Summary: Challenging the rejection of cancellation report by ilaqa Magistrate

Summary: The ACRs should give a clear picture regarding work and conduct of the Officer reported upon and it should be as objective as possible, circumspect, clear, direct and unambiguous or evasive. It must be free from exaggeration and gross understatement as well.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 375, 376, 377, 294 & 506---Sexual offences, rape, sodomy, obscene acts and songs,criminal intimidation---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Accused wascharged for sexually abusing the daughter of complainant and taking snaps and recordingvideos---In the present case, statements of prosecution witnesses established the fact that theaccused had been sexually assaulting the minor girls of the Mohallah---All the witnesses hadbrought on record that soon after getting information, the accused was arrested and afterwatching the snaps and videos they were shocked that the accused was sexually assaultingthe minor girls---Confession of accused was recorded before Judicial Magistrate---Courtstatements of witnesses were fully in line with the confessional statements under S.164,Cr.P.C. as well as their statements recorded by the Investigating Officer under S.161,Cr.P.C.---Defence had failed to point out any minor contradiction or dishonest improvementin all the statements of witnesses---Even otherwise, a minor child could be defamed forwhole life, no father or elder brother would involve an innocent person in the false case---Nosuggestion was put forth to the effect that the complainant or the victim had any animosity orill will against the accused---Defence had failed to bring on record any ill-will or ulteriormotives on the part of witnesses for false implication of the accused---Record showed thatthough number of victims were named, who were sexually assaulted, but the prosecution hadfailed to produce all the victims---One major victim was not produced by the prosecution,though her Court statement was available on record---Victims had also kept mum till thearrest of the accused, thus, in such circumstances, awarding of capital punishment to theaccused was unwarranted---Sentence of death of accused was, therefore, converted intoimprisonment for life---Appeal against conviction was dismissed with said modification insentence, in circumstances.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 375, 376, 377, 294 & 506---Sexual offences, rape, sodomy, obscene acts and songs,criminal intimidation---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Statements ofvictims---Scope---Accused was charged for sexually abusing the daughter of complainant and taking snaps and recording videos---Prosecution case had been strengthened by thestatements of two minor victims---Statements of both the said victims were fullycorroborating each other on all material counts---Despite lengthy cross-examination, thedefence had failed to give dent or damage to their testimonies---Undisputedly, the victims ofthe offence were minors less than the age of 10-years and a school going girls, who did notcarry any ill will, grudge or malice against the accused to falsely implicate him in the case---Evidence of both the victims had been fully corroborated by the medical evidence as well asthe other circumstantial evidence including the expert report, who carried out the analysis ofphotos and videos---Testimony of the victim could not be impeached or discredited thoughsubjected to test of cross-examination by the defence---Record showed that though numberof victims were named, who were sexually assaulted, but the prosecution had failed toproduce all the victims---One major victim was not produced by the prosecution though herCourt statement was also available on record---Victims had also kept mum till the arrest ofthe accused---Awarding of capital punishment to the accused was unwarranted, incircumstances---Sentence of death of accused was, therefore, converted into imprisonmentfor life---Appeal was dismissed with said modification in sentence, in circumstances.(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 376---Rape---Sole statement of victim---Scope---In case of sodomy or zina the solitarystatement of victim would be sufficient to convict the accused if it was confidence-inspiring.Fayyaz alias Fayyazi and another v. The State 2006 SCMR 1042 rel.(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 375, 376, 377, 294 & 506---Sexual offences, rape, sodomy, obscene acts and songs,criminal intimidation---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Medicalevidence---Scope---Accused was charged for sexually abusing the daughter of complainantand taking snaps and recording videos---Record showed that the case of prosecution had alsobeen strengthened from the medical evidence produced through Lady Police Surgeon---Perusal of Medico-Legal Certificates had established the fact that the hymens of victimswere not intact and that the sexual act was performed with them---Investigating Officer alsoproduced the accused before Medical Officer, who after examination issued Medico-LegalCertificate, perusal of which also established the fact that the accused was potent and wasable to perform the act of sexual intercourse---Record showed that though number of victimswere named, who were sexually assaulted, but the prosecution had failed to produce all thevictims---A major victim was not produced by the prosecution, though her Court statementwas available on record---Victims had also kept mum till the arrest of the accused---Awarding of capital punishment to the accused was unwarranted, in circumstances---Sentence of death was therefore, converted into imprisonment for life, in circumstances---Appeal was dismissed with said modification in sentence.