Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- S. 302(b)/34 ---- Conviction and Sentence ---- Benefit of Doubt ---- Delay in FIR ---- Ocular Account Contradicted by Medical Evidence ---- Presence of Eye-Witnesses Doubtful ---- Recovery Ineffective ---- Motive Unproved ---- Principle of Benefit of Doubt ---- Appellants were convicted under S.302(b)/34, PPC, and sentenced to death by the Trial Court, later modified to life imprisonment by the High Court ---- FIR lodged after an unexplained delay of four hours despite proximity of 15 kilometers between the place of occurrence and police station ---- The deceased's dying declaration contradicted the ocular evidence regarding the presence of witnesses and the sequence of events ---- Medical evidence belied the prosecution's version of injuries attributed to the accused ---- Recovery of weapons was rendered ineffective due to delayed forensic analysis ---- Prosecution failed to establish motive as narrated in FIR ---- The High Court itself observed irreparable dents in the prosecution's case, contradictions in evidence, and the lack of credible eyewitness testimony ---- Held, once doubt arises in a prosecution case, the benefit must be extended to the accused ---- The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants. Cited Cases: Syed Ali Bepari v. Nibaran Mollah PLD 1962 SC 502 Workers' Party Pakistan v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2012 SC 681 Mian Nawaz Sharif v. Federation PLD 1993 SC 473 Disposition: Appeals allowed; Conviction and sentence set aside; Appellants acquitted.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) – ---- Art. 199 – Appointment to post – Eligibility criteria – Merit and experience – Re-advertisement of post – Employer’s prerogative. The petitioner, who possessed the required qualifications and experience for the post of Director, Pharmaceutical Evaluation/Drugs Licensing/Quality Assurance Division, challenged her non-appointment despite being the only eligible candidate. The Policy Board declined her selection, stating she was “lowest on merit,” while the Prime Minister directed the re-advertisement of the post. The Court held: The petitioner was the only eligible candidate; other candidates lacked the requisite experience. Although the petitioner passed the written test and interview, her aggregate marks were low despite being above the passing threshold. An employer is not obligated to appoint a candidate simply because they meet eligibility criteria, particularly where the performance is unsatisfactory. The decision to re-advertise the post to foster wider competition is within the prerogative of the appointing authority and cannot be interfered with under Article 199 of the Constitution. Held: The petition was dismissed as no ineligible candidate had been appointed, and the re-advertisement was lawful. (b) Service laws – ---- Competitive process – Eligibility vs. merit – Non-selection despite sole eligibility – Employer’s discretion. Where a candidate is the only eligible participant in a competitive process but performs poorly relative to the threshold, the appointing authority is not bound to appoint them. The Court emphasized that merit remains a valid consideration, and the employer retains discretion to re-advertise the post. (c) Service laws – ---- Re-advertisement of post – Prerogative of appointing authority – Wider competition. The Court observed that re-advertisement of a post to encourage wider participation is a legitimate exercise of an employer’s prerogative and does not constitute discrimination or illegality. (d) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) – ---- Art. 199 – Scope of judicial review – Appointment decisions – Limited interference. The Court reiterated that under Article 199, it cannot compel an appointing authority to appoint a candidate where no illegality or malafide intent is established. Judicial review does not extend to substituting the employer’s discretion unless an ineligible candidate has been appointed or the process is tainted with arbitrariness. Held: The petitioner’s non-selection was justified as her marks were low despite fulfilling eligibility criteria, and the re-advertisement of the post was a lawful exercise of discretion.

