Summary: (a) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunals Act (I of 1974)- -S. 3(2)-Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 199 & 212-Promotion-Eligibility for promotion-Term and condition of service-Ouster of jurisdiction of the High Court-Scope-Eligibility (for promotion) purely relates to the terms and conditions of service, for example the prescribed length of service, quantification of the marks relating to performance evaluation reports (PERs), completion of training programs etc.-Only factor which is excluded from the exclusive jurisdiction and domain of the Tribunal is the decision of a designated authority/forum regarding 'fitness', while eligibility and all other matters relating to the terms and conditions of service are exclusively within the domain of the Tribunal-Exclusive jurisdiction conferred upon the Tribunal, pursuant to the clear constitutional command under Article 212 of the Constitution, ousts the jurisdiction of a High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to decide, entertain or adjudicate upon any matter relating to the terms and conditions of service-Bar under Article 212 of the Constitution extends even when an order passed by the departmental authority is without jurisdiction, mala fide, coram non judice, or in breach of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Superintending Engineer v. Muhammad Khurshid 2003 SCMR 1241; Peer Muhammad v. Government of Balochistan 2007 SCMR 54 and Asadullah Rashid v. Muhammad Muneer 1998 SCMR 2129 ref. (b) Constitution of Pakistan- -Arts. 199 & 212-Civil service-Terms and conditions of service-Ouster of jurisdiction of the High Court-Scope-Constitutional petition filed before the High Court by a civil servant-Maintainability- -Before taking any decision regarding admission of a constitutional petition brought by a civil servant, the High Court is expected to first decide the question of jurisdiction, having regard to the bar contained under Article 212 of the Constitution-Plea taken by an aggrieved civil servant regarding violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution also does not confer jurisdiction on a High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. I. A. Sharwani v. Government of Pakistan 1991 SCMR 1041 ref. Respondents not represented.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020 ----Ss. 1(2), 4(1), 5 & 7(1)---Maintainability of complaint---Conditions precedent---Scope---For the Federal Ombudsperson to assume jurisdiction under the Act, two conditions must be met: (i) the property in dispute is situated within the territorial limits of the Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT); and (ii) the complainant is deprived of ownership or possession of her property—In the present case, both properties situated in Bahria Town and Gulberg Greens, Islamabad, fall within ICT—Respondents admitted complainants’ status as lawful sisters and their entitlement to inheritance—Held, complainants were deprived of ownership and possession of their shares; complaint maintainable. (b) Constitutional challenge to Act, 2020 ----W.P. No. 529/2021 (Islamabad High Court)---Effect of suspension order---Although the Act was earlier declared *ultra vires* by the learned Single Bench, operation of that judgment was suspended by a Division Bench in ICA No. 85/2023 dated 16-03-2023—Therefore, the Ombudsperson lawfully retained jurisdiction to proceed with complaints under the Act pending final adjudication of the constitutional challenge. (c) Inheritance—Partition and liabilities of deceased ----Undivided property---Objection that estate was not partitioned or liabilities not settled—Held, immaterial—Where ownership and shares under Islamic law are ascertainable, non-partition does not preclude relief—Unpaid debts/liabilities may be adjusted among legal heirs proportionally without defeating the women’s claim—Reliance placed on *Muhammad Yousaf v. Ghayyur Hussain Shah* (1993 SCMR 1185). (d) Parallel civil proceedings ----Pending litigation---Effect---Under S.7 of the Act, the Federal Ombudsperson may exercise jurisdiction even if the subject matter is *sub judice* before a civil court—Pendency of civil suit does not bar cognizance unless the matter is conclusively adjudicated—No evidence produced showing civil case near final disposal. (e) Disposition— Objections to maintainability dismissed—Complaint held maintainable under Ss. 4 and 7 of the Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020—Matter fixed for written reply of remaining respondent.

