Summary: Possession of dead meat is also culpable under the Punjab Animal Slaughter Control Act, 1963.

Summary: Possession of dead meat is also culpable under the Punjab Animal Slaughter Control Act, 1963. 1020C.O. (Commercial) 48681/23 Qatar Lubricants Company W.L.L through Ashfaq Ahmed Jalal & 1 Other Vs Atif Naeem Rana & 4 Others Mr. Justice Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi 24- 06- 2024 2024 LHC 3709 2025 CLD 78 (Lahore) (https://sys.lhc.gov.pk/appjudgments/2024LHC3709.p

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed writ petitions challenging the orders and notifications issued by a state commission and the federal government, which directed that contempt proceedings against the petitioner be held in a jail instead of an open court. The petitioner argued that these orders violated the constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution, which guarantees a public hearing. The proceedings were initiated after the petitioner allegedly made contemptuous remarks against the commission during a media talk. The petitioner sought the court's intervention to nullify the orders and ensure that the proceedings were conducted in an open court. -----Issues: 1- Whether the writ petitions were maintainable despite similar proceedings being dismissed for non-prosecution in another High Court. ----2- Whether the orders directing contempt proceedings to be held in jail violated the petitioner's right to a fair and public trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution. ----3- Whether the commission had the authority to regulate the location of contempt proceedings, particularly by holding them in jail. ----4- Whether the procedural laws, specifically the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and Civil Procedure Code (CPC), applied to the contempt proceedings held by the commission. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ---Maintainability: The court held that the petitions were maintainable. Even though similar proceedings were dismissed for non-prosecution in another High Court, the dismissal did not bar the petitioner from challenging the current orders in the present court. The petitions were filed before the contempt proceedings were initiated in jail, making them valid. --Fair Trial & Public Hearing: The court ruled that the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A includes the right to a public hearing, and holding the proceedings in jail without allowing public or media access violated this right. The orders to conduct the trial in jail were found to be without justification, as no exceptional circumstances were provided to warrant such a venue change. --Regulation of Proceedings by the Commission: The court acknowledged the commission’s authority to regulate its own procedure but noted that this power did not extend to violating constitutional rights. The commission's discretion in choosing the venue for contempt proceedings could not override the fundamental right to a public hearing. --Application of CrPC and CPC: The court held that the Criminal Procedure Code applied to the contempt proceedings conducted by the commission, particularly in matters relating to trial venue. Section 352 of the CrPC mandates that trials should be held in open court, and the commission’s orders were inconsistent with this requirement. -----Citations/Precedents: Lieutenant General (R) Salahuddin Tirmizi vs. Election Commission of Pakistan, PLD 2008 SC 735 Muslim Commercial Bank Limited and another vs. Momin Khan and others, 2002 PLC (CS) 898 Alam Dad Laleka vs. Election Commission of Pakistan, PLD 2020 Islamabad 20 Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi vs. Federation of Pakistan and others, PLD 2024 Islamabad 155 Naveed Akhtar vs. The State, PLD 2021 SC 600 Talal Ahmed Chaudhary vs. the State, 2019 SCMR 542 Contempt Proceedings against Imran Khan, Chairman Pakistan Tehreek-I-Insaf, PLD 2014 SC 367 State vs. Oadna Jabt Mulviya and another, AIR 1954 ALL 523 Shahid Orakzai vs. Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz Group) and 8 others, 2000 SCMR 1969 Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings initiated against Mr. Daniyal Aziz, Federal Minister, PLD 2018 SC 738 Vice-Chancellor Agriculture University, Peshawar and others vs. Muhammad Shafiq and other, 2024 SCMR 527 The State vs. Khalid Masood, PLD 1996 SC 42

Summary: Background: The petitioners, who are senior citizens, are facing significant financial hardships due to non-payment of their legitimate dues. During the proceedings, it was revealed that the Administrator of the Market Committee Mirpurkhas presented two cheques of Rs. 100,000 each for the petitioners. However, there was confusion and a lack of clarity about the status of the implementation of court orders regarding the suspension of salaries for the Administrator Market Committee and the Secretary Finance Government of Sindh. ----Issues: 1- Non-payment of legitimate dues to the petitioners by the Market Committee Mirpurkhas. 2- Non-compliance with court orders regarding the suspension of salaries of the Administrator Market 3- Committee and the Secretary Finance Government of Sindh until the dues are paid. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court found it unacceptable to merely record the receipt of cheques for the petitioners, emphasizing that the responsibility lies with the Accounts Department of the respondents. The court expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of clarity and compliance by the A.A.G and the Administrator Market Committee regarding the suspension of salaries. The court ordered the immediate suspension of the salary of the Secretary Finance Government of Sindh until all outstanding legitimate dues of the petitioners are paid. The A.A.G was directed to file a compliance report regarding the suspension of salaries and the payment of dues.

