Summary: Background:In Criminal Petition No. 299 of 2020, Raja Muhammad Nadeem appealed against an order dated March 20, 2020, issued by the Islamabad High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 214/2020. The petitioner challenged the legality of the order before the Supreme Court of Pakistan.---Issues:Whether the Supreme Court should exercise its power under Articles 184(3) and 187 of the Constitution of Pakistan to address matters concerning prisoners in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.Whether the recommendations made by the Attorney General for the release of under trial prisoners (UTPs) and convicted prisoners should be considered.Whether the legality of orders passed by the Islamabad High Court and directions issued by the Chief Justice of the Sindh High Court should be examined.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court considered the recommendations of the Attorney General regarding the release of prisoners, both under trial and convicted. It directed the Inspectors General of Prisons across Pakistan to submit reports regarding prison populations, capacities, and categories of prisoners before the next hearing.The Court emphasized the importance of addressing the vulnerability of certain prisoners, such as women and elderly prisoners, to COVID-19. It directed the establishment of quarantine centers in all jails and instructed jail authorities to screen new entrants for COVID-19 symptoms before admission.Additionally, the Court ordered the filling of vacant Jail Doctor positions and requested reports from all provincial governments regarding measures taken to combat the pandemic, including healthcare preparedness and training of medical staff.---Citations/Precedents:Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C)

Summary: 1.Even in a case involving capital punishment, conviction can follow on circumstantial evidence, but that such circumstantial evidence should provide all links in an unbroken chain where one end of the chain touches the dead body and the other the neck of the accused. 2.Though evidence implicating an accused cannot be used to convict him if he was not confronted with it under section 342 Cr.P.C., but that does not mean to say that every inadequate examination under section 342 Cr.P.C. results in vitiating the trial, nor does it mean to say that the other independent evidence standing against the accused stands diminished. Rel. S.A.K. Rehmani v. The State (2005 SCMR 364). Even discarding the evidence not confronted to the accused under section 342 Cr.P.C., the chain of circumstantial evidence against him is complete and uninterrupted.

Summary: (a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)-------S.196---Reference---High Court, jurisdiction of---Principle---While exercising referencejurisdiction under S.196 of Customs Act, 1969, High Court has to examine and decide onlysuch questions of law, which may arise from the order passed by Customs AppellateTribunal---High Court is not supposed to enter into disputed questions of facts, unless suchfindings are found to be perverse or contrary to record---Customs Appellate Tribunal is finalfact finding forum as provided under the law.(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)-------Ss.156(1)(8)(89) & 196---Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (VII of 1947), Ss.2(5), 15 &16---Foreign Exchange Manual 2002, Chapter XVIII---Notifications SRO No.566(I)/2005dated 6-6-2005---SRO No.499(I)/2009 dated 13-6-2009---State Bank of PakistanNotification No.1/2015 dated 1-6-2015---Reference---Factual controversy---Defectiveinvestigation---Dispute was with regard of recovery of foreign exchange from respondent atthe airport when he was going abroad---Validity---Investigation officer was responsible toinvestigate the matter according to law---Investigation officer did not call those persons whosubmitted their affidavits stating that the total foreign currency did not only belonged to therespondent rather each of them had contribution of 10000 Dollars--- Respondent producedeight receipts of foreign currency before adjudicating officer, which showed that each of thefour deponents purchased 10000 Dollars---Investigation officer verified the receipts fromforeign exchange dealer---Under Notification No.1/2015 dated 1-6-2015, issued by StateBank of Pakistan, a person was authorized to take out foreign exchange from Pakistan---Norequirement existed for foreign exchange to be less than US$ 10000/- or equivalent thereof---High Court while exercising jurisdiction under S.196 of Customs Act, 1969, was not free toembark upon an unfettered inquiry into factual aspects which had been properly consideredand decided by the Tribunal---Reference was dismissed in circumstances.

