Summary: Background:The case involves appeals regarding the entitlement of respondents, who were appointed as Apprentice Loco Cleaners by the appellants (Pakistan Railways), to annual increments for the two-year training period undergone at the Walton Training Academy, Lahore ("Academy"). After completing the training, the respondents were inducted into regular service and posted at various stations within the Railways service. The respondents claimed payment of annual increments for the training period based on a judgment by the Federal Service Tribunal ("FST") in a previous case. The matter was contested by the appellants, who argued that the respondents, as Apprentices, were not entitled to such benefits.---Issues:Whether the respondents, appointed as Apprentice Loco Cleaners, are entitled to annual increments for the two-year training period undergone at the Academy.Whether the judgment of the FST, allowing similar benefits to other employees, applies to the present case.Whether the administrative directions provided in the letters dated 20.04.1987 and 23.07.1987 support the grant of annual increments to the respondents.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court held that the respondents, as Apprentices, were not entitled to annual increments for the training period based on the administrative regulations outlined in the Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual. The court found that the letters dated 20.04.1987 and 23.07.1987, which were misinterpreted by the FST, did not extend the benefit of annual increments to Apprentices/stipendiary students during their training period. It was concluded that the impugned judgment of the FST suffered from a serious error in interpreting the relevant service regulations, and therefore, the appeals were allowed.---Citations/Precedents:Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Challenging the declaration of Institution as private limited company

Summary: Alibi or plea of alibi is a claim of innocence brought forth by the accused in which he alleges that at the time when the offence with which he is charged was committed, he was elsewhere. Plea of alibi is the weakest type of plea and cannot be given any weightage unless same is proved through very cogent, convincing and plausible evidence therefore, setting up a false plea of alibi does not lead to an inference of guilt but at the same time it can be a confirmatory circumstance to prove the guilt.It is for the trial Court to determine the veracity of confession of the co- accused, ocular account of the eyewitnesses coupled with medical and circumstantial evidence as well as defence evidence and draw its conclusion in light thereof. This Court at this stage on tentative assessment of the material placed on record is not inclined to grant bail to the accused/petitioner. The offence squarely falls within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Bail refused.

Summary: It is pertinent to observethat the Investigating Officer in the present case has failed to jointhe co-signatories, namely Syed Muhammad Ali Zaidi and NazeerAhmed Abro, who signed the cheques in question, which resultedinto embezzlement of the aforesaid huge amount by the appellants.Their such conduct undermines the public confidence in a fair andaccountable system with fair and effective administration of justice.Therefore, the Chairman N.A.B, Islamabad is directed to look intorole played by accused namely Syed Muhammad Ali Zaidi andNazeer Ahmed Abro, who are co-signatory of the cheques inquestion, proceed in accordance with law and file reference againstthem. Office is directed to send a copy of this judgment to theChairman N.A.B at Islamabad for compliance.

Summary: Khursheed Bibi has filed a petition under section 497 Cr.P.C., seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The allegation is that she was apprehended by the police, and 2420 grams of "Charas" were allegedly recovered from her possession. The court, after hearing the arguments and examining the record, notes that there is sufficient incriminating evidence, including a prompt F.I.R., statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and a substantial quantity of the recovered contraband. The court observed that there is no material to presume that the police substituted the petitioner with the real accused. The petitioner claimed malafide involvement due to enmity with the police, but the court points out that a private complaint filed by the petitioner's son against police officials was dismissed. The court finds that the petitioner's previous litigation, related to arrests and narcotics recovery, is not relevant to the present case. Although the case involved a female, falling within the proviso to section 497(1) of Cr.P.C., the court asserts that the grant of bail is still within the discretion of the competent court. The court concluded that no case for the exercise of discretion in favor of the petitioner is made out, and the petition was dismissed.