Summary: (a) Service Law – Promotion – Regulation-2.26 of N.T.C. Service Regulations, 2008 – Eligibility Criteria Promotion where no channel exists – Qualification requirements – Want of vacancy. Petitioner, employed as Junior Accounts Assistant in N.T.C., sought promotion under Regulation-2.26 of the N.T.C. Service Regulations, 2008, which provides for promotion where no channel for promotion exists or an employee remains in the same pay group for seven years. Held, promotion under Regulation-2.26 is conditional on fulfilling the “other criteria for promotion”. As per Schedule-II of the Regulations, promotion to Accounts Assistant requires a graduation degree. Since the petitioner did not possess the prescribed qualification, he was ineligible for promotion. (b) Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) – No Discrimination Found Petitioner alleged discrimination in applying Regulation-2.26, claiming others were promoted without DPC consideration. Held, notification dated 29.05.2012 clarified that cases of other employees were approved by the Departmental Promotion Committee. No evidence of discriminatory treatment was found. (c) Remedy of Appeal – Failure to Exhaust Alternative Forum The petitioner had not availed the alternative remedy of appeal provided under Regulation-6 of the N.T.C. Service Regulations, 2008, which further weakened his claim. ----Key Finding: The petitioner’s inability to meet the eligibility criteria under Schedule-II justified the Departmental Promotion Committee’s decision to deny him promotion. No illegality or procedural lapse was found. ----Result: Writ petition dismissed for lack of merit.

Summary: Document/instrument pertaining to financial and future obligations could not be used in evidence unless at least two attesting witnesses were examined for such purpose, if they were alive and were subject to process of Court.The appellant has not given any explanation for not producing the second marginal witness of the pronote. The evidence produced by the appellant was not sufficient to discharge the onus with regard to proof of execution of alleged pronote.The appellant produced photocopy of the pronote without following the procedure for producing secondary evidence, which too renders the evidence produced by the appellant devoid of evidence.

Summary: In addition it may be mentioned that the copy of notification dated 07.8.2018, whereby the respondent No.1 has been declared as returned candidate by the Election Commission of Pakistan has not been appended with the election petition. When there is a specific prayer for declaring the election of the returned candidate in constituency PK.90, Bannu-IV is void, illegal, unlawful and without any effect, then annexing copy of notification is essential pre-requisite.Having considered the wordings of section 55 sub-section 3 of the Representation of People Act, 1976, in comparison with section 144 sub-section 4 of the Election Act, 2017, conclusion can easily be drawn that with the omission of words and every schedule , in section 144(4) of the Election Act, 2017 remaining provision is pari materia, and, therefore, has the same legal and binding effect and could be construed similarly as held by the august Supreme Court in Ghazanfar Abbas Shah s case and its noncompliance has rendered rejection of the election petition essential, in view of section 145 of the Election Act, 2017.

Summary: Appointment of Managing Director Bank of Khyber.Powers of selection committee in recommendation of candidate for appointment.

Summary: (a) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)-------S. 15---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2)---Eviction petition---Tenant claiming adverse title---Abuse of process of court---Scope---Eviction petition filed by landlord was allowed and the said order was maintained up to High Court---Tenant, in execution proceedings, filed an application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. wherein he claimed that the attorney of landlord had sold out the demised premises to him---Application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. was concurrently dismissed by executing court and appellate court---Validity---Landlord had never informed the tenant about his intentions to sale the demised premises---Tenant, before entering into sale purchase of the demised premises with the attorney, should have insisted upon withdrawal of execution petition filed against him---Tenant could not defeat the order of Rent Controller by claiming title adverse to the title of landlord who had put him in possession of demised premises as tenant---Petition was dismissed and Rent Controller was directed by the High Court to issue writ of possession of the demised premises within 15 days. [Paras. 7 & 9 of the judgment] Muhammad Nisar v. Izhar Ahmed Shaikh and others PLD 2014 SC 347 rel.(b) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)-------S. 15---Eviction petition---Adverse title, claim of---Scope---Tenant cannot defeat the order of Rent Controller by claiming title adverse to the title of landlord who has put him in possession of demised premises as tenant. [Para. 7 of the judgment]

Summary: Banking Court in the impugned order neither mentioned that the defendant appeared before the Court nor that he had filed an application for leave to defend. Perusal of record revealed that application for leave to defend had, in fact, been filed by defendant, which fact was also not denied by plaintiff Bank. High Court observed that without deciding on the application for leave to defend, which was a mandatory requirement, impugned decree could not have been passed by Banking Court and was therefore, set aside.