Summary: The petitioner challenged the preventive detention of his father under Order No. DC/GA/535/CNF dated 11.05.2023, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Wazirabad. The detention was based on the apprehension of potential harm or breach of peace, allegedly linked to unrest following political developments. The petitioner argued that the detention order lacked reasonable grounds or supporting evidence of any specific activity prejudicial to public safety. ----Issues: 1- Whether the preventive detention order issued under the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, without sufficient supporting material, is legal and valid. 2- Whether the government can impose preventive detention in the absence of an ongoing law-and-order situation and without proper evidence. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Lack of Evidence: The court found that the detention order was issued without any substantial evidence to support the claim that the detenu was involved in any activity prejudicial to public safety or maintenance of public order. The report submitted by the SHO was deemed insufficient as it did not include any material such as social media messages, call records, or other tangible evidence. Violation of Rights: The court emphasized that the government had acted hastily, without applying proper legal standards or collecting evidence. The petitioner’s father’s detention was found to be a violation of fundamental rights, specifically the right to dignity (Article 14) and the right to due process (Article 10-A) as guaranteed by the Constitution of Pakistan. Court's Conclusion: The court declared the detention order illegal, noting that it violated Section 3 of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960. The court ordered the immediate release of the detainee and imposed a daily cost of Rs. 5000 for each day of detention, payable to the petitioner’s father. ----Citations/Precedents: Government of East Pakistan vs. Mrs. Rowshan Bijaya Shaukat Ali Khan (PLD 1966 SC 286) Muhammad Abdaal alias Abdali vs. Government of Punjab and others (PLD 2020 Lahore 471) Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior Islamabad vs. Mrs. Amtul Jalil Khawaja and others (PLD 2003 SC 442) Muhammad Irshad vs. Government of Punjab and others (2020 P Cr. L J 206) Shahid Rasool vs. Government of Punjab through Secretary Home Department, Lahore, and others (2023 YLR 333) Hafiz Ali Raza vs. Deputy Commissioner, Lahore (2023 LHC 1304) Government of Sindh vs. Mst. Najma (2001 SCMR 8) State through Advocate-General, Sindh, Karachi vs. Mst. Taji Bibi (2002 SCMR 914)

Summary: Concurrent findings of the Courts below were reversed to decree the suit of the Petitioners seeking rectification of the Sale Deed; suit was within the period of limitation, the execution of the Sale Deed was proved in terms of Section 68 of the Evidence Act and the fact of minority of two Respondents was not fatal as their interest was adequately safeguarded especially when they failed to challenge the Sale Deed within three years after ceasing of disability in terms of Sections 6 and 8 read with Article 91 to the First Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1908.

Summary: Extra tax levied in terms of Section 3(5) of the Sales Tax Act 1990 read with SRO 896(I)/2013 dated 4.10.2013 read with Sales Tax General Order No.27 of 2014 dated 18.3.2014 is valid, lawful and not ultra vires

Summary: Though postings and transfers exclusively fall under the domain of competent authority and in the exigencies of service, transfer and posting can be made but such discretion must not be exercised in arbitrary or fanciful manner rather same should be exercised judiciously, with equity and fair play. Therefore, when ordinary tenure for posting has been specified in law then such tenure cannot be varied except for compelling reasons, which should be recorded in writing and must be justiciable. Ordinary tenure of two years for employees of local government in relevant laws apparently is in line with Article 140A of the Constitution, which envisages establishment of local government system to promote good governance, effective delivery of services through institutionalized participation of the people at low level through local governments and its employees. Perusal of the impugned transfer orders shows that total 193 local government employees, including the petitioners, have been transferred with one stroke of pen without adhering to the security of tenure, prescribed under Section 186 of the Act XXXIII of 2022, or giving any compelling reasons in writing for such transfers before expiry of two years' ordinary tenure.

Summary: Criminal Appeal (The convictions and sentences Upheld, as misappropriation was committed in the bank and since only the appellants were posted at the relevant time .)

Summary: Once an identity of Seconder has been finally confirmed by NADRA, as discussed above, then difference in signature would not be a substantial defect (in terms of above provisions) and cannot be termed that it is not genuine, in the above given circumstances, resulting in rejection of the Nomination Form of present Appellant.

Summary: [Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 (Section 31 (7))] In light of the foregoing, we reach to an irresistible conclusion that the exercise of passing monthly FCA on to the petitioners on the basis of NEPRAs determination dated 27.12.2019 is in accordance with law and the timeline provided under Section 31(7) of the Act, 1997 be adhered to, unless any party is restricted for a reason beyond its control, which is a case at hand. The Petitioners clearly failed to avail statutory remedies under the law while the impugned determination was being made and even thereafter, nonetheless there is no cavil that the petitioners owe FCA component to K-Electric and liable to satisfy this debt. These instant Petitions being devoid of merit are accordingly dismissed.

