Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: (a) Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act, 2012 (XXI of 2012)—Enlistment Rules for Alternative Medicine and Health Products. ----The Alternative Medicine and Health Products (Enlistment) Rules, 2014, issued under Section 23 of the Act, aim to regulate the previously unregulated field of herbal and Ayurvedic products, safeguarding public health and addressing malpractices. (b) Public Interest Litigation—Prematurity of Petition. ----A petition seeking enforcement of recently notified rules (less than a month old) may be considered premature. However, concerns about public health and regulation of alternative medicines are valid and merit the attention of the relevant regulatory authorities. (c) Administrative Guidance—Implementation of Public Interest Rules. ----Regulatory authorities are expected to enforce the Alternative Medicine and Health Products (Enlistment) Rules, 2014, in letter and spirit, given the significant public health implications. Petitioners should be afforded an opportunity to present their concerns. ----Result: Petition disposed of with directions to the respondents to take appropriate measures for implementing the rules and ensuring no grievances arise due to non-enforcement. Respondents are encouraged to hear the petitioner's concerns to aid effective implementation.

Summary: S.302,324,34 PPCSingle injury on non vital part,common intention wants further inquiry (Bail allowed)

Summary: S.302/34 PPCCross version (Bail allowed)

Summary: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--- ----Ss. 16, 21 & 15---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.199 & 4---Constitutional petition---Scope---Ejectment of tenant---Tentative rent order, non-compliance of---Effect---Landlords filed an ejectment petition wherein they moved an application under S. 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979---Application for payment of arrears of rent was accepted and tenant was directed to deposit the same who failed and her defence was struck off---Eviction petition was accepted concurrently---Validity---Tenant had failed to comply with the tentative rent order and she was guilty of non-compliance of the direction to deposit monthly rent---Said findings were findings of facts and no evidence was required to come to such conclusion---Order passed by the Appellate Authority was final and same could not be challenged through constitutional petition on the ground that "no other adequate remedy" had been provided by law or said finality attached to the order had violated the constitutional guarantees provided under Art. 4 of the Constitution to the tenant---Constitutional petition was dismissed and tenant was directed to vacate the premises within specified period.

Summary: Termination from service---set aside---reinstated into service---The appellant, was appointed as a Civil Judge and was posted in Muzaffargarh. During his service, he received the powers of a Civil Judge 2nd Class based on a special report submitted by a Reporting Officer. The appellant's counsel argued that the termination was illegal because it did not provide the appellant with an opportunity to be heard, and it was based on an adverse report from one Reporting Officer, while other Reporting Officers had given him positive reviews. The counsel claimed that the termination order was a result of victimization and personal grudge by the Reporting Officer. They argued that the termination on probation amounted to a stigma and that the representation against it was pending when the order was issued. The respondents' counsel, on the other hand, argued that the termination was lawful as it was based on the adverse remarks provided by the Reporting Officer. They contended that the authority had rightly relied on these adverse remarks, and no illegality had been committed. The Tribunal examined the case and found that out of six Reporting Officers, only one had given adverse remarks about the appellant, while the others had provided positive feedback. They noted that the appellant's representation had been pending for two years, and during that time, he had received the powers of a Civil Judge 2nd Class. The Tribunal also pointed out that the allegation of the appellant being "corrupt by instinct" lacked concrete evidence and was inconsistent with his otherwise unblemished record. In light of these findings, the Tribunal concluded that the preference given to the adverse report of one Reporting Officer over the positive reports of others was unjustified. They considered the allegation of being "corrupt by instinct" as vague and lacking supporting evidence. The Tribunal found that the termination was tainted with malice and personal grudge. Therefore, they decided in favor of the appellant and allowed the appeal, setting aside the termination order.

Summary: The appellant argued that the Reporting Officer, who was the District & Sessions Judge of Gujranwala at the time, had recorded these adverse remarks in a biased manner during a very short period. He emphasized that throughout his eight-year career, working under nine different Reporting Officers, he had never received any adverse remarks. The appellant further contended that he had connections, Advocate, who was a member of the Punjab Bar Council and had actively participated in a strike against the Reporting Officer, when he was serving as an Additional District & Sessions Judge in Gujrat. The Gujrat Bar Association had passed a resolution seeking Mr. Sohail Nasir's removal due to allegations of corruption and improper conduct. The appellant claimed that this strike had resulted in adverse remarks against him. The respondent's counsel did not dispute the appellant's claim that he had no adverse remarks in his ACRs except for the specific period in question, and argued that the Reporting Officer had prepared an unbiased report based on the appellant's performance during that period. The Tribunal considered the arguments from both parties and reviewed the case's record. They also examined ACRs from the appellant's entire judicial career to assess his overall performance and noted that he had consistently received favorable remarks from his Reporting Officers and had not been warned or counseled for his work. After reviewing the evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's ACR for the short period under dispute did not reflect his overall performance, which had been consistently positive throughout his career. They found no valid reason for the adverse remarks and decided in favor of the appellant. The appellant's appeal was upheld.

Summary: It was an un-witnessed occurrence and nobody was named as an accused in the F.I.R.---The case of prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence and extra judicial confession---It is by now well settled law that no one can be convicted on the basis of conjectures and surmises---In absence of any direct evidence, circumstantial evidence should be beyond of all doubts and the same must be in the shape of chain---No one can be convicted on the basis of suspicions and presumptions. Crl. Appeal is accepted.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.