Summary: Background:The criminal petition arises from an order by the Lahore High Court transferring the trial of a complaint filed by Muhammad Sultan against Muhammad Raza and others from the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Tala Gang, District Chakwal, to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Lahore. The complaint alleged the extra-judicial killing of Sultan's son by the respondents, who are police officials. The trial court had taken cognizance of the offense and issued process against the respondents. However, the respondents moved an application before the Lahore High Court to transfer the trial to a court in Lahore, which was allowed by a Single Bench of the High Court.---Issues:Whether the Lahore High Court's order transferring the trial from Tala Gang to Lahore was legal and sustainable.Whether the jurisdiction and venue of the trial were appropriately determined.Whether the delay in filing the complaint affects its credibility or legality.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court upheld the Lahore High Court's order transferring the trial to Lahore. It noted that the offense, the alleged murder of Sultan's son, occurred within the jurisdiction of Police Station Defence-B, Lahore, where a case had been registered and post-mortem examination conducted. Additionally, the witnesses were residents of Lahore. The Court invoked Section 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows for trial in the district where the offense was committed or where its consequences ensued. Given that the alleged murder took place in Lahore, the High Court's decision to transfer the trial there was deemed appropriate. The Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the need for expedited proceedings and directing the trial court to decide the case within three months. It also ordered adequate security for Sultan during the trial.---Citations/Precedents:Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973Sections 302, 364, 109, 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC)Section 156 of the Police Order 2002Chapter XV Part VI of the Criminal Procedure Code"Muhammad Sultan vs. Sabir Hussain and 14 others" - Lahore High Court, Lahore

Summary: Challenging the impugned order dated 29.01.2019 of Pakistan post regarding decline request of the petitioner (a) Service Law – Upgradation of Post – Equal Protection of Law: ----Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4 & 25 – Education Division's O.M. dated 26.12.1985 – Policy for Upgradation of Librarian to Library Assistant (BPS-09) Petitioner was appointed as a Librarian (BPS-07) under recruitment rules set forth in Appendix-34 to Volume-IV of the Pakistan Post Office Manual. A policy decision contained in Education Division's O.M. dated 26.12.1985 approved the upgradation of the post of Librarian to Library Assistant (BPS-09) for incumbents holding matriculation with a certificate in Library Science. The petitioner, meeting the qualification criteria, was denied upgradation despite the policy being part of the Pakistan Post Office Manual. The court held that the policy decision provided a legal right to the petitioner to be considered for upgradation, and failure to extend the benefit was unjustified. Equal protection of law mandates that similarly placed individuals be treated alike. -----Cited Cases: WAPDA v. Abdul Ghaffar (2018 SCMR 380) Federation of Pakistan v. Ghulam Mustafa (2012 SCMR 1914) Hameed Akhtar Niazi v. Secretary, Establishment Division (1996 SCMR 1185) -----Disposition: Petition allowed; impugned order set aside. The petitioner was declared entitled to be considered for the re-designation and upgradation of his post to Library Assistant (BPS-09) in accordance with the Education Division's O.M. dated 26.12.1985.

Summary: Court has been informed that there are more than 8,000claimants and clearly billions of rupees are to be disbursedamongst these claimants, in the interest of transparency andgood accounting practices, let regular audit of all the transactionsconducted by the Office of the Official Assignee as an outcomeof this Order be made through a highly reputable firm ofchartered accountants (selected through public notice) everythree months and such audit reports be filed with the Courtimmediately upon becoming available along with an appropriatereference from the Official Assignee.IT Branch of this Court to place full text of this order in pdf formaton Sindh High Court website with a proper banner titled?Affectees of Fazaia Housing Scheme, Karachi ? PaymentScheme? at a prominent place till all monies are disbursed to theaffectees. Similar exercise be done on the web page of the officeof Official Assignee.

Summary: (a) Drugs Act (XXXI of 1976)- -S. 18(1)(d)-Import, manufacture and sale of unregistered drugs-Reappraisal of evidence-Powers of Drug Inspector-Scope-Argument that the Drug Inspector lacked authority to carry out the raid and seize the contraband drugs-Held, that such argument was entirely beside the mark-Drug Inspector appeared in the witness-box, and categorically asserted his status to carry out the raid on the strength of Notification No.1(19)-Law/2004(Vol-III)- 578 dated 17th February, 2012, a position uncontroverted by the defence during the trial-Section 18(d) of the Drugs Act, 1976 did not place any clog on the powers of Inspectors so as to "enter and search, with such assistance, if any, as he considers necessary, any building, vessel or place, in which he has reason to believe that an offence under this Act or any rules has been or is being committed or may continue to be committed"-In exercise of powers vesting in the Inspector/witness, he was well within the remit of law to seize unregistered drugs-Said drugs were secured vide inventory on Form-5, and transmitted to the Quality Control Board, an exercise that required no additional authorization-Conviction and sentences of the accused persons under the Drugs Act, 1976 were maintained-Petitions for leave to appeal were dismissed and leave was refused. (b) Drugs Act (XXXI of 1976)- -S. 11(5)- Import, manufacture and sale of unregistered drug-Reappraisal of evidence-Quality Control Board, functions of-Scope-Argument that the seized unregistered drugs were sent to the Quality Control Board, but during trial no member of the said Board entered the witness box to prove the charge against the accused persons-Held, that prosecution was not required to produce any member of Quality Control Board to join the witnesses to drive home the charge-Functions of the Quality Control Board were supervisory/regulatory in nature and as such for prosecution of an offence under the Drugs Act, 1976 the Drug Inspector himself could discharge the onus-Besides the accused persons in the present case never opted to summon any member of the Board during the trial nor any prejudice had been alleged-Conviction and sentences of the accused persons under the Drugs Act, 1976 were maintained-Petitions for leave to appeal were dismissed and leave was refused. Mian Asghar Ali, Deputy Attorney-General for Pakistan for the State.

