Summary: Conviction upheld---Background:Munir Hussain, along with his brother Riaz Ahmed (since acquitted), was indicted for the murder of Abdul Razzaq on November 3, 2008, within the jurisdiction of Police Station City Mianwali. The deceased was shot multiple times while riding a motorbike, with the petitioner being accused of firing consecutive shots. The trial resulted in Munir Hussain's conviction and the imposition of the death penalty. The complainant challenged Riaz Ahmed's acquittal, while Munir Hussain contested his own conviction. The High Court upheld Riaz Ahmed's acquittal but commuted Munir Hussain's death penalty to life imprisonment.---Issues:Whether Munir Hussain's conviction and subsequent penalty of death are justified.Whether Riaz Ahmed's acquittal is appropriate.Whether the alteration of Munir Hussain's penalty from death to life imprisonment by the High Court is valid.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court examined the circumstances surrounding the incident, noting the discrepancies in the prosecution's case. Despite the deceased's position on a motorbike, the direction of the shots seemed incongruent with the petitioner's alleged actions. The injuries on the deceased's genital organs raised questions about the prosecution's narrative, particularly regarding motive and the involvement of the co-accused, Riaz Ahmed. The complainant argued that Riaz Ahmed's alleged support of Munir Hussain implicated him in the crime, thereby challenging his acquittal. The magnitude of violence was cited as a basis for arguing that the death penalty was appropriate. Both parties were granted leave to further substantiate their contentions.

Summary: Background:The case involves appeals from the Lahore High Court concerning Income Tax References.The petitioner, Hamid Ashraf (Late), filed tax returns for Tax Years 2004 to 2008 and applied for refunds, which were initially rejected.After appeals and remands, refunds were granted by the Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue (DCIT) on 22.03.2013, along with additional payment for delayed refund.---Issues:Determination of the date when tax refund becomes due to the taxpayer under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.Interpretation of sections 120, 170, and 171 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, regarding the mechanism for tax refund and compensation for delayed refund.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court analyzed relevant provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, particularly sections 120, 170, and 171, along with an Explanation inserted in section 171(2) through the Finance Act, 2013.The Explanation clarified that for the purpose of compensation, tax refund becomes due from the date of the refund order and not from the date of deemed assessment under section 120.The court emphasized that the mechanism of refund operates based on a refund order passed on an application for refund filed by the taxpayer and scrutinized by the Commissioner.Deemed assessment under section 120 is not a substitute for a refund order, and there is no automatic refund provision based on deemed assessment.The court held that in the present case, the refund order was passed on 22.03.2013, making that the date when the refund became due, as per section 171(2)(c).Therefore, the petitions were dismissed, affirming the decision of the High Court.---Conclusion:The court clarified the mechanism for tax refund under the Income Tax Ordinance, emphasizing the importance of a refund order issued by the Commissioner. The decision provided clarity on the date when tax refund becomes due and the entitlement to compensation for delayed refund.---Quote:Income tax refund and compensation under sections 170 and 171 of the income tax ordinance, 2001.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Against impugned notification dated 17.7.19 & DPC to be held on 2.8.19 be restrained till disposal of titled WP. (a) Regularization of Services Without FPSC Reference: Issue: Whether the regularization of respondents' services as Seed Certification Officers (BPS-17) without referring their cases to the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) was lawful. Finding: The respondents’ initial appointments were made through a transparent process (advertisement, test, and interview) in 2005. Their services were regularized in 2013 following a decision by the Cabinet Sub-Committee, and this regularization was treated as a past and closed transaction under Imran Ahmad v. Federation of Pakistan (ICA No. 340/2017). Reference to FPSC was not required since the respondents had already been regularized. (b) Retrospective Regularization and Seniority Concerns: Issue: Whether retrospective regularization of respondents’ services unfairly impacted the petitioners’ seniority in the Federal Seed Certification and Registration Department (F.S.C.&R.D.). Finding: The retrospective regularization, effected through the notification dated 17 July 2019, was based on the Cabinet Sub-Committee’s 2013 decision. This action aligned with legal standards and did not constitute favoritism or nepotism as alleged by the petitioners. (c) Applicability of Judgment in ICA No. 340/2017: Issue: Whether paragraph 123(iii) of Imran Ahmad v. Federation of Pakistan mandated an FPSC reference for the respondents' regularization. Finding: Paragraph 123(iii) applied to employees seeking initial regularization after project conversion from development to non-development. Since the respondents' services were already regularized in 2013, they fell under the purview of paragraph 123(ix) of the same judgment, exempting them from further FPSC scrutiny. (d) Prematurity of Promotion Claims: Issue: Whether the petitioners’ challenge to the respondents’ eligibility for promotion to Deputy Directors (BPS-18) was ripe for judicial determination. Finding: No promotion orders had been issued as of the date of the petition. The court declined to make a premature determination on the respondents' eligibility for promotion. -----Relevant Precedents: Imran Ahmad v. Federation of Pakistan (ICA No. 340/2017): Guidance on regularization of employees in projects converted to non-development. Judgment in W.P. No. 1951/2009: Mandated the Cabinet Sub-Committee to consider the respondents’ cases for regularization. -----Disposition: The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no legal infirmity in the regularization of respondents’ services or in their consideration for promotion.

