Summary: Background: The Civil Aviation Authority of Pakistan ("CAA") filed a civil revision petition challenging the order dated 26.04.2024 of the Civil Court, Islamabad, which had appointed a new umpire, Justice Paracha, in an arbitration dispute between CAA and LTH Joint Venture ("LTH-JV"). The original umpire, Justice Jillani, had recused himself after LTH-JV raised concerns of bias. The contract between CAA and LTH-JV, related to the construction of Islamabad International Airport, provided for arbitration in case of disputes. The appointment of an umpire was contested after the recusal of the originally appointed umpire. -----Issues: 1- Whether LTH-JV had sufficient grounds for seeking the recusal of the originally appointed umpire, Justice Jillani. ----2- Whether the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to appoint a new umpire under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. ----3- Whether CAA’s contention that the vacancy should have been filled by the arbitrators, as per the terms of the contract, is valid. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Islamabad High Court held that the Civil Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by appointing a new umpire without first requiring LTH-JV to follow the contractual procedure for appointing an umpire. The contract between CAA and LTH-JV, as well as the Arbitration Act, stipulated that the arbitrators were responsible for appointing the umpire. The Court emphasized that a written notice should have been sent to the arbitrators, asking them to fill the vacancy created by Justice Jillani’s recusal. Only after such a notice, if the arbitrators failed to act within 15 days, could LTH-JV approach the court under Section 8(2) of the Arbitration Act for the appointment of an umpire. The Court set aside the order of the Civil Court, allowing LTH-JV to request the arbitrators to fill the vacancy. If the arbitrators fail to do so, LTH-JV could then pursue the matter in court. -----Citations/Precedents: Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar (AIR 1979 SC 1457) D. Gobindram Vs. Messrs Shamji K. & Co. (AIR 1961 SC 1285) Vedprakash Vs. Union of India (AIR 1984 Delhi 325) Food Corpn. of India Vs. A. Muhammad Yunus (AIR 1987 Kerala 231) Misti Enterprises Vs. Britannia Engineering Products & Services Ltd. (AIR 1993 Calcutta 272) Union of India Vs. D.P. Singh (AIR 1961 Patna 228) Union of India Vs. Raghunath Singh & Co. (AIR 1980 SC 103) Parbhat General Agencies Vs. Union of India (AIR 1971 SC 2298) Keshavsinh Dwarkadas Kapadia Vs. Indian Engineering Company (AIR 1972 SC 1538)

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: The appellant, Ghulam Munawar Soomro, Deputy Manager FIR Cell Sui Gas Office, Larkana Region, challenged the acquittal of the respondent, Tajuddin Waqar Shaikh, in a criminal case related to gas theft. The FIR was registered on 17.02.2022, alleging that on 28.12.2021, the respondent tampered with a gas pipeline, resulting in unauthorized gas usage. The case was brought to trial, and the Sessions Court acquitted the respondent on 21.11.2022, prompting the appellant to file this appeal. ----Issues: 1- Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the respondent by not properly considering the evidence presented by the prosecution. 2- Whether there were significant contradictions in the prosecution witnesses' testimonies that justified the acquittal. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The trial court acquitted the respondent, citing contradictory statements from the prosecution witnesses and the failure of the investigating officer to inspect the gas meter or produce the alleged gas bill registered in the respondent’s name. The trial court emphasized the prosecution's negligence in presenting crucial evidence, such as the gas bill, which was repeatedly mentioned but never produced. The trial court found that the evidence provided was insufficient to establish the respondent's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. ----Citations/Precedents: State Versus Abdul Khaliq and others (PLD 2011 SC 554): The Supreme Court of Pakistan highlighted the narrow scope of appeals against acquittal, emphasizing the double presumption of innocence and the high threshold for overturning such judgments. The court must find the acquittal judgment to be perverse, arbitrary, foolish, artificial, speculative, or ridiculous to interfere.

