Summary: Bail allowed --- Petitioner, sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered under section 337, 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Kallar Syedan, District Rawalpindi. The prosecution alleged that a land dispute led to a violent incident where the petitioner and others inflicted injuries on individuals involved in the dispute.During the hearing on 20.12.2023, the petitioner's counsel argued innocence, claiming false implication with malicious intent. The defense contended that the incident, initially minor, was exaggerated with a fictitious medical report. The petitioner was accused of causing injuries during a confrontation related to a land dispute.The prosecution argued for dismissal, emphasizing prompt reporting of the crime to the police, specific naming of the petitioner in the FIR, and the absence of malice on the complainant's part. The court examined the records, revealing that the petitioner was accused of being part of a group that attempted to invade land, resulting in physical violence and injuries to multiple individuals.A crucial point of contention was the interpretation of the injury to one victim's shoulder as per Section 337-D PPC. The court scrutinized the medical opinion, noting discrepancies. The court clarified that for an offense under Section 337-D PPC, the injury must extend to the body cavity of the trunk. It examined various definitions and interpretations, ultimately concluding that the injury in question did not meet the criteria.In light of this, the court expressed concern over the erroneous medical opinion that led to the incarceration of a co-accused. While lenient towards the medical officer, the court urged the Secretary of Health, Punjab, to sensitize medical officers about the importance of their opinions in criminal cases.Consequently, the court granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, confirming the interim bail granted earlier, provided he furnished fresh bail bonds.

Summary: Noise Pollution ---- Industrial units in residential area:Industrial noise is primarily a byproduct of the machinery, equipment, and processes utilized in these industries. The main characteristics of industrial noise are as follows:i) Sound Intensity: Industrial environments can produce high levels of noise due to the presence of machinery, engines, and heavy equipment. The noise can be loud enough to cause hearing damage if not properly controlled.ii) Frequency: The range of frequencies in industrial noise can vary, but it often includes components of both low and high frequency, depending on the sources.iii) Duration: Industrial noise can be continuous or intermittent, depending on the specific processes and activities underway.iv) Impact: Excessive industrial noise can have negative effects on the health and well- being of workers and nearby residents.v) Prolonged exposure to high levels of industrial noise can lead to hearing loss, stress, sleep disturbances, and other health issues.Keeping in view the above factors, as a short term remedial, the respondent No.7 along with other owners of the industrial units in the area shall be directed by the District Administration /concerned authority to remove/ shift his unit outside the residential area but on long term the Provincial Government is required to notify a particular area for the said purpose but till shifting of the industrial units already installed, the government functionaries shall have a check upon these units to minimize the nuisance hazards by visit of the residential area to have continue check for the use of soundproofing materials such as soundproof blankets and panels, the implementation of technical controls to reduce noise at the source, equipment maintenance to minimize sound emissions, and the construction of noise barriers to protect nearby communities from excessive noise. Installing isolators and vibration dampers can minimize the transmission of solid-borne noise and vibrations through structural elements. Treating industrial noise sources at the source is one of the most effective ways to control noise pollution. Manufacturers are increasingly integrating noise reduction technologies into the design of their equipment and machinery. Optimizing industrial processes can lead to quieter operations and overall improved efficiency. By investing in quieter technologies, regularly upgrading their equipment, and soundproofing their machines with acoustic covers, industries can proactively address noise pollution issues. Respondent No.7 shall apply to the agency for Environmental Assessment Impact Report and respondent No.2 shall also issue notice to the other industrial units/ factories working in the area/spot so that one may not be treated differently when the other units are also functional in the area. Regular inspections, maintenance checks and equipment upgrades are mandatory which shall be done on regularly basis. The potential hazards posed to residents cannot be overlooked. Only through striking a balance between economic growth and residents? welfare can we create thriving, safe and sustainable communities for the future.

