Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Petitioners are consultants who have worked under different agreements with NHA. They are aggrieved that post conclusion of the agreement, NHA has affected recoveries from and on their dues on basis of internal audit paras.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Background: The petitioners, filed a petition challenging the order dated 30.10.2023, passed by the Sessions Judge (East), Islamabad. The Sessions Judge's order set aside a previous order by the Judicial Magistrate, which had released the accused under Section 63 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in FIR No. 367/2023, registered under sections 302, 109, 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) at Police Station Shahzad Town, Islamabad. The FIR involved charges related to a murder that occurred on 30.06.2023. ----Issues: 1- Whether the Sessions Judge was correct in exercising revisional jurisdiction to set aside the Judicial Magistrate's order under Section 63 CrPC. 2- Whether the Judicial Magistrate's order releasing the accused was administrative or judicial in nature. 3- Whether the Judicial Magistrate had sufficient grounds to release the accused under Section 63 CrPC. 4- Whether the petitioners' challenge to the Sessions Judge's order is maintainable. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ---Nature of the Magistrate's Order: The court examined whether the Judicial Magistrate's order was administrative or judicial. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in "Bahadur and another v. The State and another" (PLD 1985 SC 62), the court noted that administrative orders are not subject to revisional jurisdiction under sections 435/439 CrPC. The Magistrate’s order under Section 63 CrPC, being administrative, should not have been subject to revision by the Sessions Judge. ---Error in Judicial Magistrate’s Decision: The court identified that the Judicial Magistrate released the accused based on a preliminary assessment of evidence, which included a video attempting to establish an alibi. This assessment was beyond the Magistrate's jurisdiction, as such determinations should be made by a competent trial court after a thorough evaluation of all evidence. ---Relevance of Evidence and Legal Procedure: The Magistrate should have either granted or denied the physical remand based on the police's request and left the determination of guilt or innocence to the trial court. The court emphasized that the investigation's progress, including recoveries and the deceased's statement, necessitated further investigation and judicial scrutiny. ---Sessions Judge’s Revision: The Sessions Judge's order setting aside the Magistrate's decision was held to be unsustainable, as it improperly exercised revisional jurisdiction over an administrative order. ---Inherent Powers of the High Court: The court referenced several precedents, including "Shahnaz Begum v. The Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Sindh and Balochistan and another" (PLD 1971 SC 677) and "Muhammad Ali v. Additional I.G. Faisalabad and others" (PLD 2014 SC 753), to underscore the High Court’s authority under Section 561-A CrPC to correct errors and prevent abuse of the judicial process. The court set aside both the Sessions Judge’s order dated 30.10.2023, and the Judicial Magistrate’s order dated 04.10.2023. The Magistrate was directed to reconsider the police's request for physical remand of the accused strictly in accordance with the law. The petitioners/accused were ordered to appear before the Magistrate on 22.12.2023 for further proceedings. ----Citations/Precedents: Bahadur and another v. The State and another (PLD 1985 SC 62) Muhammad Sharif v. The State and another (1997 SCMR 304) Hidayatullah and others v. The State through Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P. Peshawar High Court, Peshawar (2006 SCMR 1920) Shahnaz Begum v. The Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Sindh and Balochistan and another (PLD 1971 SC 677) The State through Deputy Prosecutor-General, NAB v. Tariq Mohsin and others (2004 SCMR 1892) Altaf Hussain v. Abdul Samad and 3 others (2000 SCMR 1945) Asfundyar and another v. Kamran and another (2016 SCMR 2084) Muhammad Ali v. Additional I.G. Faisalabad and others (PLD 2014 SC 753) Arif Ali Khan and another v. The State and 6 others (1993 SCMR 187) Ali Gohar and others v. Pervaiz Ahmed and others (PLD 2020 SC 427) Younus Abbas and others v. Additional Sessions Judge, Chakwal and others (PLD 2016 SC 581)

Summary: 1) The Lahore High Court held that if the accused refuses to sign the charge sheet, he cannot be convicted under section 180 PPC. [Reliance was place on The State VS Sardar Ahmed PLD 1967 Karachi 75] --- 2) The Additional Session Judge cannot directly convict the accused under section 195 of the Code if there is a breach of section 180, in the light of legal provisions under Sections 480 and 482, the ADJ has to first impose a fine of Rs.200, after that the court shall sent a report to the Magistrate under Section 482, only after following the due procedure can the court pass a conviction. 