Summary: Background: In 2016, the respondents filed a suit for the recovery of dower and maintenance allowance against the petitioners. The respondents claimed that Naeem Akhtar was married to the petitioners' father in 2001, and her dower of Rs.50,000 and ten tolas of gold remained unpaid. The respondents further sought maintenance for the period from March 2010 (when the petitioners' father passed away) to January 2016, amounting to Rs.1.4 million, along with future maintenance. The petitioners contested the suit, and after trial, the trial court partially decreed the suit, awarding the dower to Naeem Akhtar but denying the claim for maintenance. On appeal, the appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision, leading to this constitutional petition. -----Issues: 1- Whether the suit for recovery of dower and maintenance was barred by limitation. 2- Whether the lower courts correctly interpreted the law regarding the recovery of dower and maintenance. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Limitation Issue: The Lahore High Court held that the suit filed by the respondents was time-barred under Articles 103 and 104 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The dower claims must be filed within three years of the marriage dissolution by death or divorce. Since the suit was filed six years after the death of the petitioners' father, it was clearly beyond the statutory limitation period. Dower Payment Evidence: The court scrutinized the contents of the Nikahnama (Exhibit P4), which indicated that the ten tolas of gold ornaments were in the possession of Naeem Akhtar at the time of marriage. Furthermore, the court noted that Naeem Akhtar had not claimed her dower at the time of inheritance proceedings after the death of her husband. This silence for six years indicated that the dower had likely been paid during her husband's lifetime. Legal Position on Debts: The court reiterated the legal position that while a claim for a debt, such as unpaid dower, may become barred by limitation, the debt itself does not extinguish. However, in this case, the court found that Naeem Akhtar had failed to prove that the dower remained unpaid. Court’s Ruling: The court concluded that both the trial court and the appellate court failed to apply the law correctly. As a result, the constitutional petition was allowed, the lower courts' judgments were set aside, and the respondents' suit was dismissed on the grounds of limitation and lack of merit. -----Citations/Precedents: Syed Muhammad vs. Mst. Zeenat (PLD 2001 Supreme Court 128) Muhammad Mumtaz vs. Mst. Parveen Akhtar (1985 CLC 415) Outcome: The suit filed by the respondents was dismissed, and the judgments of the lower courts were set aside. The court found the claim for dower to be time-barred and without merit.

Summary: Principle of natural justice demands that prosecution should led evidence of such characteristic which needs to no other conclusion except the guilt of the accused without any hint of doubt and benefit of a single doubt in the prosecution case must be extended in their favour. It is settled law that medical evidence may confirm the ocular evidence with regard to the seat of injury, nature of the injury, kind of weapon used in the occurrence but it would not connect the accused with the commission of offence. .Although prosecution is not under obligation to establish motive in each and every murder case, but it is also a well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that if the prosecution sets up a motive and fails to prove it, then it is the prosecution who has to suffer and not the accused. If the prosecution fails to discharge its said obligation and there remains a reasonable doubt, not an imaginary or artificial doubt, as to the guilt of the accused person, the benefit of that doubt is to be given to the accused person as of right, not as of concession.

Summary: Background: In this case, the petitioner, a police constable, was convicted by the trial court for causing injuries to two individuals during an altercation that occurred on 02.05.2010. The petitioner, along with his brothers, allegedly opened fire, resulting in severe injuries to the victims. The injuries led to the amputation of one victim's leg and a fracture of another. The trial court sentenced the petitioner to multiple terms of imprisonment under Sections 324, 337-F(v), 334, 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and Article 155-C of the Police Order, 2002. Upon appeal, the conviction was upheld, leading the petitioner to file a revision petition. -----Issues: 1- Whether the injuries caused by the petitioner were intentional or accidental during a grappling incident. 2- Whether the conviction under Section 324 PPC for attempted murder was valid given the facts of the case. 3- Whether the petitioner’s conviction and sentence under Sections 334 and 337-F(v) PPC were legally sustainable. 4- Whether the dismissal from police service following the conviction was appropriate under the applicable rules. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Conviction and Injuries: The court found discrepancies in the prosecution's case, with conflicting witness testimonies and the medical evidence showing that the injuries were caused at close range, indicating an accidental firing during a scuffle rather than an intentional act. The court ruled that the injuries were caused by mistake (khata), not with intent to kill. As a result, the conviction under Section 337-F(v) PPC was set aside, and the petitioner was convicted under Section 337-I PPC (punishment for causing hurt by mistake), with the petitioner ordered to pay Daman of Rs. 100,000 to one of the victims. Attempted Murder (Section 324 PPC): The court held that there was no evidence of intent to commit murder, a requisite element for conviction under Section 324 PPC. Therefore, the conviction and sentence under this section were set aside. Conviction under Section 334 PPC: The court ruled that, although the injuries resulted in amputation, since they were caused by mistake, the appropriate conviction was under Section 337-I PPC. The court set aside the conviction under Section 334 PPC and sentenced the petitioner to pay Arsh of Rs. 547,408 to the other injured victim. Conviction under Article 155-C of Police Order, 2002: The court found that the necessary sanction for prosecuting the petitioner under this section was missing, and as a result, the conviction under Article 155-C was set aside. Dismissal from Police Service: While no reinstatement order was passed, the court noted that since the petitioner’s sentence was reduced to compensatory penalties (Arsh and Daman), his dismissal from police service may not have been mandatory. The court referred to the relevant police rules, which allow discretion in determining whether dismissal is appropriate for such offenses, and emphasized that dismissal is not automatic in all cases of conviction. ----Citations/Precedents: Ali Ahmad vs The State (PLD 2020 Supreme Court 201) – Emphasized that when the prosecution fails to prove its case, the statement of the accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C. must be considered in its entirety. Muhammad Mumtaz vs Mst. Parveen Akhtar (1985 CLC 415) – Clarified that a debt does not become extinct if barred by limitation and can still be paid voluntarily.