Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: CR, Seeking direction to set aside order dated 14.12.2017 whereby learned ADJ dismissed appeal on limitation

Summary: Petitioner retired from NAB on basis of resignation which accepted.He pleads compulsion and duress behind the resignation seeks reinstatement

Summary: This Article 199 writ petition challenges the legality of letters issued by the Federal Government, alleging that the petitioners, private publishers, are being compelled to publish textbooks under the Single National Curriculum (SNC) without proper consultation and a reasonable compliance deadline. The petitioners argued that this unilateral imposition, post the 18th Amendment abolishing the Concurrent Legislative List, violates their fundamental rights and poses a threat to the private publishing sector. Throughout the proceedings, legal precedents and constitutional provisions are referenced, including judgments such as "Messrs Mustafa Impex, Karachi and others v. The Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and others" (PLD 2016 Supreme Court 808), "Syed Riaz Ali Zaidi v. Government of Punjab through Chief Secretary, Lahore and 3 others" (PLD 2015 Lahore 463), "Sharaf Faridi and 3 others v. The Federation of Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Prime Minister of Pakistan and another" (PLD 1989 Karachi 404), "Government of Punjab and others v. Aamir Zahoor-ul-Haq and others" (PLD 2016 Supreme Court 421), "Judicial Activism Panel v. Government of the Punjab and others" (2020 MLD 178), and "Prof. Jawaid Mohsin Malik and 7 others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Federal Education and Professional Training, Islamabad and 4 others" (PLD 2018 Islamabad 274). The court emphasized the importance of co-operative federalism in educational matters and directs the Secretary, School Education Department, to convene a meeting with the petitioners within one month to address their concerns, underscoring the constitutional imperative of providing compulsory education and the ongoing efforts to implement the SNC for Grades Pre-I to V.

Summary: bbas Ali and Hajji Umar alias Ghulam Hussain, filed a jail petition against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh Circuit Court at Hyderabad. They were convicted for homicide and murderous assault and sentenced to life imprisonment with additional years of rigorous imprisonment and fines. They were also directed to pay compensation.According to the prosecution, the petitioners, along with a co-accused Mehar Ali, committed the crime by targeting the deceased and another individual with firearms and a hatchet. The incident occurred on 15.6.1998. The prosecution's case was primarily based on the testimony of eyewitnesses Haji Muhammad Siddique (PW-1), Ali Sher (PW-2), and the injured Khamiso Khan (PW-4).The petitioners' counsel argued that the occurrence did not take place as alleged, and there was a family dispute that led to false implications. The absence of weapon recovery was highlighted as a weakness in the prosecution's case. The counsel contended that the acquittal of the co-accused weakened the prosecution's case.However, the court found the prosecution's evidence strong and credible. The eyewitnesses provided detailed and consistent accounts of the incident. The court also considered the promptness in approaching the law and the medical examination of the injured Khamiso Khan. The failure to recover the weapons did not significantly impact the prosecution's case.The court upheld the convictions and sentences, but it modified the amount of Daman (compensation) imposed on the convicts due to their advanced age, reducing it to Rs. 1000/-. The jail petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was declined.