3) When an offender is punished under section 180 PPC, pursuant to section 480 of the Code then appeal against such order is provided under section 486 of the Code --- The appeal contested the conviction under section 180 PPC (Pakistan Penal Code) and a fifteen-day simple imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs.500/- each.The appellants argued that they were convicted because they sought time for their counsel when asked to sign a charge sheet related to a separate case. The defense contended that obtaining signatures on a charge sheet is not a legal requirement and cited precedent to support their case --- The judgment analyzed sections 480 and 482 of the Cr.P.C., highlighting that the learned Additional Sessions Judge lacked the authority to directly pass a sentence under section 180 PPC. The court concluded that the impugned order was a nullity in the eyes of the law.The contention that no appeal lies in petty offenses under section 413 of the Cr.P.C. was rejected, as the court pointed out that when an offender is punished under section 180 PPC pursuant to section 480 of the Code, an appeal is allowed under section 486 of the Code.Considering these circumstances, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence --- according to provisions of sections 154 and 200 of theCode the complainant is required to sign the statement, whereas, sections342 and 364 of the Code require obtaining the signatures of the accused butthere is no such requirement under sections 243 or 265-E of the Code.Obtaining signatures of the accused on the charge sheet is not the legalrequirement but it is in practice since long, therefore, obtaining signatureson the plea of an accused plainly conforms to his admission to charge orotherwise, therefore, it cannot be considered as an illegality; however, ifthe accused does not sign the charge sheet he cannot be convicted undersection 180 of PPC. Reliance in this respect is placed on the case cited supraas ?THE STATE versus SARDAR AHMED? (PLD 1967 Karachi 75) --- The contention of learned Prosecutors that in petty offences no appeallies as per mandate of section 413 of the Code is also repelled because when Criminal Appeal No.531/2023.4an offender is punished under section 180 PPC pursuant to section 480 ofthe Code then appeal against such order is provided under section 486 ofthe Code; therefore, this appeal is competent against the impugned orderpassed by learned Additional Sessions Judge.

Summary: Acquittal --- If any conversation is recorded through mobile phone and converted into Compact Disc (CD), then without production of the mobile phone as well as forensic analysis of the conversation and merely by producing CD, said conversation cannot be proved --- conversationrecorded in Audio or Video can be proved yet production of actual record ofconversation is necessary for the same; in this regard, case of ?ISHTIAQAHMED MIRZA and 2 others Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN andothers? (P L D 2019 Supreme Court 675) can be safely referred and relevantportion of the same is hereby reproduced: -?. The precedent cases mentioned above show that in the matter ofproving an audio tape or video before a court of law the followingrequirements are insisted upon: -No audio tape or video can be relied upon by a court until thesame is proved to be genuine and not tampered with ordoctored.--- An audio tape or video sought to be produced in evidence mustbe the actual record of the conversation as and when it wasmade or of the event as and when it took place. (emphasis added)--- Safe custody of the audio tape or video after its preparation tillproduction before the court must be proved.---The trial court, after concluding the trial and acquitting co-accused individuals Mian Nasir and Bismillah Begum, convicted and sentenced the appellants (Abu Bakar alias Samosa, Master Ansar, Jamshed, and Javed) based on a judgment dated 19.04.2018. The appellants, through their counsel, argued that the convictions and sentences were against the law and facts of the case, claiming that the evidence presented was neither trustworthy nor corroborated, and the prosecution failed to prove its case.The Additional Prosecutor General supported the judgment, seeking the dismissal of the appeals. The complainant's counsel, while supporting the convictions against Abu Bakar alias Samosa and partially supporting the convictions against Master Ansar, Jamshed, and Javed, prayed for the dismissal of the appeals filed by the convicts. The complainant's counsel also sought the enhancement of sentences for Master Ansar, Jamshed, and Javed, and challenged the acquittal of Mian Nasir and Mst. Bismillah Begum, arguing that their acquittal was against the law and facts.After hearing arguments and reviewing the records, the court scrutinized the prosecution's case. It emphasized the importance of explaining any delay in reporting incidents to the police and pointed out significant gaps in the evidence, such as the lack of documentation from hospitals regarding the deceased's treatment and the absence of key witnesses. The court highlighted inconsistencies and dishonest improvements introduced by certain witnesses, casting doubt on the credibility of the prosecution's version.The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the appellants, leading to the acquittal of the appellants. The death sentence for Abu Bakar alias Samosa was not confirmed, and the Murder Reference was answered in the negative. Additionally, the court dismissed the appeal filed by Shazia Siddiq (complainant) for the enhancement of sentences for Master Ansar, Jamshed, and Javed. The acquittal of Mian Nasir and Mst. Bismillah Begum was upheld, and the court stressed the double presumption of innocence attained by the acquitted individuals, dismissing the appeal seeking enhancement of their sentences.