Summary: Background: The appellant/complainant filed a direct complaint alleging that on 26.03.2018, at about 04:00 P.M., the respondents/accused, armed with deadly weapons, illegally dispossessed the appellant from their agricultural land measuring about 02 acres, located in Deh Phull, Tapo Zangipur, Taluka Thull. The respondents also allegedly used abusive language and physically assaulted the complainant party. The case was registered under Sections 3, 4, 7, and 8 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The trial court, after evaluating the evidence, acquitted the respondents. ----Issues: 1- Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the respondents/accused despite sufficient material on record to convict them. 2- Whether the evidence provided by the complainant and their witnesses was sufficient to establish the guilt of the respondents/accused beyond a reasonable doubt. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The trial court found material contradictions in the statements of the complainant and the eyewitness regarding the weapons the accused were armed with during the incident. No medical evidence was presented to suggest that the complainant or their witnesses received any injuries from the accused. The complaint was filed on 12.10.2018, while the occurrence took place on 02.03.2018, creating inconsistencies in the timeline. Reports from village Revenue staff and the Survey Superintendent indicated that only a portion of the land was in possession of the accused, contrary to the complainant's claim of dispossession from the entire 02 acres. The trial court concluded that the complainant may have filed the complaint out of anger due to previous incidents involving the accused’s cattle damaging the complainant’s crops. The scope of appeal against acquittal is narrow, requiring a double presumption of innocence, which the appellant failed to rebut. The appeal was dismissed as the trial court's decision was found to be free from any illegality or irregularity. ----Citations/Precedents: State Versus Abdul Khaliq and others (PLD 2011 SC 554) Established the narrow and limited scope of interference in appeals against acquittals due to the double presumption of innocence. The State v. Muhammad Sharif (1995 SCMR 635) Highlighted the Supreme Court's reluctance to interfere with the findings of lower courts unless there are glaring errors of law and fact. Muhammad Ijaz Ahmad v. Raja Fahim Afzal and 2 others (1998 SCMR 1281) Emphasized that the Supreme Court, as the final forum, is cautious in overturning the decisions of lower courts unless the findings are palpably perverse.

Summary: Bail denied---Background: The applicant sought post-arrest bail in crime number 235 of 2022, registered under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, at the Thatta police station on 01.10.2022. The police, during a patrol, received information that the applicant was selling charas (hashish) openly in front of his house. The police apprehended the applicant and recovered 1900 grams of charas from his possession. The applicant's earlier bail application was dismissed on 15.10.2022 by the Special Judge-1, Control of Narcotic Substances in Thatta. ----Issues: 1- Whether the non-compliance of section 103 of the Cr.P.C. invalidates the arrest and recovery. 2- Whether the weight of the recovered charas entitles the applicant to bail. 3- Whether there is sufficient evidence to deny bail to the applicant. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Non-compliance of Section 103 Cr.P.C.: The argument that section 103 Cr.P.C. was violated was dismissed. Section 25 of the CNS Act, 1997, excludes the applicability of section 103 Cr.P.C., a stance reiterated by the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Tariq Mehmood vs. The State (PLD 2009 SC 39). Weight of the Recovered Charas: The counsel for the applicant argued that the weight of the charas falls on the borderline between sections 9(b) and 9(c) of the CNS Act, 1997. However, the chemical analysis report confirmed that the net weight was 1896 grams, which falls within the scope of section 9(c). Therefore, the potential punishment falls under the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C., making the applicant ineligible for bail based on the weight of the substance. Evidence Against the Applicant: Upon a tentative assessment, the applicant was found red-handed in possession of charas, as confirmed by the chemical analysis report. No ill-will or malafide intent by the police was evident. The prosecution appeared to have sufficient evidence linking the applicant to the crime. ----Citations/Precedents: Tariq Mehmood vs. The State (PLD 2009 SC 39): This case establishes that section 25 of the CNS Act, 1997, excludes the applicability of section 103 Cr.P.C.