(e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 375, 376, 377, 294 & 506---Sexual offences, rape, sodomy, obscene acts and songs, criminal intimidation---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Recovery ofincriminating material---Scope---Accused was charged for sexually abusing the daughter ofcomplainant and taking snaps and recording videos---Case of prosecution had also gotstrength from the recoveries of smart phone, computer C.P.U. and USB---Raid wasconducted in the house of accused and during the course thereof smart phone was recoveredfrom personal possession of accused, while the search of his house was resulted intorecovery of computer C.P.U. and USB---Said articles were also produced in the Trial Courtand on the request of prosecution the memory card already recovered from the possession ofaccused as well as his smart phone, USB and computer were played, perusal of whichtranspired that the accused had taken hundreds of porn snaps and a number of videos whereaccused had been sexually abusing the minors by unnatural offence, fingering in virginal partand other such obnoxious acts---Prosecution in order to establish the porn snaps and videosrecorded in the above articles sent the same for analysis and accordingly a witness producedthe Digital Forensic Examination Report---Said report further strengthened the case ofprosecution that the pornography was genuine, as the same was forensically examined, noframe insertion, editing, forgery, deletion was identified---Not only the memory cardcontained porn snaps and videos of minor girls but the computer, USB and mobile phone ofthe accused also contained such abusive porn snaps and videos of minor girls---Recordshowed that though number of victims were named, who were sexually assaulted, but theprosecution had failed to produce all the victims---One major victim was not produced by theprosecution, though her Court statement was available on record---Victims had kept mum tillthe arrest of the accused---Awarding of capital punishment to the accused was unwarranted,in circumstances---Sentence of death was therefore, converted into imprisonment for life, incircumstances---Appeal was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Partnership Act, 1932: ----S. 69(2)---Registration of firm---Mandatory condition for filing suit or appeal---Effect of non-registration. The petitioner firm filed an appeal without attaching its registration certificate, and the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable. Held, that under Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932, an unregistered firm cannot institute a suit or enforce contractual rights against third parties. Registration of the firm is a mandatory precondition, not a mere technical requirement. The appellate court’s order was justified, as non-compliance with Section 69 bars the proceedings. ----Cited Cases: Ch. Nazir Ahmed v. Ali Ahmed (PLD 2016 SC 214) Creative Electronics and Automation v. Commissioner, Lahore (2013 CLC 1547) (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908): ----Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2---Grant of temporary injunction---Three ingredients---Irreparable loss. The petitioner sought an injunction to restrain encashment of a mobilization advance guarantee. Held, that where the guarantee amount is quantifiable in monetary terms, the essential ingredient of irreparable loss is absent. Monetary claims, even if substantial, do not justify an injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C. (c) Revisional Jurisdiction: ----Scope of interference---Jurisdictional error or material irregularity. The High Court can interfere in revisional jurisdiction only if there is a jurisdictional error or material irregularity by the appellate court. In the present case, failure to file the registration certificate with the appeal justified the appellate court's dismissal, and no jurisdictional error was found. (d) Force Majeure: ----Contractual obligations---Non-performance due to force majeure. The petitioner claimed non-fulfilment of contractual obligations was due to force majeure (EVO Network down). Held, that force majeure cannot be established without clear evidence and cannot exempt a party from contractual liability unless expressly covered under the contract terms.

Summary: Background:Petitioner was appointed as Senior Auditor in BPS-11 and granted selection grade BPS-15 based on a letter from Military Accountant General (MAG).After nearly 9 years, petitioner's selection grade was cancelled, and he was reverted to BPS-11 with a refixed pay.Petitioner challenged the refixation of pay before the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which dismissed the appeal.Petitioner filed a review petition, which was also dismissed by the Tribunal.---Issues:Whether the petitioner is entitled to retain the emoluments and benefits received during his tenure in the selection grade BPS-15.Whether the principle of locus poenitentiae and estoppel apply to prevent the recovery of emoluments and benefits from the petitioner.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The petitioner argued that he served in the selection grade BPS-15 for almost 9 years and received its emoluments and benefits due to the department's error, not his own.The Tribunal found no grounds for review and dismissed the petitioner's petition.The principle of locus poenitentiae does not protect benefits obtained illegally indefinitely.Despite the petitioner's long tenure in BPS-15, the department's mistake in granting the selection grade cannot be ignored.Citing precedents, the Court held that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the department's mistake, and the principle of locus poenitentiae applies.The Tribunal's failure to rectify the mistake in its judgment constituted an apparent illegality, justifying setting aside the impugned order.The petition was converted into an appeal and allowed.---Citations/Precedents:Engineering-in-Chief Branch through Ministry of Defence and another vs. Jalaluddin (PLD 1992 Supreme Court 207)Mst. Sajida Javed vs. Director of Secondary Education, Lahore Division and others (2007 PLC (C.S) 364)

