Summary: Anti-Corruption Establishment cannot investigate the officers of Cooperative Societies

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Anti-Corruption Establishment cannot investigate the officers of Cooperative Societies 769Writ Petition- Direction- Others 1778-24 ADNAN MUGHAL VS GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB ETC Mr. Justice Jawad Hassan 14- 01- 2025 2025 LHC

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (Against judgment dated 01.02.2016 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench passed in Crl. A. No. 62 of 2011 and S.C.R. No. 01-T of 2011). Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 120-B, 302, 324, 435 & 436---Criminal conspiracy, qatl-i-amd, attempt to qatl-i-amd and causing damage to property---Re-appraisal of evidence---Suicide bombing---Location of prosecution witnesses--- Benefit of doubt---Accused was alleged to be a suicide bomber wearing explosive jacket and was apprehended from the place of occurrence where two suicide bombers had already detonated themselves---Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to death---Validity---Suicide bomber, who had detonated explosives, had also used pellets which had caused severe injuries to several innocent victims in a large radius---There was no explanation as to how complainant and six officials accompanying him, and the accused and two unidentified co-accused remained unharmed---Presence of witnesses at crime scene was not proved through unimpeachable evidence, nor the fact that accused was apprehended in the manner as was deposed by prosecution witnesses---Accused and complainant, who were 30 paces from the suicide bomber when the explosion took place, could not remain unscathed, and in such a situation of extreme distress and commotion, no one could identify or apprehend another person wearing a jacket laden with explosives---It was an incident in which impact and its harm was seen much further than thirty paces---Prosecution did not bring on record any evidence to establish that accused was a member of proscribed organization or that he was motivated by or was working for a terrorist group---Prosecution failed to discharge its obligation of proving guilt of accused beyond a reasonable doubt---Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentences handed down by Trial Court and upheld by High Court and acquitted the accused from all charges framed against him by extending benefit of doubt to him as of right---Appeal was allowed. Ayub Masih v. The State PLD 2002 SC 1048; Muhammad Nawaz and another v. The State and others 2024 SCMR 1731; Khial Muhammad v. The State 2024 SCMR 1490; Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345; Abdul Qadeer v. The State 2024 SCMR 1146 and Muhammad Zaman v. The State 2014 SCMR 749 rel. Zulfiqar Khalid Maluka, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Sajjad Hussain, Deputy Prosecutor General, Punjab for the State. Nemo for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 14th January, 2025.

Summary: (On appeal against order dated 17.11.2021 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in Misc. Petition No. 241 of 2019 in Appeal No. 3124(R)CS of 2012). (a) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)--- ----Ss. 4 & 5---Service Tribunal, duties of---Pro forma promotion---Retirement of civil servant---Grievance of civil servant was that his case for promotion to BS-22 was placed before High Power Selection Board but due to paucity of time matter could not be decided and before next meeting he had retired from service---Directions issued by Service Tribunal were not complied with by the authorities---Validity---Federal Service Tribunal is the first judicial fact finding forum provided for civil servants, to ensure implementation of its orders/ judgments, come what may, unless it is set aside by Supreme Court---It is the function of Federal Service Tribunal to execute its orders and judgments in letter and spirit---To ensure timely and proper execution and implementation of its judgments and orders, Federal Service Tribunal while exercising its jurisdiction under section 5 of Service Tribunals Act, 1973, is always deemed to be a Civil Court with all powers as are vested in such Court under Civil Procedure Code,1908 for execution---In case of delay or evasion, Service Tribunal should take all necessary steps to enforce compliance with its judgments and orders to alleviate suffering of recipient of judgment or order, rather than divesting itself of jurisdiction or simply disposing of miscellaneous petition of civil servant without ensuring proper implementation---Supreme Court set aside order passed by Service Tribunal and remanded the matter to High Power Selection Board to consider case of civil servant for proforma promotion to BS-22---Appeal was allowed. (b) Maxim--- ----Interest republicaeut sit finis litium---Connotation---It is in the interest of State that there should be an end to litigation. Ravinder Kaur v. Ashok Kumar AIR 2004 SC 904 rel. Habib Ahmed Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Ashiq Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents. Rana Asadullah Khan, Additional Advocate General for Pakistan along with Sajid-ul-Hassan, S.O., Establishment on Court Notice. Date of hearing: 14th January, 2025. (b) where a judgment is passed against the government the possibility of filing an appeal against it should be examined well within time in consultation with the Law and Justice Division; and (c) where a judgment is not desired to be challenged the same should be implemented forthwith.