Summary: Background: The petitioner claims to be the lessee of Plot No.2, Welfare Colony, PIB Colony, Karachi, admeasuring 450.19 square yards. However, the Anti-Encroachment Cell, Estate & Enforcement, Karachi Development Authority (KDA) issued a notice under Section 3(1) of the Sindh Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act, 2010, requiring the petitioner to vacate unauthorized possession of Commercial Plot No.SB-7, Block-12, Scheme-24, Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi. The petitioner contends that they have no connection with this commercial plot and possess a legitimate lease issued by the Sindh Katchi Abadis Authority. ----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner has unauthorized possession of the plot mentioned in the notice. 2- Whether the Anti-Encroachment Cell's notice was applicable to the petitioner’s leased plot. 3- Whether the petitioner approached the appropriate forum for redressal of grievances. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court noted that the notice under Section 3(1) of the Sindh Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act, 2010, was issued concerning Commercial Plot No.SB-7, Block-12, Scheme-24, Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi, and not the plot claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner's plot was not mentioned in the notice. It appeared that the petitioner had no concern with the commercial plot specified in the notice and that the petitioner’s leased plot from Sindh Katchi Abadis Authority was not subject to the notice. The court observed that for actions taken by the Anti-Encroachment Cell of KDA, a special tribunal has been established. The petitioner should have approached this tribunal for redressal of grievances in accordance with the law. The court dismissed the petition in limine, stating that the case involved disputed facts and determination of rights over immovable property. The petitioner was directed to approach the relevant forum (the special tribunal) for seeking any relief in accordance with the law. ----Citations/Precedents: Sindh Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act, 2010, Section 3(1)

Summary: Bail granted---Background: The applicants, four individuals, sought pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.165/2022, registered at Police Station Mehar, involving charges under sections 440, 114, 147, 148, 149, 504, 337-A(i), and 337-F(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). Their initial request for bail was denied by the I-Additional Session Judge, Mehar, on 01.07.2022. ----Issues: 1- Whether the applicants are entitled to pre-arrest bail considering the nature of the charges against them. 2- Whether the applicants fall within the exceptions that would justify the denial of bail under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.PC. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The offenses for which the applicants are charged carry punishments of less than ten years, which do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.PC. The general principle is that granting bail in such cases is the rule, and refusal is the exception. This principle is supported by several precedents from the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan. The prosecution failed to demonstrate that any of the exceptions meriting denial of bail applied to the applicants. The exceptions include the likelihood of abscondence, tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, or repeating the offense. There was no material evidence presented to substantiate these grounds. The court reiterated that while deciding bail applications, deeper appreciation of the evidence is not permissible. The decision should be based tentatively on the material available on record. The court allowed the bail application, confirming the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted to the applicants on the same terms and conditions. The complainant was given the liberty to seek cancellation of the bail upon receipt of the final medical certificate if it indicated offenses carrying capital punishment. ----Citations/Precedents: Tarique Bashir V. State (PLD 1995 SC 34) Zafar Iqbal V. Muhammad Anwar (2009 SCMR 1488) Muhammad Tanveer V. State (PLD 2017 SC 733) Shaikh Abdul Raheem V. The State etc (2021 SCMR 822) Muhammad Imran V. The State (PLD 2021 SC-903)

Summary: Background: The applicant sought post-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 234 of 2022, registered under section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances (CNS) Act, 1997, at the Thatta police station on 07.12.2022. The Special Judge-1, Control of Narcotic Substances in Thatta, had earlier dismissed his bail application on 19.10.2022. ----Issues: 1- Whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail considering the alleged violation of section 103 Cr.P.C. and the quantity of narcotics recovered. 2- Whether the case falls under the non-prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C., warranting bail. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The argument regarding the non-compliance of section 103 Cr.P.C. holds little weight as Section 25 of the CNS Act, 1997, excludes its applicability. This has been reaffirmed by the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in multiple cases, including Tariq Mehmood vs. The State (PLD 2009 SC 39). Although the total weight of the narcotics seized (40 grams of heroin, 60 grams of charas, and 60 grams of methamphetamine) falls under section 9(b) of the CNS Act, 1997, the Supreme Court has shown leniency in such cases at the bail stage. However, given the nature of the substances (heroin and methamphetamine), the court considered this an exceptional case. The potential harm caused by these substances justifies a stricter approach, as outlined in Tariq Bashir vs. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34), which indicates that bail should normally be granted if the offense falls within the non-prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C., unless exceptional circumstances apply. Upon tentative assessment, the applicant was found in possession of narcotics prohibited under the CNS Act, 1997. The Chemical Analyzer's report confirmed the substances as charas, heroin, and methamphetamine. There was no indication of ill-will or malafide intent on the part of the police that might suggest a false case against the applicant. The bail application was dismissed as the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to establish a nexus between the applicant and the crime. ----Citations/Precedents: Tariq Mehmood vs. The State (PLD 2009 SC 39) Tariq Bashir vs. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34)

