Summary: Additional District Judge cannot initiate execution proceedings on the basis of statement of an accused person got recorded by him during the pendency of pre arrest bail petition. Petition Allowed. Order for attachment of property set aside. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was illegal, unlawful, and contrary to law and facts. The petitioner argued that the bail, initially granted and subsequently canceled, should not be the basis for attaching his property. The court observed that the impugned order was executed without proper consideration of the relevant law and facts. The court questioned whether an Additional Sessions Judge could initiate execution proceedings based on an accused person's statement recorded in a pre-arrest bail petition.The court highlighted that the terms "decree," "decree-holder," and "judgment-debtor" have specific definitions in the Code of Civil Procedure, and an order for the cancellation of bail cannot be considered a decree. Therefore, the petitioner could not be deemed a judgment-debtor, and the respondent No.2 could not be regarded as a decree-holder. The court concluded that the learned respondent No.1 acted beyond jurisdiction, set aside the impugned order, and declared it to be of no legal effect.

Summary: ''An amount deposited in State Treasury on a court's direction, if embezzled, shall be paid by Provincial Government, on a direct direction by the same court.'' --- During the hearing, the petitioner argued that the amount was rightfully deposited in the treasury but fraudulently withdrawn by the ex-Civil Nazar. The Additional Advocate General, Punjab, proposed referring the matter to the Administrative Committee, citing a similar case directed by the Human Rights Commission of the Supreme Court.To verify the facts, a report from the Directorate of District Judiciary was obtained. The DG confirmed the petitioner's entitlement but opposed referring the case to the Administrative Committee, citing the precedent set in the Gul Taiz Khan Marwat case (PLD 2021 Supreme Court 391). The DG emphasized that the responsibility to return the amount lies with the Provincial Government.After hearing both parties, the court observed that a definite procedure is needed for such claims to avoid delays. It held that if the embezzled amount was deposited in the treasury on the court's direction, the same court should determine whether the amount was embezzled and, if so, direct the Provincial Government for payment to the entitled person. In this case, the court found in favor of the petitioner, directing the Civil Court to modify the order and instruct the Provincial Government to pay Rs. 10,50,000/- to the petitioner. The petition was allowed accordingly.

Summary: Issues:Whether the Banking Court has the jurisdiction to dismiss a petition for leave to appear and defend a suit for non-prosecution.Whether the dismissal of a petition for non-prosecution allows the Banking Court to decree the suit without recording the plaintiff's evidence.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court allowed Azeem's appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment and decree. The Court held that Section 10 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, does not empower the Banking Court to dismiss an application for leave to defend due to non-prosecution. It emphasized that upon filing such an application, the Banking Court must consider its contents along with the plaint and replication to decide whether to grant or reject the application, irrespective of the defendant's appearance. The case was remanded to the Banking Court for fresh consideration of Azeem's petition for leave to appear and defend, strictly according to the law.-----Citations/Precedents:Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, Section 10Various case laws cited by the appellant's counsel, including:Messrs Bahawalpur Cotton Company v. United Bank Limited, 2023 CLD 1116Oil and Gas Development Company Limited v. Muhammad Ilyas Mian, 2018 CLC 1666Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL) v. Mst. Naima Ayub, 2013 CLC 1191Abid Aziz Khan v. Bank of Punjab, 2007 CLD 997Syed Asad Abbas v. Allied Bank of Pakistan, 2006 CLD 79Syed Rashid Hussain v. Bank of Punjab, 2005 CLD 1823-------Conclusion: The Supreme Court's decision clarifies the procedural requirements under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, and emphasizes the Banking Court's duty to consider the contents of applications for leave to defend, irrespective of the defendant's appearance in court.

