Summary: (a) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)--- ----Ss.4, 18 & 23---Compensation for acquired land, determination of---Non-consideration of potentiality of land---Absence of inquiry before determination of compensation---Contention of the land owners/appellants was that compensation had not been determined rightly by the Collector Land Acquisition and the Referee Court---Validity---Collector Land Acquisition while determining the compensation of the acquired land had failed to conduct a comprehensive inquiry in order to arrive at a just conclusion, rather, he while relying upon the average sale price/yaksala of the preceding year had fixed the compensation of the acquired land, thus, the determination of compensation being contrary to law could not be allowed to remain in field in any circumstances---Referee Court not only confirmed the commission report but also fixed compensation of the acquired land as Rs.25,000/- per marla, which determination was held to be neither reasonable nor justifiable in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case for the reason that neither the local commission had given any reference of the mutations in his report produced by the revenue staff during trial nor inquired about the market value of the acquired land before its acquisition in terms of S.23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act)----Local Commission had mentioned in his report that the presence of Peshawar-Islamabad Motorway, Wali Interchange, Marhatti Flyover would increase the potential value of the acquired land in the future and that the same could be utilized for any purpose except agriculture, but despite this the Local Commission suggested lower compensation, which was confirmed by the Referee Court without comprehending the attending circumstances of the case---Mutations suggested that the average price of acquired land was not less than Rs.1,00,000/- per marla, however, that suggestion was not properly appreciated by the Collector while determining compensation and, thereafter, the Referee Court while enhancing the compensation amount also ignored the mutations and thereby committed gross miscarriage of justice---Thus, in view of the potentiality and future prospects of the acquired land, which was not only admitted by the Local Commission in his report but also obvious from the sketch appended therewith, coupled with the transaction of sale effected through such mutations one year prior to the issuance of Notification under S. 4 of the Act with regard to the acquired land---The compensation amount, so determined by the Referee Court, was contrary to the provisions of S. 23 of the Act, principles set by the Supreme Court, evidence adduced by the parties and the material available on the record of the case---Appeals of the appellants were allowed, compensation of the acquired land was enhanced and the appeals filed by the Acquiring Department being meritless were dismissed, in circumstances. Wapda through Chairman and others v. Alam Sher and others 2023 SCMR 981; Murad Khan through his widow and 13 others v. Land Acquisition Collector, Peshawar and others 1999 SCMR 1647; Land Acquisition Collector and others v. Mst. Iqbal Begum and others PLD 2010 SC 719 Abdul Aziz v. Azad Govt. of the State of J&K through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and 2 others PLD 2010 SC AJ&K 97 and Abdul Wahid and 9 others v. The Deputy Commissioner, Karachi 1986 MLD 381 rel. (b) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)--- ---S. 23---Compensation of acquired land---Purpose and object---Very purpose and object of the S.23 of the Act is to protect the rights and interests of the landowners by the Court while determining the true and correct amount of compensation for their acquired land keeping in mind its potential value and future prospects in order to save them from the losses and damages sustained by them as well as their other properties injuriously affected by the acquisition of the acquired land. Zia-ur-Rehman Tajik for Appellants. Malik Faisal Khan along with Syed Manzoor Ahmad, Deputy Director, PKHA for Respondents. Date of hearing: 1st July, 2024.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860): ----Ss. 319, 322 & 34 Criminal Negligence—Medical Malpractice—Jurisdiction of Criminal Courts—Expert Opinion—Role of Regulatory Authorities (IHRA & PM&DC) The prosecution of medical negligence cases under Sections 319 (Qatl-i-Khata) and 322 (Qatl-bis-Sabab) of the Pakistan Penal Code cannot proceed without an expert medical opinion from relevant regulatory bodies such as the Islamabad Healthcare Regulatory Authority (IHRA) and the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PM&DC). The determination of medical negligence requires technical analysis by professional experts and cannot be conclusively determined through police investigation or judicial assessment alone. IHRA is the designated authority under the Islamabad Healthcare Regulation Act, 2018, to assess complaints of malpractice, maladministration, and failure in healthcare services. Similarly, PM&DC holds statutory jurisdiction under Section 44 of