Summary: The case revolves around the issue of the legality and validity of the Benazir Employees Stock Option Scheme (BESOS), which aimed to empower employees of state-owned enterprises and government shareholdings by transferring 12% of the government's shares to the employees through a trust mechanism.The main points of contention include whether the Federal Cabinet had the authority to approve the BESOS scheme without involving the Council of Common Interests (CCI), as mandated by Article 154 of the Constitution. The court determined that the Federal Cabinet's decision to launch the scheme without CCI's involvement violated Article 154.Additionally, the case examined whether the benefits provided to employees under the BESOS scheme were part of their terms and conditions of employment. However, the court's finding on the first issue rendered this point moot, as the entire scheme was deemed unconstitutional.The Supreme Court ultimately set aside a judgment from the Islamabad High Court and upheld a judgment from the High Court of Sindh, declaring the BESOS scheme to be in violation of Article 154 of the Constitution. The judgment essentially revolved around the jurisdiction and authority of the Federal Cabinet and CCI in matters related to the transfer of government shares and the formulation of policies for state-owned enterprises and government shareholdings.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss.302, 392, 353 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7---Qatl-i-amd, robbery,assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, commonintention, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Accused werecharged that they murdered the Police Official/brother of the complainant after committingrobbery---Case was registered on the information given by deceased, then injured to thecomplainant---If it was presumed that the deceased told about the accused at the place ofoccurrence, then why on the oral report of the deceased FIR was not lodged---Statement ofSHO was not recorded by the Investigation Officer under S. 161, Cr.P.C.---InvestigatingOfficer died natural death and the SHO appeared on behalf of the late Investigating Officerand produced site plan, challan of the case, memo of the place of occurrence---Had SHObeen present at the place of occurrence in whose presence the deceased allegedly made dyingdeclaration, his statement would have been recorded by the Investigating Officer, but thesame had not been done which created a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case---Appealagainst conviction was allowed, in circumstances.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss.302, 392, 353 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7---Qatl-i-amd, robbery,assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, commonintention, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Medical evidence---Scope---Accused were charged that they murdered the Police Official/brother of thecomplainant after committing robbery---Case was registered on the information given bydeceased, then injured to the complainant---Record showed that dead body of the deceasedwas received at hospital at 9:00 p.m.---Alleged occurrence took place at 8:45 p.m. andcomplainant stated during cross-examination that after receiving a telephone call he reachedthe place of occurrence within 7/10 minutes---Possibility that within a period of 5 or 6minutes the deceased allegedly told about the occurrence to the complainant and within said5 or 6 minutes the dead body of the deceased also reached to the hospital could not bebelieved---Said aspect of the matter also casted reasonable doubt on the prosecution case---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.(c) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)-------Art. 46---Dying declaration---Evidentiary value---Scope---Dying declaration was astatement of a deceased person as to cause of his death when he was at the point of death---No doubt, sanctity was attached to a dying declaration because a dying man was not expectedto tell lies, but being weak kind of evidence, it required close scrutiny and corroborationfrom circumstantial evidence.Mst. Zahida Bibi v. The State PLD 2006 SC 255 rel.(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss.302, 392, 353 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7---Qanun-e-Shahadat(10 of 1984), Art. 46--- Qatl-i-amd, robbery, assault or criminal force to deter public servantfrom discharge of his duty, common intention, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Dying declaration not supported by medical evidence---Scope---Accusedwere charged that they murdered the Police Official/brother of the complainant aftercommitting robbery---Case was registered on the information given by deceased, theninjured, to the complainant---Record showed that the deceased received injuries by means ofa firearm on occipital area of skull margin inverted i.e. 1 x 1 cm wound of entrance and exitwound of bullet were 2 x 2 cm on the left side of the skull of the deceased---Second injurywas firearm entrance wound on the backside lumber region 1 x 1 cm margin inverted (Rt.side) and the exit wound was on abdomen of right side 2 x 2 cm---In view of the said injurieson most vital parts, capability and ability of the deceased, then injured, to makestatement/talk was beyond the comprehension of a prudent mind---Alleged dying declarationof the deceased, then injured, had not been corroborated by any circumstantial evidence toprove the participation of the accused in the commission of the offence---Appeal againstconviction was allowed, in circumstances.(e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss.302, 392, 353 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7---Qatl-i-amd, robbery,assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, commonintention, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery ofmotorbike used in the commission of offence---Reliance---Scope---Accused were chargedthat they murdered the Police Official/brother of the complainant after committing robbery---Case was registered on the information given by deceased, then injured, to the complainant---Record showed that a motorbike Honda 125 CC was recovered with the bloodstained seatcover---Prosecution produced Head Constable as a witness who stated in his statement thaton the night of occurrence on the source of search light the bloodstains were found on theground which led to the metal road and continued till the house of the accused---About 2:30p.m., a raid was conducted at the house of accused and one motorcycle which was used at thetime of occurrence with a bloodstained seat cover was recovered and the same was taken intopossession through a recovery memo---Said witness stated that they did not collect information about the house from the neighbours---Neither any document of the house norany witness of the locality was produced by the prosecution to establish that the said housebelonged to the accused---Accused was also not found in the house wherefrom the allegedmotorcycle was recovered---Prosecution did not produce any other witness to corroborate thestatement of said witness---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.(f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss.302, 392, 353 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7---Qatl-i-amd, robbery,assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, commonintention, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of crimeempties from the place of occurrence---Scope---Accused were charged that they murderedthe Police Official/brother of the complainant after committing robbery---Case wasregistered on the information given by deceased, then injured, to the complainant---Recordshowed that only three crime empties of TT pistol were recovered from the place ofoccurrence but the deceased received two entrance wounds---No weapon had been shown orrecovered from the deceased and the same was also not sent to the firearm expert to matchthe same with the crime empties---Alleged recovered crime empties were not sent to ForensicScience Laboratory so as to ascertain the number of accused--- Appeal against convictionwas allowed, in circumstances.(g) Criminal trial-------Benefit of doubt---Principle---For extending the benefit of the doubt in favour of theaccused so many circumstances were not required rather one circumstance, which created areasonable dent in the veracity of the prosecution version could be taken into considerationfor the purpose, not as a matter of grace but as a matter of right.

