Summary: Background: This appeal arose from a legal dispute over a gift deed dated 19.07.1992. The appellants challenged the validity of the gift deed through two suits filed in 2008. A cross suit for perpetual injunction was also filed by the respondents. After the trial, the Civil Judge decreed in favor of the appellants, declaring the gift deed canceled. Dissatisfied with the trial court's decision, the respondents appealed to the District Judge, who partially upheld the trial court's decision. The respondents further appealed to the Azad Jammu & Kashmir High Court, which remanded the case to the trial court to address applications for impleading the legal heirs of a deceased party, Jabbar Akhtar. -----Issues: 1- Whether the trial court erred by issuing a judgment and decree without addressing the applications for impleading the legal heirs of the deceased respondent. -----2- Can a judgment and decree be sustained if passed against a deceased person without bringing legal heirs on record? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir upheld the decision of the High Court to remand the case to the trial court. The trial court failed to pass any order on the pending applications for bringing the legal heirs of Jabbar Akhtar (who died during the proceedings) on record. As a result, the judgment was issued against a deceased person, rendering it legally infirm. A judgment cannot be passed against a deceased individual unless the legal heirs are duly impleaded. The appeal was dismissed. The trial court was directed to expedite the case and decide the matter within six months. -----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Ilyas & others vs. Ikramullah Khan & others (2017 SCR 1079) Muhammad Sadiq vs. Muhammad Sakhi (PLD 1989 SC 755) Alam Din vs. Chairman, Municipal Committee, Mirpur & others (PLJ 1992 SC (AJK) 62) Relevant precedent for remanding cases to address procedural deficiencies.

Summary: Background: The appellant, a Senior Clerk in the Police Department of Azad Jammu & Kashmir (AJK), was reverted to the position of Junior Clerk following an inquiry initiated under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Act, 2001 (Act, 2001). This action was taken after an FIR was lodged against the appellant, leading to his suspension and subsequent demotion. The appellant filed two appeals before the Service Tribunal: one challenging the demotion order and another contesting a transfer order. The Service Tribunal dismissed both appeals, prompting the appellant to approach the Supreme Court of AJK for relief. -----Issues: 1- Applicability of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Act, 2001: Whether the provisions of Act, 2001 could legally apply to police personnel. -----2- Jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal: Whether the tribunal erred by upholding the actions taken under the Act, 2001. -----3- Premature findings by the Service Tribunal: Whether the tribunal's findings were valid given that the appellant’s criminal case was still pending. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome --Applicability of Act, 2001: The Supreme Court determined that police personnel are governed by the Police Act, 1861, and the Police Efficiency & Discipline Rules, 1992. The court reaffirmed that the Act, 2001 is not applicable to police force employees, as they fall under a special legislative framework. Tribunal's Error in Law: The Service Tribunal failed to recognize that proceedings and penalties under the Act, 2001 were a legal nullity for police employees. The court found this oversight to be a critical legal error. The appeal was allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Service Tribunal and nullified the departmental orders demoting and transferring the appellant. -----Citations/Precedents: Malik Hussain Shah vs. Superintendent of Police Rangers (2014 SCR 1120) The Police Act, 1861, and the Police Rules take precedence over the Act, 2001, which does not apply to police force employees. Special laws governing the police force override general legislation like the Act, 2001. Gulfraz Ahmed vs. D.I.G. Police & others (2015 SCR 1240) The employees of the police force are exempt from the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Act, 2001, following a 2011 notification. Proceedings against police personnel must adhere to the Police Act and related rules to be legally valid. Police Efficiency & Discipline Rules, 1992 These rules govern the conduct and disciplinary actions for police personnel, reinforcing the autonomy of the police force from general civil service regulations.

