Summary: (a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)------S. 201(1)---S.R.O No.172(I)/2013 dated 05-03-2013---Auction of vehicle by customsdepartment despite stay order by Customs Appellate Tribunal ("Tribunal")---Tribunal hadordered return of the sale proceeds of the auctioned vehicle to the purchaser---Question as towhether the Tribunal passed the order without determining as to whether the vehicle qualified forthe Amnesty Scheme for vehicles introduced vide S.R.O. No.172(I)/2013 dated 05.03.2013 ornot---Tribunal had rightly observed that despite having conveyed stay orders to the concernedofficial quarters, the vehicle in question was auctioned---Customs department purportedly sent apre-auction notice but there was nothing on record to show that it was received by the concernedofficials---High Court directed that the Collector Customs should conduct an enquiry as to whythe vehicle was auctioned while a stay was in field and it was in the knowledge of thedepartment, and further as to why it was not ensured that a notice was issued to the concernedofficials---Reference application was disposed of accordingly.(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)-------S. 196---Reference before High Court---Scope---While exercising jurisdiction in terms ofS.196 of the Customs Act, 1969 the Court was required to examine only question of law, whichmay arise from the order passed by Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, whereas,the question of fact could not be examined under its reference jurisdiction.

Summary: Detailed judgement in Urdu.

Summary: Background:In the CSS Competitive Examination 2011, the petitioner, Haider Abbas, from Gilgit-Baltistan-FATA region, was initially placed at Serial No. 249 on the overall merit list. Due to his placement, he was recommended for the Inland Revenue Service instead of his preferred choice, the Foreign Service. Subsequently, a vacancy occurred in the Foreign Service due to the failure of a previously recommended candidate to join. The petitioner sought reallocation to the Foreign Service based on his merit and challenged the decision of the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) before the Islamabad High Court, which dismissed his appeal. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner filed a petition before the Supreme Court.---Issues:Whether the petitioner had a legal right to claim reallocation to the Foreign Service due to the vacancy created by the failure of a previously recommended candidate.Whether the vacancy created in the Foreign Service Group in the Competitive Examination 2010 was valid, and if the petitioner's claim based on the alleged improper creation of this vacancy was justified.---Holding/Reasoning:The FPSC maintained that the vacancy in question was reserved for women's quota and not for the merit quota of the Foreign Service Group. As the petitioner belonged to the merit quota, he could not claim the vacant seat. The Court found the FPSC's decision legally sound and rejected the petitioner's claim on this ground.Regarding the petitioner's argument about the allegedly improper creation of a vacancy in the Foreign Service Group in the Competitive Examination 2010, the Court examined the allocation of vacancies for that year. It found that the creation of vacancies was in accordance with the recruitment policy and rules for competitive examinations. Thus, the petitioner's argument lacked legal justification.Additionally, the petitioner's representation to the FPSC was found to be time-barred as it was made belatedly in 2015.---Conclusion:The Court dismissed the petitioner's claims, affirming the FPSC's decision to reject his representation. Leave to appeal was refused.---Quote:Where a vacancy is created for a particular quota of the group, if the candidate to whom it is allocated fails to avail it then it is to be filled by a candidate of the same category and cannot be allocated to a candidate who is eligible from any of the remaining two categories.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Appellant was Sentenced to death under section 302(b) PPC.The FIR recorded by accused himself was ruled out of consideration as neither its maker appeared in its support nor stood the test of cross examination.pistol 30 bore was not recovered from personal possession of appellant, but was taken from his brother, therefore, the report of F.S.L was of no help to the prosecution.