Summary: (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S.302 (b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Weapon and empties---Sending toForensic Science Laboratory together---CDR data---Proof---Empties so recovered from thespot and sent to expert were of megaroof pistol, which could not match with 30 bore pistol---Forensic Science Laboratory report contained an entry of 9mm empties but the entire recordwas silent about recovery and use of such weapon---Such fact had created further doubt inprosecution version---Delay so caused in sending recovered alleged crime weapon forchemical analysis was unexplained---No explanation was on record in respect of safe custodyof crime weapon within the custody of investigating authority--- Sending crime emptiesalong with alleged recovered pistols, created a serious doubt as why the crime empties wereretained by investigation officer till recovery of pistols---Sending them together createdserious doubts when possibility of manipulation could not be ruled out---Even if the last callwas made by accused to deceased, the same could have been for any other reason and not forthe offence---Just by placing mobile data on record was not of any use to prosecution---CDRproduced and relied upon by prosecution was neither attested nor signed by issuing authoritynor any witness as either associated during investigation nor produced before Courttherefore, such data could not be relied as a valid piece of evidence---High Court set asideconviction and sentence awarded to both the accused persons by Trial Court and they wereacquitted of the charge---Appeal was allowed in circumstances. Ali Sher v. The State 2008 SCMR 707; M.D. Nazir Hussain Sarkar and another v.The State 1969 SCMR and Advocate General, Government of East Pakistan v. Majid aliasAbdul Majid 1970 SCMR 12 rel.(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302(b)---Qatl-e-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Circumstantial evidence--- Scope---Conviction can be recorded on the basis of circumstantial evidence---Even death sentencecan be awarded, provided the circumstances constitute continuous chain without missing anylink, combined effort of which establishes guilt of accused beyond shadow of doubt. Muhammad Ishaq v. The State 2009 SCMR 135 rel.(d) Criminal trial-------Benefit of doubt---Scope---One substantial doubt is enough for acquittal of accused---Rule of benefit of doubt is essentially a rule of prudence, which cannot be ignored whiledispensing justice in accordance with law.

Summary: Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (VI of 1959)------Ss. 13, 13(6) & 15--Eviction application--Relationship of land lord and tenant--Order for deposit of monthlypayment of rent--Appellant was failed to deposit monthly rent--Defence of appellant was struck of--Direction tovacate shop and delivery of possession--Challenge to--Order under Section 13(6) of Ordinance 1959 was passedon 20.03.2021, which was not complied with as such, trial Court struck off defense of appellant and directed himto vacate rental premises and hand over vacant possession to respondent--The relationship of land lord andtenant was admitted by parties--Once Rent Controller directed appellant to deposit of tentative rent before 5th ofevery month, then it was mandatory upon appellant to deposit said rent as per direction of Rent Controllerhowever, he failed to comply with order passed by Rent Controller--Findings rendered by trial Court/Rent arebased on proper appreciation of evidence and material available on record of case and law applicable--Appealdismissed

Summary: Background: Prisoners from various jails in Azad Jammu and Kashmir filed applications for release on bail due to the threat posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. The High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, in an order dated March 27, 2020, granted conditional bail to under-trial prisoners based on the severity of their offenses. ----Issues: 1- Whether the High Court has the authority to release a large number of under-trial prisoners on bail due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 2- Whether the order of the High Court was maintainable in light of similar orders by other courts being suspended. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the High Court’s order was based on a misconception of law and facts. The Court found that the High Court overstepped its authority by releasing a large number of prisoners on bail. The Supreme Court referenced a similar order by the Islamabad High Court, which was suspended by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, indicating that the same rationale should apply to this case. Consequently, the Supreme Court suspended the High Court's order and directed jail authorities not to release any prisoners in pursuance of the High Court's order. If any prisoners had been released, the concerned authorities were directed to re-lodge them in prison after taking all necessary measures. ----Citations/Precedents: In Re: Dr. D.C. Saxena Contemnor v. Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India [AIR 1996 SC 2481] Muhammad Ikram Chaudhary vs. Federation of Pakistan & others [PLD 1998 Supreme Court 103] Attorney General of Pakistan vs. Yusuf Ali Khan [PLD 1972 SC 115] Federation of Pakistan vs. Yusuf Ali Khan [PLD 1977 Supreme Court 236] In Re: Professional Conduct of Two Lawyers in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.45 of 1982 [1982 SCMR 713] Ch. Ghulam Shakeel vs. SHO Naulakha [1990 PCr.LJ 587] The State vs. The Principal Bahawalpur Law College [1991 MLD 914] State vs. Mian Abbas Ahmed [PLD 1989 Lah. 376] The State vs. Sheikh Shaukat Ali & others [PLD 1976 Lahore 355] Radha Mohan Lal vs. Rajasthan High Court [AIR 2003 SC 1467] Ranjit D. Udeshi vs. The State of Maharastra [AIR 1965 Supreme Court 881] The Superintendent and another vs. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia [AIR 1960 SC 633] Leo Roy Frey vs. R. Prasad & others [AIR 1958 Punjab 377] Robkar-e-Adalat vs. Sardar Khalid Ibrahim [2019 SCR 17] Azad Govt. & others vs. Mujahid Hussain Naqvi & another [PLJ 2001 SC(AJ&K) 50] Azad Govt. & others vs. Mujahid Hussain Naqvi [Civil Appeal No.165 of 2000 decided on 09.10.2012] Mujahid Hussain Naqvi vs. Ehtesab Bureau & others [2003 SCR 399] Mujahid Hussain Naqvi vs. Director Anti-Corruption & others [2001 SCR 272] Muhammad Ikram Chaudhary vs. Federation of Pakistan [PLD 1998 SC 103]