Summary: Suit will be filed where wife ordinarily resides ---- ''Pakistani courts have jurisdiction in cases where either party resides or has resided in Pakistan, and specifically, in cases of marriage dissolution or dower, where the wife ordinarily resides.'' --- West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, and the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965, especially Rule 6 --- The court referred to Black?s Law Dictionary and Dicey's "Conflict of Laws" to define "ordinarily resides," emphasizing that it does not necessarily mean permanent residence. The court noted that the respondent, though living in the USA, had substantial connections to Pakistan. --- The court found that the Family Court?s preliminary decree for dissolution of marriage by way of Khula and the subsequent proceedings were in compliance with the legal and Islamic principles. It noted that the respondent?s withdrawal of the suit for the remaining clauses rendered the preliminary decree final. --- The judgment referred to Islamic law, specifically the concept of Khula, where a woman can seek dissolution of marriage. It cited Surah Baqra from the Quran to explain the principles governing Khula. --- The Supreme Court agreed with the reasoning and conclusions of the lower courts, finding no legal or factual errors. The petitions were dismissed as meritless, and leave to appeal was refused.

Summary: Background: The appellant filed a civil appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Mirpur, on 30.01.2017. Zameer Ahmed initially filed a suit of declaration cum recovery of possession along with a perpetual and mandatory injunction in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mirpur, asserting that he purchased a piece of land measuring 01 kanal 02 marlas through a sale deed dated 29.09.1998. The respondents, having a share in the shamilat-e-deh land, objected to the sale and sought correction in the settlement record. The Senior Civil Judge decreed the suit in favor of Zameer Ahmed, but the Additional District Judge reversed this decision, dismissing the suit. This led to the current appeal. ----Issues: 1- Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate on matters of correction in the revenue record. 2- Whether the appellant successfully proved his ownership and the illegality of the rectification proceedings conducted by the revenue officers. 3- Whether the rectification proceedings interfered with the rights of the appellant. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court considered whether the civil court had jurisdiction under Section 53 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, which allows for suits for declaration regarding entries in the record of rights. The court emphasized that Section 172 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 bars civil courts from matters concerning correction of revenue entries, except where these corrections interfere with the rights of individuals. The appellant claimed ownership based on a sale deed and challenged the rectification proceedings. However, the appellant had already exhausted the proper fora within the revenue hierarchy without success, which should have resolved the matter. The court found that the appellant failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that the rectification proceedings were conducted with malice or that they interfered with his ownership rights. The Senior Civil Judge's reliance on the statement about the defective "Aks Latha" was not sufficient to challenge the legal proceedings conducted by the revenue hierarchy. The Additional District Judge had correctly reversed the Senior Civil Judge’s decision, as the appellant did not substantiate his claims with convincing evidence. The appeal filed by Zameer Ahmed was dismissed, affirming the judgment of the Additional District Judge. The court held that the appellant failed to prove his claims against the rectification proceedings conducted by the revenue officers and that the civil court did not have jurisdiction over matters already addressed by the revenue hierarchy. ----Citations/Precedents: Hakim Khan v. Nazir Ahmed Luqmani (1992 SCMR 1832) Case law reported as 1996 SCMR 78 Government of Sindh vs. Muhammad Juman and another (2009 SCMR 1407) Muhammad Iqbal Chaudhry and another vs. Secretary, Ministry of Industries and Production, Government of Pakistan and others (PLD 2004 S.C. 413)

