Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 2019):----S. 11(b)---Possession of narcotic substance (ice)---Bail, refusal of---Large quantity recovered from direct possession of accused---Positive FSL report---Petitioner apprehended with 527 grams of ice during police raid based on prior information---Substance tested positive for methamphetamine (ice)---Held, quantity involved was substantial and constituted a serious threat to public safety and youth well-being---Gravity of offence and legislative intent behind the 2019 Act justified denial of bail at pre-trial stage.----Cited Case:• Gull Din v. The State through P.G. Punjab and another 2023 SCMR 306(b) Constitution of Pakistan:----Art. 189---Binding nature of Supreme Court precedents---Rule 4(2) of CNS (Govt. Analysts) Rules, 2001---Delay in dispatch of sample---Effect---Contention regarding delayed dispatch of narcotics sample to FSL (beyond 72 hours) rejected in view of Supreme Court holding Rule 4(2) as directory---High Court bound by latest pronouncement under Art. 189 of the Constitution---Violation of Rule 4(2) not sufficient ground for grant of bail.(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898):----S. 497---Bail---Prohibitory clause---Prima facie involvement---Where sufficient material connects accused with offence attracting prohibition clause, bail may be refused---In present case, recovery from direct possession and corroborating FSL report warranted refusal of bail.**(d) Narcotic offences---Judicial policy---Need for robust response---Prevalence of ice as emerging societal threat---Judicial and legislative duty---Court observed that increasing sale and use of methamphetamine (ice) poses existential threat to societal health and youth—Courts must respond with firmness and align judicial policy with legislative resolve to combat drug menace effectively.----Disposition:Bail refused. Application dismissed in view of gravity of offence, sufficient prima facie evidence, and binding precedent of the Supreme Court.

Summary: (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997):----Ss. 6, 9(c), 14, 15 & 29---Possession of narcotic substance---Charas---Presumption---Appellants apprehended with 79 kilograms of charas concealed in vehicle---Driver and passenger caught red-handed---Presumption of knowledge under S.29 CNSA attracted---Held, once recovery from vehicle in custody of accused is established, burden shifts to accused to explain possession---Failure to rebut presumption renders them liable for conviction---Police witnesses corroborated each other on all material particulars---Defense failed to allege or prove enmity with ANF officials---Claim of false implication rejected as unsubstantiated.----Cited Cases:• Mehboob-ur-Rehman v. State 2010 MLD 481• Nadir Khan v. State 1998 SCMR 1899• Mushtaq Ahmad v. The State 2020 SCMR 474• The State v. Abdali Shah 2009 SCMR 291(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898):----S. 382-B---Sentence---Benefit of detention period already undergone---Trial court rightly extended benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C. to appellants while awarding life sentence under S. 9(c), CNSA.(c) Criminal trial:----Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of narcotics---Prosecution case supported by prompt FIR, unshaken testimonies, safe custody, positive chemical report, and lawful sampling procedure---Defense failed to challenge key facts or allege motive for false implication---Minor discrepancies in prosecution case immaterial---No prejudice shown due to brief absence of one defense counsel during evidence-in-chief of PW---Trial proceedings held to be fair and legal.----Cited Cases:• Sharafat Khan v. The State PLD 2022 SC 281• Ameer Zeb v. The State PLD 2012 SC 380• Zakir Khan v. The State 1995 SCMR 1793• Muhammad Hanif v. The State 2003 SCMR 1237• Faisal Shahzad v. The State 2022 SCMR 905(d) Criminal trial---Independent witness---Absence---Effect:----S. 103, Cr.P.C.---Applicability excluded in CNS cases---No independent witness joined recovery proceedings---Held, reluctance of public to appear in narcotics cases recognized---Section 103, Cr.P.C., inapplicable due to overriding effect of S.25, CNSA, 1997.(e) Judicial approach in narcotics cases:----Courts must adopt dynamic approach to curb drug trafficking---Technicalities should not obstruct justice where evidence is otherwise confidence-inspiring---Large scale narcotic recovery cannot be casually disbelieved without concrete defense---Held, courts should not acquit drug traffickers on mere procedural lapses unless prejudice is proven.----Cited Cases:• Ghulam Qadir v. The State PLD 2006 SC 61• Faisal Shahzad v. The State 2022 SCMR 905----Disposition:Appeals dismissed. Conviction and life sentence with fine of Rs. 500,000/- under S. 9(c), CNSA, upheld.