the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Act, 2022, to evaluate allegations of professional misconduct and negligence. In cases of alleged medical negligence, police must first seek expert opinion from IHRA or PM&DC before registering an FIR or initiating criminal proceedings. The absence of such expert opinion renders the prosecution untenable. ----Cited Cases: Shifa International Hospitals Ltd. v. Pakistan Medical and Dental Council, 2011 CLC 463 Riaz Ahmed v. ADJ/EX-officio Justice of Peace Rojhan District Rajanpur, 2022 PCr.LJ 1067 Muhammad Saleem v. The State, 2002 PCr.LJ 216 Syed Mushahid Shah v. Federal Investment Agency, 2017 CLD 1198 Dr. Riaz Qadeer Khan v. Presiding Officer, District Consumer Court, PLD 2019 Lahore 429 Dr. Sheraz-ur-Rehman v. Province of Sindh, 2020 CLC 2037 Dr. Khair Muhammad Sahowal v. Province of Sindh, 2022 YLR 63 ----Disposition: The FIR No.823/23, dated 16.09.2023, registered under Sections 322/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Kohsar, Islamabad, was quashed. The pending private complaint under Section 319, P.P.C. was stayed until the receipt of a conclusive expert report from IHRA or PM&DC. (b) Islamabad Healthcare Regulation Act, 2018 (IHRA) ----Ss. 33 & 34 Medical Negligence—Jurisdiction of IHRA—Complaint Mechanism—Mandatory Expert Opinion Under the Islamabad Healthcare Regulation Act, 2018, allegations of medical negligence must first be assessed by the Islamabad Healthcare Regulatory Authority (IHRA). The law mandates that complaints concerning medical negligence, malpractice, and maladministration be lodged directly with IHRA, which then conducts an inquiry and issues an expert opinion. The findings of IHRA carry authoritative weight in determining whether criminal negligence occurred. Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated or sustained without the support of an expert opinion from IHRA. ----Disposition: Police authorities must seek an expert report from IHRA before registering an FIR or proceeding with criminal prosecution in cases involving allegations of medical negligence. (c) Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Act, 2022 (PM&DC): ----S. 44 Disciplinary Jurisdiction—Professional Negligence—Licensing Authority—Expert Assessment The Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PM&DC) is the statutory authority responsible for investigating and deciding cases of professional negligence involving healthcare professionals. Under Section 44, PM&DC has the power to remove or suspend the license of a healthcare professional found guilty of professional negligence or misconduct. No criminal proceedings can proceed without an expert report from PM&DC, confirming negligence or professional misconduct on the part of the accused healthcare professional. ----Disposition: The police must seek expert opinion from PM&DC in cases involving professional negligence before initiating any criminal action. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 561-A Inherent Powers of the Court—Quashing of FIR—Absence of Expert Opinion The court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C., quashed the FIR due to the absence of a conclusive expert opinion from IHRA or PM&DC. It was held that police investigation and judicial proceedings in cases of medical negligence must be backed by technical expert analysis. ----Cited Cases: Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq, 2006 SCMR 276 Rana Shahid Ahmad Khan v. Tanveer Ahmed, 2011 SCMR 1937 Miraj Khan v. Gul Ahmed, 2000 SCMR 122 Director General FIA v. Kamran Iqbal, 2016 SCMR 447 Pervez Ellahi v. Federation of Pakistan, 1995 MLD 615 Mian Muhammad Abbas Sharif v. Federation of Pakistan, 1995 PCr.LJ 1224 Muhammad Aslam v. DPO, Rawalpindi, 2009 SCMR 141 Zulfiqar Ali v. SHO PS Model Town Gujranwala, 2014 PCr.LJ 487 Muhammad Nawaz v. SHO PS Sabzi Mandi Islamabad, 2017 PCr.LJ 133 ---Disposition: The FIR was quashed, and criminal proceedings were halted pending expert opinions from IHRA and PM&DC. The private complaint under Section 319, P.P.C. was stayed until expert reports were furnished.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (S.561-A) – Quashing of FIR – Medical Negligence – Applicability of Special Laws: ----Jurisdiction of Police and Courts in Cases of Alleged Medical Negligence – Role of IHRA and PM&DC. In cases involving allegations of medical negligence, the Islamabad Healthcare Regulatory Authority (IHRA) under the Islamabad Healthcare Regulation Act, 2018, and the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC) under the PMDC Act, 2022, are the competent forums to investigate and determine negligence by healthcare professionals. FIRs related to medical negligence cannot be directly registered without an expert opinion or report from IHRA or PMDC. Criminal proceedings cannot proceed without an authoritative determination of professional negligence by the relevant regulatory authorities. Held: Police must first seek an expert report from IHRA or PMDC before proceeding under criminal law. FIRs registered without expert input are liable to be quashed. ----Cited Cases: Shifa International Hospitals Ltd. v. PMDC (2011 CLC 