Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Maintainability of Writ Petition—Effect of Withdrawal of Earlier Petitions: Under Order XXIII, Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a petitioner who withdraws a writ petition unconditionally is precluded from filing a subsequent petition on the same subject matter. The petitioner had previously withdrawn W.P. No. 189/2009 without permission to refile, thereby relinquishing his claim. The Court dismissed the instant petition as not maintainable. Precedents: PLD 1970 S.C. 1, PLD 1992 S.C. 723, 1993 SCMR 1171, PLD 1994 S.C. 598. (b) Withdrawal of Promotion Order—Effect on Seniority and Vested Rights: The petitioner challenged the withdrawal of his promotion order (H.B.F.C. Office Order No. 83, dated 27.01.1999) and sought retroactive promotion as Manager (Grade-II) effective from 04.08.1998. The Court held that while the petitioner had vested rights stemming from earlier orders, the prior unconditional withdrawal of his earlier writ petition precluded reevaluation of the same subject matter. References to 2004 CLC 1100, 2004 CLC 1860, and 2000 CLC 1524 affirmed that withdrawal bars re-litigation. (c) Administrative Decisions—Discretion of Employer: The withdrawal of promotion and revision of induction orders by H.B.F.C. was challenged as arbitrary. However, the Court observed that the petitioner’s grievance had already been adjudicated administratively and through earlier judicial proceedings. The Court noted that no procedural irregularity or violation of law was apparent in H.B.F.C.’s adoption of a uniform policy for cadre induction. -----Disposition: The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable due to the bar imposed by Order XXIII, Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the petitioner’s failure to secure permission for refiling. No costs were awarded.

Summary: Seeks ban an Aurat March

Summary: Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963 (entire trial in the name 18 of Section 19(8) of the CRRA, 1963 was a malafide attempt to deprive to applicant .FRA allowed.)(a) Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963)-------S.3---Rent Controller---Jurisdiction---Government building---Neither any other Court nor parties can confer jurisdiction on a Court / Tribunal when it is expressly barred by Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963.(b) Jurisdiction-------Question of---Principle---Whenever question of jurisdiction of a Court is raised by any party it has to be decided first by the Court as preliminary issue. A.M Qureshi v. Government of Sindh and others 1991 SCMR 1103 rel.(c) Jurisdiction-------Interim order, passing of--- Principle--- Court having no jurisdiction to adjudicate on dispute between parties on merit, cannot even pass interim order and then penalize parties for its non-compliance.(d) Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963)-------Ss.3, 17, 19(8) & 24--- Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 10-A & 23---Eviction of tenant---Property rights---Rent Controller, jurisdiction of---Petitioners were having lease agreements in their favour executed by Federal Government and the Government sought their eviction from Rent Controller on the plea of raising commercial buildings---Validity---Tenants had perpetual right in demised shops under the agreements with Federal Government and whenever the government decided to launch any commercial project by demolishing the property in question, the rights of tenants under existing agreement were to be protected and no effort should be made to wriggle out of the contractual obligations except in accordance with law---Tenants were to be properly informed with relevant material details of any proposed action---Landlord had filed cases in the Court of Additional Rent Controller despite the fact that he had no jurisdiction and then tried to subvert entire trial in the name of S. 19(8) of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 which was a mala fide attempt to deprive tenants from their Constitutionally guaranteed lawful right in demised shops---High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction set aside eviction orders passed by Rent Controller---Appeal was allowed in circumstances. Suo moto Case No.04 of 2010 PLD 2012 SC 553; Inaam-ul-Haq v. Muhammad Ali Shaheen and another 2013 CLC 904; Sh. Riaz-ul-Haq and another v. Federation of Pakistan through Minisry of Law and others PLD 2013 SC 501; Zulfiqar Ahmed khan v. Station Commander, Station Headquarters, Karachi and another 2010 CLC 354 and Ghulam Mustafa Bughio v. Additional Controller of Rents, Clifton and others" 2006 SCMR 145 ref. M.H Mussadaq v. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal 2004 SCMR 1453; Khawaja Muhammad Mughees v. Mrs. Sughra Dadi 2001 SCMR 2020; Asif Najma Ansaizi v. Mrs. Mariam Mirza and another 2014 MLD 1304; Arif Lakhani v. Irfan Nazar and another 2014 CLC 1756; Uzma Construction Co. v. Navid H. Malik 2015 SCMR 642; Muhammad Saqib v. S.M Mushtaq 2015 YLR 723; Mian Muhammad Lateef v. Mst. Nasima Warsi through L.R 2009 CLC 279; Najma Aziz Sethi v. Muhammad Azeem Butt 2008 MLD 42; Dawood Khan through Attorney v. Sheraz Ahmed 2009 YLR 1238; Zulfiqar Ahmed Khan v. Station Commander, Station Headquarters, Karachi an another 2010 CLC 354; M.K. Muhammad and another v. Muhammad Abu Bakar 1993 SCMR 200; Mrs. Ghazala Iftikhar v. Controller/Additional Controller of Rents and another 2012 YLR 74 and Abdul Latif and another v. Messrs Parmacie Plus 2019 SCMR 627 distinguished.

