Summary: Promotion (CP Allowed. After retirement he is entitled to Promotion . promotion will not affect the seniority of any person. )

Summary: This case, titled "The Fauji Foundation Charitable Trust Versus Federal Land Commission & others," involved a petition filed by The Fauji Foundation Charitable Trust against the Federal Land Commission and others, challenging the resumption of land by orders dated 05.12.1972, 04.04.1973, and 22.12.1973 under M.L.R. 115. The petitioner, a charitable trust administered by a committee formed by the Federal Government, claimed the land had been improperly resumed and sought legal redress 41 years after the initial resumption.The High Court of Sindh, with Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui and Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam presiding, examined several key issues, including the validity of the land resumption orders, the delay in filing the petition, the petitioner's status as a charitable institution, and the legality of lease agreements entered into after the land resumption. The court also considered the impact of subsequent legal and regulatory changes on the case.Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, finding it to be misconceived. The court allowed for the recovery of land revenue through lawful means but set aside warrants of arrest issued against the petitioner. The decision was based on a thorough examination of legal precedents, statutory provisions, and the facts of the case. The court's judgment emphasized the importance of timely legal action, the consequences of electing certain legal remedies over others, and the need for adherence to proper legal procedures in land resumption and leasing. ----- Subject: Resumption of land under MRL 115[MLR 115 of1972 , Land Revenue Act, 1967 , Law of laches , Act II of 1977 , law of acquiescence , Estoppel , Doctrine of Election]Fauji Foundation a "Charitable Trust" operating under endowment Act 1980 was functioning through a committee formed vide notification of 08.03.1972 of federal Government. Committee after deliberation resolved that secretary to act as authorized person. Unless otherwise explained, it does not deemed to have empowered /authorized secretary to further delegate the powers by a simple authority letter signed by Secretary alone, when it's not borne out of resolution.In the earlier petition when resumption of land was questioned, the parties withdrew their lis in view of negotiation which ended as 30 years leases of subject land and the cause of resumption deemed to have exhausted by way of doctrine of election, Petitioner opted for a long term lease instead to continue litigation against resumption of land .Such right (if any) was bartered with long term lease. Such right to challenge the resumption of land thus was not available when present petition was filed.Process of execution for long term lease should have followed requirement of MLR 115 and section 17 of Act II of 1977 and since it was not transparent, the two leases were executed in an unlawful manner and which period (30 years) has already been exhausted. Scheme of recovery of land revenue includes a process of attachment of holding against arrears which are due. Unless a remedy is exhausted, immediate jump to arrest and detention would not be justified.The question of declaring MLR 115 being repugnant to injunctions of Islamic law has already been decided but with its prospective effect as highlighted in the judgment of Qazalbash Waqf v. Chief Land Commissioner and the effective date was set as 23rd March, 1990 before which the process of resumption had already been completed yet long term leases were executed surrendering rights over the land. (if any)

Summary: The Delimitation is to be carried out in terms of the mandatory provisions of Section 8 to 10 of the Local Government Act, 2013, Read with Section 20(3) & (4) read with section 221 to 223 of the Election Act, 2017 keeping uniformity in population of Union Councils.

Summary: Framing of Issues not mandatory. In exceptional cases while deciding 12(2) application, main case may also be decided.

Summary: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)------Ss. 320, 107 & 114---Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance (XIX of 1965), Ss. 3 & 5---Qatl-i-khata by rash or negligent driving--- Abetment--- Scope--- Abettor present when offence is committed---Prohibition on driving without licence---Scope---Accused, while driving a water tanker, hit an unknown lady who received injuries and expired on the spot---Driving licence of accused was found to be fake and bogus---Investigating Officer of the case was required to have included the owner of the vehicle in investigation as co-accused for allowing the vehicle to be driven by a person who was not holding a valid driving licence or whose licence was not genuine---Owner of the vehicle was an abettor in terms of S.107, P.P.C. and his case fell under S.114, P.P.C.---Investigating Officer was directed to take action against owner of the vehicle and the prosecution was directed to expeditiously complete the trial against the owner as co-accused---Appeal was adjourned pending action against the owner of the vehicle. Atta Muhammad v. The State 2005 PCr.LJ 1648 rel.

Summary: NAB (Conviction upheld, As accused misappropriation of funds, fraudulently prepared fake bills against procurement of material, through Ghost Shop) --- The appellant, Altaf Ahmed S/O Gul Hassan Shaikh, represented by Mr. Nisar Ahmed Tarar, Advocate, filed an appeal against the State, represented by R.D Kalhoro, Special Prosecutor for the National Accountability Bureau (NAB). The appeal challenges the verdict dated February 28, 2018, by the Accountability Court-III, Sindh Karachi in Reference No.50/2015, which convicted the appellant under section 10 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, sentencing him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,896,063. Failure to pay the fine would result in an additional year of imprisonment. The appellant was also disqualified from holding any public office or receiving any financial facilities from public sector banks or financial institutions for ten years following his conviction.The case originated from a complaint against TMA Sehwan Sharif officials regarding misappropriation of funds, leading to an inquiry and subsequent investigation by NAB. The investigation revealed that Altaf Ahmed Shaikh, while working as an electrician and falsely as a contractor, was involved in fraudulent activities, including the creation of fake bills and the illegal deposit of Rs.18,281,660 in his personal accounts.During the trial, the prosecution presented 11 witnesses and various documents to establish the appellant's guilt. The appellant, however, denied all allegations, claiming innocence and pointing out inconsistencies in witness statements. He argued that the evidence against him, particularly the banking documents, did not conclusively link him to the offense, suggesting that his identity was used fraudulently.The court, after reviewing the evidence and arguments, upheld the trial court's judgment, finding the prosecution's case against the appellant to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellant's plea that his identity was misused and that he was not involved in the fraudulent activities was not accepted by the court, given the lack of any initiative from his side to challenge or report the misuse of his identity after the case was filed. The court also noted the absence of any application from the appellant for the verification of signatures on the fraudulent documents, further weakening his defense.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court's decision based on the substantial evidence presented by the prosecution, which included both oral testimonies and documentary evidence. The judgment emphasizes the thorough examination and consideration of all aspects of the case by the court, leading to the affirmation of the appellant's conviction and the dismissal of his appeal.

