Summary: Review is permissible only when some mistake or error, apparent on the face of record but when the point already raised and considered by the court could not be re-agitated in review jurisdiction. Similarly, a point which never remained the controversy cannot for the first time be placed before the court for reviewing the judgment or order.

Summary: The Bar Associations at District and Tehsil level are private organizations, members of their Executive Committees and Auction Committees constituted by them for the purpose of awarding contract are private parties and not performing any function in connection with the affairs of the Federation, hence the Constitution petition against them is not maintainable.

Summary: Forced child labour: High Court issued writ of mandamus to the authorities for implementation of labour laws, including, Factories Act, 1934; the Punjab bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1992; the Punjab Prohibition of Child Labour at Brick Kilns Act, 2016; and the Punjab Restriction on employment of Children Act, 2016---In 1988, the issue of bonded labor was brought to the forefront when brick kiln workers in Pakistan sent a telegram to the Chief Justice of Pakistan, seeking protection from the inhumane treatment by their employers. The Supreme Court of Pakistan recognized the public importance of this case for the enforcement of fundamental rights, leading to the landmark case of Darshan Masih alias Rehmatay and others v. The State (PLD 1990 SC 513). In this case, the Supreme Court declared bonded labor unconstitutional and directed the government to introduce legislation to eradicate it. This led to the enactment of the Bonded Labor System (Abolition) Act, 1992, which abolished bonded labor throughout Pakistan, released bonded laborers from their obligations, and criminalized employment through bonded labor. Additionally, the Punjab province adopted the Punjab Bonded Labor System (Abolition) (Amendment) Act, 2012, to further regulate bonded labor in the region. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed challenges to the Abolition Act, upholding its constitutionality based on Islamic principles. The institutional framework for addressing bonded labor includes the establishment of provincial and district vigilance committees, labor committees, child protection measures, and criminal provisions in the Pakistan Penal Code. Despite this legal framework, the effective implementation of these laws has been lacking, leading to ongoing issues of bonded labor and child labor in various sectors of the economy. In response to the ongoing challenges, the court has issued a set of comprehensive directives to ensure the effective implementation of relevant laws and address issues related to bonded labor and child labor. This includes measures such as the registration of brick kilns, issuance of identification documents to workers, prohibition of child labor, written employment contracts, and various other initiatives to safeguard workers' rights. The court has invoked the doctrine of continuing mandamus to oversee the ongoing implementation of these directives, ensuring that the government and relevant authorities fulfill their duties in eradicating bonded labor and child labor in the country. This approach involves the court monitoring the progress through periodic reports and retaining jurisdiction over the case until the issues are effectively resolved.

Summary: Balochistan Civil Servants Act (IX of 1974)-------S.8---Balochistan Deputy Superintendents of Police Service Rules, 1978, Rr. 2(b) & 10---Seniority---Scope---Petitioners assailed exclusion of Deputy Superintendents of Police(DSPs) of prosecution branch from the Joint Seniority List---Contention of department wasthat there was no specific provision in the Balochistan Deputy Superintendents of PoliceService Rules, 1978, for maintaining Joint Seniority List of DSPs (General Cadre) and DSPsof the prosecution branch---Validity---Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors of the ProsecutionBranch of Police Department could not travel horizontally by transfer to the other branchesof the Police Department but after promotion of the Inspectors of the prosecution branch ofthe Police Department as DSPs, there was no such restriction on the DSPs of prosecutionbranch---DSPs of the prosecution branch could be appointed in other branches of theService---Rule 10 of the Balochistan Deputy Superintendents of Police Service Rules, 1978,dealing with the inter se seniority of the DSPs of the Service, did not provide for preparationof separate Seniority List of DSPs of different branches of the service---Rule 2(b) ofBalochistan Deputy Superintendents of Police Service Rules, 1978, although provided thatall the branches of the service had been organized as separate and self-contained unit of thePolice Department but all the branches (including the prosecution branch) of the service hadnot been sanctioned as a separate unit to fall within the definition of a "separate cadre"warranting preparation of separate seniority lists of the DSPs of different branches of theservice under S.8(1) of the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974---Constitutional petitionswere accepted and the department was directed to issue joint seniority list of DSPs.

