Summary: Background:This appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad dated 22.10.2018, dismissing an appeal filed by the appellant, now deceased. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal based on contentions that no regular inquiry was conducted against the appellant regarding allegations of embezzlement and fraud in Pakistan Railways Funds.---Issues:Whether the appellant's due process rights were violated.Whether the inquiries conducted against the appellant were fair and unbiased.Whether the findings of the Federal Service Tribunal were supported by the evidence on record.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Three successive inquiries found the appellant guilty of various charges related to procurement irregularities in the purchase of Bitumen Tape for Pakistan Railways. The Supreme Court, upon examination of the record, affirmed the findings of the Federal Service Tribunal. The lack of specific quantity specifications in the tender documents provided an opportunity for fraud, leading to the appellant's culpability. The Court concluded that the inquiries were conducted by qualified officers without apparent bias, and the findings were supported by evidence.

Summary: (a) Frontier Crimes Regulation (III of 1901)- -S. 55-AA (since repealed)-Review petition/application filed before FATA Tribunal-Words 'any other sufficient ground"used in S.55-AA of Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901 ('the FCR')-Interpretation-Ejusdem generis, rule of-Review jurisdiction provided in the FCR neither provided an open ended remedy to an aggrieved person to re-agitate his entire case nor had the same furnished the FATA Tribunal with a jurisdiction of re-opening the entire controversy or sit in appeal against its original judgment-Legislature had employed the wordings"to correct any mistake or error apparent on the face of record or for any other sufficient ground"in S.55-AA of FCR with a particular aim in mind and that was to restrict the review jurisdiction and not to leave it open ended-Words"any other sufficient ground"was not an independent clause and had to be read as ejusdem generis with the preceding words"to correct any mistake or error apparent on the face of record"-Words"any other sufficient ground"used in S.55-AA of FCR would be read as employing any other sufficient ground akin and similar to the wordings,"to correct any mistake or error apparent on the face of record". Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes Twelfth Edition by P. St. J. Langan; Borwnsea Haven Properties, Ltd. v. Poole Corporation (1958) Ch. 574; Punjab Cooperative Board of Liquidation through Chairman v. Muhammad Ilyas PLD 2014 SC 471; Province of West Pakistan through the Vice-Chairman, Pakistan Western Railway, Lahore v. Syed Moharram Ali and 93 others 1970 PLC 408; 2020 SCMR 333; 2002 SCMR 250; PLD 2000 SC 111; PLD 1989 SC 128 and 1998 PLC (C.S.) 1484 ref. (b) Frontier Crimes Regulation (III of 1901)- -S. 55-AA [since repealed]-Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXVI, R. 1-Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 188-Review jurisdiction of FATA Tribunal under S.55-AA of Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901 ('the FCR')-Scope-Grounds for review provided in S.55-AA of FCR were pari materia with O. XXVI, R.1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980-Rehearing of a case was not permissible in review jurisdiction. Majid Mahmood v. Muhammad Shafi 2008 SCMR 554; Wafi Associates (Pvt.) Limited v. Farooq Hamid and others 2010 SCMR 1125; Syed Ashfaq Hussain Shah v. N.E.D. University of Engineering and Technology, Karachi and others 2007 SCMR 73; Messrs Pakistan Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and another v. Collector, Customs Central Excise and Sales Tax, Lahore and others 2005 SCMR 54; Naseer Ahmed v. The State 2006 SCMR 942; Muhammad Hussain v. Mukhtar Ahmad 2006 SCMR 71 and Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad v. Muhammad Tariq Pirzada and others 1999 SCMR 1289 ref. (c) Frontier Crimes Regulation (III of 1901)- -S. 55-AA [since repealed]-Review petition/application filed before erstwhile FATA Tribunal transferred to (Peshawar) High Court as a 'writ petition' after merger of FATA in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province-Scope-High Court while adjudicating such a writ petition was not supposed to substitute its findings for the recommendation of Jirga or decision of the Assistant Political Agent thereupon in review proceedings-Interpretation of custom and Riwaj was domain of Council of Elders in the erstwhile regime of Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901 (FCR) and it had its own peculiar way of judging things which could not be re-judged in the review application transferred from erstwhile FATA Tribunal to the High Court as a writ petition.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Astonishingly, despite alleged indiscriminate firing by three accused, none of the PWs tried to escape or hit with a single fire shot and they were surprisingly standing firm to watch minutely that the fire shot of Saif-ur-Rehman hit the deceased on his head, which in the ordinary course of life is impossible. It is also beyond one s comprehension as to why the accused let the alleged eyewitnesses to go safely to lodge report and stand eyewitnesses against them.It is settled law that once intrinsic worth of ocular account is accepted and believed then the rest of the evidence, both circumstantial and corroboratory in nature, would be required as a matter of caution. Conversely, once the ocular account is disbelieved then no other evidence, even of a high degree and value, would be sufficient for recording conviction on a capital charge.