463) Riaz Ahmed v. ADJ Rajanpur (2022 PCr.LJ 1067) (b) Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (S.322, 319) – Qatl-bis-Sabab vs. Qatl-i-Khata – Distinction and Applicability: ----Medical Negligence – Interpretation of Sections 322 and 319 PPC. Under Section 322 PPC (Qatl-bis-Sabab) and Section 319 PPC (Qatl-i-Khata), intent plays a crucial role in differentiating the offences. Qatl-bis-Sabab involves an unlawful act without intent, while Qatl-i-Khata arises from mistake of act or fact without intent to harm or kill. In allegations of medical negligence, expert reports from IHRA or PMDC are mandatory to determine whether the act constitutes negligence or falls within the scope of Sections 322 or 319 PPC. Held: Without a clear determination by medical regulatory authorities, courts cannot conclusively determine whether the alleged act constitutes Qatl-bis-Sabab or Qatl-i-Khata. ----Cited Cases: Dr. Riaz Qadeer Khan v. Presiding Officer, District Consumer Court (PLD 2019 Lahore 429) Dr. Sheraz-ur-Rehman v. Province of Sindh (2020 CLC 2037) (c) Islamabad Healthcare Regulation Act, 2018 (S.33, S.34) – Investigation of Medical Negligence: ----Role of IHRA in Determining Medical Negligence – Procedural Requirements. Under Section 33 of the IHRA Act, 2018, allegations of medical negligence must first be investigated by IHRA. Only after IHRA concludes its inquiry and determines negligence can the matter proceed under criminal law. Police and courts lack the technical expertise to determine medical negligence independently. Held: IHRA is the primary authority to investigate medical negligence claims in Islamabad. Police must refer such matters to IHRA before registering FIRs under PPC. ----Cited Cases: Riaz Ahmed v. ADJ Rajanpur (2022 PCr.LJ 1067) Muhammad Saleem v. State (2002 PCr.LJ 216) (d) Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Act, 2022 (S.44) – Disciplinary Committee – Removal of Medical Practitioners: ----Professional Negligence – Jurisdiction of PMDC in Disciplinary Actions. Under Section 44 of the PMDC Act, 2022, the Disciplinary Committee of PMDC is authorized to hear complaints of professional negligence against medical practitioners and take disciplinary action, including cancellation of licenses. Criminal prosecution should not commence unless PMDC has concluded that professional negligence occurred. Held: PMDC is the primary regulatory authority for professional negligence allegations against doctors. Criminal prosecution should only follow after disciplinary proceedings conclude. ----Cited Cases: Director General FIA v. Kamran Iqbal (2016 SCMR 447) Muhammad Saleem v. State (2002 PCr.LJ 216) (e) Special Law vs. General Law – Prevalence of IHRA Act, 2018 over PPC: ----Conflict Between Special and General Laws – Applicability of IHRA Act. In cases where special law (IHRA Act, 2018) and general law (PPC) conflict, the special law prevails over general law. IHRA is specifically enacted to address medical negligence, while PPC generally deals with bodily harm and criminal liability. Held: IHRA Act, 2018 prevails over PPC in matters of medical negligence. Police cannot bypass IHRA procedures by directly registering FIRs without obtaining expert reports. ----Cited Cases: Syed Mushahid Shah v. Federal Investment Agency (2017 CLD 1198) Muhammad Saleem v. State (2002 PCr.LJ 216) (f) Inherent Jurisdiction (S.561-A Cr.P.C) – Quashing of FIR in Medical Negligence Cases ----Powers of High Court to Quash FIR in Exceptional Circumstances. The High Court has inherent powers under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. to quash FIRs in extraordinary circumstances, particularly where proceedings are initiated without following the due process outlined in special statutes like IHRA Act or PMDC Act. In the present case, FIR No.823/23 was quashed as it lacked the prerequisite expert opinion from IHRA or PMDC. Held: FIRs alleging medical negligence cannot proceed without expert verification. High Courts can quash FIRs in such cases under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. ----Cited Cases: Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq (2006 SCMR 276) Rana Shahid Ahmad Khan v. Tanveer Ahmed (2011 SCMR 1937) (g) Stay of Proceedings in Private Complaint Pending Expert Report: ----Role of Private Complaints in Medical Negligence Cases. In cases where a private complaint alleging medical negligence has been filed, proceedings must remain stayed until expert reports from IHRA or PMDC are obtained. Without technical validation of negligence, courts cannot proceed with private complaints under criminal statutes. Held: Proceedings on private complaints alleging medical negligence must await expert determination by IHRA or PMDC. ----Cited Cases: Dr. Khair Muhammad Sahowal v. Province of Sindh (2022 YLR 63) Dr. Sheraz-ur-Rehman v. Province of Sindh (2020 CLC 2037) -----Disposition: The FIR No.823/23 registered under Sections 322/34 PPC was quashed. The private complaint under Section 319 PPC remains stayed until an expert report from IHRA or PMDC is submitted. The police and complainant must approach IHRA and PMDC for expert determination. No order as to costs.