Summary: Background:Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 filed a Suit for Cancellation of a registered waqfnama dated 18.10.2003, alleging forgery and fictitious representation during its execution. The waqfnama purportedly transferred property from Mst. Hameeda Bano to Defendant No.1 (the Appellant), with Defendants No.2 to 4, also heirs of Mst. Hameeda Bano, supporting its validity. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court dismissed the Suit, but the Lahore High Court reversed the decision, prompting the present Civil Appeal.---Issues:Whether the Suit was time-barred.Whether the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 paid the appropriate court fees.Whether the waqfnama was valid or forged.Whether the Suit was maintainable under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877.Whether the objections regarding the certification by the Sub-Registrar were valid.Whether the Suit was within the statute of limitations.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Court found that the Suit was indeed time-barred, as it was filed two years after the death of Mst. Hameeda Bano, the alleged transferor of the property.Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 failed to pay the appropriate court fees, rendering the Civil Revision liable for dismissal.The Court held that the waqfnama was valid, as Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove its forgery or fictitious nature.The Suit was deemed maintainable under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, as it involved a challenge to the validity of an instrument.The objections regarding certification by the Sub-Registrar were dismissed, as both documents contained the necessary certification.The Suit was found to be within the statute of limitations, as it was filed within three years of the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1's knowledge of the alleged forgery.---Citations/Precedents:Allah Yar v. Muhammad Riaz and others (PLD 1981 SC 489)Mst. Kaniz Begum and others v. Mst. Akbar Jan and another (1984 SCMR 1493)

Summary: PLJ 2020 CrC (Islamabad) 945 Present Ghulam Azam Qambrani J MUHAMMAD AFZAL and another - - Appellants versus MUZAFFAR KHAN and 11 others - - Respondents Crl A No 99 of 2019 decided on 912020 Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 - - - - - - Ss 3 4 7 - - Conviction sentence - - Acquittal of - - Land was undivided - - Co - sharer - - Joint possession - - Non - availability of evidence - - Jurisdiction - - Challenge to - - Parties are descendants who left behind heirs and some land were left behind them which are in joint possession of parties - - However it was case of complainant that they have divided lands according to their shares but on face of record no such evidence has been brought to prove factum of partition in between them - - It is well settled law that all co - sharers are deemed to be owners of land unless land is divided partitioned in accordance with law uS 135 of Land Revenue Act 1967 - - It is well settled proposition of law that every criminal case has to be decided in its own peculiar circumstances and facts - - Disputed land was un - divided in between parties - - It is legally presumed that every share holder of a joint holding would be deemed to be in joint possession - - Since respondentcomplainant himself during cross - examination admits that it is also correct that land falling in khasra was never partitioned by meets and bounds by any revenue department - - During cross - examination complainant further stated that it is correct that I as well as respondents agreed in jirga that a person namely be appointed for measurement of whole property including house of Shahzad later on objected and refused to accept measurement done - - Meaning thereby still whole property has not been dividedpartitioned in between them therefore under Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 trial Court is not competent to determine legal character and to pass upon for handing over of possession of piece of land to some one as same is not vested in its jurisdiction - - Civil Court and revenue authorities are competent to resolve issues - - There is no direct evidence against accused to attract provisions of Section 3 of Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 - - It is an admitted fact that still land in dispute has not been properly partitioned through revenue staff and still no revenue record has been maintained about partition in between parties - - Possession of one co - sharer always deems to be possession of all co - owners - - No one can deny possession of co - owner - - Parties are in admitted feature that they are predecessor - in - interest who left behind landed property upon which parties ie appellants and complainant are in possession but still no proper partition has been made - - Respondentscomplainants failed to produce any evidence with regard to Qabza Groupsproperty grabbers and land mafia against appellants - - Matter in between parties is of civil nature - - Exercise in such matter would be abuse of process of law which cannot be allowed - - Order accordingly [Pp 950 951 952] A B C 2010 SCMR 1254 PLD 2007 Lahore 231 2016 PCrLJ 18 Raja Abid Hussain Janjua Advocate for Appellants Mr Ijaz Janjua Advocate for Respondents 1 to 11Judgement Result:Appeal accepted