Summary: Appeal against the judgement dated 09.12.2022 passed by Learned Civil Judge, Islamabad (West)

Summary: Seeks to set aside the impugned judgment dated 01.08.2023 passed by Hon'ble Single Member NIRC..

Summary: The court upheld the provincial government's decision to retake the MDCAT because of cheating. It references Section 17 of the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Act, 2022, which empowers provinces to conduct a single admission test. It suggests that in the absence of specific laws addressing unforeseen situations like cheating, the provincial government has the competence to cancel or retake the MDCAT. --- Balancing Educational Autonomy and Legal Standards:The document emphasizes the delicate balance between non-interference in academic matters and necessary intervention to ensure institutions operate within legal frameworks. It asserts that the Peshawar High Court did not interfere in the educational institution's affairs but rather upheld the government's decision within the bounds of the law. --- The judgement concludes by affirming the Peshawar High Court's judgment as well-reasoned and legally sound. It states that the court found the decision to retake the MDCAT just and in compliance with legal principles. --- Suo Motu Jurisdiction:The document provides a legal explanation of "suo motu" power, emphasizing that it refers to a court's inherent authority to initiate legal proceedings or take action on its own accord. It distinguishes instances where the court exercises this power based on personal knowledge or information from cases where the proceedings are initiated through a complaint. It argues that in this case, the High Court did not act on its personal knowledge but based on a complaint filed by an individual.

Summary: Background: The petitioners, currently serving as constables in the Azad Jammu & Kashmir (AJ&K) Police Department, applied for the position of Assistant Sub Inspectors (ASIs) advertised by the AJ&K Public Service Commission (PSC). Despite qualifying in the written tests, their applications were rejected by the PSC due to the petitioners exceeding the upper age limit specified in the advertisement. The petitioners argued that their age should be relaxed in accordance with the Age Relaxation Rules, 1997, and the Government notification dated 10.08.2012, which allowed for a two-year age relaxation for recruitment in the AJ&K Police Department. ----Issues: 1- Whether the age relaxation rules and government notifications apply to the petitioners, who are already serving in the police department. 2- Whether the petitioners should be considered for the posts of ASIs despite exceeding the upper age limit specified in the advertisement. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Application of Age Relaxation Rules: The court held that the age relaxation rules are special rules applicable to all state subjects and employees of the police department. The relevant government notification, which relaxed the upper age limit by two years, should be applied to the petitioners. --Exemption from Fresh Candidate Age Limit: The court reasoned that the age limit prescribed for fresh entry into the police service should not apply to candidates already serving in the police department who applied through proper channels. As the petitioners are permanent employees of the police department, their age should be calculated excluding their service period, making them eligible for age relaxation under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Recruitment (Relaxation of Age Limit) Rules, 1997. --Consideration for Appointment: The court directed that the petitioners, having already participated in the selection process, should be considered for appointment based on their merit and positions obtained in the test interviews. --Directive for Constitution of PSC: The court emphasized the need for the constitution of the Public Service Commission as mandated by Article 48 of the AJ&K Interim Constitution, 1974, and directed the relevant authorities to complete the composition of the PSC within one month. ----Citations/Precedents: Police Act, 1861 Police Rules, 1934 Civil Servants Act, 1976 AJ&K Civil Servants Recruitment (Relaxation of Age Limit) Rules, 1997 Section 31(xviii) and (xxi) of the AJ&K Elections Act, 2020 Article 48 of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974 2018 PLC (C.S.) 822 IGP Punjab Vs. Mushtaq Ahmed [PLD 1985 SC 159] Seaford Court Estates v. Asher [1949] 2 KB 481 Karnatka State Financial Corporation v. N. Narsihmahaiah [AIR 2008 SC 1797] Hansraj Gupta v. Dehradun Mussorie Electric Tramway Co. Ltd. [AIR 1933 PC 63] State of Kerala vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1980) Kerl 976 Syed Abu Ala Maududi vs. Govt. of West Pakistan [PLD 1964 SC 673]