Summary: (a) Administrative Law – Appointment of Chief Executive Officer – Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan ----Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act, 2012, S.5(6) – Powers of the Federal Government – Eligibility Criteria for Appointment The petitioner challenged the appointment of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan (DRAP) through a notification dated 07.03.2019. It was argued that the appointment violated Section 5(6) of the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act, 2012, which outlines the powers of the Federal Government and prescribes specific eligibility criteria for such appointments. The petitioner contended that the appointment of the CEO was void and legally unsustainable as it did not comply with the statutory provisions. -----Disposition: Notices were issued to respondents No.5 and No.6 for filing reports and para-wise comments within ten days. The Attorney General for Pakistan was also directed to assist the court on the matter.

Summary: Income Tax case, regarding recovery notice

Summary: Income Tax Case, against show cause notices u/s 122(9) r/w 122 (5) of Income Tax (Part Heard)

Summary: Criminal Appeal Against the acquittal

Summary: Petitioner seeks direction to respondents for removing name from ECL

Summary: A/Y 2004

Summary: The petitioners were appointed as project employees in the year 2015 on a contractual basis against various posts in a project under ADP Scheme (2014-15), identified as "Establishment of Mines Labour Welfare Girls Higher Secondary School, Chak No.119/SB, Tehsil Sillanwali, District Sargodha." The core issue pertains to the petitioners' claim for regularization. The letter of appointment explicitly mentioned that the contract appointment would confer no right of regular employment. However, in 2016, the project was converted from a development to a non-development category, leading to the creation of thirty-two (32) posts. The primary question before the court is the scope and extent of the alleged right claimed by the petitioners to be regularized. The court observed that the right claimed is not an absolute or vested right but extends a right to claim appointment on a regular basis, subject to certain conditions. The court clarifies that the policy, acknowledged the right of the petitioners to be considered for appointment on a regular basis upon the conversion of the project. The court rejected the petitioners' request for exclusivity in consideration for regular appointment and emphasizes that there is no vested right to be regularized. The court highlighted that any claim to be considered for a regular appointment is embedded in the policy, subject to the specified conditions. Furthermore, the court dismissed the petitions as incompetent and asserts that the petitioners can claim rights accrued in terms of the policy.

Summary: Acquittal granted---Background:Ibrar Hussain and Riaz Hussain were tried for the murder of Abdul Aleem, convicted under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, and sentenced to death. The High Court altered their sentence to life imprisonment. Dissatisfied with the verdict, they filed separate petitions, Criminal Petition No.263-L of 2015 and Jail Petition No.407 of 2018, challenging the High Court's judgment.---Issues:Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to sustain the conviction.Whether there are discrepancies in the witness testimonies, timing of the incident, and the postmortem report that cast doubt on the guilt of the petitioners.Whether reliance solely on the testimony of a chance witness, in light of the aforementioned discrepancies, is justified.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court observed several inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, including discrepancies in the timing of the incident, the postmortem report, and the source of light used for identification. The reliance on a single chance witness, coupled with these discrepancies, raised doubts about the petitioners' guilt. Furthermore, the absence of evidence such as bullet casings and the suspect circumstances surrounding the witness testimonies weakened the prosecution's case. Therefore, the court concluded that it would be unsafe to maintain the convictions. Consequently, Criminal Petition No.263-L of 2015 and Jail Petition No.407 of 2018 were allowed, and the petitioners were acquitted of the charges, with orders for their immediate release unless detained in any other case.

Summary: Acquittal granted---Background:Ahmad Ali was allegedly shot dead on 30.6.2009 within the jurisdiction of Police Station Chak Baidi, District Pakpattan. The incident involved the petitioners and other co-accused who confronted the deceased and his companions while they were on their way to visit a relative. The petitioners allegedly shot Ahmad Ali multiple times, resulting in his death. The petitioners were convicted under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to death (Muhammad Ajmal) and life imprisonment (Muhammad Sharif). Dissatisfied with the verdict, they filed separate petitions challenging the High Court's judgment.---Issues:Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to sustain the conviction.Whether there are discrepancies in the witness testimonies, timing of the incident, and the handling of the case by the police that cast doubt on the guilt of the petitioners.Whether the presence of a firearm with the deceased and the exoneration of some co-accused raise questions about the credibility of the prosecution's case.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court noted several inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, including discrepancies in witness testimonies and the handling of the case by the police. The complainant's shifting statements and discrepancies in the timing of events raised doubts about the reliability of the prosecution's case. Additionally, the presence of a firearm with the deceased, the failure to use it during the alleged attack, and the exoneration of some co-accused added further complexity to the case. Therefore, the court concluded that it would be unsafe to maintain the convictions. Criminal Petition No.402-L of 2015 and Jail Petition No.262 of 2015 were allowed, and the petitioners were acquitted of the charges. Criminal Petition No.412-L of 2015 was dismissed.

Summary: Background:The case involves an appeal against the judgment dated 29.03.2018 of the Peshawar High Court in Writ Petition No.4765-P of 2017. The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Workers Welfare Board (WWB), through its Chairman, is the appellant, challenging the High Court's decision to allow the writ petition filed by the respondents.---Issues:Whether the appointments of the respondents were made in accordance with legal formalities and by the competent authority.Whether the refusal to regularize the respondents' services amounts to discrimination and violates their constitutional rights.Whether contractual employees have an automatic right to be regularized in the absence of specific provisions in the law.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The respondents, employees of the WWB working at various institutes in KPK on contractual basis, approached the High Court seeking regularization of their services, which was granted in the impugned judgment. However, the Supreme Court found that the appointments of the respondents were made by an unauthorized person, the Secretary of the WWB, and were tainted with allegations of corruption and illegal practices. The Court also emphasized that contractual employees have no automatic right to regularization unless provided for by law. Since the respondents' contracts did not contain provisions for regularization and there was no specific law granting such right, the High Court's decision was overturned.---Citations/Precedents:Civil Appeal Nos. 1109 of 2013 and 1424 to 1428 of 2016 dated 14.04.2016