Summary: (a) Competition Act, 2010 (XIX of 2010) ----Ss. 10(1) & 10(2)(b)---- Deceptive marketing practices—Omission of material information—Television commercial (TVC) aired by Respondent did not disclose the presence and value of redeemable tokens in paint buckets—Held, non-disclosure of such material information constituted the distribution of misleading information to consumers, lacking reasonable basis, and amounted to a violation of Sec. 10(2)(b) of the Act—Commission observed that the presence of redeemable tokens qualified as material information capable of influencing consumer decisions—Omission in the TVC rendered the marketing practice deceptive, regardless of disclosures on shade cards or paint buckets—Intent of Respondent deemed irrelevant as per established principles of law—Penalty imposed. ----Cited Cases: In the Matter of Show-Cause Notice Issued to Paint Manufacturers 2012 CLD 808 In the Matter of Show-Cause Notice Issued to M/s Proctor and Gamble Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited for Deceptive Marketing Practices 2017 CLD 1609 In the Matter of China Mobile Pakistan Ltd. (Zong) 2010 CLD 1478 In the Matter of M/s Al-Hilaal Industries (Pvt.) Limited 2012 CLD 1861 (b) Competition Act, 2010 (XIX of 2010): ----S. 37(2)---- Complaint and initiation of enquiry—Sufficiency of evidence—Respondent argued that the complaint lacked sufficient evidence and was filed with ulterior motives by a rival undertaking—Held, evidence of non-disclosure in TVC was sufficient to warrant an enquiry under Sec. 30 of the Act—Commission held that the complaint was neither frivolous nor vexatious and met the prima facie threshold—Procedural objections raised by the Respondent were dismissed as unfounded. (c) Competition Act, 2010 (XIX of 2010): ----S. 10(2)(b)---- Misleading information—Non-disclosure of redeemable tokens—Price mechanism and competition distortion—Respondent contended that non-disclosure did not cause consumer harm or distort competition—Commission observed that failure to disclose material information regarding redeemable tokens in TVC allowed intermediaries, such as painters and contractors, to benefit at the expense of uninformed consumers—Such practices created an unfair competitive advantage and undermined consumer rights—Respondent’s arguments were held untenable. (d) Penalty and compliance—Competition Act, 2010 (XIX of 2010): ----S. 10(1) & 10(2)(b)---- Imposition of penalty for non-compliance—Respondent violated directions of the Commission issued in CCP’s Paint Order, 2012 and failed to make mandatory disclosures in its TVC—Respondent claimed subsequent compliance by modifying its advertisements to include required disclosures—Commission imposed a penalty of PKR 5,000,000 for established violation and directed submission of an undertaking to refrain from future non-compliance—Additional penalty of PKR 10,000 per day imposed for delay in payment. ----Disposition: Penalty of PKR 5,000,000 imposed. Respondent directed to ensure future compliance with the Commission’s directives and provisions of the Act. SCN No. 01/2023 disposed of accordingly.

Summary: (a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860): ---- Ss. 302(b), 365-A, 34, and 201 -- Abduction, murder, and disposal of the body -- Conviction based on circumstantial evidence -- Appellants were convicted for abducting a minor for ransom, subsequently murdering him, and disposing of the body -- Held, circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution, including call data records (CDR), DNA analysis, and recoveries made in consequence of disclosures, was sufficient to establish the guilt of two appellants beyond a reasonable doubt -- However, the evidence against three co-accused lacked corroboration, and they were acquitted. Cited Cases: • Imran alias Dullay v. The State, 2015 SCMR 155 • Azeem Khan v. Mujahid Khan, 2016 SCMR 274 • Hashim Qasim v. The State, 2017 SCMR 986 (b) Administration of Justice: ---- Standard for circumstantial evidence -- Chain of evidence must be unbroken, with one end touching the deceased and the other end reaching the accused -- Any missing link renders the chain insufficient for conviction, particularly in cases involving capital punishment. Cited Cases: • Ali Haider alias Papu v. Jameel Hussain, PLD 2021 SC 362 (c) DNA evidence and forensic analysis: ---- Admissibility and weight -- DNA analysis corroborated the presence of appellants at the crime scene and linked the murder to the accused -- Despite some delays in sending specimens, the DNA evidence was deemed reliable and corroborated by other circumstantial evidence -- Court reiterated the importance of modern forensic tools in criminal justice. Cited Cases: • Mst. Askar Jan v. Muhammad Daud, 2010 SCMR 1604 (d) Sentencing: ---- Capital punishment -- Conversion to life imprisonment -- In the absence of eyewitness testimony, last-seen evidence, or judicial confession, the standard for awarding the death penalty was not met -- Death sentences of two appellants were reduced to life imprisonment as a matter of judicial discretion and in light of mitigating circumstances. Cited Cases: • Iftikhar Ahmed Khan v. Asghar Khan, 2009 SCMR 502 -----Disposition: Appeals of three co-accused were allowed, resulting in their acquittal due to lack of substantive evidence. Appeals of two main accused were partly allowed, with death sentences converted to life imprisonment, while other sentences and fines remained intact. Murder reference was answered in the negative.

