Summary: Intra Court Appeal --- Appointment on the recommendation of PPSC---Proven use of Malpractice, unfair means in the test, interview in inquiry conducted by Anti Corruption Establishment. --- PPSC withdrew its recommendation for appointment of alleged successful candidate on the said post--- On said recommendations concerned Department terminated their newly appointed employee during probation without any stigma--- As per the Regulation 26 and 63 of Regulations-2016, the Commission is competent to withdraw its earlier recommendations sent to the concerned department if a person has been found deficient in any conditionality regarding his / her eligibility as a candidate and if any error or omission in result or merit is found, even after dispatch of recommendation to the concerned department.--- The appointing authority has jurisdiction to terminate its newly appointed employee without assigning any reason or serving any show cause notice during the period of probation. --- Public Service Commission and Government were obliged to ensure complete transparency in the process of selection / appointment of civil servants and if an incompetent or the corrupt persons enter into the civil service at the unwarranted ouster of the eligible and competent candidate from public post / job opportunities such appointments which disregard the merit, undoubtedly perpetuate bad governance and would drained the public exchequer and such appointments also thwart the credibility of the Commission. High Court has no suo moto jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter---- Intra Court Appeals allowed. Writ petition of the respondent stood dismissed.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 337-A(ii), 337-F(ii), 148 & 149---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 40 & 153---Causing shajjah-i-mudihah, ghayr-jaifah badi'ah, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Benefit of doubt---Delay of about 30-hours in lodging the FIR---Accused-petitioners were charged for causing injuries to complainant---Incident in this case occurred on 19.04.2009 at about 8:00 a.m.---However, the information of crime was conveyed to police on the next day i.e. on 20.04.2009 at 1:30 p.m.---If correctly calculated there was a delay of about 30-hours in reporting the crime to the police---In that regard, it was observed that according to alleged Medico-Legal Certificate of complainant, he was produced before Medical Officer for treatment by a Police Constable on the day of incident at about 9:30 a.m.---In such a way, it could easily be derived that the information about the incident had come in the notice of the police within one hour and thirty minutes---However, despite scrutiny of the record the prosecution remained abortive in bringing it on record that what precluded the complainant or any other narrator of ocular account to report the crime to the police---Delay of about 30-hours in lodging the FIR in the peculiar circumstances of the case was significant and persuaded the Court to take a cautious approach while evaluating the prosecution evidence---Even otherwise, complainant died prior to recording of his statement and FIR was exhibited and thus he was not cross-examined in order to prove its contents---In such eventuality, according to Arts.40 & 153 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, FIR could not be used as a corroborative piece of evidence for upholding the conviction and sentence of the petitioners---Revision petition against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Muhammad Jahangir and another v. The State and others 2024 SCMR 1741 and Muhammad Ramzan v. The State 2025 SCMR 762 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 337-A(ii), 337-F(ii), 148 & 149---Causing shajjah-i-mudihah, ghayr-jaifah badi'ah, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Benefit of doubt---Co-accused acquitted on same set of evidence---Accused-petitioners were charged for causing injuries to complainant---As per eye-witness account furnished by two witnesses, both the petitioners struck the head of injured once with their respective club---Remaining assailants were also burdened with the blame of inflicting injuries to the injured-complainant on different parts of his body---Eye-witnesses were disbelieved to the extent of the accused other than the petitioners and all of them were acquitted by the Trial Court---Surprisingly, the prosecution opted not to assail the acquittal of the three assailants and did not file any appeal in that regard---In these circumstances, it would not be safe to hold the petitioners responsible for the commission of offence---Revision petition against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Muhammad Nawaz and another v. The State and others 2024 SCMR 1731 rel. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 337-A(ii), 337-F(ii), 148 & 149--- Causing shajjah-i-mudihah, ghayr-jaifah badi'ah, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Benefit of doubt---Ocular account not proved---Accused-petitioners were charged for causing injuries to complainant---Ocular account furnished by two witnesses---Earlier statement of one of the witnesses was got recorded through local commission on 07.04.2011 whereby he categorically deposed that he was not present at the relevant time and when the fight was finished, he reached at the spot---Said witness also showed ignorance that who inflicted injury and upon whom---During cross-examination, said witness deposed that complainant's son brought him to the Court for giving evidence against accused---Evidence of said witness was discarded by Trial Court because firstly while appearing in witness box on 07.04.2011 he claimed to be not an eye-witness of the occurrence---Though on 22.01.2013 said witness again appeared in the witness box and supported the prosecution case, however as he spoke in two controversial tunes, so his evidence was rightly discarded by the Trial Court---As regards other eye-witness, it was observed that he while appearing before the Trial Court stated that he accompanied the injured to the hospital but his name was not mentioned in the relevant police papers in proof of such version---During cross-examination, said witness also stated that they took the injured in a van to the hospital along with 10/12 persons of the family---Said stance too was not mentioned in any statement of the witness recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. and no particulars of the vehicle like make, model or registration number was mentioned through which the injured was shifted to the hospital for medical treatment---In such circumstances, said witness made dishonest improvement just in order to give some weight to the frail prosecution case---Said improvement made by said witness rendered him unworthy of any credence---Revision petition against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Muhammad Nasir Butt and 2 others v. The State and others 2025 SCMR 662 rel. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 337-A(ii), 337-F(ii), 148 & 149---Causing shajjah-i-mudihah, ghayr-jaifah badi'ah, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Benefit of doubt---Medical evidence contradicting prosecution case---Accused-petitioners were charged for causing injuries to complainant---Medical evidence in this case was furnished by Medical Officer who while appearing before the Trial Court deposed on different footing about the allegation levelled by the two eye-witnesses by stating that on 19.04.2009 at about 9:30 a.m., he medically examined “MA”, whereas the injured-complainant in the instant case was “AM”---Name of complainant as per FIR was “MA” who was almost 70 years old at the time of occurrence but it was crystal clear from the evidence of Medical Officer that he conducted medical examination of “MA” who was aged about 30 years---In the light of glaring contradiction in the statement of Medical Officer and the medical examination who referred the Medico-Legal Certificate as 234/09 instead of 224/09 on the basis of which FIR was registered, the same could not be read as Medico-Legal Certificate of “MA” to whom both the petitioners were held responsible for causing injuries---In such a way, the medical evidence brought on record was of no help to the prosecution case---Evident from the scrutiny of record that initially the charge against the accused was framed by the Trial Court on 14.07.2009 wherein instead of “MA” (complainant) the role of sustaining injury was attributed to “MA” who was alien to the case of prosecution---When the charge was framed on 02.05.2013, no name of complainant was mentioned in order to clarify that in fact “MA” had sustained injuries at the hands of accused---Furthermore, as per Medico-Legal Certificate, Police Constable brought “MA” for his medical legal examination but said Police Official was neither cited as witness nor entered appeared before the Trial Court---Revision petition against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 337-A(ii), 337-F(ii), 148 & 149--- Causing shajjah-i-mudiah, ghayr-jaifah badi'ah, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapon of offence doubtful---Accused-petitioners were charged for causing injuries to complainant---Admittedly, petitioners were shown to be armed with clubs at the time of occurrence but nothing was recovered from the possession of petitioner No.1, however the recovery of a club was shown to have been made from the possession of petitioner No.2 vide recovery memo---In that regard, the evidence of recovery witnesses was very much relevant---Both of the said witnesses though appeared in the witness box to support the recovery of club/sota but during cross-examination reduced the legal worth of their statements into ashes by deposing that they had not specified any place of said corral from which recovery of sota was affected---Said witnesses also stated that there were 3/4 rooms at the place of recovery but club/sota was recovered by petitioner No.2 from bushes---Such recovery had no bearing upon the merits of the case---Revision petition against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Muhammad Famzan v. The State 2025 SCMR 762 rel. (f) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Principle---One circumstance which created reasonable dent in the veracity of the prosecution case, could be taken into consideration for the purpose not as a matter of grace rather as a matter of right. Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345; Riaz Masih alias Mithoo v. The State 1995 SCMR 173 and Muhammad Akram v. The State 2009 SCMR 230 rel. M. Ashraf Joyia for Petitioners. Ch. Muhammad Iqbal, APG with Zafar ASI for the State. Mian Muhammad Nawaz for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 13th June, 2025.