Summary: BackgroundThe Supreme Court of Pakistan is handling Reference No. 1 of 2011, a Presidential Reference filed under Article 186 of the Constitution regarding the late Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's criminal trial and conviction. The Reference aims to revisit and scrutinize the circumstances and legal proceedings of the cases against Mr. Bhutto, particularly those reported as Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and 3 others v. The State (PLD 1979 Supreme Court 38) and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto v. The State (PLD 1979 Supreme Court 53). The inquiry has been ongoing, with various legal aspects and constitutional questions being raised regarding the legitimacy and fairness of the original trials.---IssuesThe Supreme Court is set to address multiple key constitutional and legal issues, including:The maintainability of the Presidential Reference under Article 186 of the Constitution.The need for factual inquiry under the same article and whether an opinion can be given based on such an inquiry.The credibility and legitimacy of the trial and appeal processes, especially considering the political context of Mr. Bhutto?s removal from power and subsequent prosecution.The possibility of judicial manipulation or bias during the trial or appeal to achieve a specific outcome.---Holding/Reasoning/OutcomeAs the case is still ongoing, the Supreme Court has yet to provide a final judgment. However, it has taken significant steps to ensure a thorough examination of all aspects related to the case. This includes the appointment of several amici curiae to provide expert opinions on both constitutional matters and specific criminal law issues, such as the conduct of murder trials by the High Court, the admissibility of confessional statements, and the potential impacts of legal bias.---Citations/PrecedentsArticle 186 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan: This article allows the President to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on important legal questions.Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and 3 others v. The State (PLD 1979 Supreme Court 38)Zulfikar Ali Bhutto v. The State (PLD 1979 Supreme Court 53)

Summary: BackgroundThe case involves a Presidential Reference under Article 186 of the Constitution of Pakistan concerning the late Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's criminal trial and conviction. The reference, initiated by the President of Pakistan, questioned the legitimacy and proceedings of Mr. Bhutto's trial and sought a reevaluation from the Supreme Court. Despite starting hearings in 2011, the case remained pending while other references were addressed, prompting the need for its urgent resolution.---IssuesThe key issues addressed by the court included:The maintainability of the Presidential Reference under Article 186 of the Constitution.The necessity of factual inquiry within the scope of Article 186.The legitimacy and credibility of the trial and subsequent appeal, particularly given the political context of Mr. Bhutto's removal from power and subsequent prosecution.Allegations of judicial manipulation to influence the outcome of the trial and appeal.---Holding/Reasoning/OutcomeThe court allowed the participation of Mr. Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, Mr. Bhutto's grandson, in the proceedings. It addressed multiple constitutional and legal questions regarding the trial's conduct and its judicial review. The Supreme Court appointed numerous amici curiae to provide expert insights into various constitutional, legal, and procedural aspects of the case. The court directed that all relevant materials, including past orders and tribunal reports, be reviewed by the appointed amici curiae who would then submit their findings. The matter was set to be revisited in a subsequent hearing.---Citations/PrecedentsArticle 186 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan: Provides the framework for Presidential References.West Pakistan Tribunals of Inquiry Ordinance, 1969: Empowers the government to constitute tribunals for inquiry.Judicial decisions referenced:Lahore High Court judgment concerning the investigation of Mr. Mohammad Ahmed Khan's murder.Supreme Court decisions on subsequent appeals and reviews.C.M.A. No.8622/2018 and C.M.A. No.10492/2023: Applications related to the representation and broadcasting of the proceedings.Order dated 21 April 2011: Previous order by the Supreme Court formulating questions for judicial opinion.

Summary: Background: The applicant, currently detained in District Jail Mirpur, was convicted under Arms Act by the Additional Tehsil Criminal Court No. II, Mirpur. The applicant was sentenced to multiple terms of simple imprisonment and fines. The applicant filed an appeal, and the District Criminal Court partly reduced the sentences. The applicant now seeks bail, claiming that he has completed his sentence. ----Issues: 1- Whether the applicant, having completed his sentence as per the jail superintendent's letter, should be released on bail pending the adjudication of appeals. 2- Whether the sentence should be suspended in light of the pending appeal and the principle favoring bail for short-term sentences. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Completion of Sentence: The court found that the applicant has completed his sentence as per the jail superintendent's letter dated 21.11.2023, which indicated the release date as 18.10.2023. Suspension of Sentence: The court referenced a judgment by the Hon’ble Apex Court of AJ&K, which established that when an appeal is pending, sentences for short-term imprisonment should generally be suspended unless exceptional circumstances warrant otherwise. The court emphasized that allowing the sentence to run out during the pendency of the appeal would render the appeal practically infructuous. The court ordered the release of the applicant on bail, provided a bail bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- and a personal bond in the same amount are furnished to the satisfaction of any Magistrate 1st class Mirpur. This is conditional on the applicant not being required or involved in any other case or offense. ----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Shafique Vs. The State (AJ&K Supreme Court Judgment, 19.06.2021) "It is now well settled principle that when a person is convicted and sentenced to a short term imprisonment, the normal rule is that when his appeal is pending the sentence should be suspended and rejection is only exceptional. In such cases endeavor should be made to have the appeal posted for early hearing and disposal. If the short term sentence is allowed to run out during the pendency of the appeal, the appeal itself will become, for all practical purpose, infructuous."