Summary: Background:Malik Ebadat Khan and others (petitioners/defendants) filed a civil revision petition against the order dated 26-06-2019 passed by the District Judge Gilgit in Civil Suit No.53/2016. The suit was filed by Saeedullah Yousufzai and others (respondents/plaintiffs) for defamation against the petitioners.----Issues:Whether the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs is time-barred.Whether the application filed by the petitioners/defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC should have been dismissed.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Justice Ali Baig presided over the case and allowed the revision petitions. The court found that the suits filed by the respondents/plaintiffs were indeed time-barred under the Defamation Ordinance 2002, as they were filed after the prescribed period of six months from the publication of the defamatory material. Since the suits were time-barred and no application for condonation of delay was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908, they were liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The court emphasized that when a suit is barred by limitation, the trial court is not required to frame issues or record evidence. Therefore, the trial court's decision to dismiss the application filed by the petitioners/defendants was erroneous. The court allowed the revision petitions and rejected the suits of the respondents/plaintiffs under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.----Citations/Precedents:Defamation Ordinance 2002Limitation Act 1908Order 7 Rule 11 CPCPLD 1985 page 1532003 YLR 2082 Lahore

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010: ----Ss. 2(h), 2(n), 6---- Sexual harassment—Definition of workplace—Jurisdictional scope of Ombudsman—Rape allegation occurring outside official premises—Failure to prove harassment through credible evidence—Inquiry Committee found to have acted with bias—Complainant, a Naib Qasida at National Savings, alleged harassment and rape by various male colleagues including her supervisory officer—Initial departmental inquiry found the accused guilty, leading to dismissals and demotions—Upon appeal, Ombudsman ordered de novo inquiry due to serious procedural lapses—On reinquiry, it was held that the allegation of rape, allegedly occurring outside office premises, did not fall within the definition of “harassment at workplace” under S.2(h) and S.2(n) of the Act—Complainant failed to produce any supporting witnesses or evidence—Her sole testimony contradicted employment records and lacked details of alleged acts within the workplace—Held, that harassment complaint based on rape allegation outside workplace was not maintainable before this forum—Complaint dismissed. (b) Administration of Justice—Inquiry Committee—Bias—Improper conduct—Adverse influence—Misuse of authority" ----Principles of natural justice—Partial conduct of inquiry committee—Complaint drafted under direction of committee members—Violation of fair hearing—Due process compromised—Directions issued for fresh inquiry by impartial members**—Complainant admitted during cross-examination that complaint statements were written under direction of Inquiry Committee members—Record showed complaints were addressed to Director General, not the Committee—Such conduct tainted the impartiality of proceedings—Held, that the Inquiry Committee was biased and acted beyond its mandate, undermining the credibility of its findings—Ombudsman directed that the existing committee be dissolved immediately—Secretary Finance directed to initiate proceedings against members of the committee for mala fide and misuse of powers. (c) Employment Law—False complaints—Mala fide intent—Disciplinary action pending against complainant—Delay in filing complaint—Adverse inference—Reinstatement of accused: ----Absenteeism—Show cause notices—Constructive defense by accused—Complainant found to be habitual latecomer with disciplinary proceedings pending—Allegations lodged after issuance of final show cause notice—Unexplained delay of nearly two years—No corroboration—Accused persons exonerated**—Complainant lodged multiple complaints after disciplinary action was initiated against her—She failed to rebut departmental records showing habitual absenteeism and misconduct—No credible evidence produced to support harassment allegations—Held, that complaints were filed with intent to avoid disciplinary consequences and damage the career of accused officers—Accused persons reinstated with back benefits and restored to positions held prior to complaints. ----Cited Cases: • Jamil v. State 2019 YLR 516 • Ghulam Ali v. Abubakar 2019 MLD 1163 • Iqbal Hussain v. Federation of Pakistan 2019 PLC (C.S.) 475 • DIG Motorway v. Ghulam Mustafa Meher 2019 PLC (C.S.) 500 • Muhammad Essa Gondal v. Satara Jameel 2014 YLR 1901 • Mian Muhammad Lateef v. Mst. Nasima Warsi 2009 CLC 279 • Raja Khuram Ali Khan v. Tayyeb Bibi 2019 YLR 98 ----Disposition: Complaint dismissed. Allegations not maintainable under Act. Inquiry Committee dissolved. Secretary Finance directed to take action against Inquiry Committee members. Accused reinstated to original positions with back benefits.