Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Background The petitioner, a civilian employee serving as a System Analyst at the General Headquarters (GHQ), Rawalpindi, filed a writ petition seeking a direction for the grant of an allowance equivalent to one month's basic pay from 1.1.2010. He argued that this allowance was already being provided to civilian employees of the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) department. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment in Writ Petition No. 2928/2012, where an identical claim was allowed. Additionally, the petitioner stated that his departmental representation on the matter remained unaddressed. -----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner was entitled to the allowance on parity with civilian employees of the PAF department. -----2- Whether the Islamabad High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition, given that the petitioner was stationed in Rawalpindi and the respondent was also based there. -----3- Whether the petitioner's pending departmental representation affected the maintainability of the writ petition. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court observed that the petitioner was stationed in Rawalpindi, and the matter concerned respondent No. 4, also based in Rawalpindi. Therefore, the dominant object of the petition did not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of the Islamabad High Court. The court noted that the petitioner's representation on the matter was still pending with the competent authority. Filing the writ petition without exhausting the departmental remedies was procedurally premature. The court held that the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, was the appropriate forum to address the petitioner’s grievance. The petition was disposed of with a direction to return the petition to the petitioner for representation before the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, which had competent jurisdiction. -----Citations/Precedents: The judgment referred to: Writ Petition No. 2928/2012 and its judgment dated 18.6.2013, which allowed a similar claim for the allowance. Principles of territorial jurisdiction under constitutional law.

Summary: Petition Us 561-A Cr.PC against order of session judge for reture back case to trial court, Offences U/s 336-B, 324, 109, 34 PPC

Summary: Right to withdraw an appeal is not absolute, it can be refused if the accrued right of other party is prejudiced---The case revolved around an assessment year's income tax return filed by the respondent assessee under the Self Assessment Scheme. The return was initially excluded from the scheme due to discrepancies in the treatment of electricity bills. After an initial appeal, the return was accepted under the Self Assessment Scheme. The appellant department subsequently filed an appeal with the Tribunal, but during the appeal proceedings, the department requested to withdraw the appeal based on a settlement reached through the Income Tax Settlement Commission. The Tribunal refused the withdrawal request, leading to the appeal's dismissal. The department contended that the Commission's order should have precluded the Tribunal from adjudicating the appeal, and that the request for withdrawal should have been granted. The court determined that the Commission's order was not binding on the Tribunal as per the provisions of the Repealed Income Tax Ordinance. The court also emphasized that the withdrawal of the appeal would have been detrimental to the rights of the assessee. Citing principles from the Code of Civil Procedure, the court explained that the right to withdraw a case is not absolute, particularly if both parties have potential claims or if the withdrawal would result in injustice or defeat the ends of justice

Summary: The Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, heard the criminal appeal filed by Safdar Ali against the judgment passed by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Rawalpindi. The case involved Safdar Ali being convicted and sentenced under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. He was sentenced to undergo seven years of rigorous imprisonment (RI) and pay a fine of Rs. 50,000 for each offense. In case of non-payment of the fine, he was to undergo six months of simple imprisonment (SI). The sentences were ordered to run concurrently, and the benefit of Section 382-B of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) was extended to the appellant.The case revolved around an allegation of misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 28,540/- by Safdar Ali, who was accused of embezzlement and misappropriation. The case property was a sealed parcel containing the alleged amount and a mobile phone Nokia, which Safdar Ali had deposited according to the records.The court considered various aspects of the case, including discrepancies in the statements of witnesses, uncertainty about the date of deposit of the parcel, and lack of evidence regarding tampering of the seal on the parcel. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to doubts about the appellant's culpability. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted Safdar Ali of the charges. He was to be released from jail forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Summary: In Criminal Appeal No. 387 of 2010 before the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, the appellant, Muhammad Ashfaq, appealed against his conviction and sentence. He was charged with committing the murder, abduction, and rape of Mst. Zulekhan Bibi, for which he was sentenced to death, life imprisonment, and ten years of rigorous imprisonment, respectively. The incident was reported in FIR No. 102 dated 15.03.2010 at Faqirwali police station, Haroonabad district, Bahawalnagar.During the trial, the prosecution presented evidence, including the last seen testimony of Muhammad Anwar and Muhammad Siddique. However, the court found this evidence contradictory and unreliable. The prosecution also failed to establish a clear motive for the crime. Moreover, the medical evidence presented did not conclusively link the accused to the commission of the offenses.As a result, the Lahore High Court accepted the appeal, acquitted Muhammad Ashfaq of all charges, and set aside the judgment of the trial court. The death sentence was not confirmed, and Murder Reference No. 48 of 2010 was answered in the negative. Consequently, Muhammad Ashfaq was ordered to be released if not required in any other case.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.