Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Deposition of a disbelieved witness in a subsequent trial can be relied upon.

Summary: A DG of NAB Lahore, accused of Sexual Harassment and blackmailing files this petition against cognizance of the matter by public accounts committee and impugns notice for appearance by the committee. (Tayyaba Gull Case)

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Against dismissal of 22A by Justice of Peace.

Summary: The issue at hand revolved around an amendment brought about by the Finance Act, 2015, specifically the third proviso to section 114(6) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The controversy pertained to tax years 2010, 2012, and 2013. The appellant had applied for the revision of assessment in relation to the tax year 2010 on 13.8.2015, and for tax years 2012 and 2013 on 12.06.2015. The dispute centered on whether the amendment had retrospective effect and whether the Commissioner was required to issue an order for the revision of a return within 60 days from the date of the application for revision.The proviso in question stated that if the Commissioner did not issue a written order for the revision of a return within 60 days, the approval required under clause (ba) would be deemed to have been granted by the Commissioner, and the conditions specified in clause (ba) would not apply. The learned Single Judge mistakenly held that the amendment was not retrospective and erroneously concluded that "tax years prior to 2015 shall be excluded from its operation."The appellate court disagreed with the Single Judge's interpretation, clarifying that the amendment did not pertain to tax years but rather concerned the Commissioner's powers to decide revision cases expeditiously, regardless of the tax year in question. The amendment applied to pending proceedings before the Commissioner, whether related to the year 2015 or earlier tax years.Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the Single Judge's order was set aside. It was ruled that since the Commissioner had not decided the revision of the appellant's return within 60 days, it would be deemed to have been granted by the Commissioner.In summary, the Lahore High Court allowed the appeal filed by Fauji Fresh and Freeze Ltd., finding that the amendment in question applied retrospectively to pending proceedings and did not exclude tax years prior to 2015 from its operation. The Commissioner's failure to issue a written order within 60 days meant that the revision was deemed to have been granted.

Summary: i. The medical evidence in the shape of DNA report has advanced the cause of the prosecution and it was because of this modern scientific invention that the prosecution easily reached to the culprit.ii. The DNA report and the injuries mentioned and confirmed by the doctor, are sufficient factors which confirm the involvement of the appellant and his brutality to which the deceased was subjected.iii. What a heart this monster had, while butchering the noblest soul, what leniency can be shown to the one who himself was not lenient. He deserves the treatment he treated Manahil. He must receive what he gave, he killed and he must be, provided the law permits. As from beginning to the end he is shown connected and as the collected evidence speaks of his guilt, so we subscribe to the conclusion drawn be the learned court below.

Summary: 1. The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2005 does not confer any power upon the Director General Prosecution or District Public Prosecutor to withhold prosecution of an accused who is charged with compoundable offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life in view of the bar contained in clause (b) of Section 4(1) of the Prosecution Act, 2005. The District Public Prosecutor can only move such application for discharge of an accused who is charged with compoundable offences entailing the punishment of seven years or less.2. The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2005 has the overriding effect over any other law for the time in force in terms of Section 11, therefore, the learned DPP was debarred to exercise his powers under Section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.3. In case of any conflict between the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2005 and a general law for the time being in force, the former, being a special law, would prevail over the latter.4. Discharge of an accused under Section 169, Cr.P.C. is the sole prerogative of Investigating Officer. In case an accused is recommended for trial by Investigating Officer under Section 170, Cr.P.C, through submission of final report u/s 173, Cr.P.C. in that eventuality no sanctity could be attached to the opinion of Public Prosecutor for discharge of the accused.

Summary: ''The process of regularization requires backing of any law, rules or policy. Any regularization without the backing of law offends the principles of fairness, transparency and meritocracy and that too at the expense of public exchequer'' --- The core issue revolves around whether these employees, who served as Class IV employees from 2009 to 2012, are entitled to be considered permanent employees with all associated back benefits, despite their initial contractual status.The High Court had previously ruled in favor of the respondents (the contractual employees), directing their regularization in line with previous similar judgments. However, this decision was challenged, leading to the present appeal.The judgment meticulously discusses the principles and legal precedents governing the regularization of contractual employees. It emphasizes that there is no inherent right for contractual employees to be regularized unless there is a specific legal or policy framework supporting such a move. The court referenced several precedents, including "Province of Punjab through Secretary, Livestock and Dairy Development, Government of Punjab v. Dr. Javed Iqbal (2021 SCMR 767)" and "Hadayat Ullah v. Federation of Pakistan (2022 SCMR 1691)", to underscore that regularization should be a transparent process, grounded in an assessment of the employee's performance and the availability of permanent positions.The judgment also delves into the concept of institutional autonomy, arguing that courts should refrain from interfering in policy matters of educational institutions, including employment policies, unless such policies violate constitutional rights. This stance is supported by references to international principles, such as those outlined in the Magna Charta Universaitum 2020.Ultimately, the court concluded that the impugned judgments, which had favored the regularization of the respondents, were not in line with established legal principles and precedents. As a result, these judgments were set aside, and the petitions filed by the University of Agriculture, Peshawar, were allowed, effectively overturning the High Court's directives for regularization.