Summary: Sections of law; Article 199 of the Constitution, section 55-A of the FCR and 25th Constitutional Amendment.(a) Grounds for review under section 55-A of the erstwhile FCR explained

Summary: 1.Notwithstanding the failure of the defendant to comply with conditions of a leave application, the Court is still required to apply its mind to the case of the plaintiff before passing any order/judgment. Leave granted where statement of account incomplete.2.Notwithstanding the creation of a mortgage, the mortgagor remains liable to the lessor for any breach or non-performance of the conditions of lease; and that if the lessor forfeits the lease, the remedy of the mortgagee is against the mortgagor for indemnification, and not against the lessor. The security of the mortgagee in the mortgaged property can be no better than the interest given to the mortgagor by the lease.

Summary: Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Appeal (Appeal dismissed. During encounter PC was killed, accused Confessed before Magistrate ,and admitted in Statement U/S 342)----The prosecution relied on witness testimonies, medical reports, and forensic evidence to establish the guilt of the accused individuals. The defense contested the charges, alleging police misconduct and insufficient evidence.The court ultimately found the prosecution's evidence to be credible and compelling, supporting the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. It dismissed the defense's claims of innocence and upheld the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court. The judgment referenced various legal precedents and emphasized the importance of deterring offenses against law enforcement personnel.In its decision, the court highlighted the reliance on witness testimonies, forensic reports, and the absence of mitigating circumstances to justify its ruling. The judgment underscored the need to maintain the integrity of law enforcement efforts and uphold accountability for criminal acts. Therefore, the court rejected the appeals filed by the appellants and affirmed the lower court's decision in its entirety.

Summary: Conviction upheld---Background:Muhammad Asif and Mehboob Alam were involved in a criminal case registered on 15.11.2011, with charges including murder and other offenses.After a trial, Muhammad Asif was convicted and sentenced to death by the trial court.This decision was appealed to the Lahore High Court, which converted the death sentence to life imprisonment.Muhammad Asif filed criminal petitions seeking leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's decision.---Issues:Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Muhammad Asif.Whether the delay in the postmortem examination affects the credibility of the prosecution's case.Whether the High Court's decision to convert the death sentence to life imprisonment was justified.---Holding/Reasoning:The petitioner argued that there was no evidence to support the conviction and that the time of occurrence was not mentioned in the complaint. However, the crime report did mention the date and time of occurrence, undermining the argument of an unseen occurrence.The delay in the postmortem examination was reasonable considering the distance to Mayo Hospital and the challenges in medical facilities in the country.Previous hostility between the parties did not discredit the prosecution's evidence.The High Court's decision to convert the death sentence to life imprisonment was supported by justifiable reasoning and met the standards of safe administration of criminal justice.The Supreme Court found no grounds for interference and upheld the decision of the Lahore High Court.The criminal petitions were dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.