Summary: Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 (Pre-arrest Bail Granted)

Summary: Appellant Asad Khan dissatisfied with the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi whereby the appellant Asad Khan was convicted for committing Qatl-e-Amd of his wife Mst. Aneela an offence under section 302 PPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.50,000/- Complainant stating therein that about two years back, his daughter Aneela married with Asad . Since the beginning of the marriage, the attitude of in-laws of his daughter was not good Aneela informed him on the telephone that she is coming to him at Qasim Town but till 08:30 P.M, she did not come at Qasim Town and her father made a telephonic call to her maternal Aunt Mst. Bano wife of Muneer Ahmed, who is residing in the neighbor of Aneela and informed her about the arrival of Aneela at Qasim Town .Complainant came to know that his daughter Aneela has been killed by causing her knife and dagger injuries at her house. the strong circumstantial evidence is available to connect the appellant with the commission of offence; that the appellant has admitted his guilt before the Cameraman, which was recorded in CD/USB flashed on TV. e. The admission of the appellant came in media and newspaper. In cross examination, he has denied the suggestion that he has given the name of the appellant on the instance of Mohalla people. In order to support his contention, the prosecution examined Mst. Aqeela Bano, who has also supported the version of the complainant and further deposed that she went to the house of Anila but was locked. All the circumstances, consisting on unnatural death of deceased inside the house with dagger; finding the house locked from outside as well leaving away the house are also making a chain of circumstances against the appellant and in such like eventuality the defence was required to prove otherwise. instant appeal filed by the appellant merits no consideration, which is dismissed .

Summary: [Companies matters (reduction of share capital)] In case for confirmation of resolution of reduced share capital thequestion for consideration are, should the Court refuse its sanction tothe reduction out of regard to the interest of those members of thepublic who may be induced to take shares in the company; is thereduction fair and equitable between different classes of shareholders;whether the reduction is shared by all; and is it designed to work justlyand equitably and whether it does not involve diminution of the liabilityin respect of unpaid capital or payment of any shareholder of any paidup capital; and there is evidence regarding loss of capital and nonrepresentation of available assets. None of these impediments exist inthe case of the petitioners company and consequently in view of aboveproposed reduction in the share capital, as resolved by the companyitself, apparently seems to be just, fair and reasonable and not likely toadversely affect the interests of shareholders who have themselvesresolved to the approval of this scheme of reduction. The proposal forreduction of share capital is therefore confirmed in terms of therequirements of Companies Act, 2017.

Summary: Service matters (Regularisation of Employee), Service matters (Reinstatement into Service) --- This summary addresses a judgment from the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, where the petitioner, Mehar Iqbal Siddiqui, sought relief against the Federation of Pakistan and others, challenging the legality of an order issued by Respondent No.2 regarding his service regularization, seniority, and promotion within the Karachi Port Trust (KPT). The judgment, delivered by Justices Adnan-ul-Karim Memon and Irfan Saadat Khan, primarily hinged on the principles of ad-hoc appointments, regularization, seniority, and promotion within the framework of statutory service rules.The petitioner's main grievances included the request for regularization of his service from the date of his initial induction as a Trainee Officer on an ad-hoc basis on November 28, 1989, assignment of seniority and promotion to BS-18 from the date he assumed the charge of a vacancy, and consideration for further promotion in line with KPT's rules and the superior courts' directives. The case also involved the contention of seniority between the petitioner and Respondent No.3, where the latter was allegedly promoted despite being junior and lacking the requisite qualifications.The court examined the maintainability of the petition under Article 199 of the Constitution and the applicability of Karachi Port Trust Officers Recruitment, Appointment, Seniority, and Promotion Regulations-2011. It was determined that the petition was maintainable and that the matters of regularization and promotion needed to be assessed on merit.In its judgment, the court underscored established legal principles regarding ad-hoc appointments, stating that such appointments do not confer vested rights for regularization from the date of induction or for counting towards seniority. It was further clarified that promotions are contingent upon eligibility, fitness, and vacancy, and do not constitute a fundamental right.The court found that the petitioner's service was regularized effectively from June 1, 1991, and his promotion to BS-18 on August 16, 2008, was in line with the applicable rules. It held that the petitioner was not entitled to seniority or promotion from the dates of his ad-hoc appointment or the assumption of acting charge, dismissing the petition and all related applications.This judgment reiterates the legal stance on ad-hoc appointments, regularization, and promotion within public service, emphasizing the importance of following due process and statutory regulations in matters of employment and career progression within public institutions.