Summary: (a) Elections Act, 2017 (XXXIII of 2017)--- ----Ss. 93, 95, 139, 145, 155, 159 & O. XX, R. 5, C.P.C.--- Election dispute---Postal ballot papers---Procedural irregularities---Remand of case for decision afresh--- Petitioner, who was initially declared as the Returned Candidate for the constituency GBA-2 Gilgit-II, challenged the judgment of the Election Tribunal declaring Respondent No. 1 as the Returned Candidate based on allegations of irregularities and corrupt practices regarding postal ballot papers. Respondent No. 1 contended that the Returning Officer (R.O.) violated provisions of Ss. 93 and 95 of the Elections Act, 2017 by issuing postal ballot papers both by post and hand delivery, and by including more postal ballots in the count than those received. Election Tribunal excluded all postal ballots from the count without summoning the original record or conducting forensic verification, contrary to law. Supreme Appellate Court observed that the Tribunal failed to decide the issues as mandated by O. XX, R. 5, C.P.C., and the exclusion of all postal ballots amounted to disenfranchisement of voters without legal basis. Court directed forensic verification of postal ballots through NADRA to determine their validity and remanded the case for fresh decision on merits. (b) Administration of justice--- ----Findings on issues---Mandatory requirements--- Election Tribunal, while deciding an election petition, did not give findings on each framed issue and stated it was unnecessary. Supreme Appellate Court held that under O. XX, R. 5, C.P.C., it is mandatory for the Court to record findings with reasons on all material issues, reflecting judicial application of mind. Tribunal's failure to address material issues in its judgment rendered the decision contrary to law. (c) Forensic verification--- ----Mandatory verification of disputed ballots--- Court directed that all postal ballots in question must undergo forensic verification of thumb impressions through NADRA to ascertain their authenticity. Without such verification, exclusion of postal ballots was deemed unjustifiable and contrary to the spirit of the Elections Act, 2017. (d) Elections Act, 2017--- ----Ss. 9, 93, 95, 98 & 159---Notification of winner---Restoration of earlier notification--- Supreme Appellate Court set aside the Notification issued by Election Commission declaring Respondent No. 1 as the Returned Candidate and restored the earlier Notification declaring the petitioner as the Returned Candidate until final adjudication. Tribunal was directed to decide the petition afresh, ensuring findings on all material issues, summoning relevant witnesses, and considering forensic evidence. ------ Cited Cases: Pakistan Refinery Ltd. Karachi v. Barrett Hodgson Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. (2019 SCMR 1726) Sardar Abdul Rehman v. Abdul Kareem Khetran (2021 SCMR 82) Haji Muhammad Hassan Sherani v. Sardar Babar Khan (2019 CLC 670) Col (R) Muhammad Shabir Awan v. Raja Saghir Ahmed (PLD 2023 Lahore 458) Qadir Baksh v. Allah Dewaya (2011 SCMR 1162) Muhammad Amir v. Muhammad Sher (2006 SCMR 185) ------ Disposition: Election Appeal partly accepted; judgment of Election Tribunal and subsequent Notification set aside; matter remanded for fresh decision with directions to ensure procedural compliance and forensic verification.