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: The case originates from a dispute between individuals belonging to the same village and tribe over the construction of a wall on disputed land. After an initial agreement to settle the matter through mediation, the conflict escalated, leading to a physical altercation on April 8, 2014. The altercation resulted in injuries to the complainant and his uncle, who later succumbed to his injuries. The accused were charged under sections 34, 341, 337-A to F, and 504 of the Pakistan Penal Code (APC), and later section 302 was added following the uncle’s death. The trial court sentenced the accused to various terms of imprisonment, including 25 years under section 302, APC, with monetary compensation to the deceased's heirs. However, both parties appealed the trial court’s decision to the High Court. -----Issues: 1- Whether the accused acted with common intention, justifying the application of section 34, APC. -----2- Whether the High Court erred in acquitting the accused of more serious charges, including section 302, APC. -----3- Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution sufficiently established the involvement of all the accused in the commission of the offense. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The High Court acquitted the accused of charges under sections 34, 302, 447, and 504, APC, stating that the evidence did not sufficiently establish common intention among the accused. However, the court maintained the sentence under section 341, APC, and imposed an additional sentence of one-year simple imprisonment under section 337-F(i), along with a fine of Rs. 20,000 as daman. The appellate court reasoned that mere presence at the scene of the crime does not automatically constitute common intention. For section 34, APC to apply, strong evidence of a prearranged plan or mutual intent is required, which was absent in this case. The court observed that although the accused inflicted injuries, the fatal blow was attributed to an absconding co-accused. The lack of repetition of blows and non-use of weapons by other accused further weakened the prosecution’s argument for common intention. The prosecution’s failure to produce all cited eyewitnesses did not render the case invalid since the testimony provided was consistent with the prosecution’s narrative. The defense witnesses also corroborated key aspects of the prosecution’s story, thereby confirming the accused’s involvement in the altercation. Both appeals—one for enhancement of sentences and the other for acquittal—were dismissed by the appellate court, affirming the High Court's judgment. -----Citations/Precedents: Tariq Aziz v. The State [1982 P Cr. LJ 396] Azhar v. The State [1983 P Cr.LJ 2529] Muhammad Arshad v. The State [PLD 1996 SC 122] Abdul Wahid v. State [PLJ 2003 SC 480] Sheikh Muhammad Abid v. State [PLJ 2011 SC 491] Abdul Khaliq v. The State [2006 SCMR 1886] Abdul Majeed v. Muhammad Latif [2016 SCR 1306] Muhammad Asif v. The State [2017 SCMR 486] Waseem Hussain v. Muhammad Rafique [2017 SCR 428] Shahzad v. Rana Qamar [2018 SCR 727]

Summary: Bail granted----Background:Abdul Wadood filed a bail application under Section 497 Cr.P.C. seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered against him under Sections 302/109/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The case arose from FIR No.18/2019 dated 26-08-2019, registered at Police Station Jall, District Diamer, on the complaint of Altaf.----Issues:Whether Abdul Wadood, the petitioner, is entitled to post-arrest bail considering the seriousness of the charges and evidence against him.Whether there are sufficient grounds to establish Abdul Wadood's innocence or the need for further inquiry.Whether the contradictions in witness statements and evidence warrant granting bail.----Holding/Reasoning:Seriousness of Charges:Abdul Wadood is directly charged in the FIR with a specific role in the alleged murder, which falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.The motive behind the alleged murder, as disclosed in the FIR, indicates a serious offense.Evidence and Contradictions:Witness testimony, particularly from Maqsoodullah, implicates Abdul Wadood in the crime, indicating prima facie involvement.The presence of contradictions in witness statements and recovery memos is not a sufficient basis for granting bail, as deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at this stage.

