Summary: (a) Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011 ----Ss. 40, 43(1), 43(2), & 45A(2)---Special Court—Jurisdiction—Scope of supervisory and revisional control—Criminal revision before Additional Sessions Judge against order of Special Court—Competence—Under S.40 of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011, offences under the Act are triable exclusively by the Special Court established thereunder—S.45A(2) expressly bars all other courts from transferring, revising, or interfering in proceedings of the Special Court under Ss. 426, 491 or 498 Cr.P.C.—No revisional or appellate jurisdiction vests in the Sessions Court—Orders of the Special Court are amenable only to constitutional or inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution or S.561-A Cr.P.C.—Criminal revision entertained and decided by Additional Sessions Judge was thus coram non judice and void ab initio. Cited Case: • Punjab Food Authority v. Amanat Ali and others (PLD 2020 Lahore 599) (b) Interpretation of statutes ----Coram non judice—Meaning and effect—Decision rendered by a forum lacking lawful authority is a nullity in law—Exercise of jurisdiction without statutory competence cannot be cured by consent or acquiescence—Orders passed in excess of jurisdiction are void and liable to be set aside at any stage. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 561-A---Inherent powers of High Court—Scope in proceedings under special law—Since S.45A(2) of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011 does not exclude application of Ss. 497 and 561-A Cr.P.C., the High Court retains jurisdiction to intervene in appropriate circumstances to prevent abuse of process or secure ends of justice—However, subordinate criminal courts have no parallel revisional competence over orders of the Special Court. (d) Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011 ----S. 43---Special Court procedure—Trial of offences—The Special Court constituted under the Act exercises exclusive jurisdiction over offences under the PFA Act, following the procedure of Chapter XX Cr.P.C. in non-summary trials, and its orders are final except where the Act specifically provides an appellate forum. (g) Disposition— Writ petition allowed—Order dated 11.06.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Depalpur, set aside being without lawful authority—Order of the Special Court dated 28.01.2025 restored—Clarified that remedy against orders of the Special Court lies only before the High Court under S.561-A Cr.P.C. or Art.199 of the Constitution.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 436, 427, 337-H(2), 148 & 149---Mischief by fire and explosive substance, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, rash or negligent act to endanger human life or personal safety of others, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Pre-arrest bail, dismissal of---Allegations against the accused-applicant were that he along with five others set ablaze the houses of complainant party along with their surrounding hedge by means of matchstick as a result whereof the hedge, houses and the household articles lying there were burnt to ashes, whereas, the co-accused persons resorted to aerial firing---From perusal of the record it would be seen that the applicant was named in the FIR and specific role of setting the houses on fire with surrounding hedge and household articles of complainant by means of matchstick was assigned to him---So far as delay in lodgment of FIR was concerned, delay per se was no ground to discard and/discredit the entire prosecution case/version---No mala fide was shown on the part of complainant to implicate the applicant/accused in the case falsely, particularly, nothing had been placed on record to substantiate the ground urged with regard to any land dispute between the parties---Principles governing thegrant of post arrest bail and those for seeking pre-arrest bail were altogether different---Basic ingredients for grant of pre-arrest bail were lacking in this case---Per progress report submitted by the Trial Court, after framing of charge against the accused, witnesses had been appearing but the defence was seeking adjournment on one or the other pretext---Such brazen attitude of accused showed they had no nexus or concern with trial but to press bail application only to linger on the trial proceedings to defeat the interest of prosecution---Applicant had no case for grant or confirmation of pre-arrest bail--- Bail petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Rana Muhammad Arshad v. Muhammad Rafique and others PLD 2009 SC 427 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 497 & 498---Bail order---Observations of the Court---Scope---Observations made in bail order are tentative in nature only for the purpose of deciding the bail application, which shall not, in any manner, influence the Trial Court at the time of final decision of the subject case. Abdul Rehman A. Bhutto for Applicant. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl. Prosecutor General, Sindh for the State. Javed Ahmed Soomro for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 15th September, 2025.

