Summary: Against reduction of penalty

Summary: (Bail Cancelled) The petitioner was challenging the recall of his bail protection by the High Court. The Supreme Court noted that the petitioner had been granted bail in anticipation of his arrest in a reference by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) back in 2017. However, the High Court recalled his bail protection through the impugned order. The reason for this recall was the petitioner's obstruction of the trial, which was already in its final stages. The Court also expressed disapproval of the petitioner's disrespectful behavior towards the young lady Presiding Judge of the Accountability Court, who was diligently conducting the trial. Considering the petitioner's conduct and the circumstances, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the High Court and dismissed the petition. The Court declined to grant leave and directed the petitioner to surrender himself before the law.

Summary: (Bail Cancelled) The petitioner was challenging the recall of his bail protection by the High Court. The Supreme Court noted that the petitioner had been granted bail in anticipation of his arrest in a reference by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) back in 2017. However, the High Court recalled his bail protection through the impugned order. The reason for this recall was the petitioner's obstruction of the trial, which was already in its final stages. The Court also expressed disapproval of the petitioner's disrespectful behavior towards the young lady Presiding Judge of the Accountability Court, who was diligently conducting the trial. Considering the petitioner's conduct and the circumstances, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the High Court and dismissed the petition. The Court declined to grant leave and directed the petitioner to surrender himself before the law.

Summary: (Bail Cancelled) The petitioner was challenging the recall of his bail protection by the High Court. The Supreme Court noted that the petitioner had been granted bail in anticipation of his arrest in a reference by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) back in 2017. However, the High Court recalled his bail protection through the impugned order. The reason for this recall was the petitioner's obstruction of the trial, which was already in its final stages. The Court also expressed disapproval of the petitioner's disrespectful behavior towards the young lady Presiding Judge of the Accountability Court, who was diligently conducting the trial. Considering the petitioner's conduct and the circumstances, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the High Court and dismissed the petition. The Court declined to grant leave and directed the petitioner to surrender himself before the law.

Summary: (Bail Cancelled) The petitioner was challenging the recall of his bail protection by the High Court. The Supreme Court noted that the petitioner had been granted bail in anticipation of his arrest in a reference by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) back in 2017. However, the High Court recalled his bail protection through the impugned order. The reason for this recall was the petitioner's obstruction of the trial, which was already in its final stages. The Court also expressed disapproval of the petitioner's disrespectful behavior towards the young lady Presiding Judge of the Accountability Court, who was diligently conducting the trial. Considering the petitioner's conduct and the circumstances, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the High Court and dismissed the petition. The Court declined to grant leave and directed the petitioner to surrender himself before the law.

Summary: The respondent was serving as a postman at the Taxila Post Office, District Faisalabad.A complaint was lodged by Mst. Rehana Bibi accusing the respondent of misappropriating money orders amounting to Rs. 110,000.A departmental inquiry found the respondent guilty of the charges.Disciplinary proceedings were initiated, and the respondent was served with a charge sheet and a statement of allegations.The respondent was given an opportunity to defend himself, but the Inquiry Officer?s report confirmed the charges.The competent authority issued a show-cause notice on 27.02.2016, and after considering the respondent's unsatisfactory reply, imposed the penalty of dismissal from service.The respondent's departmental appeal was rejected on 13.10.2016.The respondent then appealed to the Federal Service Tribunal, which converted the penalty of dismissal to compulsory retirement without providing detailed reasoning.----Issues:Whether the Federal Service Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction and legal parameters by converting the penalty of dismissal from service to compulsory retirement.Whether the Tribunal provided sufficient reasoning for modifying the penalty imposed by the departmental authorities.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court found that the Tribunal had overstepped its jurisdiction by modifying the penalty without providing any reasons.The Court emphasized that while the Tribunal has the power under Section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1974, to modify orders, this power must be exercised judiciously and with recorded reasons.The Tribunal?s decision was found to be arbitrary, whimsical, and without lawful authority.The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment dated 23.10.2018 and reinstated the penalty of dismissal imposed by the departmental authorities.----Citations/Precedents:Chief Postmaster Faisalabad v. Muhammad Afzal (2020 SCMR 10)

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -S. 365-A-Kidnapping or abduction for ransom-Reappraisal of evidence-Abductee remained in captivity for about 43 days and he was recovered from the basement of a house/cattle shade belonging to the accused-Accused was guarding the abductee armed with a pistol at the time of the raid-All the witnesses who participated in the raid categorically stated that it was the house of the accused where he was guarding the abductee-Abductee while making his statement categorically stated that it was the accused who remained at guard upon him in the said house-Accused was apprehended red-handed and the abductee was recovered from his exclusive possession-Question as to whether ransom was paid or not was immaterial because the Court had to see the purpose behind the abduction which was obvious in the present case-During cross-examination not a single word regarding any enmity with the complainant or the abductee was suggested by the defence side-Both the Courts below rightly concurred with each other regarding the guilt of the accused-Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave refused. (b) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act (XXIII of 2013)- Arshad Hussain Yousafzai, State counsel for Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (in both cases).