Summary: Bail denied---Issues:Whether the delay in lodging the FIR affects the credibility of the prosecution's case.Whether the medico-legal report's findings entitle the petitioner to bail.Whether the FIR lodged based on inquiry reports, rather than a direct complaint by the victim or her family, affects the case for bail.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court denied the petition for post-arrest bail, reasoning that:The victim?s statement under Section 161 Cr.PC clearly implicated the petitioner.Inquiry reports by the Assistant Commissioner Chorbat and the Social Welfare Officer Ghanche corroborated the allegations against the petitioner.The delay in lodging the FIR and the negative medico-legal report did not outweigh the evidence collected during the investigation.The nature of the offences, involving moral turpitude with a minor, falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.PC, making the petitioner ineligible for bail.---Citations/Precedents:Sections 376, 493-A, 377-B PPC (Pakistan Penal Code)Section 497 Cr.PC (Provisions regarding bail)Section 161 Cr.PC (Statements to police not to be signed)Judgment:Bail petition is dismissed.The petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude it promptly.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Employment under the Prime Minister’s Assistance Package for Families of Deceased Government Employees—Eligibility and Nature of Appointment— Under the "Assistance Package for Families of Government Employees Who Die in Service," revised on 04.12.2015, the petitioner, Tania Gulzar, whose father died in service on 21.06.2017, was entitled to employment on a contract basis for two years, without advertisement, to a post in BS-01 to BS-15. The earlier 20.10.2014 memorandum provided for regular appointments, but since the petitioner’s father passed away after the revision in 2015, the 2015 terms applied, restricting her to a contractual position. The petitioner’s argument that she should have been offered regular employment was dismissed as the 2015 policy superseded the 2014 version. (b) Employment Commensurate with Educational Qualifications—Dignity and Fairness in Employment Offer— The petitioner, a graduate, was offered employment as Naib Qasid (BS-01) under the Assistance Package, which the Court found to be demeaning and a violation of her dignity. The Court emphasized that under the policy, appointments should be commensurate with the applicant’s qualifications, noting that a graduate should not be appointed to a lower-grade position such as Naib Qasid. It was deemed inappropriate for the petitioner to accept such an offer, and the Court recognized the importance of offering employment that reflects the qualifications of the individual. (c) Writ Petition—Relief and Disposition— The writ petition was allowed in part, with the Court setting aside the offer of employment as Naib Qasid (BS-01) made to the petitioner on 08.01.2018. The Court declared that the petitioner was entitled to be appointed on a contract basis to a post that matched her educational qualifications, in line with the 2015 revision of the Assistance Package. The matter was remanded for proper implementation of this direction.

Summary: Bail granted----(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---- S. 497 -- Post-Arrest Bail -- Further Inquiry -- The petitioner, Muhammad Shoaib Malik, sought post-arrest bail in a case of abduction and theft under sections 365-B and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The complainant alleged that the petitioner and his mother had abducted the complainant's sister, Sumaira Batool, and stolen her gold ornaments and cash. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated due to a personal grudge, asserting that the case was one of further inquiry. The investigation had been completed, and a report under section 173 Cr.P.C. had been submitted. Given that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in detention, the Court ruled that the case was prima facie one of further inquiry and granted bail, subject to certain conditions. Disposition: Petition allowed, bail granted. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---- S. 161 -- Statement of Victim -- The victim, Sumaira Batool, in her statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., denied the allegation of abduction and stated that she had married the petitioner of her own free will. She further claimed that the case lodged by her brother was false and malicious. Her statement, corroborated by another recorded before the Judicial Magistrate, cast doubt on the abduction claim, suggesting that the case might be rooted in a matrimonial dispute rather than criminal conduct. Disposition: Statement of victim crucial in the decision. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---- S. 497(2) -- Further Inquiry -- The Court noted that, considering the circumstances, including the victim's testimony and the nature of the complaint, the matter appeared to involve a personal and matrimonial dispute. The issue of whether the victim had been abducted or had left voluntarily to marry the petitioner was deemed a matter for the Trial Court to determine after the full recording of evidence. The Court observed that the case fell under section 497(2) Cr.P.C., which permits bail where the case involves further inquiry. Disposition: Petition granted, further inquiry deemed necessary.