Summary: Intra Court appeal in WP 318-20 (Against impugned notification dated 30.01.2020 and seeks direction to respondent no.1 to issue revise election schedule)

Summary: This legal document pertains to a case involving a strike by medical professionals, including doctors, nurses, paramedics, and allied service providers, against the Medical Teaching Institutes Ordinance, 2019. The petitioner argues that the strike is premature as no teaching institution has been notified under the ordinance, and a draft act for medical reforms has been submitted for legislation. The court emphasized the illegality of strikes by professionals regulated by their respective bodies and cites constitutional obligations to obey the law. The authorities have taken action against the striking individuals under the Punjab Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1958, and the PEEDA Act, 2006. A committee has been constituted to hold a consultative workshop to address stakeholders' concerns on the draft act. The court directed the committee to incorporate appropriate changes and calls for an end to the strike. It appoints Momin Agha as the convener of the committee, with specific members identified for participation in the consultative process. The Secretary, Specialized Healthcare and Medical Education Department, is tasked with organizing the workshop and submitting a finalized draft to the court. The court restricted adverse actions against the striking individuals until a specified time but allows authorities to take stern action against continued strikes after a given deadline, citing violations of the constitution and legal obligations.

Summary: Background:The case involves a criminal petition filed by Raja Muhammad Nadeem against an order dated March 20, 2020, issued by the Islamabad High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 214/2020. The petitioner challenges the said order before the Supreme Court of Pakistan.---Issues:The primary issue is whether the order issued by the Islamabad High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 214/2020 is lawful and justifiable.Whether notices should be issued to various respondents, including government officials and legal representatives, to provide their input on the matter.Whether the release of prisoners from jails, as ordered by some High Courts and Provincial Governments, should be stayed until further orders.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court heard arguments from the petitioner's counsel, the Attorney General for Pakistan, President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, President of the Peshawar High Court Bar Association, Vice Chairman of the Pakistan Bar Council, and appointed an amicus curiae to assist in the case. The Court decided to issue notices to relevant respondents, including government officials and legal representatives, and appointed an amicus curiae to provide expert opinion. Additionally, the Court ordered a stay on the implementation of any orders regarding the release of prisoners from jails until further orders.

Summary: Bail granted---Background:In Criminal Petition No. 251 of 2020, Alamgir Khan, the petitioner, sought admission to bail after being arrested on December 1, 2019. He was accused of delivering an inflammatory speech at a rally on November 29, 2019, on the Mall Road in Lahore. The speech allegedly incited participants against state institutions.---Issues:Whether Alamgir Khan's speech constituted sedition under section 124-A of the Pakistan Penal Code.Whether Alamgir Khan's release on bail would jeopardize public peace, security, and tranquility.Whether Alamgir Khan's right to freedom of speech was violated, considering the reasonable restrictions under Article 19 of the Constitution.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Court recognized freedom of speech as a fundamental right under the Constitution, subject to reasonable restrictions. The determination of whether Alamgir Khan's speech violated these restrictions would be best decided by the trial court after considering the full context of the discourse.Despite the serious nature of the charges, the petitioner's status as a student and the lack of usefulness in his continued incarceration led the Court to grant bail. The Court emphasized the importance of the state being tolerant of dissent and criticism from its citizens, even if expressed crudely or emotionally.The criminal petition was converted into an appeal, and Alamgir Khan was granted release on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 100,000 with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial court or Duty Magistrate.---Citations/Precedents:Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1960Punjab Sound Systems (Regulations) Act, 2015Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, Article 19