Summary: Background: The petitioner, widow of a deceased police constable, seeks a directive for the SSP Thatta to officially recognize her husband as "Shaheed" (martyr) as he died in the line of duty. Her husband, while on patrolling duty to remove illegal encroachments in the forest as per court orders, was killed in an incident that led to the registration of an FIR under sections 302, 324, 353, 427 PPC. Despite recommendations from the SSP Thatta, her claim for recognition and financial compensation under The Sindh Shaheed Recognition and Compensation Act 2014 was rejected by a committee. ----Issues: 1- Whether the deceased constable qualifies as "Shaheed" under The Sindh Shaheed Recognition and Compensation Act 2014. 2- Whether the committee's rejection of the petitioner’s claim was justified and lawful. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court found that the deceased constable was indeed on duty, enforcing a court order to remove illegal encroachments, when he sustained fatal injuries. According to Section 2(f) of The Sindh Shaheed Recognition and Compensation Act 2014, a person who sacrifices their life in the line of duty or becomes a victim of terrorism is considered "Shaheed." The committee's decision was deemed without valid reasoning and thus a nullity. The court noted that the committee did not provide sufficient reasons for not considering the constable's death under the criteria for Shaheed, despite clear evidence that he was on duty enforcing a court order at the time of the incident. The petition was allowed. The court directed the competent authority of the respondent-police department to revisit the decision in accordance with The Sindh Shaheed Recognition and Compensation Act 2014, as amended. If other police officials in similar circumstances were awarded compensation, the deceased constable’s case should be recommended on the same basis without discrimination. This decision must be made through a speaking order within two months from the date of receipt of this order. ----Citations/Precedents: The Sindh Shaheed Recognition and Compensation Act 2014

Summary: Background: The petitioners, appointed on a contract basis in 2014, sought the regularization of their services. They have been working continuously since their appointments. They approached the High Court of Sindh, arguing that despite their continuous service, the respondents had not regularized their positions. ----Issues: Whether the petitioners, who have been serving on a contract basis since 2014, are entitled to regularization of their services. Whether the Sindh Regularization of Ad-hoc and Contract Employees Act, 2013 applies to the petitioners' cases. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court acknowledged that the petitioners have been serving in their positions for an extended period. The court stated that if the petitioners have been retained for a longer period, their cases should be considered for regularization under the policy decision. This consideration is subject to the petitioners' qualifications, eligibility, and availability of vacancies in the relevant field. The court noted that the Sindh Regularization of Ad-hoc and Contract Employees Act, 2013 does not apply to the petitioners as they were appointed in 2014-15, which is after the enactment of the Act. The court disposed of the petitions with the directive that the competent authority should consider the regularization of the petitioners' services under the policy, provided they meet the qualifications and eligibility criteria and subject to the availability of vacancies. This exercise is to be completed within two months. ----Citations/Precedents: Sindh Regularization of Ad-hoc and Contract Employees Act, 2013

Summary: Background: The petitioners challenged the promotions of seven officials of the Sindh Katchi Abadi Authority (SKAA), claiming that the promotions were made in violation of the judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The petitioners argued that their own cases for promotion were ignored despite their qualifications and service. ----Issues: 1- Whether the promotions of the seven officials were in compliance with the judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. 2- Whether the petitioners are entitled to promotions based on their qualifications and length of service. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court noted that the initial appointments, promotions, and other service-related matters can be reviewed under Article 199 of the Constitution. The political figures have no role in the service matters of employees unless provided by the rules. The court directed the Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh, the Secretary, Local Government, and the Director General of SKAA to review the promotions of the seven officials in light of the Supreme Court judgments within two weeks. The court directed the relevant authorities to also consider the petitioners' qualifications and length of service for promotion to the next rank. If the petitioners meet the criteria under the law, their cases for promotion should be positively considered. The petition was disposed of with directions to the Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh, the Secretary, Local Government, and the Director General of SKAA to: Review the upgradation, seniority, and promotions of the seven officials. Consider the petitioners' eligibility for promotion based on their qualifications and length of service. Conduct the exercise within two weeks and ensure compliance with the Supreme Court's judgments. ----Citations/Precedents: Judgment dated 12.06.2013 (2013 SCMR 1752) Judgment dated 15.01.2015 (2015 SCMR 456) Order dated 13.01.2016