Summary: Background: The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the order dated 04.03.2024 passed by the Lahore High Court, which denied his pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 489-F PPC (pertaining to the dishonoring of a cheque). The petitioner was accused of issuing a cheque amounting to Rs. 80,00,000/- that was dishonored upon presentation to the bank. ---Issues: 1) Whether the petitioner was falsely implicated with mala fide intention and ulterior motives. ---- 2) Whether the cheque was stolen from the petitioner and later filled in by the complainant. ----3) Whether the conditions for granting pre-arrest bail, as specified under section 497(2) Cr.P.C., were met. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Lahore High Court, denying the petitioner pre-arrest bail. The Court noted that the petitioner did not deny his signature on the cheque and failed to establish any mala fide intention on the part of the complainant. The Court emphasized that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief that requires the petitioner to demonstrate mala fide actions by the complainant or police, which was not established in this case. The petition was also dismissed on the grounds of limitation as it was filed 35 days late, and the application seeking condonation of delay was not substantiated with a cogent reason. ---Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Sadiq and others v. The State (2015 SCMR 1394) Emphasized that considerations for pre-arrest bail are different from post-arrest bail and require establishing mala fide on the part of the complainant or investigating agency. Gulshan Ali Solangi and others versus The State (2020 SCMR 249) Highlighted that pre-arrest bail is an equitable remedy granted to protect the innocent from abuse of process but should not be extended to those facing prima facie charges backed by material evidence. ---Conclusion: The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition for pre-arrest bail and refused to grant leave to appeal, emphasizing the failure to establish mala fide intentions by the complainant and upholding the legal principles governing the granting of pre-arrest bail. The trial court was advised to adjudicate the case independently based on its merits.

Summary: The Public Interest Law Association of Pakistan and others filed petitions concerning the lack of effective climate change policies and actions by the Ministry of Climate Change and the provincial governments. The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed the systemic deficiencies in dealing with climate change and sought explanations from relevant authorities. -----Issues: 1. Whether the Ministry of Climate Change has an effective policy in place to address climate change 1. challenges. ---2. The adequacy of the actions taken by the Ministry of Climate Change and the provincial governments in dealing with climate change. ---3. Whether specific budgets have been allocated for climate change initiatives in the recent provincial budgets. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Completion of Authority Establishment: The Court noted that the Ministry of Climate Change received 752 applications for five posts under the Pakistan Climate Change Act, 2017. The Court directed the Ministry to complete this process within a fortnight and to place the notification of the duly constituted Authority on record before the next hearing. -----Lack of Climate Change Policy: The Court found no concrete climate change policy or effective steps taken by the Ministry of Climate Change. It directed the Secretary Climate Change to present a relevant policy and update the Court on the key challenges and strategies implemented. Provincial Inaction: The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the Chief Secretaries of Punjab, Sindh, KPK, and Balochistan, noting the absence of clear strategies or adequate steps to address climate change challenges. The Chief Secretaries were ordered to submit relevant strategies/action plans before the next hearing. ----Budget Allocation: The Court observed that no special budget had been allocated for climate change in the recent provincial budgets, with the exception of a $50 million loan obtained by Punjab through the Asian Development Bank, which was noted but not documented in the record. -----Existential Threat: The Court emphasized that climate change poses a serious existential threat to the people of Pakistan and directly affects fundamental rights. It noted the urgency of the situation, especially with the monsoon season approaching, and the country's ongoing recovery from the 2022 floods. ----The Court scheduled the next hearing for 15.07.2024, requiring the presence of the Chief Secretaries, Ms. Roomina Khursheed Alam, the Secretary Climate Change, and other concerned officers to update the Court on their strategies and actions. Ms. Ayesha Khan was appointed as amicus curiae to assist the Court. The order was also to be dispatched to the Prime Minister Secretariat for the Prime Minister's perusal. ----Citations/Precedents: Pakistan Climate Change Act, 2017 ----Notable Citations: C.P.42/2022 and C.P.25/2024: Cases involving Public Interest Law Association of Pakistan and others vs. Federation of Pakistan, etc. Order Date: 01.07.2024: Directions to Ministry of Climate Change and provincial governments regarding climate change policies and actions.

