Summary: -

Summary: Powers under Article 161 of Qanun-e-Shahdat Order, 1984 are to be exercised by a Judge only in cases of absolute necessity.

Summary: (a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001---- ----Execution proceedings---Banking decree---Auction of mortgaged property---Application for delivery of possession---Limitation---Appellant-bank had obtained decree in recovery suit and, during execution proceedings, mortgaged property of respondent/judgment-debtor measuring 32 kanals and 3 marlas situated at Mouza Qilla Shah Baig, Tehsil and District Charsadda was auctioned and purchased by appellant-bank---Sale was confirmed and sale certificate was issued in favour of appellant-bank on 28.01.2002---Application for possession filed on 13.01.2020 was rightly dismissed as time-barred. (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)---- ----Art. 180---Purchaser of immovable property at sale in execution of decree---Delivery of possession---Limitation period---Under Art.180, Limitation Act, 1908, purchaser of immovable property at sale in execution of decree must apply for delivery of possession within three years from date when sale becomes absolute---Limitation begins to run from confirmation of sale/sale becoming absolute, not from any later demand or convenience of auction purchaser. (c) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)---- ----Art. 180---Sale certificate issued in execution proceedings---Starting point---Record showed that after confirmation of auction proceedings, sale certificate was issued in favour of appellant-bank on 28.01.2002, whereafter sale became absolute---Appellant-bank was required to seek delivery of possession within three years from said date---Application filed after more than seventeen and a half years was hopelessly barred by limitation. (d) Banking Court---- ----Execution proceedings---Application for possession by auction purchaser-bank---Dismissal on limitation---Validity---Banking Court dismissed appellant-bank’s application for possession on ground of limitation---High Court held that findings did not suffer from any illegality and required no interference in appeal. (e) Appeal---- ----Banking execution appeal---No case for indulgence---Where application for possession was filed after expiry of statutory limitation by more than seventeen years, appellant-bank failed to make out any case for appellate interference---Appeal along with connected miscellaneous application was dismissed in limine. Disposition: F.A.B. No.12-P of 2021 along with C.M. No.297-P of 2021 was dismissed in limine; order dated 08.03.2021 passed by Banking Court-I, Peshawar dismissing appellant-bank’s application for delivery of possession as time-barred was maintained.

Summary: Firstly, when there are two districts Khatas One Corner of Khasra No. 82 which is connected with Khasra No. 94 can neither be considered to be contiguous nor it makes a compact block. Similarly, Khasra No. 78 towards its Western Side touches with Southern Side of Khasra No. 21at a particular place marked as A1 is also not in connection or with relation to a compact block and for that matter do not demonstrates the contiguity of pre-emptor with the disputed property thus, the petitioner has got no superior right on the ground of contiguity or compact block with the disputed property. Secondly, true, that the respondent has filed no cross objections before this court but when an illegality was pointed out than in such circumstances this court can exercise the jurisdiction provided under section 115 and has got the power to undo the illegality. I am of the view that respondents can validly attack the findings of the leraned trial court or appellate while defending the judgment impugned before it, therefore, the objection of the learned counsel for petitioner is misconceived.

Summary: Unless matters are finalized at departmental end and finally concluded, same cannot be brought under adjudication before a Constitutional Court except where there has been a case of want of jurisdiction, malafide or a situation where the actions of administrative authorities if allowed to continue, would perpetuate injustice.

Summary: Pending

Summary: (1)-Personal appearance of the Attorney General for Pakistan if the question of law concerns the Federal Government and the Advocate General of the Province if the question of law concerns a Provincial Government is necessary in terms of notice under Order XXVIIA of CPC. (2)-Offence under Article 155(c) of Police Order, 2002 is cognizable.