Summary: (a) Passports Rules, 2021--- ----R. 22---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 15---Placing name on Passport Control list (PCL)---Whether power to do so laid with Federal Investigation Agency or Federal Government---Petitioners were implicated in FIR registered under Ss.419, 420, 468, 471, 473, 109 & 34, P.P.C, read with Ss.36 & 37 of the Electronic Transactions Ordinance and S.4 of Anti Money Laundering Act, 2010---Initially they were admitted to bail, but were subsequently acquitted by the District Court, however, the acquittal appeal filed against their acquittal order was partly accepted and matter was remanded for fresh decision, but in the post-remand proceedings, they were convicted---On filing of appeal, this Court suspended the conviction and sentence, and released the petitioners on bail---When the petitionersattempted to travel abroad to perform Umrah, they were stopped at the airport and informed that their names had been placed on the blacklist/Passport Control List by the DG Immigration & Passport on the recommendation of Federal Investigation Agency (FIA)---Held: Right to travel formed an essential part of the fundamental rights to life and liberty and could only be restricted under a valid law enacted in the public interest---Any restraint on movement must have lawful justification and could not be imposed arbitrarily---Executive discretion must be exercised fairly, reasonably and in good faith and within the bounds of law---Administrative instructions or policies could not curtail constitutional rights beyond statutory authority and mere pendency of criminal proceedings was not sufficient to prohibit movement---Restrictions such as blacklisting must be applied sparingly, after application of mind and must not be indefinite or disproportionate---Executive must not act mechanically on departmental recommendations---Placement on an exit or Passport Control List could not be automatic upon registration of FIR or even upon pendency of proceedings; if a person was on bail, released or not a proclaimed offender, the authority must give cogent, specific reasons before curtailing his/her constitutional right to travel---Suspension of sentence did not ipso facto amount to acquittal; however, suspension neutralized theoperative effect of a conviction for the time being and enlivened the petitioners' right to be treated as persons entitled to procedural fairness---Even for persons who stand convicted, any preventive restriction on fundamental rights must have clear statutory backing and must be exercised after application of mind and by giving reasons---Rules could not be used in a mechanical fashion to perpetuate deprivation of a constitutional right without review and without the administrative authority stating cogent grounds---Absence of any record of reconsideration of any fresh security assessment, or of any contemporaneous reasons why the petitioners should continue to be prevented from travelling, led the Court to the conclusion that the placement on Passport Control List was not the result of an exercise of reasoned discretion---Where the rule was invoked the authority must showed that the case fell squarely within the categories enumerated in the Rule; that the decision was not taken mechanically, but after application of mind; that the restriction was proportionate to the mischief sought to be prevented; and that the person affected was given an opportunity to be heard, unless the urgency of the circumstance rendered such hearing impracticable and then the authority must nevertheless record reasons for not giving such hearing---None of those safeguards were visible on the record before this Court in respect of the petitioners---Rule 22(1) contemplated that the Federal Government was vested with the power to regulate departure and entry and the Division concerned and Directorate General shall prepare and maintain the Passport Control List; yet there was nothing on record to indicate that any approval by the Federal Government, where required, hadbeen obtained in relation to those entries, or that the competent Division applied its mind to the matter---For reasons of good governance and to avoid arbitraryexercise of power, entries on Passport Control List could not be made or maintained in a clandestine, mechanical and non-reviewable manner---Respondents had not produced any material to show that the petitioners posed a continuing security risk, which could not be addressed by less restrictive measures, for instance, by conditional travel permission, surrendering of passports to the Trial Court, or by Court-ordered restrictions tailored to ensure presence for trial---Record showed that the petitioners were on bail, their appeal was pending and their conviction was suspended---Principal rationale advanced in support of the Passport Control List entry (fear of absconsion) had not been supported by evidence of any attempts to flee or of any threat to national security---In the absence of such material, continuing the bar on travel was disproportionate---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances. Federation of Pakistan v. General (Retd). Pervez Musharraf PLD 2016 SC 570; Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. President of Pakistan PLD 1993 SC 473; Pakistan Muslim League (N) v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2007 SC 642; Al-Jehad Trust v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1996 SC 324; Federal Government v. Ayyan Ali 2017 SCMR 1179; Sheikh Shan Ilahi v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2023 Lah. 359; Dada Amir Haider Khan’s case PLD 1987 SC 504; Wajid Shams-ud-Hassan v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1997 Lah. 617; Shabana Noor Ahmed v. DG Immigration and Passport PlD 2019 Sindh 456; Sayed Zulfikar Abbas Bukhari v. Federation of Pakistan PlD 2019 Isl. 316 and Riaz Ahmed v. Government of Pakistan PLD 2014 Isl. 29 rel. (b) Passports Rules, 2021--- ----R. 22---Placing name on Passport Control list (PCL)---Requirements and guidelines---No person shall be placed on the Passport Control List without a contemporaneous record of reasons showing application of mind;wherever practicable a show-cause notice shall be issued before placing a person on Passport Control List and an opportunity of hearing he afforded; where emergency action is taken without prior notice, reasons for omission of prior notice must be recorded in writing and the matter must be reviewed within a reasonable time; andperiodic review of entries on Passport Control List must be undertaken to ensure no person is kept on the list mechanically or indefinitely. Raja Rizwan Abbasi for Petitioner. Ms. Shaista Tabassum, A.A.G for the State. Mohsin Afzal, A.D CCRC, Islamabad.