Summary: Considering the progress of National Accountability Bureau (NAB) in OGRA case, the Court, in exercise of judicial powers conferred under Articles 187 and 190 of the Constitution, Order XXXII, Rules 1 and 2 read with Order XXXIII, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 coupled with the principles of Civil Procedure Code including Order XXVI, Rule 10 appoints a Local Commission to examine two reports prepared by NAB and submit his report with regard to whether NAB, FIA, National Highway Police and/or the Punjab Police had facilitated the escape of the accused and also look into the performance of NAB in pursuing high profile mega scams.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: S.302,201,109,34 PPCNo eye-witness & lack of evidence (Bail allowed)

Summary: The petitioner, had filed a writ petition against the Delimitation Authority of D.G. Khan Division, D.G. Khan, and four others. The judgment states that this single judgment will also apply to other identical writ petitions filed by various parties due to the similarity of facts and legal issues involved. The background of the case involved objections raised by the inhabitants of constituencies within the District Muzaffargarh against the preliminary delimitation list issued by the Delimitation Officer/District Election Commissioner, Muzaffargarh. The petitioners in all these cases contended that the delimitation process had not followed mandatory provisions of The Delimitation of Constituencies Act, 1974, and other relevant laws.The judgment discussed the relevant constitutional and legal provisions governing the delimitation process and the responsibilities of Delimitation Authorities. It emphasized the importance of providing reasoning and speaking orders while determining objections and highlights the violation of Article 10-A of the Constitution. Ultimately, the judgment declared the impugned orders illegal and unlawful and directs the Delimitation Authority to re-adjudicate the objections, providing an opportunity for a hearing to all concerned parties. The parties were directed to appear before the District Election Commissioner, Muzaffargarh, on a specified date for further proceedings in accordance with the law.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 22-A & 561-A----Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 353 & 186--Constitution ofPakistan, Art.199---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deterpublic servant in discharge of his duty, obstructing public servant in discharge of publicfunctions---Registration of second FIR---Principles---Powers of Ex-officio Justice of Peace---Inherent powers of High Court---Application under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. converted intoconstitutional petition----Scope---Petitioner filed application under S.22-A, Cr.P.C. forregistration of second FIR against respondents-police officials who had been alleged to havekilled petitioner's son in police encounter, which was dismissed by Ex-officio Justice of Peace---Respondents had already registered FIR against co-accused along with deceased for firing atthem during police encounter---Contention raised by petitioner was that respondents had killedher son by torturing him---Held, contradictions existed in and between statements of prosecutionwitnesses as to manner and time of death of deceased---Respondents, having fired at deceased,had alleged to have taken him to hospital, but no medico legal certificate had been produced---Prosecution could not explain multiple injuries caused on body of deceased while he was in custody of respondents (Police Officials)---Unexplained wound on skull and temporal/occipitalregion of deceased caused by blunt means had necessitated registration of second FIR as perversion of petitioner and then investigation thereunder---Two distinct and opposite versions hadcome on record---Manner of occurrence, place of occurrence and other details were not onlydifferent, but same were also opposite to each other---Interest of justice demanded that separateFIR on basis of petitioner's application should have been recorded and investigated upon---Aftertwo versions were placed before court, who then had to decide and adjudicate upon as to whichof the two versions was wholly or partly correct and which of accused persons were liable to beconvicted---High Court, setting aside impugned order of Ex-officio Justice of Peace, directedrespondents to register second FIR as per version of petitioner and suspended trial beingconducted under first FIR and further directed the same to be conducted simultaneously with trialunder second FIR after completion of investigation---Constitutional petition was acceptedaccordingly.(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 22-A----Registration of second FIR---Principles---If it is found that counter version givenby party has disclosed distinct and separate cognizable offence, another FIR will have to beregistered and shall be investigated upon.Muhammad Azam v. Inspector-General of Police, PLD 2008 Lah. 103 and HamayunKhan v. Muhammad Ayub Khan 1999 PCr.LJ 1706 rel.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.