and a half year---Validity---Appellant in (relevant ground /para of) the memo of appeal before the Service Tribunal had furnished explanation regarding the delay in filing the appeal and stated that the notification-in-question was neither communicated to him nor the same was published in the official gazette---In support of his stance, he appended the certification issued by the Printing and Stationary Department along with the appeal---Moreover, the appellant also filed a separate application for condonation of delay accompanied by an affidavit---Under S. 4 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975, any civil servant aggrieved by any final order, whether original or appellate, made by a departmental authority, in respect of any of the terms and conditions of his service, may, within ninety days of the communication of such order to him or within six months of the establishment of the appropriate Tribunal, whichever is later, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal--- After perusal of ground (specifically taken in memo of appeal) and the certification issued by the Printing and Stationary Department, it appeared that the notification impugned before the Service Tribunal was neither communicated to the appellant nor the same was published in the official gazette, hence, the appeal filed by the appellant before the Service Tribunal was within limitation. (b) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act (XXII of 1975)--- ----S. 4---Appeal before the Service Tribunal, filing of---Locus standi---Aggrieved person---Appellant challenged, before the Service Tribunal, a notification vide which the respondent was granted time (notification-in-question), however, the same was dismissed---Validity---Admittedly, after issuance of notification-in-question, the appellant was also granted time scale (BS-20), vide notification dated 24.12.2020, w.e.f. 21.10.2019, after completion of the required length of service---Appellant accepted the said notification and appended the same with the concise statement---In case, the appellant was not satisfied with the date he was granted the time scale, then he should have challenged the said notification by way of appeal---Appellant did not challenge the same for modification, hence he was legally estopped to challenge the notification-in-question---Under the provisions of S. 4 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975, a civil servant/appellant has to satisfy the Court that his/her terms and conditions of service have adversely been affected---If a civil servant/appellant fails to point out any violation of the terms and conditions of his/her service, then legally he/she has got no cause of action to file the appeal---In the present case, after completion of the required length of service, the appellant had been granted time scale (BS-20), vide relevant notification (dated 24.12.2020, w.e.f. 21.10.2019) and he accepted the said notification, therefore, he had got no locus standi to challenge the notification-in-question, whereby, the private-respondent was granted time scale (BS-20)---Under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1975, a civil servant is competent to prefer an appeal only if he is found to be an aggrieved person---Thus, Service Tribunal had committed no illegality while dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant---Appeal, being merit-less, was dismissed with costs. Syed Shoukat Hussain Gillani v. Abdul Rehman Abbasi and others 1992 SCMR 369 = 1992 PLC (C.S.) 438 ref. Muhammad Abrar, Advocate for Appellant. Ch. Shoukat Aziz, Advocate for Respondent No.7. Date of hearing: 17th January, 2025.

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 39, 42 & 54---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.30 & 113---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115---Suit for cancellation of document, declaration and injunction---Concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below---Admitted fact---Fraud, effect of---Petitioners / plaintiffs assailed sale deed on the plea that attorney appointed by their deceased father executed sale deed after the power of attorney was revoked---Both the Courts below concurrently dismissed suit and appeal filed by petitioners / plaintiffs---Validity---Respondents / defendants were well aware about the fact that late father of petitioners / defendants moved for revocation of general power of attorney through written instrument and the same was registered with Sub-Registrar concerned---Such fact mentioned in written statement filed by respondents / defendants fulfilled conditions of an admission as envisaged under Art. 30 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984---Admitted fact need not to be proved---Attorney failed to give any justification for transfer of land in favour of defendant / his real brother on the basis of general power of attorney, which was revoked on the date when sale deed was allegedly executed---If the transaction could have been executed in the name of somebody else, the position would have been different---There was inter-se connivance of respondents / defendants who were real brothers, just to deprive late father of petitioners / plaintiffs of his property through a sham transaction---Fraud vitiated even solemn proceedings and acts of respondents / defendants stood proof of the fact that their conduct towards execution of sale deed was not above board---To prove a valid alienation it was incumbent upon vendee(s) to establish offer for sale by vendor; acceptance of offer by vendee; payment of amount of consideration and transfer of possession---No proof regarding payment of consideration amount was brought on record by respondents / defendants---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside concurrent findings of facts, and judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below were set aside; resultantly suit filed by petitioners / plaintiffs was decreed in their favour---Revision was allowed accordingly. Mst. Naila Kausar and another v. Sardar Muhammad Bakhsh and others 2016 SCMR 1781; Shakeel Ahmed v. Gulzar and others 2024 CLC 500; Chief Executive Officer NPGCL, GENCO-III, TPS Muzafargarrah v. Khalid Umar Tariq Imran and others 2024 SCMR 518; Trading Corporation of Pakistan v. Devan Sugar Mills Limited and others PLD 2018 SC 828; Mst. Shumal Begum v. Mst. Gulzar Begum and 3 others 1994 SCMR 818; Wasi-Ud-Din v. Fakhra Akhtar and 4 others 2011 SCMR 1550; Mst. Aziza Khanum alias Shah Pari and another v. Member-II, Board of Revenue, Government of Balochistan, Civil Secretariat, Zargoon Road, Quetta and 5 others 2024 YLR 2314; Abdul Rasheed v. Zahoor-ud-Din (deceased) through Legal Heirs and others 2024 CLC 1060; Muhammad Boota through L.Rs. v. Mst. Bano Begum and others 2005 SCMR 1885; Mst. Rehmat and others v. Mst. Zubaida Begum and others 2021 SCMR 1534; Chiragh (deceased) through L.Rs. v. Ibrahim and others 2010 SCMR 1976; Nazir Ahmad and another v. M. Muzaffar Hussain 2008 SCMR 1639 and Muhammad Iqbal through L.Rs v. Mehmood Hasan and others 2016 MLD 1243 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S.115---Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of---Concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below---Ordinarily concurrent findings of facts recorded by Courts below cannot be interfered with, however, the same cannot be considered as sacrosanct especially when they are found arbitrary or perverse. Hajid Wajdad v. Provincial Government through Secretary, Board of Revenue Government of Balochistan, Quetta and others 2020 SCMR 2046 and Subedar (Retd.) Jamil Khan (deceased) through legal heirs v. Salim Khan (deceased) through legal heirs and 6 others 2017 SCMR 860 rel. Naveed Khalid for Petitioners. Sheikh Miraj Din for Respondents. Date of hearing: 23rd January, 2025.