Summary: (a) Constitutional Petition--- ----Doctrine of legitimate expectation---Administrative fairness---Employment rights of land donors--- Petitioners, residents of Siliharang, District Ghizer, donated their land for a 1 MW Hydel Power Project under an official commitment that they would be given priority in appointments for Grades I and II posts upon project completion. Despite this written assurance, the respondents appointed individuals from distant areas, disregarding the petitioners' legitimate expectation. The Court held that the doctrine of legitimate expectation applies, and administrative authorities are bound to honor policy statements and written commitments. Failure to do so violates the principles of fairness, equity, and natural justice. (b) Employment Policy--- ----Preference for local land donors in appointments---Violation of commitment--- Respondents committed, through official correspondence, to prioritize local land donors for employment in Grades I and II of the Hydel Power Project. However, appointments were made in favor of non-local candidates, violating both official commitments and the relevant employment policy. Court directed the respondents to honor their commitment by appointing petitioners against the available posts. (c) Administrative Law--- ----Legitimate expectation---Reliance on official assurances---Promissory estoppel--- The doctrine of legitimate expectation mandates that when an administrative authority makes a clear and unambiguous promise or assurance, individuals relying on such commitments have a procedural and substantive right to expect its fulfillment. The respondents' failure to honor their written commitments amounted to administrative unfairness and violated principles of promissory estoppel. (d) Public Employment--- ----Land acquisition for public projects---Compensation and employment rights--- The Court observed that while petitioners received nominal compensation for their land, they were promised employment opportunities as additional compensation. Petitioners served voluntarily for over five years with the expectation of regular employment, further solidifying their entitlement under administrative commitments and policy frameworks. (e) Directions to Authorities--- ----Appointment of petitioners---Contingent employment until permanent posts are available--- The Court directed respondents to immediately appoint petitioners to Grades I and II posts in the Water and Power Department, Sub-Division Yasin. In case of unavailability of regular posts, petitioners were directed to be appointed on a contingent basis, with their services continuing until permanent posts become available. Key Legal Principles: Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation Promissory Estoppel Administrative Fairness and Natural Justice Disposition: Writ Petition allowed to the extent of appointment of petitioners in Grades I and II. Petition for termination of respondents 6 to 15 was dismissed. Authorities directed to appoint petitioners on a regular or contingent basis as per availability of posts.

Summary: Acquittal granted ---- Criminal Trial – Ocular Testimony – Contradictions with Medical Evidence (Sections 302(b), 147, 148, 149, PPC) ------- Ocular evidence provided by related witnesses conflicted with medical evidence, including inconsistencies regarding rigor mortis, lividity, and the number of injuries. Such contradictions created reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s case, leading to the acquittal of the accused. (Muhammad Zaman v. The State, 2014 SCMR 749; Mst. Shazia Parveen v. The State, 2014 SCMR 1197). ------- 2. FIR – Delay in Lodging – Impact on Prosecution's Case (Section 154, CrPC) The FIR was lodged 3.5 hours after the incident without explanation, suggesting deliberation and fabrication. Such delays undermine the prosecution's narrative unless satisfactorily explained. (Nazeer Ahmed v. The State, 2018 SCMR 787; Tarique Parvez v. The State, 1995 SCMR 1345). ------- 3. Witnesses – Related and Chance Witnesses – Lack of Independent Corroboration (Sections 342, CrPC) Both eye-witnesses were closely related to the deceased and failed to establish their presence at the scene convincingly. No independent corroboration was provided, even though independent witnesses were available at the location. (Mst. Shazia Parveen v. The State, 2014 SCMR 1197; Zafar v. The State, 2018 SCMR 326). ------- 4. Confessional Statement – Procedural Lapses – Inadmissibility (Sections 164, 364, CrPC) The accused's confessional statement was recorded six days after arrest, without assurances of freedom from police influence. The recording magistrate failed to meet procedural safeguards, making the confession involuntary and unreliable. (Azeem Khan v. Mujahid Khan, 2016 SCMR 274; Muhammad Shah v. The State, 2010 SCMR 1009). ------- 5. Motive – Failure to Prove (Sections 302, PPC) The prosecution’s claim of a land dispute as a motive was not supported by credible evidence. Prosecution witnesses contradicted the existence of any dispute, leaving the real cause of the occurrence unproven. (Mst. Nazia Anwar v. The State, 2018 SCMR 911). ------- 6. Benefit of Doubt – Prosecution's Failure to Prove Case Beyond Reasonable Doubt (Sections 302(b), 147, 148, 149, PPC) The cumulative effect of discrepancies in evidence, unreliable witnesses, and failure to prove motive warranted the benefit of doubt to the accused. It is a well-settled principle that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused as a matter of right. (Muhammad Mansha v. The State, 2018 SCMR 772; Tarique Parvez v. The State, 1995 SCMR 1345). ------- Disposition: Criminal Jail Appeal No. S-37/2016: Conviction set aside, and appellants acquitted of charges under sections 302(b), 147, 148, 149, 504, 114 PPC. Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. D-10/2016: Dismissed. Criminal Revision Application No. D-66/2016: Dismissed.

Summary: Intra Court Appeal in WP 2369 -20 (Service/Termination, Petitioner impugns his termination letter by respondent organization poverty allegiation and social safty division, seeks declartion that his status was that of a regular employees)