Summary: Appellant Syed Junaid Ali Shah filed Appeal against the judgment whereby the appellants were convicted u/s. 420 PPC and sentenced them to suffer R.I. for six (6) years and fine of Rs.26 lacs ,also convicted for an offence u/s.468 PPC and sentenced them to suffer R.I. for six (6) years and fine ofRs.50,000/- accused Syed Junaid Ali Shah in active connivance of his other accomplices obtained the credential/secret information and full particulars of A/c No.22877100245003. He arranged fake cheque book requisition slip on which he made forged signature of Imran Afzal Khokhar. Accused Syed Junaid Ali Shah received the cheque book request process, After receiving the million fresh cheque book accused Syed Junaid Ali Shah got transferred an amount of Rs.2.600 million through cheque . t Junaid Ali Shah, as he has taken plea of alibi that from June 2008 up to October 2012, he remained out of country, e allegation against the appellant Syed Junaid Ali was that on 26.07.2012 and 27.07.2012 he along with co-accused Syed Nizam Mohiuddin Rafai deposited two cheques amounting of Rs.13 lacs in the bank and appellant Syed Junaid Ali Shah posed himself as Afzal Khokhar. trial Court while convicting the appellant Syed Junaid Ali Shah has made the observation that FIA itself is not confident the genuineness of travel of the passenger, The above observations made by trial Court having no force, as the procedure provided at all airports that if, any person traveled abroad on presentation of his/her passport before FIA officials, they will made entry in the data/computer and in the last they affixed stamp on the passport Exit along with date, and on his arrival the FIA made entry in the data/computer and affixed stamp of Arrival. On the basis of the travel history of the appellant. Convictions and sentences awarded to appellant Syed Junaid Ali Shah are set aside. Appellant Syed Junaid Ali Shah is acquitted from the charge.

Summary: Power of DG I&I Customs re phytosanitory action under the Pakistan Plant Protection Rules, 2019.

Summary: we are of the view that this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction cannot interfere in the findings recorded by the competent authority of respondent-PTCL vide decision dated 25.07.2017 as we do not see any illegality, infirmity or material irregularity in its decision warranting interference of this Court.

Summary: Appellant Asad Khan dissatisfied with the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi whereby the appellant Asad Khan was convicted for committing Qatl-e-Amd of his wife Mst. Aneela an offence under section 302 PPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.50,000/- Complainant stating therein that about two years back, his daughter Aneela married with Asad . Since the beginning of the marriage, the attitude of in-laws of his daughter was not good Aneela informed him on the telephone that she is coming to him at Qasim Town but till 08:30 P.M, she did not come at Qasim Town and her father made a telephonic call to her maternal Aunt Mst. Bano, who is residing in the neighbor of Aneela and informed her about the arrival of Aneela at Qasim Town .Complainant came to know that his daughter Aneela has been killed by causing her knife and dagger injuries at her house. the strong circumstantial evidence is available to connect the appellant with the commission of offence; that the appellant has admitted his guilt before the Cameraman, which was recorded in CD/USB flashed on TV. e. The admission of the appellant came in media and newspaper. In order to support his contention, the prosecution examined Mst. Aqeela Bano, who has also supported the version of the complainant and further deposed that she went to the house of Anila but was locked. Resultantly, she died in his house and after committing the murder, the appellant locked the door of the house from outside and ran away . All the circumstances, consisting on unnatural death of deceased inside the house with dagger; finding the house locked from outside as well leaving away the house are also making a chain of circumstances against the appellant and in such like eventuality the defence was required to prove otherwise. instant appeal filed by the appellant merits no consideration, which is dismissed

Summary: [Civil Procedure Code CPC (O.XXXIX, Rule.1 & 2 Interim Injunction), Competition Act, 2010 (section 24(1), (5) & (6) read with section 28(1))] Chairman's right to cast second vote Challenged by plaintiffs. **There should not have been a situation of even number of memberof commission in a quasi-judicial proceeding, however, in the currentsituation the event of an equality of votes reached and hence theChairman/Chairperson and/or any other member already renderedopinion, cannot be saddled with additional responsibility to cast a voteto untie knot as it would destroy the balance of each independentjudicial mind being applied to a triable question under adjudication.

Summary: Plea of alibi can be considered at the stage of bail. Rel: Zaigham Ashraf v. The State (2016 SCMR 18).

Summary: Tax credit - A challenge to the vires of section 65B of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, post amendment vide the Finance Act 2019.

Summary: Petitioners have impugned the Notification whereby they have been relieved / repatriated to their parent department that is Karachi Development Authority. The reason assigned by the competent authority in the said impugned Notification is that the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan passed directives vide order dated 01.08.2016 on CMA No. 243/2016 in C.P No.108-K of 2014 to repatriate the officers/officials absorbed in Malir Development Authority to their parent department .In our view, once the Honble Supreme Court has passed order the terms that any official working on deputation or otherwise absorbed in the MDA shall immediately report back to his parent department this Court has no justification to take contrary view of the same. We are of the view that the only remedy available to the Petitioners is to approach the Honble Apex Court in Review and not this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. Consequently ,both the Constitution Petitions merit no consideration and are dismissed with no order as to cost

Summary: Service, Pension

Summary: Injunction application dismissed-----The document is an excerpt from a legal case (Suit No. 778 of 2021) heard in the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, involving the Plaintiff, Fauji Oil Terminal & Distribution Company Limited, and the Defendants, Port Qasim Authority and National Transmission and Despatch Company. The Plaintiff sought a declaration and permanent injunction against the Defendants, alleging that they intended to permit the passing of a high transmission line over the Plaintiff's leased land, which could endanger their oil terminal operations. The Plaintiff argued that this action could lead to business losses and pose risks to employee health and safety. The Defendants argued that the proposed transmission line was crucial for national interests and economic development, as it aimed to provide electricity to consumers. They maintained that the transmission line would not directly affect the Plaintiff's leased land and was necessary for the country's energy infrastructure. After considering the arguments, the court dismissed the Plaintiff's application for an injunction. The court concluded that the Plaintiff had not established a prima facie case, and the balance of convenience did not favor them. The court emphasized the importance of the proposed project for national interests and public policy. Therefore, the injunction was denied, and the ad-interim order was recalled.