Summary: Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)--- ----Ss. 11E & 33---Principle amount already paid---Show Cause Notice, issuance of---Default surcharge and penalty, imposition of---Scope---Contention of the Appellant / Registered Person (company engaged in the business of manufacturing of un-dyed cotton yarn) was that while calculating the period the Officer Inland Revenue (OIR) failed to appreciate the fact that the return was filed on 18th of the next month and the payment was made till 15th of the next month of the sales tax return; that the tax withheld was paid when the invoice was claimed in that month---Validity---The statute allowed the registered person to pay the principal amount of tax within six months and also claim the input tax within six months ; the tax would be withheld at the time of payment---In the present case, when the show cause notice was issued the principal amount of tax was already paid, therefore, the default surcharge and penalty provisions were not applicable in the case of the taxpayer---Thus, the OIR charged default surcharge and penalty without properly looking into the facts of the case and the legal provisions applicable in the case of the registered person---Moreover, the OIR failed to apply his mind regarding the norms in Spinning Mills Industry that after receiving Cotton Lint it had to pass certain lab tests, resultantly, purchase return often occurred---On the other hand, in a sales tax period, month end liability was calculated as per law and procedures on month end---When all principle amount was admittedly paid, no question of default surcharge and penalty could be called for at all---Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue annulled the Order-in Original passed by the OIR---Appeal, filed by the registered person/Company, was allowed accordingly. CIR v. Coca Cola Pakistan Limited 2022 PTD 1400 and Quetta Electricity Supply Company Limited v. CIR STA No.362/KB of 2018 ref. Ahmad Nawaz Khurram for Appellant. Nemo. for Respondent. Date of hearing: 23rd June, 2025.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) —S. 34—Compensation—Interest—Additional charges— Referee Court enhanced compensation in land acquisition reference, awarding interest @ 6% per annum from date of possession, 15% compulsory acquisition charges, and additional compensation @ 15% per annum from date of notification under S.4 till payment—High Court maintained enhancement—Supreme Court held that findings of Referee Court were based on consideration of necessary legal components; no misreading or non-reading of evidence shown—Interference not warranted. (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908) —Condonation of delay—Government litigation—Principles— Appeal filed by Province of Sindh barred by 30 days—Application for condonation contained only generic assertions of administrative delays in obtaining certified copies and processing file—Held, law aids the vigilant, not the indolent—Mere inter-departmental correspondence or procedural delay does not constitute “sufficient cause”—Government and autonomous bodies cannot be accorded preferential treatment; cases to be dealt with uniformly like ordinary litigants—Routine filing of mechanical applications for condonation deprecated. (c) Limitation Act (IX of 1908) —Condonation of delay—Doctrine of equality before law— Court emphasized that careless or intentional delay undermines rule of law—Condonation cannot be granted as a matter of course—Latin maxim “Leges vigilantibus non dormientibus subserviunt” applied—Law of limitation does not create a right but extinguishes stale claims through efflux of time—Duty of Court to consider limitation even if not raised. (d) Administration of justice —Government litigation—Duty of vigilance— Trend of belated appeals by government departments on stereotypical excuses condemned—Such approach viewed as mala fide or intended to benefit opposite side—Court reiterated principle that adjudication on merits cannot override the mandatory requirement of limitation without sufficient cause. Cited Cases Regional Police Officer, Dera Ghazi Khan Region v. Riaz Hussain Bukhari 2024 SCMR 1021 = 2023 SCP 323. Disposition Appeal dismissed, being barred by limitation as well as on merits.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (On appeal against the Order dated 23.01.2023 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in C.P. No. D-2901 of 2022). Federal Service Tribunal (Chairman and Members) Service Rules, 1983--- ----R.5---Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.3(4)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 205---Tenure post of Chairman, Federal Service Tribunal (FST)---Grant of pensionary benefits---Scope---Claim of the petitioner for pensionary benefits after completion of tenure of the post of Chairman, FST, for a term of 03 years was rejected on the ground that terms/contract of appointment of a certain length of service could not be construed as regular service for pensionary benefits---Validity---High Court, while rendering the order, followed an altogether different pathway to decline the claim and also failed to consider the impact and effect of Rule 5 of the Federal Service Tribunal (Chairman and Members) Service Rules, 1983 (Rules), which could not be made inconsequential or redundant and which unambiguously articulates that if a person, who is neither a Judge nor retired Judge of a High Court, nor is or has been in the service of Pakistan, is appointed as Chairman, he shall be entitled to such salary, allowances, and privileges as are admissible to a Court---It was also mentioned in the notification of appointment that when the petitioner assumed charge as a Chairman, he should be entitled to such pay, allowances, and privileges as were admissible to a Judge of the High Court as may be prescribed from time to time---Rejection of the representation or the denial of the claim of pension was primarily based on the tenure of the petitioner as a High Court Judge, however, while declining the request, the Rules were not taken into consideration with its actual spirit, in particular Rule 5 of the said Rules---Case was remanded for de novo consideration on the touchstone of Rule 5 of Rules so as to determine the entitlement of the petitioner or otherwise---Civil petition was converted into an appeal and was disposed of accordingly. Dr. Muhammad Farogh Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court along with Petitioner. Mohsin Shahwani, Additional Attorney General for Respondents. Ghulam Rasool Mangi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents. Sajjad Mustafa, S.O, Ministry of Law for Respondents. Date of hearing: 12th June, 2025.