Summary: It is observed that mere heinousness of the charge and recovery of huge quantity of the alleged contraband is no ground to convict accused. The prosecution is under a bounden responsibility to drive home the charge by proving each limb of its case that essentiallyincluded production of the witness, tasked with the responsibility of transmitting the samples to the office of Chemical Examiner.

Summary: Section 12(2) CPC provides a bar where plaintiff is precluded by rule from instituting a further suit in respect of any particular cause of action and shall not be entitled to institute a suit in respect of such cause of action in any court to which this code applies. --- Issue: The plaintiff sought injunctive orders against the defendants and restraining orders against the Court of Senior Civil Judge-VI, East Karachi, from proceeding with an ex parte judgment and decree in Suit No.302/2017 and Execution No.13/2018. The plaintiff challenged the judgment/decree obtained ex parte by the defendants from a court of competent jurisdiction but allegedly collusively.Holding: The High Court dismissed the suit, finding it not maintainable due to the bar provided under Section 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which precludes filing a separate suit to challenge a judgment, decree, or order on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, or want of jurisdiction.Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the plaintiff's remedy for challenging the validity of a judgment or decree based on allegations of fraud and misrepresentation lies in making an application to the court that passed the final judgment, decree, or order, as per Section 12(2) CPC, rather than filing a separate suit. The Court noted that the plaintiff had previously sought to challenge the decree through an application under Section 12(2) CPC and a subsequent civil revision, both of which were dismissed. The Court found the plaintiff's approach in filing the current suit, after exhausting remedies under Section 12(2) CPC, to be tainted with mala fide intentions. The Court emphasized that rights determined under a decree cannot be disturbed through a separate suit and that the plaintiff cannot obtain a parallel decree concerning the property in question where parties' rights have been determined via judgment and decree.Legal Precedent Cited: The Court referenced a legal precedent to support its reasoning: Pakistan Employees' Cooperative Housing Society v. Messrs Awami Constructions Co. Ltd, and another, 2003 CLC 607, which discusses the remedy for challenging a decree obtained on fraud, misrepresentation, and without jurisdiction through an application under Section 12(2) CPC rather than a separate suit.Order: The High Court dismissed the suit and all pending applications, affirming the procedural bar under Section 12(2) CPC against filing a separate suit to challenge a judgment, decree, or order on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, or want of jurisdiction.

Summary: [ 1997 (Non-identification of accusd at the time of evidence)] PW Muhammad Akeel at the time of recording his evidence has not identified the present appellant to be a same person who was identified by him at the time of identification parade as such in our view such identification of the accused has no such legal value to maintain conviction of accused in a case of capital punishment without any other corroboration.

Summary: BAIL GRANTED UNDER SECTION 426 CR.P.C.

Summary: Issue: Challenge against the Federal Government's purported jurisdiction under section 8 of the Pakistan Standard & Quality Control Act, 1996 ("the Act of 1996") in formulating and notifying Pakistan Standard for refined sugar and white sugar PS 1822-2007, and subsequent notifications imposing a marking fee on sugar mills.Holding: The High Court held that the Federal Government does not have legislative authority to prescribe standards or impose fees on agricultural produce intended for local consumption within provinces, including refined and white sugar. The petitions challenging the Federal Government's actions under the Act of 1996 were allowed to the extent that the Federal Government's actions were found to be without jurisdiction and ultra vires to the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, specifically Articles 137 and 142(c), post-18th Amendment.Reasoning: The Court reasoned that agricultural produce and related matters fall within the exclusive legislative and executive domain of provincial governments. It held that the Act of 1996, especially Sections 8 to 14, applied ultra vires when enforcing jurisdiction over agricultural produce, which should be governed by provincial legislation. The Court further found that the Federal Legislative List in the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution does not grant the Federal Government the power to legislate on the quality standards of agricultural produce for local consumption within provinces.Legal Precedents Cited:Pakistan Flour Mills Association & another v. Government of Sindh & others (2003 SCMR 162)Sanofi Aventis Pakistan Limited & others v. the Province of Sindh & others (PLD 2009 Karachi 69)Collector of Customs & others v. Sheikh Spinning Mills (1999 SCMR 1402)Muslim Commercial Bank Limited v. Momin Khan & others (2002 PLC (CS) 898 Supreme Court)Muhammad Shoaib v. Project Director National ICT Scholarship Program, Ministry of Information Technology, Islamabad & another (2011 CLD 23)M/s. Brady & Co v. M/s Sayed Saigol Industries Ltd. (1981 SCMR 494)

Summary: [PEMRA Ordinance, 2002]Reasonable restriction imposed by law, by no stretch ofimagination means to condemn a person/entity without anyjustification and without hearing3. According to (RSF) Reporterswithout borders Pakistan press, since beginning is oscillatedbetween civil societys demand for greater press freedom and thepolitical and executive/establishment elites constant reassertion ofextensive control over the media. This has to be streamlined withinframe of law not by dictations

Summary: [Civil Procedure Code CPC (O. XXX, R. 1. Application dismissed.)]Suit by a partner on behalf of firm---Maintainability---Partner was not required to have an authority from other partners before initiating any action by way of a suit---No adverse consequence had been mentioned in the provision of O. XXX, R. 1, C.P.C. if compliance was not made---Partner could neither relinquish a claim of the firm nor withdraw a suit or proceeding without the authorization or endorsement of the other partners of a firm.

