Summary: Bail denied ----- Rule of Consistency ---- 148 PPC -- 149 PPC -- 302 PPC --- The petitioner contended that his case was similar to that of co-accused Farooq and Khalid, who had been granted post-arrest bail. The key issue before the Supreme Court was the benchmark for applying the rule of consistency in granting bail to an accused and what factors should be considered in determining consistency.The court clarified that the rule of consistency is rooted in the right to equality before the law, as guaranteed by Article 25 of the Constitution. It emphasized that the rule ensures individuals facing similar charges and circumstances are treated equally. The court held that the benchmark for applying the rule of consistency involves not only considering the role attributed to the accused in the FIR but also examining the material collected during the police investigation.In this case, the accused Farooq and Khalid had been granted bail based on a tentative assessment of the evidence collected during the investigation, which showed they were not present at the crime scene. However, the court found that the material against the petitioner was different, as he was alleged to be present at the crime scene and had incriminating evidence linking him to the offense.The court concluded that the petitioner's case was distinguishable from that of the co-accused, and therefore, the rule of consistency did not apply. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no legal fault in the Lahore High Court's decision to deny post-arrest bail to the petitioner, and the petition was dismissed on October 31, 2023.

Summary: Absence or gap in law cannot be an excuse for not enforcing Fundamental Rights. This Court has unabridged powers under Article 199(2) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 to direct for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. The case, heard on 31.10.2023, involved issues related to the lack of action by the Provincial Government in controlling and regulating the prices of essential commodities. The government had stopped enforcing price control following a decision by a Division Bench, which declared the Price Control Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, 1977, as ultra vires of the Federal Legislature.The court, represented by Justice Shahid Jamil Khan, addressed the constitutional duty of the government to provide essential commodities at controlled and affordable rates, emphasizing the enforcement of fundamental rights under Articles 9, 14, and 38 of the Constitution. The judgment cited a Supreme Court precedent regarding the enormous increase in the price of flour, directing both the Provincial and Federal Governments to ensure price control of essential commodities.The court asserted its primary function in enforcing fundamental rights and protecting the Constitution, citing Article 199(2), which grants unabridged power to the High Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights. The judgment highlighted the Supreme Court's endorsement of the view that the High Court can issue directives to enforce fundamental rights against public authorities and private parties.In response to the government's decision to challenge the judgment declaring the Price Control Act as ultra vires, the court directed the respondents to continue following the directions for price control of essential commodities, even in the absence of relevant law. The case was scheduled for a re-listing on 16.11.2023, and the order was applicable to all connected petitions.

Summary: 'Discussion: (1) Clause (d) of Section 2, Section 6 and 13 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, 1987 (2) Construction of the terms ?sitting?, ?meeting? and ?(majlis)? (3) Interpretation of words in parentheses (4) The effect of statutory notice of talb-e-ishhad on printed form/stereotyped specimen/sample.'''The central issue revolved around the validity of a notice of talb-e-ishhad (Ex.P.W.3/2) served by the appellant, which was in a printed pro forma or template form. This notice played a pivotal role in asserting the appellant's right of pre-emption under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, 1987 ("1987 Act"). The Court embarked on a thorough analysis of the legal framework surrounding the right of pre-emption, particularly focusing on the statutory requirements and their interpretation.The Court delved into the essence of the right of pre-emption, highlighting its significance within the Islamic concept of Shufaa or pre-emption. It underscored the fundamental rationale behind this right, which aims to safeguard the privacy and tranquility of a specific area of immovable property and prevent the intrusion of strangers. The Court referred to authoritative sources like the Hidaya and D. F. Mulla's book "Principles of Muhammadan Law" to provide comprehensive insights into the philosophical and legal foundations of pre-emption.Furthermore, the Court meticulously examined the relevant provisions of the 1987 Act, particularly Section 13, which imposes certain prerequisites for the assertion of the right of pre-emption. It elucidated the importance of three distinct stages in the process: talb-e-muwathibat, talb-e-ishhad, and talb-e-khusumat, each serving a specific purpose in confirming the intention to exercise the right of pre-emption. The Court emphasized the imperative nature of compliance with these statutory provisions and the necessity of adhering to the prescribed procedures.Crucially, the Court addressed the contentious issue of whether a notice of talb-e-ishhad could be valid if presented in a printed pro forma or template format. It invoked several legal authorities and precedents to substantiate its position. Notably, it referred to the Supreme Court of India's judgment in Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. and Ors. v. Jindal Exports Ltd. and Ors., emphasizing the significance of parentheses in legislative texts and the need to give meaning to each word used by the legislature.The Court underscored the principle that statutory notices should be customized to convey specific information based on the circumstances of each case. It argued that using a ready-made format or template notice would undermine the purpose of providing prior notice and render the requirement mere formality. The Court also rejected the argument that the appellant's illiteracy should excuse such lapses, emphasizing the appellant's duty to seek legal assistance if needed.--- The Court found no merit in the appellant's contentions and upheld the decision of the High Court. It relied on the precedent set by its earlier judgment in C.P. No. 1015/2014 and C.A.s No. 1561 and 1562 of 2014, which affirmed the High Court's position. Therefore, the Civil Appeal was dismissed, affirming the validity of the High Court's judgment.