Summary: Customs Act (IV of 1969)-------Ss.85, 89, 156 & 157---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.561-A & 403---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.13---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.26---Smuggling---Quashing of FIR---Protection against double punishment and self incrimination---Persononce convicted or acquitted not to be tried for the same offence---Provision as to offencespunishable under two or more enactments---Scope---Accused persons sought quashing ofsecond FIR on the ground that it amounted to double jeopardy---Validity---Customs officialswere initially busy in discharge of their official duties and were checking the vehicles when atruck arrived at the check post, which was stopped for checking purposes but in themeantime the accused persons also arrived there in another vehicle, forbade the officialsfrom checking the truck, abused and beaten the officials as well as blocked the road bycalling more than 100 persons---However, search of the truck resulted into recovery offoreign origin smuggled goods---Customs authorities had rightly lodged the first FIR underthe Customs Act, 1969, for the recovery of foreign origin smuggled goods and the secondFIR under the provisions of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 for restraining the officials fromperformance of their official duties and giving beatings to them---Section 403, Cr.P.C.,Art.13 of the Constitution and S.26 of General Clauses Act, 1897, provided that no one couldbe vexed twice and prosecuted or punished for the same offence, but if one was guilty ofoffence under another enactment, though by the same chain of facts, he could be tried,convicted and punished under that very offence committed by him---Principle of doublejeopardy was not applicable to the facts of the case---Petition, being devoid of merits, wasdismissed, in circumstances.PLD 2018 SC 322 and PLD 2019 Bal. 27

Summary: Acquittal granted---Background:Muhammad Rafique alias Neela, along with his brothers Muhammad Naveed and Muhammad Saeed, and their father Jafar Hussain, were indicted for the homicide of Nazim Hussain on October 23, 2009, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Kamalia, District Toba Tek Singh.The incident involved Nazim Hussain being stabbed to death, with Jafar Hussain accused of instigating the crime. Muhammad Rafique was accused of delivering the fatal blow with a hatchet.---Issues:Muhammad Rafique challenges his conviction, arguing that after the acquittal of three out of four accused, there was no basis for the High Court to rely on the same evidence to maintain his conviction.The complainant seeks reversal of the death penalty and acquittal of the co-accused, arguing that the High Court, having believed the witnesses, should not have acquitted the respondents based on conjecture.The prosecution contends that the evidence against Muhammad Rafique is sufficient to sustain his conviction.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Muhammad Rafique was found guilty of delivering the fatal blow to Nazim Hussain, as confirmed by witnesses and supported by forensic evidence.The autopsy report and recovery of the murder weapon, stained with human blood, corroborated the prosecution's case against Muhammad Rafique.The occurrence took place in broad daylight in a populated area, lending credibility to the witnesses' testimonies.Jafar Hussain was acquitted of instigating the crime, and Muhammad Naveed and Muhammad Saeed were acquitted due to the triviality of their involvement.The doctrine of abundant caution was applied to ensure the safe administration of criminal justice.Despite the Medical Officer not being cross-examined during the trial, the High Court found the evidence against Muhammad Rafique sufficient to sustain his conviction.The petitions challenging the judgment are dismissed, and leave to appeal is declined.