Summary: Dying Declaration.

Summary: Appeal against convictionHeld: (i) 22K.G and 300 gram charas was recovered from CNG Cylinder fixed in trunk of the motorcar and the appellant Akram Khan was arrested on the spot. He also nominated co-accused Shah Naraz. Case against the appellant Akram Khan was proved, as minor contradictions, trivial in nature cannot be made basis for dislodging the prosecution case.(ii) Police officials are as good witnesses as others are, that too when no malafide was either alleged or proved against them.(iii) At the time of initial recovery the seizing officer thoroughly searched the vehicle but no further recovery from the secrete cavities could be made and it was on 06.04.2016, when further recovery was effected, the subsequent recovery could not be proved against the convict/ appellant as the mode and manner in which it was effected is shrouded in mystery and also the appellant was not present.(iv) The only evidence against eh appellant Shah Naraz is the statement of the principal accused ? the prosecution failed to collect evidence on record where the involvement of the appellant Shah Naraz could be established. Only confessional statement of accused Akram Khan could not be made basis for conviction of accused Shah Naraz.(Appeal was allowed to the extent of accused Shah Naraz in the circumstances)

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan---Arts. 4, 9 & 25---National Bank of Pakistan---Contract/outsourced employees---Regularization of services---Discrimination---Petitioners were serving in National Bank of Pakistan through outsourced/contract arrangements with different companies, including ICON Consultant, Professional Employees Private Limited and Bulls and Bulls---Record showed that petitioners were performing duties in respondent-bank on different positions since their appointments without break or discontinuation---Bank was directly benefiting from their labour and services, which were also recognized in the comments filed by respondents---Keeping such employees as part-timers/contract workers for an indefinite period on meagre payment amounted to forced labour and violated their constitutional rights---Petitioners being similarly placed with employees whose services had already been regularized were entitled to equal treatment and could not be discriminated against. Cited Cases: Abdul Ghafoor and others v. The President, National Bank of Pakistan etc. 2018 SCMR 157. Pir Imran Sajid and others v. Managing Director/General Manager (Manager Finance), Telephone Industries of Pakistan and others 2015 SCMR 1257. (b) Constitution of Pakistan---Art. 9---Right to life---Right to livelihood---Temporary/contract employment continued for long period---Right to life includes right to livelihood, and such right cannot be left at the mercy, whims or fancies of authorities---Although employment may be brought to an end in accordance with law, there was no justification for keeping petitioners’ entire career and livelihood uncertain despite long continuous service---Such treatment also offended the dignity of the petitioners---Administrative authorities are bound to act fairly, justly and in accordance with law, and must not deprive persons of livelihood through unfair or discriminatory acts. Cited Case: Pir Imran Sajid and others v. Managing Director/General Manager (Manager Finance), Telephone Industries of Pakistan and others 2015 SCMR 1257. (c) Service law---National Bank of Pakistan---Outsourced janitorial/contract employees---Nature of work permanent---Regularization---Supreme Court in Abdul Ghafoor’s case had already held that workers rendering janitorial and similar services for National Bank of Pakistan for several years were performing work of permanent nature and could not be denied regularization merely by describing their engagement as contract or outsourcing arrangement---So-called contractual form could not be used by the bank to avoid regularization or deny workers their right to livelihood---Present petitioners were similarly placed and their cases squarely fell within the parameters settled by the Supreme Court and High Court precedents. Cited Case: Abdul Ghafoor and others v. The President, National Bank of Pakistan etc. 2018 SCMR 157. (d) Service law---Similarly placed employees---Benefit of earlier judgments---Unnecessary litigation---Once a dispute or legal principle regarding regularization of similarly placed employees had been settled, the respondent-bank was required to treat all similarly placed employees on the same footing without compelling each employee to approach the Court separately---Respondents could not be allowed to discriminate against petitioners in violation of earlier judgments of the Supreme Court and High Court---Benefit of such judgments was extended to the petitioners. Cited Cases: 1996 SCMR 1185. 