Summary: Background: The petitioners filed constitutional petitions due to inadequate conditions and lack of services in government hospitals in the Sindh Province. ----Issues: 1- The inadequate conditions of government hospitals, including non-functional kitchens and insufficient ambulance services. 2- Absence of medical staff from duty. 3- Overall deterioration of medical facilities in rural areas of Sindh Province, affecting the quality of life for residents. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court reviewed a report from the District & Sessions Judge, Umerkot, noting that the hospital kitchen was not fully functional and ambulance service was insufficient. The court ordered the implementation of the recommendations provided by the Commissioner who inspected the hospital's premises. A compliance report is to be submitted by the official respondents before the next hearing. The court observed that medical facilities, particularly in rural areas of Sindh Province, have significantly deteriorated, violating Article 9 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The court suggested a policy where government representatives and their family members should seek medical treatment from hospitals in their constituencies unless specialized treatment is required. This aims to ensure better medical facilities for all citizens.

Summary: Background: The appellants challenged an order passed on 15.11.2023, which decreed a suit for declaration, permanent, and mandatory injunction in favor of the plaintiffs (respondents) without a trial. The suit pertained to 126 acres of land in NC-309, Deh Joreji, Bin Qasim Town, Karachi. The appellants argued that the suit was decreed without resolving objections and without a proper trial. ----Issues: 1- Whether the suit was properly registered and whether office objections were addressed. 2- Whether there was an admission or consent justifying a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. 3- Whether the application of Order X and XV read with Order XII Rule 6 CPC was appropriate in this case. 4- Whether the learned Single Judge considered the necessary prerequisites and pleadings before passing the decree. 5- Whether the decree was a result of collusion or undue haste without examining the triable issues, especially given the government's involvement and claims. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court noted that the suit was not registered properly, and objections were not decided before the decree was awarded. The court found no admission within the frame of Order XII Rule 6 CPC that justified the decree. The alleged consent was denied by the Assistant Advocate General. The court observed that the application of Order X and XV read with Order XII Rule 6 CPC was not demonstrated in the impugned order. The necessary conditions for their application were missing. The court highlighted that no written statement was filed by any defendants, and the prerequisites for applying these provisions were not met. The government's categorical dispute over the plaintiffs' claims made it a triable issue. The court emphasized that even if the order was considered a consent decree, the relief granted should align with the suit's frame, especially considering the government's ownership of the land. The possibility of collusive proceedings was not ruled out. The court concluded that the impugned order was hasty and undetermined, with unresolved issues requiring proper adjudication. ----Citations/Precedents: Directorate of Small Industries, Govt. of Baluchistan v. Civil Aviation Authority (1993 MLD 1836) Outcome: The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded for proceedings in accordance with the law.

Summary: Bail denied ---- Background: In the case of Naveed Tariq and another vs. The State, etc., the petitioners sought post-arrest bail under Section 497 Cr.P.C. The case arises from FIR No. 1320 dated 16.05.2024, registered at Police Station Thekriwala, District Faisalabad, under sections 22-A and 24 of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners were transporting 15 mounds (600 kilograms) of unfit meat for human consumption, which was discovered during a Food Safety team inspection and subsequently destroyed. ----Issues: 1)Whether the petitioners are entitled to bail under Section 497 Cr.P.C. given the nature of the offences. ----2)Whether the non-provision of sale purchase records and other documentation affects the petitioners' eligibility for bail. ----3)Whether the offences under the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011, and the Punjab Animals Slaughter Control Act, 1963, justify denying bail due to their societal impact. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Eligibility for Bail: The court examined whether the petitioners' offences fall under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. The court noted that while the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause, the nature of the crime and its societal impact can justify denying bail. Non-Provision of Records: The lack of documentation (sale purchase records, agreements, delivery challans, and slaughterhouse certificates) indicated criminal liability under the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011, and the Punjab Animals Slaughter Control Act, 1963. The court emphasized that these documents are essential to substantiate the petitioners' claims of carrying healthy meat. Societal Impact of Offences: The court highlighted the severity of the offences, noting that transporting unfit meat poses significant health risks to the public. The court cited various precedents to assert that bail can be denied in cases involving serious allegations against society, even if the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause. -----Outcome: The court dismissed the bail petition, emphasizing the serious allegations against the petitioners and the lack of reasonable grounds to extend the concession of bail under the exceptional circumstances presented. ----Citations/Precedents: MUHAMMAD WAQAS vs. THE STATE (2002 SCMR 1370) MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs. IMTIAZ BEGUM and 2 others (2002 SCMR 442) RASHAD IMRAN vs. The STATE and another (2022 SCMR 1304) UMER KHAN vs. The STATE and another (2022 SCMR 216) ALLAH YAR and 4 others vs. The STATE and another (2023 P Cr. L J Note 60) IRFAN SARWAR vs. The STATE (2022 P Cr. L J Note 71)