Summary: [Service matters (Appointment)] Petitioner in pursuance advertisement applied for drawing teacher & Orientale teacher. They claimed on conducting the written test they declared successful candidate. they approached obtaining offer letter but could not. State council informed that since irregularities were found in the test no result of written test was announced .However, only offer letter issued them on contract basis which were canceled and not appointed. merely issuance of offer order is no ground to claim appointment order as the respondents had found something fishy in the matter and recommended for scrapping of thewhole recruitment process. The material placed on record before this Court clearly shows that a policy decision was taken by the Government to have the recruitment undertaken for the posts by way of fresh advertisement. In the light of above facts and the observation made by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Civil petition no 186K/2013 Muhammad Arif & others vs. Province of Sindh &others(supra), consequently, all the Constitution Petitions merit no consideration and are dismissed with no order as to cost.

Summary: Jurisdiction of the court to hear the case under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, which deals with the issuance of writs for enforcement of fundamental rights. The court concludes that it has the jurisdiction to hear the case against Pakistan Steel Mill as a state enterprise performing functions connected with the affairs of the federation. The petitioners argue that they are eligible and entitled to be considered for promotion based on their length of service, while the respondents counter that the petitioners do not fulfill the necessary eligibility criteria. The court discusses the relevant service rules, regulations, and amendments that apply to promotions within the Pakistan Steel Mill. It is noted that the petitioners' claim of eligibility for promotion to the next rank of Deputy Chief Engineer / Deputy General Manager (PSE-V) is based on their length of service, but the court determines that other criteria such as seniority-cum-fitness and the availability of vacancies are also relevant. The court further addresses the claim for a writ of quo warranto, which challenges the authority of certain individuals holding positions on an acting charge basis. The court emphasizes that such challenges must be made promptly and within a reasonable time. It dismisses the petitioners' claim for a writ of quo warranto based on the grounds of laches and lack of legal authority. Ultimately, the court finds that the petitioners' claims for further promotion lack merit. It notes that the petitioners do not meet the required criteria, including the qualifying length of service, for promotion to the next rank. The petition is dismissed, and the court also dismisses any pending applications associated with the case.

Summary: Background: Two related lawsuits were filed concerning the sale of House No. 26, Khayaban-e-Janbaz, Phase-V, Defence Housing Authority, Karachi. In Suit No. 379 of 2005, the plaintiffs, two sisters, claimed that their mother (defendant No. 1) sold the house illegally to defendant No. 2 under a sale agreement dated 11.02.2005. The plaintiffs argued that the mother had previously gifted 2/3rd shares of the property to them. Conversely, in Suit No. 749 of 2005, the buyer (defendant No. 2) sought specific performance of the sale agreement or compensation, asserting that she had purchased the house in good faith, relying on the mother's representation of sole ownership. -----Issues: 1- Was there a valid and subsisting gift of the property by the mother in favor of the plaintiffs? 2- Was the mother legally entitled to enter into the agreement of sale with the buyer (defendant No. 2)? 3- Is the sale agreement enforceable, or should it be canceled? 4- What relief are the parties entitled to? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Gift Validity: The court found that a valid gift had been made by the mother in favor of her two daughters (the plaintiffs) for 2/3rd of the property. The gift was evidenced by registered documents, including a Redemption Deed, and possession had been handed over to the plaintiffs, who rented out the property. Mother’s Sale Agreement: The mother was not legally entitled to sell the entire property, as she only had a 1/3rd share. Therefore, the sale agreement was deemed unenforceable for the entire property. The agreement could only pertain to her 1/3rd share. Damages to Buyer: Although the sale agreement was unenforceable, the court recognized that the buyer had paid Rs. 6 million as part payment for the house and had incurred damages. Since the buyer relied on the representation of ownership and paid a substantial amount, she was entitled to compensation. The court ordered the plaintiffs and their mother to jointly pay Rs. 4 million as damages to the buyer. Relief: The court decreed that the sale agreement was void for the plaintiffs' 2/3rd share and was not enforceable. However, it allowed for the buyer to receive the return of Rs. 6 million with profits and awarded Rs. 4 million as compensation. -----Citations/Precedents: Syed Ahmad vs. Ali Akbar and others (2021 SCMR 743) Maulvi Abdullah vs. Abdul Aziz and others (1987 SCMR 1403) Mst. Saadia vs. Mst. Gul Bibi (2016 SCMR 662) Hassan Ali vs. Mst. Khatija and others (2005 YLR 3198) Babar Ali vs. Arshad Mehmood and others (2021 MLD 1697) Liaqat Ali Khan vs. Falak Sher and others (PLD 2014 SC 506) Muhammad Habib vs. Messrs Humayun Ltd. (2015 YLR 2008 Sindh)