Summary: Background:Mir Afzal, currently detained in Judicial Lock Up Chilas, filed a bail application under Section 497 Cr.P.C. seeking post-arrest bail for his involvement in a case registered under Sections 302 PPC and 13 AO(B) vide FIR No.19/2018 & 29/2019 at Police Station Tangir, District Diamer.----Issues:Is the petitioner entitled to post-arrest bail?Did the petitioner previously challenge the cancellation of bail granted to him?----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court noted that Mir Afzal had previously filed a bail application, which was granted by the trial court but later cancelled by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court upon the State's application for cancellation of bail.As Mir Afzal did not challenge the cancellation order in the Apex Court of Gilgit Baltistan, the order attained finality.The court found no fresh grounds for granting bail in the current petition, as the arguments raised were available at the time of the previous cancellation.However, considering the progress of the trial and the need for timely conclusion, the trial court and prosecution were directed to conclude the case within two months of the opening of the trial court after winter vacations. Failure to do so would allow Mir Afzal to file a fresh bail petition based on trial delay. Mir Afzal was also instructed to ensure the attendance of his counsel during the trial.

Summary: Bail denied --- Background:Naveed Alam, a taxi driver, filed a bail petition under Section 497 Cr.P.C. read with Section 51 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act (CNSA) after being arrested and charged under Section 9-C CNSA. On 1st January 2019, the police intercepted his vehicle and found 1000 grams of charas concealed under the front seat. Naveed Alam was arrested on the spot.Issues:Whether the petitioner, Naveed Alam, is entitled to bail considering the charas was found in his vehicle but not in his direct possession.Whether the case qualifies for further inquiry due to the presence of passengers in the vehicle and the quantity of charas being on the borderline between clauses "b" and "c" of Section 9 of the CNSA.Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Judge Ali Baig granted bail to Naveed Alam, emphasizing several key points:The charas was not found in the direct possession of the petitioner, and there were passengers present in the vehicle, which the police failed to mention in the FIR. This omission necessitates further inquiry to establish the petitioner's guilt.The amount of charas recovered (1000 grams) places the case on the borderline between clauses "b" and "c" of Section 9 of the CNSA, thus meriting further investigation at the bail stage.The petitioner has no prior convictions and is not considered a hardened or dangerous criminal.Given these factors, the court allowed the bail petition, requiring Naveed Alam to furnish bail bonds of Rs.200,000/- with one surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the Vacation Judicial Magistrate at Chilas.Citations/Precedents:Section 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)Section 51 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act (CNSA) 1997Section 9(b) and 9(c) of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act (CNSA) 1997

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 ----S. 8(3) Authority of Ombudsperson to Conduct Proceedings as Deemed Proper—Admissibility of Second Affidavit Maintainability—Accused raised a belated objection to the Complainant’s submission of a second affidavit, contending it was impermissible as a prior affidavit had been filed in proceedings against the co-accused—Held, under S. 8(3) of the Act, the Ombudsperson has discretion to admit relevant evidence—Second affidavit deemed admissible as it pertained to allegations against the accused in remanded de-novo proceedings. (b) Procedural Fairness Repeated Adjournments by Accused—Implications for Cross-Examination Rights Contention—Accused delayed cross-examination of the Complainant despite multiple opportunities, raising objections only seven months after the affidavit was submitted—Held, delay seen as an attempt to prolong proceedings and cause distress to the Complainant—Accused directed to conclude cross-examination by the next scheduled date, failing which the right to cross-examine would be forfeited. (c) Remand Proceedings Presidential Order on Representation—Guidance for Ombudsperson Statutory Interpretation—Following the Presidential directive, Ombudsperson provided the accused an opportunity for fresh proceedings—Accused’s objection to the second affidavit was neither raised earlier before this forum nor during representation proceedings before the President—Held, the objection lacked merit and was overruled to ensure expedient resolution of the case. (d) Appeal Outcome Dismissal of Objection for Lack of Bona Fides Held—Objection to the second affidavit dismissed as baseless and dilatory—Case remanded for continuation with strict timelines for cross-examination—Ombudsperson’s authority upheld to ensure procedural efficiency and prevent undue delay.