Summary: The complaint alleged negligence by the medical staff of Shafi Hospital, resulting in burn injuries to the complainant's newborn daughter. ----Issues: 1) Whether the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace has the jurisdiction to direct the registration of an FIR in cases of alleged medical negligence. ---2) Whether the Islamabad Healthcare Regulation Act, 2018 (IHRA) mandates prior adjudication by the Healthcare Authority before filing a criminal case. ---3)Whether the procedural requirements for handling complaints of medical negligence were followed. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Jurisdiction of Ex-Officio Justice of Peace: The court held that the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace lacks jurisdiction to direct the registration of an FIR in cases of medical negligence without first obtaining an expert opinion from the Islamabad Healthcare Regulatory Authority (IHRA) or the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC). The relevant law (IHRA) provides a comprehensive regulatory framework to address complaints of medical negligence and mandates that such complaints be adjudicated by the Authority before initiating criminal proceedings. ----Procedural Requirements: The court emphasized that according to Sections 32 and 33 of the IHRA, any complaint against a healthcare provider must first be filed with and investigated by the IHRA. The IHRA must determine whether there was negligence before any criminal case can be registered. The court found that the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace did not consider the expert opinion of the IHRA, which had already imposed a fine on the hospital for lapses but did not find individual staff members guilty of medical negligence. ----Expert Report Requirement: The court established guidelines for dealing with cases of alleged medical negligence, emphasizing that criminal proceedings against healthcare providers must be supported by an expert report from IHRA or PMDC. The police must request an expert opinion before lodging an FIR, and any criminal complaint should be processed only after receiving such a report. ----Citations/Precedents: National Bank of Pakistan through President and another vs. Muhammad Adeel and others, 2024 SCMR 982 Rehm Dad vs. Province of Punjab through Chief Secretary, Lahore and others, PLD 2024 SC 499 Syed Mushahid Shah vs. Federal Investment Agency, 2017 SCMR 1218 Federal Employees Cooperative Housing Society vs. Director General, Federal Investigation Agency, Islamabad, 2019 CLC 347 [Islamabad] Sui Northern Gas Pipeline Limited (SNGPL) vs. Director (Legal), President Secretariat (Public), Aiwan-e-Sadar Islamabad, PLD 2018 [Islamabad] 51 References by Judge Special Court-II (C.N.S.): In the matter of Criminal Transfer References, 2006 PCr.LJ 921 Dr. Riaz Qadeer Khan vs. Presiding Officer, District Consumer Court, Sargodha and others, PLD 2019 Lahore 429 Lady Dr. Nafeesa Saleem vs. Justice of Peace/ASJ Multan and 2 others, PLD 2022 Lahore 18 Summary: The Islamabad High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order of the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace. The court underscored the necessity of obtaining an expert opinion from IHRA or PMDC before initiating any criminal proceedings against healthcare providers for alleged negligence. This decision reinforces the regulatory framework provided by the IHRA and ensures that complaints of medical negligence are handled with the required expertise and due process.

Summary: Since bail on statutory ground of delay in conclusion of trial is granted as a "right", therefore, merely due to registration of some other cases also, which are not regarding act of terrorism, same cannot be withheld.

Summary: Scope of Executive powers of the Federal Cabinet