Summary: (a) Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, 1980 (the Hague Convention)- -Preamble-Child abduction-Scope-Hague Convention is not an extradition treaty, it focuses on procedure and jurisdiction rather than on merits of any underlying custody issue. The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction as Applied to Non-Signatory Nations: Getting to Square One (1997) 20 Hous and Hague Convention on International Child Abduction: A brief Overview and Case Law Analysis 28 FAM. L.Q. 9, 11 (1994) rel. (b) Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, 1980 (the Hague Convention)- -Arts.3 & 5-Abduction-"Civil"and"criminal" laws-Distinction-In private international law the term 'abduction' carries a meaning somewhat different from criminal law, there it connotes removal or retention of a child in breach of another's rights of custody-Phrase 'rights of custody' may have varying meanings-As 101 countries are party to Hague Convention one should prefer the definition given in Art. 5 of the Hague Convention, which says that such rights includes rights relating to care of the person of child and in particular the right to determine child's place of residence. (c) Constitution of Pakistan- -Art. 199 (1)(b)(i)-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.491-Constitutional petition-Habeas corpus-Recovery of detenue-Principle-Petitioner was a foreign national and she sought recovery of her two minor sons who were residing in Pakistan with her husband-Validity-High Court was competent to entertain a habeas corpus petition under Art.199 of the Constitution or S.491, Cr.P.C. and direct that a person in custody within its territorial jurisdiction be brought before it and satisfy itself that he was not being held in improper or illegal custody, more particularly when petition was made by mother who bona fide believed that children were removed from her custody by use of chicanery and thereafter forced to stay in Pakistan against her will and she could not be precluded from approaching the High Court-Proceedings in habeas corpus jurisdiction were summary in nature and High Court could not conduct detailed inquiry which was required in the matter for which the petitioner had recourse to Guardian Court which was a proper forum-High Court directed the petitioner to approach Guardian Court which Court would decide the matter in accordance with law-Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly. B's Settlement, (1940) Ch 54; McKee v. McKee, (1951) AC 352; H (Infants), (1966) 1 All ER 886; L (Minors) (Wardship: jurisdiction), 1974 (1) All ER 913 (CA); R (Minors) (Wardship: Jurisdiction), (1981) 2 FLR 416 (CA); Smt. Surindar Kaur Sandhu v. Harbax Singh Sandhu and another AIR 1984 SC 1224; Mrs. Elizabeth Dinshaw v. Arvand M. Dinshaw and another (AIR 1987 SC 3 = 1989 MLD 2009; Dhanwanti Joshi v. Madhav Unde 1998 (1) SCC 112; Surya Vadanan v. State of Tamilnadu and others AIR 2015 SC 2243; Mrs. Moselle Gubbay (formerly Mrs. Said) v. Khawaja Ahmad Said and others PLD 1957 (W.P.) Kar. 50; Christine Brass v. Dr. Javed Iqbal PLD 1981 Pesh.110; Sara Palmer v. Muhammad Aslam 1992 MLD 520; Peggy Collin v. Muhammad Ishfaque Malik and 6 others PLD 2010 Lah. 48; Mirjam Aberras Lehdeaho v. SHO, Police Station Chung, Lahore and others 2018 SCMR 427; Muhammad Ramzan (deceased) through L.Rs. and others v. Nasreen Firdous and others PLD 2016 SC 174; M (Abduction: Non-Convention Country), [1995] 1 FLR 89 and S. v. S. (Abduction: Non-Convention Country), [1994] 2 FLR 681 ref. (d) Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)- -S.7-Pakistan Citizenship Act (II of 1951), S.5-Guardian Court, jurisdiction of-Nationality of minors-Scope-According to S.5 of Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, all children, wherever born of a Pakistani father, are deemed to be citizens of Pakistan by descent. Abu Saeed A. Islahi v. Mrs. Talat Mir and 2 others 1994 MLD 1370; Muhammad Younas v. Shahzad Qamar and 3 others PLD 1981 Lah. 280 and Rochomal Daryanomal v. The Province of West Pakistan PLD 1960 (WP) Kar. 150 rel. Zaman Khan Vardag, Additional Advocate General for the State.