Summary: Service/Promotion

Summary: Intra Court Appeal in WP 2819-13 (QUA warranto, against appointment of CEO (Alternate Energy Development Board (AEDB))

Summary: Jail appeal, against conviction of life imprisonment, having offense u/s 302/34 PPC

Summary: The petitioners were appointed on Class IV posts without any transparent selection process. The posts against which they were appointed had not been advertised by official respondents. Norequisition was sent to the Employment Exchange as per the requirement of the Employment Exchanges provided in second proviso of rules of 1989 or notification of 2008 (supra). On the basis of such appointments, no right much less a vested right has been acquired by the private respondents to be continued in employment. As the appointment of the respondents did not precede by the advertisement of the posts or sending of requisition to the Employment Exchange with a view to enable other eligible persons to be considered for recruitment against the vacant posts. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the respondents (private) got entry in the service by back door method and they have been benefitted by fraudulent system of employment engineered by official respondents. It is their misfortune that the respondents did not consider it to adopt an appropriate mode, either without sending requisition to the Employment Exchanges or without issuingadvertisement with a view to give opportunity of competition to other eligible persons including the petitioners, which process were violative of the doctrine of equality embodied in Articles 18 of theConstitution. We, therefore, hold that the petitioners did not acquire any legal right to hold the post onwhich they were appointed.

Summary: Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963)-------S. 17---Ejectment of tenant---Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by the tenant---Default in payment of rent---Effect---Rent Controller accepted ejectment petition and directed the tenant to vacate the demised premises---Validity---Tenant had admitted that he had paid rent to the husband of landlady---Relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties---Tenant had not denied the ownership of landlady and he had entered in the demised premises as tenant---Tenant had committed default in payment of rent in the present case---Tenant had neither sent rent to the landlady or her husband through money order nor deposited the same in the Court---Tenant was directed to pay the defaulted rent and vacate the demised premises within fifteen days---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Messrs MFMY Industries v. Federation of Pakistan 2015 SCMR 1550 rel.

Summary: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------Ss.12 & 19---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXVIII, R.5---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Transfer of suit property to the subsequent purchaser---Breach of contract---Compensation, award of---Attachment of property before judgment---Scope---Suit was decreed with the direction to the executant of agreement to sell to execute conveyance deed in favour of plaintiff but no relief of possession was extended---Validity---Plaintiff had paid all the consideration amount to the defendant/builder of housing society---Defendant had sold suit land in favour of subsequent purchaser and he was bound to refund amount so realized by him to the plaintiff---Builder had failed to complete construction by due date and even he had not returned consideration amount received by him to the plaintiff---Subsequent purchaser had possession of suit property and its sale deed---Execution of conveyance deed through Court in favour of plaintiff would render sale deed in favour of defendants as ineffective---Case of plaintiff for specific performance against the builder had been made out but it had become a case of hardship for the subsequent purchaser---Relief of specific performance, even if contract was enforceable, was discretionary and same could be withheld by the Court---When Court had concluded that grant of relief of specific performance had been made out but it would be a case of hardship to other side or unfair and inequitable to any third party who was not at fault then it should compensate the plaintiff---Builder had breached contract and only execution of title document was not specific performance of a contract of sale of immovable property when plaintiff was not in possession of suit premises---Execution of title document had to be coupled with delivery of possession of suit property to the plaintiff---Court could not grant decree of possession of suit property to the plaintiff owing to the presence of bona fide purchaser of suit premises---Plaintiff should have been granted relief of specific performance with additional compensation, in circumstances---Court in suit for specific peformance could grant two decrees of compensation combined in one judgment in a suit for specific performance---Order of specific performance might be substituted with compensation for it with additional compensation for breach of contract---High Court observed that court, in the present case, should have passed an adequate decree of compensation both as substitution of specific performance and additional compensation for breach of contract---Decree of specific performance of an agreement to sell through execution of title document against the builder in favour of plaintiff was in the field with no result and there was likelihood that builder would avoid the said decree---High Court passed order for attachment of movable and immovable property of builder who had received consideration amount from the plaintiff but had not returned the same---Plaintiff was entitled for adequate compensation keeping in view escalation in valuation of suit premises and value of currency which had gone down due to inflation in the country---Property of builder would remain attached till the judgment was executable---Second appeal was allowed accordingly. Mohiuddin Molla v. The Province of East Pakistan PLD 1962 SC 119 and Jamil Akhtar and others v. Las Baba and others PLD 2003 SC 494 rel.