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 265-K, 435 & 439---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 11-F, 11-H, 11-J, 11-I, 11-K, 11-N & 7---Prohibition of acts intended or likely to stir up sectarian hatred, membership, support and meetings relating to a proscribed organization, collecting funds for a proscribed organization, act of terrorism---Acquittal of accused at any stage of trial---Scope---Application of the petitioner under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C, for his acquittal was dismissed by the Trial Court---Validity---Record transpired that in pursuance of secret information, the CTD Officials conducted a raid in the flat of petitioner, where they found the petitioner counting huge quantity of Pakistani currency---Search of flat was conducted, which resulted in recovery of cash amount of Rs.108,10101/-, record of several bank accounts, 26 cheque books and ATM Cards etc.---Besides, the petitioner (accused) being an active facilitator of proscribed organization i.e. Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan ("TTP") was also involved in collecting donations and extortion money from certain sources including Afghanistan, where he had another office, wherefrom his co-accomplice also sent money---Thus, under such circumstances, the innocence or guilt of the petitioner could only be determined after full-fledged trial and the examining the witnesses--- Provisions of Ss.265-K, & 561-A of the Cr.P.C. should not normally be pressed into action for decision of fate of a criminal case particularly, when apparently there was probability of conviction after recording evidence---In the instant case, petitioner (accused) was arrested at the spot, not only huge quantity of Pakistani currency was recovered from his possession, but 26 bank accounts record, ATMs and ledger was also recovered---First Information Report was lodged promptly by nominating and ascribing specific role to the petitioner (accused) by the complainant and even under the law in such like cases, the sole testimony of a complainant was enough for conviction, if it was truthful and confidence inspiring---As such, the Trial Court had rightly exercised its powers by not allowing the application under S.265-K Cr.P.C., as sufficient evidence was available on record connecting the petitioner (accused) with the commission of crime and the petitioner (accused) could not take the advantage of his acquittal in another crime, when the entire scenario was altogether different from the case in hand---Petitioner-accused had failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Trial Court requiring interference of High Court---Petition being not maintainable was dismissed, accordingly. Model Customs Collectorate, Islamabad v. Aamir Mumtaz Qureshi 2022 SCMR 1861 rel. Zakir Khan Kakar for Petitioner. Ameer Hamza Mengal, Additional P.G. for the State. Date of hearing: 21st August, 2025. Muhammad Najam-ud-Din Mengal, J .--- This judgment disposes of Criminal Revision Petition No.27 of 2024 filed by the petitioner (accused) Muhammad Khan alias Akhtar Muhammad, against the order dated 20th June 2024 (“the impugned order”) passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Killa Abdullah, Chaman (“the trial Court”) whereby the application under section 265-K Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 173 & 561-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 322, 320, 279 & 427---Quashing of order---Inherent jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Applicant/complainant sought quashing of order passed by the Judicial Magistrate who accepted the final report under S.173, Cr.P.C in a road accident case after dropping S. 322 P.P.C, which was a non-bailable offence and was mentioned in the FIR filed by the applicant/complainant while accepted the remaining sections of the FIR---Held: although the FIR was lodged under S.322 P.P.C, including certain other Sections of the P.P.C, the Magistrate dropped the said Section from the final report under S.173 of the Cr.P.C.---In the present case, the Judicial Magistrate based on the material collected by the Investigating Officer, the pontification of the prosecutor, and the final challan submitted by the Investigating Officer took note that while the accused had a valid learner's license to operate the motor vehicle, the deceased persons did not have a driver's license to operate the motorcycle---Therefore, it could not be said in the instant case that the concerned Judicial Magistrate did not apply his mind while passing the impugned order---Matter at hand was a traffic accident case leading to death involving a collision between a motor vehicle operated by an operator having a valid learner's license and a motorcycle being operated by a biker without a valid license/permit---Judicial Magistrate accepted the challan after hearing all the parties and applying his mind, thus there was neither any irregularity nor illegality nor error in law in the impugned order passed by the Judicial Magistrate---Application was dismissed, accordingly. Khalid Hussain and 6 others v. Asif Iqbal and 2 others 2021 PCr.LJ 242 ref. Khadim Hussain v. The State and 12 others PLD 2025 Sindh 12 and 2021 PCr.LJ 242 rel. Majid Ali for Applicant. Nemo for the Respondent No.1/Complainant. Nemo for Respondent No. 2. Date of hearing: 8th September, 2025.