Summary: Messrs AKBAR KHAN FILLING STATION and others-Respondents (Against the judgment dated 26.05.2014 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar passed in T.Rs. Nos. 1-P to 23-P of 2013 and judgment dated 03.07.2013 of the Peshawar High Court, Mingora Bench (Dar ul Qaza) Swat passed in T.Rs. Nos.1-M to 13-M of 2011). Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)- -S. 156A-Sale of petroleum products to petrol pump operators operating in Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA)-Deduction of tax from the amount of commission or discount allowed to the operator-Refund, claim for-Applicability of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001-Enforcement of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (‘Ordinance of 2001’) was not extended to the territorial limits of FATA and, therefore, its provisions were not attracted to the income arising therein-It is not disputed that the respondents are operating petrol pumps in FATA-Section 156 A of the Ordinance of 2001 provides that every person selling petroleum products to a petrol pump operator shall deduct tax from the amount of commission or discount allowed to the operator at the rates specified in Division VI A of Part III of the First Schedule-Tax deductible under subsection (1) shall be a final tax on the income arising from the sale of petroleum products-Obligation of deduction of tax is on the person selling the petroleum products to the operator of the petrol pump while the said deduction is relatable to the commission paid to or discount allowed by the latter-In the present case the respondents assert to be operators of petrol pumps and they were claiming refund of the tax deducted from their commission by the persons who had sold the petroleum products to them-Factum of income having been accrued was on account of the commission paid to the respondents for the sale of petroleum products and not the sale of the petroleum products to the consumers at the petrol pumps operated in FATA-Deduction of tax fell under the final tax regime-Admittedly, the contractual arrangement for the sale of petroleum products, the actual sale and payment as well as deduction of the tax had taken effect in the areas of Pakistan outside the territorial limits of FATA and, therefore, the transactions and the income arising from such sale were not immune from the enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance of 2001-Income derived by the respondents was on account of commission paid to them by the seller companies outside FATA-Immunity from the payment of taxation under the Ordinance of 2001 shall not be claimed merely on the basis that the business premises have been established in FATA, rather the onus was on the tax payer to establish the fact that taxable income was not being derived from the area where the statute was enforced and applicable-This crucial factum could not be successfully established by the respondents and their refund claims were, therefore, justifiably rejected by the taxation officer-Claim of refund of the tax deducted under section 156A of the Ordinance of 2001 was not tenable and, therefore, rightly rejected-Appeals were allowed accordingly. C.I.T. v. Gul Cooking Oil and Vegetable Ghee (Pvt.) Ltd. 2008 PTD 169 ref.

Summary: (a) Punjab Civil Servants Pay Revision Rules, 1977- -R. 8(3)-Civil service-Graduate Primary Teachers regularized in service ('the respondents')-Selection grade, grant of-Legality-Respondents could not show any policy of the Government which entitled the 'Graduate Primary Teachers' for the grant of 'selection grade'-They solely relied on Rule 8(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants Pay Revision Rules, 1977 and a notification-Rule 8 (3) of the Rules of 1977 provides that where, for a class of posts, apart from the ordinary pay scale, a higher pay scale has been sanctioned for a percentage of the number of said posts, then, in such an eventuality, the higher pay scale shall be admissible to the holders of the post in BS-1 to BS-16, subject to a minimum length of two years service in the ordinary pay scale of the said posts-Higher pay scale was never sanctioned for the post of 'Graduate Primary Teacher' and, therefore, Rule 8(3) was not attracted in the case of the respondents-Even the notification in question does not include the post of 'Graduate Primary Teacher' for the purposes of grant of selection grade-Government had not formulated any policy regarding the grant of selection grade for the post of 'Graduate Primary Teacher'-Tribunal, in the absence of a policy specifically covering the grant of selection grade for the post of 