Summary: Note by Justice Athar Minallah --- Issues: 1. Whether the Election Commission’s interpretation of the Supreme Court’s judgment was flawed and resulted in the unjust exclusion of PTI from the electoral process. ----2 .Whether the Commission ensured a level playing field for all political parties during the general elections. ----3. The integrity of the electoral process and its impact on fundamental rights and representative democracy. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Justice Athar Minallah addressed the grave questions regarding the Commission’s role in the electoral process and its impact on fundamental rights. He emphasized that the Commission must justify the exclusion of PTI and demonstrate that a level playing field was provided to all political parties. The Court directed the Commission to submit a concise statement detailing the nature of complaints received and to prove that PTI was legitimately excluded from the electoral process and could not claim reserved seats.

Summary: ''Islamabad High Court held that FIR registered for occurrence in one province cannot be registered in another province; furthermore Police cannot file FIR for a non-cognizable offence and that multiple FIRs cannot be registered for the same occurrence. Writ Petition allowed, FIR quashed.'' --- Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed, filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The petition sought to quash several FIRs (First Information Reports) alleging political victimization. The FIRs were registered in various locations across Pakistan, including Islamabad, Murree, and Karachi, for offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). ---Issues: 1. Whether FIRs can be registered in cases where the allegations do not disclose the commission of a cognizable offense. 2. Whether FIRs can be registered in multiple provinces for occurrences that allegedly took place in Islamabad. 3. Whether multiple FIRs can be registered regarding a single occurrence. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Registration of FIRs for Non-Cognizable Offenses: The Court held that FIRs cannot be registered for non-cognizable offenses. The FIRs in question did not disclose the commission of cognizable offenses. Jurisdiction of FIRs: The Court held that FIRs related to occurrences in Islamabad cannot be registered in other provinces. The jurisdiction for registering FIRs is determined by the location where the offense was allegedly committed. Multiple FIRs for a Single Occurrence: The Court held that multiple FIRs cannot be registered for a single occurrence. Only one FIR can be registered, and cross versions can be recorded during the investigation. This was supported by the Supreme Court's ruling in Mst. Sughran Bibi vs. The State (PLD 2018 SC 595). Quashing of FIRs: The Court quashed FIR No. 40/2023 registered at police station Mochko, Keamari, Karachi, as it was found to be an abuse of the process of law and was registered without lawful authority. ----Citations/Precedents: Mst. Sughran Bibi vs. The State (PLD 2018 SC 595): Establishes that multiple FIRs for the same occurrence are not permissible. Muhammad Sultan vs. Muhammad Raza and others (2020 SCMR 1200): Discusses the jurisdiction and venue of trial. F.I.A. through Director General, FIA and others vs. Syed Hamid Ali Shah & others (PLD 2023 SC 265): High Courts can quash FIRs registered without lawful authority. Miraj Khan vs. Gul Ahmed and 3 others (2000 SCMR 122): Highlights the circumstances under which High Courts can quash FIRs. Muhammad Bashir vs. Station House Officer, Okara Cantt. and others (PLD 2007 SC 539): Emphasizes that police must perform their duties within the confines of the law. Muhammad Azam Khan Swati vs. Inspector-General of Police, Balochistan and 2 others (PLD 2023 Balochistan 85): Reiterates that multiple FIRs for the same offense are an abuse of the process of law.