Summary: (a) Customs Act, 1969 ----Section 179(1)—Pecuniary jurisdiction of Deputy Director—Challenge to jurisdiction—Applicant contended that the Deputy Director, Directorate General of Customs Valuation & PCA, lacked jurisdiction to pass the order-in-original dated 13.09.2006, as the amount of custom duties exceeded Rs.4,00,000/-—The applicant argued that under the amendment to Section 179(1) of the Customs Act, 1969, the Deputy Director could not adjudicate matters involving amounts over Rs.4,00,000/-—Held, that the Finance Act, 2006, amended Section 179 of the Customs Act, raising the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Deputy Collector to Rs.5,00,000/-—As the amount in question was below the enhanced threshold, the Deputy Director was found to have the requisite jurisdiction to pass the order-in-original. -----Cited Cases: • Finance Ordinance, 2002, Finance Act, 2006 • S.R.O. 917(I)/2004 (b) Customs Proceedings ----Jurisdiction of Customs Officials—Legality of orders passed by Customs Authorities—Applicant’s appeal against the jurisdiction of the Deputy Director, Directorate General of Customs Valuation & PCA was dismissed—The Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Deputy Director following the enactment of the Finance Act, 2006, which conferred the authority to adjudicate matters up to Rs.5,00,000/-—Held, that the Deputy Director’s actions were lawful under the revised provisions. ----Disposition: The question of law raised by the applicant was answered in the negative, affirming the legality of the Deputy Director’s order-in-original dated 13.09.2006. The customs reference was dismissed.

Summary: Bail granted----(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---- Section 497, Post-Arrest Bail: Post-arrest bail—Petitioner seeks bail in a case involving charges under sections 419/420/34 PPC, related to a fraudulent transaction involving gold ornaments. The petitioner had been granted bail earlier but was later declared a proclaimed offender due to her involvement in other cases. Despite opposition from the prosecution, the petitioner’s claim for bail is examined in light of the prosecution's failure to conclusively prove the charges. The offence under Section 420 PPC is bailable, and the offence under Section 419 PPC does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. The absence of substantial evidence and the lack of identification of the recovered ornaments supports the petitioner’s entitlement to bail. Disposition: Post-arrest bail granted subject to furnishing surety bonds of Rs 4,00,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---- Bail, Exceptional Circumstances: Bail in exceptional circumstances—Despite the petitioner being declared a proclaimed offender, the Court finds no sufficient reason to continue the petitioner’s incarceration, particularly when the allegations are not conclusively supported by evidence. The prosecution's failure to identify the seized ornaments and the petitioner’s acquittal in other related cases create doubt regarding the charges. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody for an indefinite period. Disposition: Bail granted, emphasizing that the Court’s observations are tentative and related solely to the bail petition. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---- Tentative Nature of Bail Decision: Tentative nature of bail decision—The Court refrains from making a deeper analysis of the evidence at the bail stage, acknowledging that the guilt of the accused is yet to be determined at trial. The primary concern at this stage is whether the accused should remain in custody pending further investigation and trial. The Court highlights that any mistake in granting interim bail could be rectified by the eventual conviction of a guilty party, while unjustified detention of an innocent person cannot be compensated. Disposition: Bail granted, with emphasis on the provisional nature of the Court’s decision.

Summary: Accommodation allocation rules 2002, when there was no specific bar on the jurisdiction of the civil court, then the civil court being the court of ultimate jurisdiction could by the said suit, espicaily when the allegation against the petitioner that no inquiry with respect to alleged subletting, was either conducted nor an opportunity of being heard was given to the plentiful/ respondent. the onus was on the dependent/ petitioner to prove the factum of subletting in accordance with the provision of 117 of QSO 1984. petitioner was acquired to prove that the plaintiff/ respondent has sublet the quarter in question.it could be proved during inqury by associating be allot tee with inquiry and by collecting some direct or tenable evidence or by producing the evidence before the court.