'Graduate Primary Teacher' was not competent to purportedly create a right in favour of the respondents-Petitions were converted into appeals and allowed, and the impugned judgment of the Tribunal was set aside. (b) Civil service- -Selection grade, grant of-Scope-Grant of selection grade is not an appointment against a post in the mode of promotion-Selection grade is thus not an appointment against a higher post but is meant to extend financial benefits of a higher grade-Selection grade is meant to financially compensate a civil servant who, despite serving against a particular post for a considerably long period, does not have the prospect of being promoted to a higher post-It is within the exclusive domain of the Government to consider and decide whether a civil servant is to be compensated for serving on a post without having the prospects of being promoted to a higher post-It is an executive function performed through formulating a policy in the case of each post-Grant of selection grade and its eligibility criterion is thus necessarily governed under a policy which has to be formulated by the Government-It is not one of the terms and conditions of the civil servant under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 nor the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules,1974, or the Punjab Civil Servants Pay Revision Rules, 1977-A right, therefore, does not accrue in favour of a civil servant to claim selection grade in the absence of a specific policy that has been competently formulated by the Government-No court or tribunal has the power and jurisdiction to compel the Government to make a policy, or to interfere with a policy which has been competently made in relation to a specified post-As a corollary, the tribunal is bereft of jurisdiction to assume that a right exists in favor of a civil servant for the grant of selection grade unless the Government has formulated a policy. Respondents in person. (in all cases)

Summary: (a) Civil service- -Departmental inquiry-Object and purpose-Standard of proof-Object of a departmental inquiry is to investigate allegations of misconduct in order to maintain discipline, decorum, and efficiency within the institution, and strengthening and preserving public confidence-In a departmental enquiry, the standard of proof is that of balance of probabilities or preponderance of evidence but not proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is a strict standard required in a criminal trial, where the potential penalties are severe. (b) Sindh Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1988-Sughra Bibi v. State PLD 2018 SC 595; Gajoo v. State of Uttarakhand (2012) 9 S.C.C. 532; Babubhai v. State of Gujrat and others (2010) 12 SCC 254 and State of Gujarat v. Kishanbhai (2014) 5 SCC 108 ref.

Summary: (a) Interpretation of statutes- -Proviso-Object, purpose and scope-Proviso to a section is to be restrictively construed, which has an overriding effect and control over substantive provision of the section-Function of a proviso is to exclude and take out certain cases from the substantive provision to which it is a proviso. Abid Hussain v. Additional District Judge, Alipur 2006 SCMR 100; Sabir Ali v. Khalil Ahmed Bajwa 2005 MLD 1127; Lubna Afzal v. Union Bank Limited 2003 CLD 868 and Nawab Bibi v. Allah Ditta 1998 SCMR 2381 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -S. 352 (1)-High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, Vol. III, Chapter-1, Part-A, R. 3-Court House-Jail trial-Pre-condition-Ordinary rule is that trial or inquiry should be held in a usual courtroom-In extraordinary circumstances Magistrate may consider it necessary for reasons of security of accused or of witnesses or for any other valid ground to hold inquiry or trial in jail premises-Where Magistrate exercises his discretion to exclude public or to hold his Court in a building such as a jail, he must do so in accordance with R. 3 in Part-A of Chapter-1 in Vol-III of High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders. (c) Constitution of Pakistan- -Art. 199-Judicial review-Administrative decisions-Scope-While exercising jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution, High Court is to judicially review the process in which a decision is taken in order to ensure that it did not suffer from any illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety-High Courts, while exercising constitutional jurisdiction, do not sit in appeal over an administrative decision-Courts are to focus their scrutiny on the decision making process rather than the decision itself unless they find the decision to be in violation of a statutory provision or based on mala fides. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -S. 352 (1)-High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, Vol. III, Chapter-1, Part-A, R. 3-Jail trial-Prejudice to accused-Right of hearing-Scope-Holding of a trial in jail is not illegal and entire trial cannot be questioned as vitiated provided the requirements of S.352, Cr.P.C. and R. 3 in Part-A of Chapter-1 in Vol-III of High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders are strictly adhered to, i.e. the public has access to courtroom in jail, and trial is conducted in open view-Where such requirements are fulfilled, holding of trial within jail compound does not cause prejudice to accused-Exercise of discretion under S.352, Cr.P.C. and R. 3 in Part-A of Chapter-1 in Vol-III of High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders must be equitable to both the accused and the prosecution-This cannot be achieved without hearing the parties whose right to an open trial and usual courtroom stand to be curtailed by exercise of such discretion. Attorney General of Nova Scotia v. Maclntyre [1982] 1 S.C.R. 175; Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. New Brunswick (Attorney General), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 480; Vancouver Sun (Re), 2004 SCC 43; Scott v. Scott (1913) A.C. 417; Ambard v. Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago (1936) AC 322; Cora Lillian McPherson v. Oran Leo McPherson AIR 1936 PC 246; Estes v. Texas 381 U.S. 532 (1965); Craig v. Harney 331 U.S. 367 (1947); Sherman Estate v. Donovan 2021 SCC 25; National Accountability Bureau v. Hudaibya Paper Mills PLD 2018 SC 296; Mairaj Muhammad Khan v. The State PLD 1978 Kar. 308; A.K. Ansari v. The State PLD 1972 Azad J&K 38; Asif Ali Zardari v. Special Judge (Offences in Banks) PLD 1992 Kar. 437; Jahanzeb Khan v. Special Judge, CNS Court, Lahore Criminal (Appeal No. 70907 of 2017); Khuja v. Times Newspaper Limited 2017 SCMR 1605; Attorney General v. Leveller Magazine [1979] 1 AIIER 745; Mohd. Shahabuddin v. State of Bihar (2010) 4 SCC 653; Narotthamdas L. Shah v. State of Gujarat (MANU/GJ/0147/1970); Abdul Rashid Chaudhury v. The State PLD 1966 Lah. 562; Kailash Nath Agarwal v. Emperor AIR 1947 Allahabad 436; In re: M.R. Venkatraman AIR 1950 Madras 441; In re: T.R. Ganeshan AIR 1950 Madras 696; Prasanta Kumar Mukerjee v. The State AIR 1952 Calcutta 91; Narwarsingh v. State AIR 1952 Madhya Pradesh 193; Sahai Singh v. Emperor AIR 1917 Lah. 311 and Kehar Singh v. State AIR 1988 SC 1883 rel. (e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -S. 352 (1)-High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, Vol. III, Chapter-1, Part-A, R. 3-Official Secrets Act (XIX of 1923), S. 13(1)- -Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3-Intra Court Appeal-Jail trial-Sanction of Government-Retrospective effect-Special Court, jurisdiction of-Accused was aggrieved of his jail trial and had also assailed appointment of Special Judge under Official Secrets Act, 1923-Validity-There was no judicial order available in file requiring proceedings and trial to be conducted in jail-Essential prerequisite of passing a judicial order requiring trial against accused to be conducted in jail was not fulfilled-Authorities submitted a proposal to Cabinet for sanctioning trial against accused to be conducted in jail, as under R. 3 in Part-A of Chapter-1 in Vol-III of High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, Trial Court was to obtain sanction of Government-Provision of R. 3 in Part-A of Chapter-1 in Vol-III of High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders or any other law did not empower Government to issue such sanction with retrospective effect-It was a vested right of every accused for the trial against him to be conducted in open Court at a place designated for its usual sittings-Retrospective operation could not be given to executive orders so as to destroy vested rights of citizens-Division Bench of High Court declared ex-post facto sanction given by decision of Cabinet to proceedings and trial conducted in jail as unlawful-Intra Court appeal filed under S. 3(2) of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, against judgment passed in Constitutional petition was maintainable-Designation of Special Court (Anti-Terrorism-I), Islamabad, to try cases reported under Official Secrets Act, 1923, through