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 26.04.2017 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in ITR No. 13 of 2015). Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)--- ----S.161---Income Tax Rules, 2022, R. 43---Withholding tax, non-deduction of---Show cause notice---Fishing inquiry, principle of---Applicability---Appellant/taxpayer was aggrieved of show cause notice issued by authorities to initiate proceedings for not deducting withholding tax---Validity---If a taxpayer fails to collect or deduct tax from payments made during a tax year, such inaction is deemed as a default under section 161 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Point that sets into motion the machinery of section 161 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 to determine tax liability is the failure to either collect tax or deduct it---Show cause notice highlighted discrepancies in valuation of imports and specified categories under which tax was applicable---This indicated that there was careful consideration of any failures to deduct tax, along with an assessment of underlying bases and amounts involved, therefore, the notice was not simply a fishing expedition---Supreme Court declined to interfere in the judgment passed by High Court as demand created against appellant/taxpayer was well-founded---Appeal was dismissed. Commissioner Inland Revenue Zone-I, LTU v. MCB Bank Limited 2021 SCMR 1325 and Messrs. Bilz (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Multan and another 2002 PTD 1 = PLD 2002 SC 353 ref. Ch. Mumtaz ul Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant (via video link from Branch Registry Lahore). Ahmad Pervaiz, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (via video link from Branch Registry Lahore). Date of hearing: 14th January, 2025.

Summary: (Against the order dated 21.07.2023 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No. 48244 of 2023). Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ----Ss. 5, 9(6) & 10---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.114---Suit for dissolution of marriage and recovery of dower---Ex-parte decree---Estoppel, principle of---Applicability---Petitioner/husband was aggrieved of ex-parte decree passed against him and the Courts below declined to set aside the same---Held, that petitioner/husband sought setting aside of ex-parte decree by filing application under section 9 (6) of Family Courts Act, 1964 but later on withdrew the same---Petitioner/husband acquiesced of the decree and waived off his right to further agitate it---Principle of estoppel was fully attracted against petitioner/husband---Lower Appellate Court after passing of decree by Trial Court reviewed its findings and concurred with the same, as thus were in accordance with pleadings, evidence and law on the subject---Supreme Court declined to interfere in orders passed by the Courts below as there was no illegality---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Fateh Khan v. Manzoor and 5 others PLD 1993 Lahore 76; Noor Muhammad and others v. Muhammad Siddique and others 1994 SCMR 1248; Hassan Akhtar and others v. Azhar Hameed and others PLD 2010 SC 657 and Afzal and others v. Abdul Ghani 2005 SCMR 946 rel. Zulfiqar Ali Hargan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Aftab Hussain Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents. Date of hearing: 14th January, 2025.

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 26.07.2024 of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, passed in C.P. No. 73 of 2023). Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. I, R. 10---Proper and necessary party, impleading of---Principle---Petitioner was aggrieved of impleading respondents as proper and necessary party to the proceedings of suit---Held, that orders passed by High Court and Trial Court were based on proper appreciation of facts of the case---Two Courts below after thrashing out the matter in detail had found that respondents were proper and necessary party---While dealing with applications under Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C., Court has to exercise its discretion in a liberal manner rather than adopting a narrow or pedantic approach, especially when a party is likely to be affected by any judgment in a proceedings and whose presence would enable the Court to effectively adjudicate the matter in accordance with law---Supreme Court declined to interfere in the order passed by High Court---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Syntron Limited v. Huma Ijaz and others 2014 SCMR 531; Province of the Punjab through Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Rawalpindi and others v. Muhammad Akram and others 2023 SCMR 755; Muhammad Arif and others v. Dirstrict and Session Judge, Sialkot and others 2011 SCMR 1591 and Vidur Impex and Traders (Pvt.) Ltd. and others v. Tosh Apartments (Pvt) Ltd. and others [Supreme Court of India] 2013 SCMR 602 rel. Rehmat Ullah Barech, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (through video link from Quetta). Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 14th January, 2025.