2005 SCMR 100. 2005 SCMR 499. 2009 SCMR 1. PLD 2011 SC 22. 2013 SCMR 1253. 2018 PLC (C.S.) 383. 2018 SCMR 1181. 2018 SCMR 1405. 2018 SCMR 157. AIR 1987 SC 777. (e) Constitution of Pakistan---Arts. 4 & 25---Good governance---Fairness and non-discrimination in administrative action---Public functionaries are required to act in good faith, honestly, fairly and within the limits of law---Object of good governance cannot be achieved through arbitrary, unreasonable or discriminatory exercise of authority---Administrative action must conform to principles of justness, fairness and openness---Respondent-bank, having regularized services of similarly placed employees, could not refuse the same treatment to petitioners without lawful justification. (f) Service law---Regularization---Date from which benefit to be granted---Petitioners were held entitled to regularization against their respective posts from the date when they approached the Court through writ petitions---For pensionary and other long-term benefits, if available under law, they were held entitled from the date of joining service with respondent-bank, i.e. from their initial appointments. (g) Writ petition---Regularization claim---Exceptions---One petitioner, Muhammad Anwar Khan in WP No. 880-A/2018, had already tendered resignation which had been accepted; therefore, he could not claim benefit of the judgment and petition to his extent was dismissed---Another petitioner, Zahir Shah in WP No. 336-A/2013, had died during pendency of the writ petition; therefore, petition to his extent had become infructuous and was dismissed. (h) Civil miscellaneous application---Impleadment of similarly placed employees---Applicants seeking impleadment as petitioners were also janitorial employees of respondent-bank and similarly placed---Application was allowed and office was directed to make necessary entries in the petition and record---Such applicants were also held entitled to the same relief as granted to other petitioners in WP No. 880-A/2018. Disposition: Writ petitions were allowed with directions to respondents to regularize services of petitioners against their respective posts with effect from the dates on which they approached the Court; for pensionary and other long-term benefits, if available under law, petitioners were held entitled from their initial dates of joining service. WP No. 880-A/2018 was dismissed to the extent of Muhammad Anwar Khan due to accepted resignation; WP No. 336-A/2013 was dismissed to the extent of Zahir Shah as infructuous due to his death during pendency; impleadment application in WP No. 880-A/2018 was allowed.

Summary: There is no cavil with the proposition that the land bearing Khasra No. 1226 was acquired at the behest of Members of Tehsil Council Haripur; and no prior survey was conducted by any technical/experts, no feasibility report was sought, no proper process for site selection wascarried out. Political victimization is apparent through the fact that in a direct and shortcut manner the property bearing Khasra No. 1226 was proposed in the Tehsil Council and resolution was passed in astereotype manner. It is still shrouded in the mystery that why the other property was not proposed to acquired and what was the reason to propose Khasra No. 1226 for the construction of bust stand.

Summary: According to the terms and conditions of the appointment order of petitioners, they have been engaged on the basis of two years contract which is in continuance till date despite the fact that more than 12 years have been passed with no end in the future particularly when there is a permanent staff of PERRA which means that the nature of duties performed by PERRA employees is permanent. Even otherwise, petitioners have been serving for the last twelve years, it means that they are eternal need of the department. Now collaboration of Provincial Disaster Management Authority (PDMA) and Provincial Earthquake Reconstruction & Rehabilitation Authority (PERRA) withDistrict Reconstruction Unit (DRU) has increased the requirement of staff and performance of duties by the petitioners. Their services have been matured and as such they have earned entitlement forregularization of their services. Regularization of employees does not require any statutory rules rather the same depends on the length of their service, therefore, they are fully entitled to be regularized.