Summary: Acquittal ---- Background:Muhammad Yasin was convicted by the Anti Terrorism Court-I, Quetta, for the abduction and subsequent murder of Qari Haji Muhammad on March 30, 2007, alongside co-accused Muhammad Hussain and Muhammad Hadi. The case also involved absconding co-accused. Yasin was convicted under section 7(a) of the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997, along with sections 302(b), and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to death and three years RI, respectively. His conviction and sentence were upheld by the Balochistan High Court, which later altered the death penalty to life imprisonment.----Issues:The credibility of the prosecution's story, considering the delay in reporting the incident and the encounters between the witnesses and the appellant prior to the test identification parade.The evidential significance of the recovered weapon and the appellant's disclosure leading to the discovery of the deceased's body in an openly accessible location.The reliability of witness testimonies, especially Noor Muhammad (PW-4), and the forensic evidence linking the appellant to the crime.-----Holding/Reasoning:The Supreme Court of Pakistan found several issues with the prosecution's case, leading to the decision to acquit Muhammad Yasin:The condition of the deceased's body and its location raised doubts about the hypothesis of the appellant's disclosure leading to its discovery. The presence of personal items with the body in an openly accessible area was deemed implausible for identification purposes.The absence of mention of the appellant's alleged disclosure leading to the discovery of the body during his examination underlined the inconsistencies in the prosecution's narrative.The testimonies of the witnesses, especially Noor Muhammad, did not conclusively link the appellant to the crime beyond handling of the deceased's personal items.The forensic evidence, particularly the seizure of a casing weeks after the incident, did not convincingly support the prosecution's case.Given these considerations, the Supreme Court concluded that the evidence was fraught with doubts and failed to establish the appellant's culpability beyond a reasonable doubt. As a result, the judgment of the Balochistan High Court was set aside, and Muhammad Yasin was acquitted of the charges. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was ordered to be released unless required for detention in any other case.----Citations/Precedents:The judgment did not cite specific legal precedents but focused on evaluating the credibility and sufficiency of the evidence presented. The principle of the benefit of the doubt and the inconsistencies in the prosecution's narrative were central to the Court's reasoning.

Summary: Background:Petitioners Abbas Ali and Hajji Umar, along with an acquitted co-accused Mehar Ali, were indicted for homicide and assault. The Additional Sessions Judge at Kotri convicted the petitioners on multiple counts, sentencing them to life imprisonment along with additional sentences and fines. The High Court upheld these convictions. The case stemmed from an incident on 15th June 1998, where the petitioners allegedly attacked and killed Rab Rakhio and injured Khamiso Khan over a family dispute related to a disapproved marriage. The petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging their convictions.----Issues:Did the prosecution establish the occurrence of the crime as alleged?Was the evidence sufficient to maintain the convictions of the petitioners despite the acquittal of a co-accused on similar evidence?Was the absence of weapon recovery critical to the prosecution?s case?----Holding/Reasoning/OutcomeHolding:The Supreme Court upheld the convictions and sentences of the petitioners, with a slight modification in the amount of Daman imposed.Reasoning:Ocular Testimony: The prosecution's case was primarily based on the eyewitness accounts of Haji Muhammad Siddique (PW-1), Ali Sher (PW-2), and the injured Khamiso Khan (PW-4). These witnesses provided consistent and detailed descriptions of the crime.Prompt Action: The witnesses promptly reported the crime, and Khamiso Khan was medically examined, which supported their accounts.No Mistaken Identity: Given the familial relationship, the court found no basis for mistaken identity or false implication.Acquittal of Co-Accused: The acquittal of Mehar Ali was based on his distinguishable and less significant role, and it did not undermine the overall integrity of the prosecution's case against the petitioners.Absence of Weapon Recovery: The failure to recover the weapons did not significantly weaken the prosecution's case, which was strongly supported by credible eyewitness testimony.Outcome: The petitioners? appeal was dismissed, and their convictions and sentences were maintained. However, the Daman imposed was reduced to Rs. 1000 due to the petitioners' advanced age.