Summary: Bail granted---Background:Hassan Javed, the petitioner, filed for anticipatory bail to prevent his arrest in response to allegations of criminal breach of trust lodged by his employer, Nasr Hussain.The accusation implicated Hassan Javed, along with other individuals, in diverting funds from the company Dev Batch (Pvt.) Ltd., resulting in a loss of US $50,000.The petitioner contested the accusations, claiming that the impending arrest was motivated by malice, and argued the absence of substantial evidence supporting the charges.---Issues:Is there sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations of criminal breach of trust against Hassan Javed?Is the intended arrest tainted with malice, warranting anticipatory bail for the petitioner?---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Despite a shared employment history between the petitioner and the complainant, the prosecution failed to present compelling evidence to corroborate the alleged fraudulent transactions.Confession statements or concrete evidence of the impugned transactions were notably absent from the prosecution's case.The sole evidence referenced, regarding "voice messaging" by the petitioner, lacked forensic verification and lacked specific details concerning the transactions in question.Mere financial loss suffered by the company does not automatically constitute criminal breach of trust without substantiated evidence.The absence of substantial evidence, coupled with the potential for malice behind the intended arrest, warranted granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner.The case was converted into an appeal, and Hassan Javed was granted anticipatory bail upon fulfilling bond requirements.The trial outcome would hinge on the strength of available evidence, unaffected by the observations made during the anticipatory bail decision.---Citations/Precedents:Sub section 2 of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

Summary: PLJ 2020 SC (AJK) 29 [Appellate Jurisdiction] Present Ch Muhammad Ibrahim Zia CJ Syed TUFAIL SHAH INSPECTOR ENCROACHMENT B - 11DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MUZAFFARABAD - - Appellant versus DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MUZAFFARABAD through Chairman Muzaffarabad and 8 others - - Respondents Civil PLA No 698 of 2019 Civil Misc No 336 of 2019 decided on 3102019 (On appeal from the judgment of the High Court dated 12092019 in Writ Petition No 7442019) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act 1974 (VIII of 1974) - - - - - - Art 42 (10) - - Filling of writ petition - - Dismissed - - Appointment as junior clerk - - Promotion as inspector encroachment on leave vacancy - - Post was vacant - - Initial recruitment - - Promotion rules - - Required qualification - - Non - impleadment of necessary parties - - Petitioner has prayed for declaring advertisement issued under enforced service rules as illegal - - Neither he has challenged vires of enforced rules nor arrayed Rules Making Committee as party in writ petition therefore in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of case prayed relief in absence of necessary party cannot be granted - - In absence of necessary parties no effective writ can be issued - - High Court has rightly passed impugned judgment which does not call for any interference - - Petition was dismissed [Pp 31 32] A B Ch Shoukat Aziz Advocate for Appellant Mr Yaqoob Khan Mughal Advocate for RespondentsJudgement Result:Appeal dismissed

Summary: Background:In the case of Cr.Misc. No. 40/2020, petitioner/accused Hajat Ali sought post-arrest bail under Section 497 Cr.P.C. in connection with two FIRs: FIR No. 07/2018, dated 24-08-2018, registered under Section 302/34 PPC, and an offense under Section 13 A.O. vide FIR No. 09/2018, at Police Station Chalt, Tehsil Nagar-lI, District Nagar.----Issues:Whether the petitioner/accused, Hajat Ali, should be granted bail considering the seriousness of the charges against him.Whether the discrepancies in witness statements and the delay in lodging the FIR affect the petitioner's eligibility for bail.Whether the bail granted to co-accused should influence the petitioner's bail petition.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court considered the arguments presented by both parties. The petitioner's counsel argued that there were contradictions in witness statements and a delay in lodging the FIR. Additionally, the bail granted to the petitioner's co-accused was cited as a basis for bail eligibility. However, the prosecution contended that the petitioner was directly charged in the FIR with opening fire on the deceased, an offense falling under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.The court noted that the petitioner was specifically named in the FIR and witnessed by an individual present during the incident. Evidence such as the recovery of the weapon used, medico-legal reports, and reports from firearms experts supported the prosecution's case. Despite arguments about witness statements, the court stated that at the bail stage, deep scrutiny of evidence is not permissible. Tentative assessment of incriminating evidence showed the petitioner's prima facie connection to the murder.----Citations/Precedents:Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C)Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C)

Summary: Summary pending