Summary: A judicial order must be a speaking order manifesting by itself that the Court has applied its mind to the resolution of issues involved for their proper adjudication. The ultimate result may be reached by a laborious effort, but if the final order does not bear an imprint of that effort and on the contrary disclosed arbitrariness of thought and action, the feeling with the painful results that justice has neither been done nor seems to have been done is inescapable. It is settled by now that learned presiding officer cognizant of the matter had to not only consider that what was the matter pending for decision before it but had also to determine the points required to be considered for reaching a final conclusion in the matter. A court is required to pass a clear and speaking order and litigant should not be pushed to realm of guesswork, where in an uncertain situation, he was unable to proceed and did not know in what manner he had to comply with orders of the court or what had been decided in his favour and where an order is ambiguous, the same is not sustainable.

Summary: Pending

Summary: The Punjab Bar Council is an autonomous private body without any Government control, though constituted under the Act, hence Constitutional petition against the Punjab Bar Council is not maintainable.

Summary: he petitioner and a co-accused were apprehended by a Veterinary Officer on June 23, 2021, at 9:00 p.m. for possessing 500 k.g. of beef and 60 k.g. of mutton on a day when the sale of meat was prohibited. Upon inspection, the seized meat was found to be cold to the touch, had a dark reddish texture, emitted a foul odor, and was evidently unsuitable for human consumption. It was also discovered to have fake stamps intended to deceive and imply ante mortem slaughter. Subsequently, a criminal case was registered by the police, and the impounded meat was destroyed with the involvement of a magistrate.After reviewing the case, the Supreme Court rejected the petitioner's argument challenging the legality of the Veterinary Officer's actions. The court emphasized that the evidence, including the inventories, confirmed the confiscation of substandard meat that was unsuitable for human consumption on a day when meat sales were prohibited. The presence of a magistrate during the process added to the credibility of the procedure. The court further noted that the significant quantity of confiscated meat made it improbable for the situation to be manipulated for a fabricated case. Additionally, the court found no apparent reason for the complainant, who was responsible for ensuring hygienic livestock supplies to the public, to pursue the petitioner with malicious intentions.The court concluded that the evidence and circumstances warranted the petitioner's arrest under the criminal law, as the offense was cognizable and non-bailable. Consequently, the court dismissed the petitioner's request for anticipatory bail.

Summary: Sentence/More than 10 years--Upheld--he victim was fatally shot, and the petitioner, along with another person, was named as a suspect in the police report. Allegedly, the petitioner held a grudge against the victim due to his marriage.The autopsy report confirmed that four shots, fired jointly by the petitioner and his co-accused, were collectively fatal. The petitioner was arrested, and a weapon linked to the crime was recovered based on his statement. The trial court found the petitioner guilty of murder and possessing an illicit weapon, sentencing him to life imprisonment.The High Court of Sindh upheld the conviction in the impugned judgment, leading to the present petitions. The petitioner challenged the verdict, arguing that there was insufficient "proof beyond doubt" to convict him of the capital charge. The petitioner's counsel contended that witness statements were discrepant and unreliable. Additionally, they claimed that the ballistic report relied upon by the prosecution was flawed and should be disregarded.After reviewing the case, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner's arguments. The court noted that multiple witnesses had identified the petitioner as one of the assailants, and their statements were consistent with each other. The medical evidence also corroborated the timeline and injuries related to the incident. The court determined that the preponderance of evidence met the standard of "proof beyond doubt," making the petitioner's conviction justifiable.The court emphasized that the petitioner's denial of involvement, supported by his real brother, was not enough to counter the weight of the evidence presented against him. Therefore, the petitions were rejected, and leave to appeal was declined.

Summary: [The importance of minimum wage and the scope of the recommendations of the Minimum Wages Board] The case revolves around a notification issued by the Government of Sindh, which raised the minimum rates of wages for unskilled adult and juvenile workers to Rs. 25,000/- per month, effective from July 1, 2021. The employers and organizations of employers in Sindh challenged the notification, arguing that the government did not have the authority to decide the minimum rates of wages without the recommendation of the Minimum Wages Board. The Supreme Court examined the relevant provisions of the Sindh Minimum Wages Act, 2015, and concluded that the government had exceeded its authority by bypassing the statutory mechanism and issuing the notification without the recommendation of the Board. The Act requires the government to act on the recommendation of the Board in fixing and revising the minimum rates of wages. The Court emphasized that the government's power is limited to declaring the minimum rates of wages based on the Board's recommendation. While acknowledging the government's concern for the welfare of workers, the Court emphasized the importance of following the prescribed policy and mechanism laid down in the Act. The Act aims to ensure decent work for workers and establish equitable and egalitarian work-based social structures. The Court also highlighted the constitutional command for distributive justice and the protection of workers' economic interests. The Court declared the notification issued by the government without lawful authority and set it aside. It converted the petitions into appeals, allowing them and accepting the constitutional petitions of the employers. The Court directed the government to address any objections it had to the Board's recommendation of a minimum wage of Rs. 19,000/- per month by engaging with the Board. In the meantime, the Court directed employers to pay a minimum wage of Rs. 19,000/- per month to eligible workers until a final resolution is reached.