Summary: (a) Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act (XI of 2016)- -S. 4-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 10-Exclusive jurisdiction of Gas Utility Court-Return of plaint-Scope-Appellant challenged the order of Gas Utility Court whereby plaint in the appellant's suit was returned with observation that the property was not situated within its territorial jurisdiction-Validity-Facts which had nexus with the lis had all arisen in district 'L', which was within the territorial jurisdiction of the Gas Utility Court-Appellant was situated within the precincts of district 'L' which fact was established from its official address, duly mentioned on the tariff bill issued by respondent-For all intents and purposes, the appellant i.e. "consumer"of the Gas Company was situated within the precincts of district 'L'-Appeal was allowed, impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Gas Utility Court at district 'L' to decide the same on merits. (b) Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act (XI of 2016)- -S. 4-Exclusive jurisdiction of Gas Utility Court-Scope-Section 4 of the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016 provides that a court having jurisdiction under said Act shall be a Gas Utility Court having jurisdiction in the place in which the Gas Utility Company, consumer, gas producer or offender, as case may be, is situated-Jurisdiction of Court can be determined on the basis of four elements i.e. Gas Utility Company, consumer, gas producer or offender-Court within whose jurisdiction any one of the four elements exist has jurisdiction to deal with the matter. (c) Maxim- -"Ubi jus ibi remedium"-Explained. The maxim"ubi jus ibi remedium"is a fundamental principle of law and of natural justice, which provides that every person, who has a right, must also have a remedy and for enforcing remedy against violation of such right there must be a proper form to ensure enforcement of these rights. Forum for adjudication may be a general legal forum established under a general law or may be a special forum constituted/declared and functioning under a special law, which means that such legal forum has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter. (d) Jurisdiction- -Term"jurisdiction" means the authority of person/authority/legal forum to decide a matter, which means power of the Court to hear, determine and adjudicate upon a controversy by exercising its legal judicial power and authority. Black's Law Dictionary rel. (e) Jurisdiction- -Concept of jurisdiction has its genesis in the physical power of a Court to issue process to persons within the reach of the Court-Jurisdiction of a legal forum/Court includes its (i) territorial jurisdiction; (ii) pecuniary jurisdiction; and (iii) subject matter jurisdiction-Jurisdiction is always conferred upon the Courts by a law and it cannot be decided by the parties inter se-Territorial jurisdiction refers to a Court's power over actions and parties within the bounds of a particular territory-If a Court does not have a territorial jurisdiction over the events or persons within it then the Court cannot give a binding decision regarding the rights of the parties. Messrs Muhammad Tufail and Company through Muhammad Tufail (deceased) through Legal Heirs PLD 2017 SC 51 rel. (f) Jurisdiction- -Question of jurisdiction is a mixed question of law and fact and it must not be decided lightly unless strong and convincing grounds are available on the face of the plaint coupled with attached documentary evidence so as to pass a definitive verdict thereon. Bank of Credits and Commerce and others v. Asrar Hassan and others 2007 SCMR 852 rel. (g) Jurisdiction- -Territorial jurisdiction-Scope-Territorial jurisdiction means a specific area over which a Court can exercise its authority. (h) Jurisdiction- -Territorial jurisdiction-Determination-Scope-Only those facts which have a bearing upon the lis or the dispute involved in the case give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the Court concerned-All other facts which have no nexus or relevance with the lis are to be ignored for the purpose of determination of territorial jurisdiction. (i) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- -O. VII, R. 10-Return of plaint-Determination of jurisdiction-Scope-Whenever a challenge is made to the jurisdiction of the Court, such Court is obliged to decide the matter of its jurisdiction first by taking into account all the relevant facts-However, the Courts have inherent jurisdiction to decide the question of their own jurisdiction with respect to a specific matter and jurisdiction of a Court is initially determined by the pleadings of the parties-If the Court reaches upon the conclusion that it does not have the jurisdiction to decide the lis before it, the Court should return the plaint under O. VII, R. 10, C.P.C., because decision will have a binding force only when the same is passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Taisei Corporation v. A.M. Construction Company (Pvt.) Ltd. PLD 2012 Lah. 455 rel. (j) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- Messrs Brady & Co. (Pakistan) Ltd. v. Messrs Sayed Saigol Industries Ltd. 1981 SCMR 494 rel. (k) Notification- -Administrative notification cannot take away the rights conferred upon a person by codified law-Notification cannot take precedence over the codified law and in case of any conflict between administrative notification and a law, latter will prevail and such notification which is in conflict with or in derogation of the substantive provisions of the law or statute is not sustainable. Muhammad Kashif Pasha and Hamid-ul-Rehman Nasir, Civil Judges/Research Officers, Lahore High Court Research Center for Research Assistance.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending