Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: If the Judge doubts the accused's physical and mental capacities, the procedure prescribed under Section 341 should be followed. However, if it is found that the accused cannot understand the proceedings, and trial results in conviction, the trial Judge is required to forward the proceedings to the High Court, if the evidence warrants so, but it cannot pass a sentence against him. The trial Court must forward the proceedings to the High Court to pass such orders as the High Court thinks fit. 557Writ Petition- Miscellaneous- Civil Suit 3048-18 ADEEL KHALEEL VS SHAHID HASSAN ETC Mr. Justice Mirza Viqas Rauf 16- 04- 2025 2025 LHC 2552 2025 CLC 1599 [Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench)] (https://sys.lhc.gov.pk/appjudgments/2025LHC2552.pd

Summary: A statutory authority / organization or an autonomous body must ensure its actions aligned with the principles of justice and settled law, avoiding the measures that contradict these norms. 556Reference Under Section

Summary: According to Section 44 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the medical officer who will attend any person in injured condition is under all the obligations to inform about the arrival of medico legal case to the police and any failure on his part in this regard may lead to prosecution under section 187 or 202 of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. 555Writ Petition- Educational Institution- Result 6561-24 ZAIN UL ABIDEN VS PROVINCE OF PUNJAB ETC. Mr. Justice Syed Ahsan Raza Kazmi 16- 04- 2025 2025 LHC 2676

Summary: The following points are discussed in the petition: 1. What is writ of quo warranto? 2. Principle of laches. 3. Question of territorial jurisdiction. 4. Principle of locus poenitentiae. 5. Past and closed transaction. 6. Bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in case of writ of quo warranto. 7. Article 242 of the Constitution. 554Jail Appeal 59064/20 Waqas Viki Vs The State etc The Chief Justice 16- 04- 2025 2025 LHC 2972 2025 PCr.LJ 1644 (Lahore)

Summary: ----S.302(b)-------Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence - Story narrated by eyewitnesses is not appealing to a prudent mind because as per contents of FIR three accused persons made three consecutive pistol fire shots each on the left side of chest of deceased, all the injuries have exit wounds. After receiving the 9th fire shot, he fell down. A man cannot remain static after receipt of single pistol fire shot on the left side of his chest and as such other eight entry wounds at the same locale are not possible, which fact makes the prosecution story highly doubtful. The appeal is allowed and the accused was acquitted of the charge. 553Writ Petition- Service- Promotion 1180-22 RAHIL BUTT VS FOP ETC Mr. Justice Mirza Viqas Rauf 16-04- 2025 2025 LHC 3087

Summary: (a) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)--- ----Ss. 15, 16 & 17---Powers of Court---Making award Rule of Court---Scope---While making award Rule of the Court, the Court is not supposed to act in a mechanical manner, like a post office and put its seal on it---Court has to look into the award and if it finds patent illegality on the face of the award, it can remit the award or any of the matters to arbitrator for reconsideration or set aside the same. (b) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)--- ----S. 17---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Arbitration---Rule of Court, assailing of---Extraneous remarks by Arbitrators in Award---Petitioner was aggrieved of not including in Rule of the Court, the escalation amount calculated by Arbitrators---Validity---Erroneous interpretation of law and/or clauses of contract made by Arbitrators could be set aside by Referee Court---Referee Court had rightly concluded that escalation was part of contract and provisions of Pakistan Engineering Council guidelines had been wrongly applied to the contract, therefore Arbitrators' interpretation in such regard was validly set aside---Regardless of correct interpretation of relevant clause of contract and legal position in that regard orders passed by Referee Court had never been challenged and was duly implemented---Such orders attained finality and were binding on Arbitrators who were bound to follow the same---Arbitrators went way beyond the terms of reference as well as their powers and jurisdiction by sitting as a Court of Appeal on Referee Court's orders and any such remarks given by them were extraneous to the Terms of Reference and should have been discarded by Referee Court---Calculations finally made by Arbitrators had to have been made Rule of the Court---Order of Referee Court as well as Lower Appellate Court to the extent of issue pertaining to escalation cost were not sustainable in the eye of law and the same were set aside to that extent---High Court discarded remarks made by Arbitrators regarding non-admissibility of escalation---High Court made calculations with respect to escalation cost as Rule of the Court---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. Sh. Muhammad Saleem v. Saadat Enterprises 2009 CLD 390; Messrs Jaffar Bros. Ltd. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan and others PLD 1978 Kar. 585; Pakistan v. Ms. Rajastan Alloy and Steel (Pvt.) Ltd. 2002 CLD 61; Syed Tariq Farooq v. Nasruddin and another PLD 1980 Quetta 1; Gerry's International (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Aerofloat Russian International Airlines 2018 SCMR 662; Karachi Dock Labour Board v. Ms. Quality Builders Ltd. PLD 2016 SC 121; Pakistan v. Ms. QMR Expert Consultants PLD 1980 SC 800; State Bank of Pakistan v. Khyber Zaman and others 2004 SCMR 1426; Societe Generale De Surveillance S.A. v. Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance Revenue Division, Islamabad 2002 SCMR 1694 and Director Housing, A.G's Branch, Rawalpindi v. M/s. Makhdum Consultants Engineers and Architects 1997 SCMR 988 ref. Zahid Idrees Mufti for Petitioner. Wajahat Hussain Shah, Assistant Advocate General for Respondents. Date of hearing: 16th April, 2025.

Summary: (Against the impugned judgment dated 16.12.2020 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in R.F.A. No. 281-P of 2019). Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963)--- ----S. 17---Ejectment of tenant---Default---Payment of rent---Proof---Adjustment of loan---Tentative Rent Order---Non-compliance---Effect---Appellants/landlords were aggrieved of setting aside of ejectment order against respondents/tenants---Plea raised by respondents/tenants was that rent was being adjusted towards payment of loan by predecessor-in-interest of appellants/landlords---Validity---No documentary evidence to such effect was produced before the Courts below, which otherwise was sufficient to establish the willful default in payment of rent for period in question---Non-compliance of Tentative Rent Order itself was sufficient ground for ejectment of appellants / tenants without further inquiry into merits as it had constituted willful default---High Court passed its judgment without appreciating factual position and evidence produced by parties in support of their respective claims and had misdirected itself while setting aside order passed by Rent Controller on the issue of default in payment of rent, nor could appreciate the effect of non-compliance of Tentative Rent Order passed---Supreme Court set aside judgment passed by High Court on the ground of default in payment of rent and judgment of Rent Controller was upheld---Appeal was allowed. M.H. Mussadaq v. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal and another 2004 SCMR 1453 and Misbahullah Khan v. Mst. Memoona Taskinuddin 1995 SCMR 287 rel. Irfan Javed, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants. Iftikhar Ahmad Bashir and Khaliq uz Zaman, Advocates Supreme Court for Respondents. Date of hearing: 16th April, 2025.

Summary: (Against the order dated 21.12.2022 passed by the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur in W.P. No. 5193/2017). Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 25---Employment---Prime Minister's Assistance Package for the Families of Deceased Government Employees---Re-marriage of widow of deceased civil servant---Reinstatement in service---Respondent was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk, under Prime Minister's Assistance Package for the Families of Deceased Government Employees but later on her services were terminated on the ground of her remarriage---High Court reinstated the respondent in service---Validity---Constitution secures fundamental rights for individuals as equal citizens not as appendages of patriarchal roles or marital identities---Women are not defined by the men in their lives; they are autonomous and rights-bearing individuals---Denying a woman right to employment on the basis of her remarriage is a blatant reinforcement of patriarchal control, seeking to subordinate her legal identity to societal expectations---Financial independence is not a concession to women, it is the foundation of their Constitutional agency, dignity, and full participation in public life---Law must dismantle, not perpetuate, the structures that reduce women to secondary citizens in the eyes of society---Impugned office order was discriminatory as it singled out widows, the female spouses of deceased government employees for disqualification from compassionate employment upon remarriage, without imposing a corresponding restriction on widowers, notwithstanding the Prime Minister's Assistance Package which offered compassionate employment to both a widow and a widower---Gender-specific disqualification amounts to direct discrimination based on sex, contravening Articles 25(1) and 25(2) of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before law and prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex---Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by High Court, whereby respondent was reinstated in service---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Zahida Parveen v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa C.P.L.A No. 566/2024 2025 SCP 107; Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Syed Sadiq Shah 2021 SCMR 747; Federation of Pakistan v. Shuja Sharif 2023 SCMR 129; Hadayat Ullah v. Federation of Pakistan 2022 SCMR 1691; Syed Azam Shah v. Federation of Pakistan 2022 SCMR 201; Dr. Mobashir Hassan v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2010 SC 265; Margaret Owen, 'The Human Rights of Widows in Developing Countries' in Kelly D Askin and Dorean M Koenig (eds) Women and International Human Rights Law (Brill 2023) and Kate Young, 'Widows without rights: challenging marginalization and dispossession' (2016) 14(2) Gender and Development. Paragraph 25 of the judgment provides that "it is clarified that the instant judgment shall not affect the appointments already made of the widow/widower, wife/husband or child of deceased or retired civil servants." Zarai Taraqiati Bank v. Sarfraz Khan Jadoon 2021 SCMR 1305; Pakistan Medical and Dental Council v. Muhammad Fahad Malik 2018 SCMR 1956 and General Post Office, Islamabad and others v. Muhammad Jalal PLD 2024 SC 1276 rel. General Post Office, Islamabad and others v. Muhammad Jalal PLD 2024 SC 1276 ref. Hafiz S. A. Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondent. Assisted by: Umer A. Ranjha, Judicial Law Clerk. Date of hearing: 16th April, 2025.