Summary: Constitution of the Search Committee Act (II of 2022) --- ----Ss.3(2) & 14(2)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199--- Appointment of Chairmen of Educational Boards---Challenge to the recruitment process---Shortlisting of candidates through Search Committee---Alleged lack of transparency and deviation from statutory framework---Eligibility criteria---No recruitment can be done on criteria not mentioned in the advertisement, plea of --- Legality---Modification in advertisement---Whether substantial departure affecting fairness of process?---Briefly, the petitioners, being aspirants for appointment to the posts of Chairmen (BPS-20) of various Educational Boards challenged the shortlisting and recommendation of private respondents made through a recruitment process contending irregularities in the procedure adopted by the authorities; the controversy centered on the legality and validity of the recruitment process for appointment of Chairmen of Educational Boards and the scope of judicial review in such selection process---Held: More than hundred candidates were interviewed in nine batches and those who secured more than fifty marks were recommended by Search Committee for the Position of Chairmen in Educational / Technical Boards---This Tabulation showed that the private respondents had scored more marks than the petitioners and thus the private respondents were recommended for the said posts--- A proposal was made that whether candidates from the waiting list be selected in order to expedite the entire process, or fresh advertisement was given, and it had been decided that these two vacant posts were to be filled through re-advertisement in order to select best suitable candidates---This latest decision of respondents also nullified the objection of the petitioners’ side, that in such a competitive process no waiting list was required to be prepared---Constitution of the Search Committee Act, 2022 was promulgated with the sole object to make appointments in public sector Universities in a transparent manner---Since underlying object of the Boards in terms of the governing law was, inter alia, to regulate, develop and control Intermediate and Secondary Education; recognize and de-recognize educational institutions, grant certificates, diplomas to persons who had passed examinations; therefore, it was necessary to headhunt and select the best suitable candidates as Chairmen of the Board, who could ensure the accomplishment of the above statutory functions of the Universities and Board Department --- Hence, no illegality was committed by the Committee formed under the above Act of 2022, the composition whereof was mentioned under Subsection (2) of S.3, that included, the Chairman, Sindh Higher Education Commission--- Constitutional petitions were dismissed, in circumstances. M/s Shams and Brothers v. Government of Pakistan 2007 YLR 161 ref. S. Ali Ahmed Zaidi for Petitioners (in Constitution Petitions Nos. D-830 and D-1245 of 2025). Barrister Zeeshan Adhi, Additional Advocate General Sindh and Abdul Jalil Zubedi, Additional Advocate General Sindh along with Muhammad Sohail Imam, Legal Officer, Khadim Hussain, Law Officer, Syed Israr Hussain, Law Officer and Farhan Akhtar, Deputy Secretary [Admin], Universities and Boards Department [Respondent No. 2] for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (in Constitution Petitions Nos. D-830 and D-1245 of 2025). Syed Saulat Hussain Rizvi and S.M. Mehdi Raza along with Dr. Syed Tariq Rafi, Chairman, Sindh HEC/Search for Respondent No. 3. Jaleel Ahmed Memon for Respondent No. 4 (in Constitution Petitions Nos. D-830 and D-1245 of 2025). Nasrullah Korai and Gulsher Mari for Respondent No. 5 (in Constitution Petition No. D-830 of 2025). Malik Naeem Iqbal and Malik Waseem Iqbal for Petitioners (in Constitution Petition No. D-1304 of 2025). Ms. Shazia Hajrah, D.A.G along with Muhammad Ishaque, Assistant Attorney General. Dates of hearing: 27th March, 20th and 23rd May, 2025.

Summary: Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)--- ----S. 135---Partition proceedings---Property inherited by female legal heir---“Naqis Kamil”, principle of---Right of co-owner(s), infringement of---Scope---Record transpired that the Revenue Officer carried out the partition proceedings of joint Khewat and subsequently instrument of partition was issued---Said process of partition was completed in five years but the petitioners did not appear before the Revenue Officer---Against the partition order, only one co-owner (one of the respondents) filed appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue)/ ADC (R), which was dismissed upholding the partition order---Said order of ADC (R) was assailed by the petitioners as well as the said respondent by filing appeals separately before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), who dismissed the same too---Pertinently, the dispute was mainly between brothers, the petitioners, and the sister (respondent)---In an inherited land, no party can claim a specific piece of land on the basis of mere possession and land will be partitioned among legal heirs on the principle of “Naqis Kamil” i.e. all legal heirs will be given land of equal value---And in such cases, in order to provide land of equal value, it is not necessary to provide perfectly compact blocks as that may not be feasible---In such cases parties may be given different portions taking care of the approaches and irrigation sources also---Petitioners could not adduce any infringement of their rights in the aftermath of the impugned partition proceedings---Member -Board of Revenue maintained both the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue)---Revision, being merit-less, was dismissed, in circumstances. Malik Ghazanfer Khalid Saeed for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondent No. 4. Rest of the respondents were proceeded ex-parte on 08.01.2025.

Summary: Summary pending