Summary: PLJ 2022 AJK 131 ---Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974 - Article 44 ----Legal Issues: --Appointment of Supreme Court Judges and Procedural Consultation - The petitioner challenged the appointment process of two Supreme Court judges in AJK, alleging that proper procedural consultation had not been conducted and relevant records were not attached. The petitioner, however, failed to provide concrete evidence, only attaching a social media summary from the President. --Writ Jurisdiction and Legal Standards - The court emphasized that writ jurisdiction requires a clear violation of law or legal principles to be exercised. Since the petitioner’s claim lacked valid documentation, it could not substantiate a breach of procedure or law. ---Ruling: The court dismissed the petition, stating that writ jurisdiction cannot be granted based on hypothetical concerns or incomplete evidence. Proper consultation had been conducted, and the appointments adhered to procedural requirements. ---Cited Precedents: PLD 2012 Lahore 52, PLD 2009 SC 28, 2007 SCMR 1318, 2015 SCMR 837 ---Judgment Result: Petition dismissed. -----Background: A writ petition was filed under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, challenging the appointment of two judges to the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir. The petitioner argued that the appointment process did not comply with the required legal procedures, specifically alleging that the President failed to properly consult the Chief Justice of Azad Jammu & Kashmir by sending only two names instead of a panel of nominees. The petitioner also claimed that there was insufficient documentation to verify proper consultation, as the only evidence was a summary available on social media. -----Issues: 1- Whether the consultation process for judicial appointments was properly conducted according to the prescribed legal and constitutional requirements. -----2- Whether a writ can be issued based on apprehension without substantial documentary evidence. -----3- Whether the appointment of the judges in question violated any constitutional or legal provisions warranting the court's intervention. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome The Court dismissed the petition, ruling that: The petitioner failed to attach valid documentary evidence to substantiate claims, relying solely on a summary from social media, which is not admissible under the law. Consultation for the appointments was made in accordance with the procedural requirements, as the record indicated that the President and the Chief Justice of Azad Jammu & Kashmir conducted the consultation and determined the appointees as qualified. Writ jurisdiction can only be exercised in cases of clear legal violations. Since the petitioner did not demonstrate any specific violation of law or constitutional provisions in the appointment process, the court found no grounds for intervention. -----Citations/Precedents: PLD 2012 Lahore 52 PLD 2009 SC 28 2007 SCMR 1318 2015 SCMR 837

Summary: -----Acquittal granted----(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860): ----S. 302(b) Benefit of doubt—Delay in lodging FIR—Source of light—Identification of accused—Motive—Abscondence—Standard of proof. In a case of murder under Section 302(b) PPC, the prosecution must establish its case beyond a shadow of doubt. A delay of one day and sixteen hours in lodging the FIR, without plausible explanation, casts serious doubt on the authenticity of the prosecution's version. The absence of a credible source of light at the scene further weakens the identification of the accused. Although torchlight was claimed as the identification source, no such torch was recovered or presented in evidence. Prosecution witnesses made dishonest improvements in their statements during the trial, undermining their reliability. The alleged motive was also unsubstantiated, as the primary target of the motive was not the deceased but another individual (PW-4). Mere abscondence of the accused does not constitute sufficient evidence for conviction in the absence of corroborative evidence. The prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof, and multiple inconsistencies created reasonable doubt regarding the accused's guilt. Benefit of doubt is a fundamental right of the accused and cannot be denied when such doubt exists. ----Cited Cases: Akhtar Ali and others v. The State (2008 SCMR 6) Umar Hayat etc. v. The State (1997 SCMR 1076) Nazeer Ahmad v. Gehne Khan and others (2011 SCMR 1473) Muhammad Afzal alias Abdullah and others v. The State and others (2009 SCMR 436) Abdul Mateen v. Sahib Khan and others (PLD 2006 SC 538) Liaqat Hussain and others v. Falak Sher and others (2003 SCMR 611) Rahimullah Jan v. Kashif and another (PLD 2008 SC 298) Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345) Muhammad Akram v. The State (2009 SCMR 230) ----Disposition: The appeal was accepted, the conviction and sentence of the appellant were set aside, and he was acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt. He was ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Summary: Service / Penalty: Petitioner is A .D Law of CDA. He has been penalized with reduction in scale owing to bad performance in defanding CDA in WP 755/2021

Summary: Service / Rule: BPS -19 officer of Balochistan Govt challenges vires of Rule 3 and Rule 4 is provincial management service and provincial civil service.