Summary: Elections Act (XXXIII of 2017)- Sami Ullah Baloch v. Abdul Karim Nausherwani PLD 2018 SC 405 ref. M. Arshad, D.G. (Law) and Falak Sher, Legal Consultant for ECP. Rana Asadullah Khan, Additional A.G.P. for Federation.

Summary: AMJADUR RAHMAN and others-Respondents (Against the judgment dated 22.02.2023 of the Peshawar High Court, Mingora Bench (Dar-ul-Qaza) Swat passed in W.P. No. 657-M of 2020) Civil service- -Appointment-Candidate on top of merit list not selected on the grounds that he was over qualified for the post advertised-Propriety-Frivolous litigation initiated by the Provincial Government-Petitioners had advertised in the year 2018 for the selection of two computer teachers in basic pay scale of 12 and had prescribed the minimum qualification as Intermediate with one year diploma in computer sciences-Respondent held a B.Sc. and M.Sc. degree in computer science and came on the top of the merit list but still was not appointed for the reason that he was over-qualified-Held, that it appeared that those in charge of educating the children of the province were bereft of common sense by disqualifying a person who was more qualified and thus better placed to impart computer science education and favoured one less qualified-Not only the respondent was made to suffer but the children, who would have benefited from his knowledge, were condemned-Leave to appeal was declined and the petition was dismissed with costs incurred by the respondent, that is two hundred thousand rupees to be paid to the respondent-Supreme Court directed that judgment regarding appointment of respondent will also be implemented, and if it is not complied with, the Provincial Secretary, Elementary and Secondary Education, may be proceeded against for contempt of Court, and that copy of present order be sent to the petitioners and the respondents, to the Advocate General, Provincial Chief Secretary and Secretary Law who will undoubtedly ensure that the government does not generate such unnecessary litigation and then, for no valid legal reason, challenge the decisions of the High Court which also drains the resources of the government, paid for by the taxpayers. Respondent No.1 in person.

Summary: Soft Copy of Station Diary shall be prepared in addition to manual Record. Direction regarding maintenance of Station Diary issued.

Summary: Bail granted----(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898):----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F---Post-arrest bail---Cheque dishonor---Delay in lodging FIR---Scope and legal effect---Where FIR under S. 489-F, P.P.C. was lodged with a delay of over 26 days without plausible explanation, such delay was held fatal for the prosecution at bail stage---The offence not falling under the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C., bail was a rule and jail an exception---No specific allegation of dishonest intention or existing liability was disclosed in FIR---Case held to require further inquiry.---Cited Cases:• Riaz Jafar Natiq v. Muhammad Nadeem Dar (2011 SCMR 1708)• Abdul Hafeez v. The State (2016 SCMR 1439)• Muhammad Ramzan v. The State (2020 SCMR 717)• Muhammad Sarfaraz v. The State (2014 SCMR 1032)(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860):----S. 489-F---Elements---Dishonest issuance of cheque---Cheque must be for repayment of loan or liability---Cheque must be dishonored at fault of accused---No explicit evidence of any legally enforceable liability, nor explanation provided regarding issuance of cheque---Complainant failed to provide any corroborative evidence or motive---Held, mere dishonor of cheque insufficient without fulfillment of statutory ingredients of the offence.Cited Case:• Hakim Ali Zardari v. The State (PLD 1998 SC 1)(c) Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881):----S. 84(1) & (2)---Reasonable presentation time---Cheque presented for encashment after six months of its due date considered stale in trade and banking practice---Bank not obliged to honor such instruments unless instructed otherwise by drawer---Held, legal action based on such stale cheque not sustainable.Cited Reference:• Sheldon’s Practice and Law of Banking (10th Edition)• M.L. Tannan, Banking Laws and Practice in India (14th Edition)(d) Bail Principles:----Grant of bail in non-prohibitory offences---S. 489-F, P.P.C. punishable with up to 3 years’ imprisonment---Quantum of alleged amount irrelevant for purposes of bail---Even where charge involves substantial sums, bail cannot be denied merely due to seriousness unless supported by risk of abscondence, tampering with evidence, or repetition of offence.Cited Case:• Saeed Ahmed v. The State (1995 SCMR 170)----Disposition:Bail granted; applicant admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing solvent surety of Rs. 500,000 and personal bond in like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. Trial court directed to frame charge and record complainant’s evidence within one month.