Summary: Background: The petitioners, eleven Certified Teachers (CT) from District Buner, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, were appointed on an ad hoc/contract basis in 2015 and later regularized in 2018 under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees of the Elementary and Secondary Education (Appointment & Regularization of Services) Act, 2017. In 2019, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) considered candidates for the promotion to Senior Certified Teachers (SCT) posts (BPS-16) in District Buner. However, the petitioners were not considered for promotion due to their lack of eligibility, as they had not yet completed the requisite length of service. The petitioners filed a constitutional petition in the Peshawar High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution, challenging the DPC’s decision and the notification of promotion. The High Court dismissed the petition on the merits, and the petitioners then sought leave to appeal in the Supreme Court. ---- Issues: 1) Jurisdiction: Whether the petitioners’ grievances, related to promotion eligibility, should be heard by the Service Tribunal under the exclusive jurisdiction granted by Article 212 of the Constitution. ---- 2) Maintainability of the Petition: Whether the Peshawar High Court was correct in entertaining the constitutional petition under Article 199 when matters related to the terms and conditions of civil servants are typically outside its jurisdiction. ---3) Promotion Eligibility: Whether the petitioners, regularized under the Act of 2017, were eligible for promotion to SCT posts. ---- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Holding: The Supreme Court held that the petition was not maintainable before the High Court because the issue at hand related to the petitioners' terms and conditions of service as civil servants, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal, in accordance with Article 212 of the Constitution. --- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the determination of eligibility for promotion, including the required length of service, relates to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants. According to the Constitution, these matters are within the exclusive domain of the Service Tribunal, and the High Court should not have entertained the petition. The Court clarified that even if the petitioners alleged a violation of fundamental rights, the High Court’s jurisdiction is still ousted by the express bar in Article 212 of the Constitution. --- Outcome: The petition was dismissed, and the findings of the High Court on the merits were declared per incuriam. The Court instructed that the petitioners' grievance should be pursued before the competent forum (the Service Tribunal). ---- Citations/Precedents: Superintending Engineer v. Muhammad Khurshid (2003 SCMR 1241) Peer Muhammad v. Government of Balochistan (2007 SCMR 54) Asadullah Rashid v. Muhammad Muneer (1998 SCMR 2129) Tasleem Jan v. Muhammad Zaman (2005 SCMR 695) Muhammad Anis v. Abdul Haseeb (PLD 1994 Supreme Court 539) Muhammad Zahir Raja v. Federation of Pakistan (2012 SCMR 971) I.A. Sharwani v. Government of Pakistan (1991 SCMR 1041) Zia ur Rehman v. Syed Ahmed Hussain and others (2014 SCMR 1015)

Summary: Post Arrest Bail U/s 497 Cr.P.C. 1898 r/w Section 12 & 13 of Official Secrets Act 1923 till the final disposal of the case. FIR No. 06/2023 dated 15.08.2023 U/s 5,9 Official Secret Act 1923 r/w Section 34 PPC P.S. CTW/FIA Islamabad

Summary: Bail denied --- Imran Khan sought relief in a legal matter involving the alleged disclosure of classified information, specifically a cypher received from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The petitioner argued that it was his obligation to inform the public about a supposed foreign conspiracy against his government. The legal proceedings revolved around the Official Secrets Act, with the petitioner challenging the constitutionality of the case and seeking quashing of the FIR.The court delved into the nature of the cypher and the security protocols surrounding classified information. It emphasized the sensitive handling of classified documents, highlighting the principles of classification and the 'Need to Know' basis. The court also cited relevant sections of the Cabinet Secretariat's guidelines on the security of classified matters.Furthermore, the court discussed the implications of the petitioner's disclosure of the cypher contents during a public speech, asserting that it was not part of his official duties and that he lacked the authority to declassify the information. The court rejected the petitioner's claim of immunity under Article 248 of the Constitution, emphasizing the limited scope of immunity for the President and Governors during their terms.The court considered legal precedents related to bail applications in cases involving the Official Secrets Act, emphasizing the seriousness of the offense and the potential impact on national security. It dismissed the petitioner's argument regarding the procedural irregularities in the case and upheld the legality of the proceedings.In conclusion, the court rejected both the petition for quashing the FIR and the bail application, emphasizing the serious nature of the charges under the Official Secrets Act and the potential threat to national security.