Summary: Evidential requirement for proof of offence u/s 462 C PPC and duty of prosecution.

Summary: It is apparent from the tenor of the impugned order that the Chairman ultimately proceeded with the reference in terms of section 10 of the "Act, 1975". It is also noticed that through the impugned order, the Chairman on the one hand held that the "property in dispute" is an evacuee property and simultaneously while invoking the provisions of section 10 of the "Act, 1975" proceeded to cancel the sale deed in favour of the petitioner being bogus. Before embarking upon the validity of the proceedings conducted by the Chairman and the propriety of the impugned order, it would be apposite to first examine the question of maintainability of constitutional petition in the light of objection taken by the respondents. Law to this effect is well established that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be curtailed or abridged though subservient statutes. If the proceedings or order is patently illegal or perverse and the alternate remedy is not efficacious or adequate, the constitutional jurisdiction can be exercised despite availability of alternate remedy.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Background: The petitioner, a sanitary worker employed by the City District Government Rawalpindi, was dismissed from service while incarcerated in a criminal case under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The petitioner was accused of being absent from duty and dismissed following departmental proceedings. After release from jail under Section 249 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner unsuccessfully applied for reinstatement. His subsequent grievance petition and appeal were dismissed by the Punjab Labour Court and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, respectively. The petitioner challenged these decisions in the Lahore High Court. -----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner was properly served with show cause notices during his incarceration. -----2- Whether the show cause notices issued under outdated E&D Rules, 2000, affected the validity of the dismissal. -----3- Whether the petitioner’s dismissal complied with the principles of due process and law. -----4- Whether the petitioner’s release under Section 249 Cr.P.C. entitled him to reinstatement in service. -----5- Whether the decisions of the Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal were sustainable. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Improper Service: The court held that the petitioner was not properly served with the show cause notices, as no attempt was made to serve them through the jail superintendent while the petitioner was incarcerated. This violated established legal principles regarding service to imprisoned individuals. --Invalid Legal Basis: The notices were issued under the outdated E&D Rules, 2000, which were no longer in effect at the time. This procedural defect rendered the subsequent dismissal proceedings flawed. --Violation of Due Process: The Labour Court's reliance on suppositions rather than evidence and its failure to consider the absence of proper service undermined the dismissal's legality. --Reinstatement Eligibility: The petitioner’s release under Section 249 Cr.P.C., even if not an acquittal, did not preclude him from seeking reinstatement. The departmental proceedings lacked procedural fairness and therefore could not stand. --Remand for Reconsideration: The High Court set aside the decisions of the Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal and remitted the matter for reconsideration, instructing the Labour Court to decide afresh based on all relevant legal and factual considerations. -----Citations/Precedents: PIRIDNO and another v. Khurshid Begum, 1989 SCMR 880: Established the principle of proper service for incarcerated individuals. Niaz Muhammad v. Abdul Rehman, PLD 2015 Peshawar 90: Clarified the procedural requirements for substituted service. Muhammad Aslam v. Government of NWFP, 1998 PLC (C.S.) 1430: Held that employees acquitted or released due to lack of evidence are entitled to reinstatement. Tanveer Hussain v. Raviryan Limited, 2007 SCMR 737. Azizullah Memon v. Province of Sindh, 2007 SCMR 229. Khurrum Rasheed v. Secretary to Government of Punjab, 2017 PLC (C.S.) Note 110. Ghazi Khan Vehicle Driver v. Director General Agriculture Research Office, 2019 PLC (C.S.) Note-39.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Bail granted----Background: The petitioner was arrested for allegedly tampering with a gas pipeline to steal gas, as outlined in Section 462-C of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The police registered an FIR, and the petitioner sought post-arrest bail, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations. The prosecution, however, maintained that tampering with the gas pipeline was a serious offense, punishable with up to 10 years' imprisonment. -----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner’s alleged tampering with the gas pipeline constituted an offense under Section 462-C PPC. ----2- Whether there was sufficient evidence to deny the petitioner’s right to bail. ----3- Whether the case fell under the scope of further inquiry, making the petitioner eligible for bail under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court found that the prosecution failed to produce sufficient evidence to link the petitioner to the alleged offense. Critical evidentiary elements, such as recovery of materials used for tampering, a map of the pipeline, and forensic evidence, were absent. The court emphasized that, in line with several precedents, the liberty of an individual cannot be curtailed without sufficient cause and concrete evidence. The court concluded that the case fell under the scope of further inquiry as per Section 497(2) Cr.P.C., making the petitioner eligible for bail. The bail was granted on the condition of furnishing bail bonds of Rs.100,000 with one surety in the same amount. -----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Nawaz alias Karo vs. The State (2023 SCMR 734) Jahanzeb and Others vs. State through A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Peshawar and another (2021 SCMR 63) Muhammad Shafique and another vs. The State and others (2017 SCMR 79) Salman Zahid vs. The State through P.G. Sindh (2023 SCMR 1140) Gul Muhammad vs. The State (2023 SCMR 857) Muhammad Amin vs. The State (2017 YLR 609) Muhammad Arslan Ahmed vs. The State (2017 P Cr. L J 434) -----Quote: ''Evidential requirement for proof of offence u/s 462 C PPC and duty of prosecution.''