notification No. F.No.40(64)/2023-A-VIII, dated 27-06-2023 was valid and lawful-There was no provision in Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 which could compel Trial Court to hold his Court in a usual Court Room-In exceptional circumstances and where it was conducive to justice, a trial could be conducted in jail in manner that could fulfill requirements of an open trial or trial in camera provided it was in accordance with procedure provided by law-Division Bench of High Court declared Notification No. F.No.8(93)/ 2021-A-IV, dated 29-08-2023 issued by authorities to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect for want of any order by appropriate Government and fulfillment of requirements provided in S. 352, Cr.P.C. as well as R. 3 in Part-A of Chapter-1 in Volume-III of High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders-Division Bench of High Court further declared respective Notifications dated 12-09-2023; 25-09-2023; 03-10-2023 and 13-10-2023 issued by authorities to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect for want of fulfillment of requirements provided in S. 352, Cr.P.C., as well as R. 3 in Part-A of Chapter-1 in Volume-III of High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders-Division Bench of High Court also declared that respective Notifications dated 13-11- 2023, 12-11-2023 and 15-11-2023 issued by authorities on the basis of Cabinet‘s decision dated 15-11-2023 were of no legal consequence for not having been preceded by order of Trial Court in terms of S. 352, Cr.P.C., passed in judicial proceedings-Division Bench of High Court further declared by way of clarification that Notification No. F.No.40(68)/2023-A-VIII, dated 15-11-2023 issued by authorities on the basis of Cabinet’s decision dated 15-11-2023, could not be given retrospective effect-Division Bench of High Court also declared that proceedings of trial against accused in jail premises were notan open trial and the same stood vitiated-Intra Court Appeal was allowed accordingly. C.P. No. 4325 of 2017; Mustafa Impex v. Government of Pakistan PLD 2016 SC 808; Evacuee Trust Property Board v. Mst. Sakina Bibi 2007 SCMR 262; Mst. Muhammadi and others v. Ghulam Nabi 2007 SCMR 761; Ali Asghar v. Creators (Builders) 2001 SCMR 279; Syed Bhais v. Government of the Punjab Excise and Taxation Department PLD 2000 Lah. 20; Amina Begum v. Ghulam Dastgir PLD 1978 SC 220; Saeeda Khatoon v. House Building Finance Corporation PLD 1998 Kar. 99; Sheikh Fazal Rehman and Sons Limited v. Ghee Corporation of Pakistan 2003 CLC 1823; Ch. Riyasat Ali, Advocate v. Returning Officer 2003 CLC 1730; Muhammad Rashid v. Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab 2001 MLD 548; Muhammad Nazir v. Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Lahore 2001 CLC 767; Tariq Aziz-ud-Din and others' case 2010 SCMR 1301; Vice-Chairman, Punjab Bar Council and others v. Government of the Punjab and others PLD 2021 Lah. 544; Akhlaq Ahmad v. Government of Punjab 1991 MLD 739; Muhammad Idrees and others v. The State 2004 PCr.LJ 1163; Hafeez Ahmad v. The State PLD 1975 Lah. 1453; The King v. U Khemein AIR 1940 Rangoon 72; Ghulam Muhammad v. The State PLD 1967 SC 175; F.Q. Matiullah Khan Alizai v. Chief Secretary, Government of N.W.F.P. 1994 SCMR 722; Jameel Ahmed Malik v. Pakistan Ordinance Factories Board 2004 SCMR 164; Noor-us-Saba v. Federation of Pakistan 2023 CLC 1245; Munir Ahmed v. Federation of Pakistan 2018 PLC (C.S.) 746; Muhammad Yasin v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2012 SC 132; Shaikh Zayed Hospital v. Dr. Muhammad Saeed 2010 PLC (C.S.) 967; Mairaj Muhammad Khan v. The State PLD 1978 Kar. 308; Imran Khan v. State 2022 YLR 2123; Ajeet Singh v. State PLD 1982 Lah. 10; Muhammad Kamil v. Muhammad Bashir PLD 1974 Lah. 224; Qadir Dad v. Sultan Bibi PLD 1956 Federal Court 129; Rashid Hamid v. The State PLD 1972 SC 271; Hashwani Hotels Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1997 SC 315; Government of Pakistan v. Village Development Organization 2005 SCMR 492; Anound Power Generation Limited v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2001 SC 340; Muhammad Ilyas Khokhar v. Federation of Pakistan 2006 SCMR 1240 and Murad Ali Shah and others v. Government of Sindh PLD 2002 Kar. 646 rel. Assisted by: Umar Farooq, Research Officer and Ms. Neha Touseef, Law Clerk.

Summary: Procedure for trial of offence under section 180 of PPC, upon refusal to sign the charge sheet.

Summary: 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.