Summary: NBP (Staff) Service Rules, 2021 are non-statutory and indiscriminately apply to all employees of NBP employed after the date of enforcement of the Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974 subject to Rule 2 of the said Rules

Summary: Scope of Section 23 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finance Act, 2001)

Summary: Legality of admission of guilt mid-way during the trial.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: ----O. XVII, R. 3 & O. XV, R. 4---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.12, 42 & 54---Suit for specific performance, declaration and permanent/mandatory injunction---Alternate prayer for recovery of earnest money---Non-deposit of remaining sale consideration---Dismissal of suit by the Court under O. XVII, R. 3, C.P.C.---Power of Court to proceed further when either party fails to comply with order of the Court or when provisions of O. XVII, R. 3, C.P.C., is invoked---Scope---Contention of the petitioner was that suit should have been dismissed entirely without passing of money decree---Validity---Where a party to a suit, to whom time has been granted, fails to perform any act necessary to the further progress, for which time has been allowed, the court may, notwithstanding such default, proceed to decide the suit forthwith---Word 'forthwith' does not mean to pronounce judgment at once or dismiss the suit at the same time---Though the word 'forthwith' means without any further adjournment yet, it cannot be equated with the words "at once pronounce judgment' as used in O. V, R. 4, C.P.C.---Language employed in O. XVII, R. 3. C.P.C., by using the words 'the Court may, notwithstanding such default, proceed to decide the suit forthwith' is permissive and discretionary and does not, in all circumstances, entail penal consequences---Although suit of the respondent could be dismissed due to non-deposit of remaining sale consideration, yet he could not be dislodged from the relief in equity for the return of already paid money---Provisions of R. 3 of O. XVII do not place any bar on the discretion of Court to proceed ahead with the suit in view of the circumstances of the case---Civil Revision was dismissed accordingly. Muhammad Aslam v. Nazeer Ahmad 2008 SCMR 942; Hasham Khan and others v. Haroon ur Rashid and others 2022 SCMR 1793 and Muhammad Asif Awan v. Dawood Khan and others 2021 SCMR 1270 rel. Ahmad Ali, Haji Shakeel and Miss Shumaila Awan for Petitioner. Rizwanullah Khan Arain for Rrespondent No.1. Aamir Farid Saddozai, Assistant Advocate General for Respondents Nos. 4 to 8. Date of hearing: 2nd November 2023.

Summary: ----S. 9(c)--- Possession of narcotic--- Appreciation of evidence---Confession of accused after amendment of charge---Legality---Prosecution case was that 2300 grams charas was recovered from the possession of accused---Accused did not plead guilty to the charge, yet admitted his guilt when the charge was amended---Validity---No specific prohibition was available for recording plea of guilt at any stage of trial and such arrangement in no case was opposed to right to fair trial if accused opted to waive the same to cut short the process in order to avoid the agony or rigors of protracted trial---However, Court was always on guard to take a careful look why the accused was admitting his guilt and should ensure that the trial of offence entailing capital punishment should not be terminated merely on the admission of guilt by the accused, for which recording of evidence was essential---Admission of guilt in the present case recorded by the Trial Court could not be declared illegal in the given circumstances---Such mode was perfect, in consonance with the dictum laid down by the apex Court; therefore, impugned judgment did not suffer from any illegality and called for no interference---Appeal was dismissed in limine, in circumstances. Nasaruddin Mohammad v. Emperor AIR 1928 Calcutta 775; Shahbaz Masih v. The State 2007 SCMR 1631; Muhammad Ismail v. The State 2017 SCMR 713; Multan Jan v. The State 2020 PCr.LJ 88 and State through the Deputy Director (Law), Regional Directorate, Anti-Narcotics Force v. Mujahid Naseem Lodhi PLD 2017 SC 671 rel. (b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----S. 9(c)---Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act (III of 2006), S. 9(8)---Possession of narcotic---Appreciation of evidence---Confession of guilt---Sentence, quantum of---Prosecution case was that 2300 grams charas was recovered from the possession of accused---Accused who sought sentence on the basis of his plea of guilt, in turn helped in reducing the costs of trial---If after attending the processes of trial the accused was to meet a particular sentence range then the Court could record plea of guilt at any stage, even mid-way, if accused was ready to assist and facilitate the system for cost-reduction of prosecution case and could reward the accused with minimum sentence range as a State bounty--- As per S. 9(8) of the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution , Functions and Powers) Act, 2006, on pleading guilty by the accused, prosecutors were required to suggest appropriate sentence range---As per 'Code of Conduct for Prosecutors' issued under S. 17 of Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2006, while applying 'Full Code Test' which included evidential test and public interest test, it could be applied at any appropriate stage keeping in view the requirement of the said Code---Prosecutors should ensure that prosecution of an offence must be a "Proportionate Response" which meant that quantum of sentence must commensurate to the costs of prosecution---When an accused voluntarily admitted his guilt before the Court, he must be dealt with more leniently in terms of quantum of sentence---Appeal was dismissed in limine, in circumstances . Syed Aftab Ejaz's case PLD 1978 Lah. 361; Muhammad Arif and another v. The State 1991 PCr.LJ 623 and King Emperor v. Kasim Walad Mohamed Saffer AIR 1925 Sind 188 rel. Ch. Asghar Ali Gill, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: NBP (Staff) Service Rules, 2021 are non-statutory and indiscriminately apply to all employees of NBP employed after the date of enforcement of the Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974 subject to Rule 2 of the said Rules