Summary: The case regarding alleged illegal act of detaining and confiscating private vehicles by Police and Traffic Officials for blocking entry and exit points in the event of protests which undermine Constitutional guarantees was referred to Chief Secretary, Punjab with the direction to constitute an Inquiry Committee to address questions framed by the Court in this behalf.

Summary: The legal question involved was to examine whether filing of appeal against a conditional decree, by the decree holder, in itself amounts to suspension of the condition attached thereto and the decree holder is absolved from depositing the balance sale consideration? Held that mere filing of appeal against a conditional decree, by the decree holder, in itself does not amount to suspension of the condition attached thereto and the decree holder is not absolved from depositing the balance sale consideration when the consequences of his failure to comply with condition is specified in the decree itself making the said decree final.

Summary: The case regarding alleged illegal act of detaining and confiscating private vehicles by Police and Traffic Officials for blocking entry and exit points in the event of protests which undermine Constitutional guarantees was referred to Chief Secretary, Punjab with the direction to constitute an Inquiry Committee to address questions framed by the Court in this behalf. 754Crl. Appeal- Against Acquittal- PPC 1042-19 FARHAN SALEEM VS ANWAR HUSSAIN ETC Mr. Justice Sadiq Mahmud Khurram 22- 01- 2025 2025 LHC 1575 2025 YLR 2612 [Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench)]

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: The legal question involved was to examine whether filing of appeal against a conditional decree, by the decree holder, in itself amounts to suspension of the condition attached thereto and the decree holder is absolved from depositing the balance sale consideration? Held that mere filing of appeal against a conditional decree, by the decree holder, in itself does not amount to suspension of the condition attached thereto and the decree holder is not absolved from depositing the balance sale consideration when the consequences of his failure to comply with condition is specified in the decree itself making the said decree final. 752Civil Revision 77789/23 Ali Haider & 1 other Vs Muhammad Boota etc Mr. Justice Shujaat Ali Khan 23-01- 2025 2025 LHC 75

Summary: Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----Ss.25-A, proviso & 196---Notification SRO 499(I)/2009 dated 13-06-2009---Goods imported, valuation of---Valuation Table---Applicability---Retrieval of invoice---Authorities retrieved invoice of goods imported and imposed redemption fine and penalty upon respondent / importer---Plea raised by authorities was that Customs Appellate Tribunal had set aside fine and penalty in violation of proviso to S. 25-A(2) of Customs Act, 1969---Validity---Link of two invoices in question along with Bill of Lading established that retrieved invoice was the actual invoice showing value on which goods had been sold and was the true transactional value---Mere denial by respondent / importer that the invoice was placed inadvertently was neither correct nor justified---Burden as to the invoice was that of respondent / importer, which had not been discharged fully---Value mentioned on retrieved invoice had to be looked into for assessment purposes and relevant provision dealing with such situation was proviso to S. 25-A(2) of Customs Act, 1969---High Court set aside the order passed by Customs Appellate Tribunal as the assessment should have been made on Valuation Ruling, existence of which was not denied nor was under challenge at any stage of proceedings by way of any revision under S.25-A of Customs Act, 1969---Reference application was allowed, in circumstances. The Collector of Customs v. Urooj Autos 2022 PTD 1882; The Collector of Customs v. Hasnain Qutbuddin) Special (Special Customs Reference Application No.347 of 2018; Collector of Customs v. M/s NETPAC and others 2023 PTD 710; M/s. Middle East Construction Co., Karachi v. the Collector of Customs, Karachi 2023 SCMR 838; Commissioner of Inland Revenue Lahore v. M/s Sargodha Spinning Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., Faisalabad and others 2022 SCMR 1082; Commissioner of Inland Revenue Lahore v. M/s Sargodha Spinning Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., Faisalabad and others 2022 PTD 1079; Collector of Customs v. M/s Salman Paper Product (Pvt.) Ltd. (SCRA No. 38/2022) and Junaid Traders v. Additional Collector of Customs 2012 SCMR 1876 ref. Ms. Masooda Siraj along with Javed Hussain for Applicant. Raj Ali Wahid Kunwar along with Kashif Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 23rd January, 2025.