Summary: Against order of acquittal under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. criminal revision under section 439, Cr.P.C. is not competent. Similarly, writ petition against order of acquittal is also not competent in the light of section 417(2), Cr.P.C. --- The petitioner, Hajra Javaid Makhdoom, initiated the petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, seeking redress, specifically requesting a retrial and criminal revision in a case involving the respondent, Muhammad Tehmas Nasir.The petitioner's grievance revolved around a private complaint filed under section 6(5) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, alleging that the respondent had contracted a second marriage without her consent. Subsequently, the Judicial Magistrate in Sargodha summoned the respondent to face trial under section 6(5) of the Ordinance. However, during the proceedings, the respondent submitted an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C., contending that the petitioner's complaint was baseless and driven by ulterior motives.The magistrate accepted the respondent's application, leading the petitioner to file a criminal revision. This revision was later dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner, dissatisfied with both decisions, filed the present writ petition, urging the Lahore High Court to refer the case back to the Judicial Magistrate for retrial and the criminal revision back to the Additional Sessions Judge.In the judgment dated December 19, 2023, Judge Muhammad Tariq Nadeem meticulously examined the legal aspects raised in the petition. The judge acknowledged the petitioner's contention that against an order of acquittal under section 249-A, Cr.P.C., a criminal revision was competent, citing "The State through Advocate-General, Sindh High Court of Karachi v. Raja Abdul Rehman" (2005 SCMR 1544) as a precedent.However, Judge Nadeem went on to analyze the relevant legal provisions, emphasizing section 417(2), Cr.P.C., which stipulates that an appeal lies against an order of acquittal. The judge observed that the petitioner had not satisfactorily addressed whether the order of acquittal under section 249-A, Cr.P.C., was amenable to criminal revision or could be challenged through a petition for special leave to appeal under section 417(2), Cr.P.C.The judgment delved into the interplay between sections 439, 439-A, and 417(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, clarifying that while an appeal could be filed against an order of acquittal, no proceedings by way of revision could be entertained if an appeal was available. Additionally, the judgment underscored the distinction between criminal appeals and revisions, highlighting that a revision against an order of acquittal was not competent under section 439(4)(a), Cr.P.C.Judge Nadeem concluded that the criminal revision before the court of the Additional Sessions Judge was not competent, as the order of acquittal could only be challenged through the remedy provided in section 417(2), Cr.P.C. The judge dismissed the writ petition, asserting that a constitutional petition was not maintainable when a specific alternate remedy of appeal against acquittal existed.

Summary: Report by Water & Environment Commission: The Members of the Water & Environment Commission appointed by the Court submitted a report outlining sustainable efforts undertaken during 2023 in the areas of water and environment conservation. The report is detailed and comprehensive, listing numerous actions taken to address issues related to water conservation and environmental protection.Water Conservation Measures: The report highlighted various water conservation measures, including the construction of ablution water tanks in mosques, the construction of recharge wells, the installation of rainwater storage tanks, and the mandatory installation of car wash recycling systems and 'U' channels. It also mentioned actions to control water wastage and abuse and the installation of water meters.Environmental Measures: The report detailed environmental initiatives such as the conversion of brick kilns to zig-zag technology, efforts to control vehicular emissions, promotion of mass transit and public transport systems, tree plantation drives, and actions to tackle stubble burning and smog. It also mentioned measures to regulate industrial emissions and promote eco-friendly practices.Judicial Review and Enforcement: The order emphasized that these actions were a result of judicial review in action and the enforcement of climate justice. It highlighted the unique approach employed by the Court to enforce its orders and achieve substantial results in addressing climate and environmental issues.Directives for Water Usage: The Court directed that Lahore Waste Management Company (LWMC) should not use groundwater for sprinkling on roads and should instead use surface water or water from ablution tanks. It warned that if this directive was not followed, the Water and Sanitation Agency (WASA) would be held responsible, and the relevant tube-well operated by WASA would be sealed.Enforcement Against Industrial Units: The Court directed the Lahore Electric Supply Company (LESCO) to cut off electricity supply to industrial units in violation of environmental regulations on the recommendations of the Water & Environment Commission.Tree Plantation: The order mentioned the Court's previous orders to prevent the cutting of trees in Lahore and efforts to plant Miyawaki forests and rooftop gardens. It noted the substantial progress made in rooftop planting and tree plantation drives.Next Hearing: The case was adjourned to January 12, 2024.