Summary: (a) Islamabad Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Ordinance (LXX of 1979)- -S. 4-Islamabad Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Rules, 1983, R. 3(i)-Management of Zoo-Responsibility-In Islamabad Capital Territory, management of Zoo is within the domain of the Board of Management constituted under Islamabad Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Ordinance, 1979, and such is one of its crucial functions-Zoo, its management and all other matters relating thereto fall within the jurisdiction and competence of Board of Management constituted under Islamabad Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Ordinance, 1979. (b) Interpretation of statutes- -Beneficial statute must not be construed too restrictively, rather should be given the widest possible interpretation. (c) Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (XI of 1890)- -S. 3-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 428 & 429-Islamabad Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Ordinance (LXX of 1979) S.4-Islamabad Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Rules, 1983, R. 3(i)-Cruelty to animals-Animals in captivity-Management of Zoo-Petitioners were aggrieved of maltreatment of authorities with animals kept in captivity in Zoo at Islamabad-Validity-Animals in Zoo had been subjected to unnecessary pain and suffering-Conditions in Zoo, described in various reports had spoken volumes for distress, pain and sufferings of all animals-Authorities responsible exposed themselves to be proceeded against under Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1890-Animals in Zoo were public property and offences under Ss.428 & 429, P.P.C. could be invoked if the ingredients stood fulfilled-Zoo at Islamabad did not have facilities or resources to meet behavioral, social and physiological needs of the animals kept in captivity under inappropriate and illegal conditions-Animals held in captivity in the Zoo were kept in conditions that tantamount to subjecting them to unnecessary pain and sufferings, violating provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1890 and Islamabad Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Ordinance, 1979-There were neither adequate facilities nor resources to provide living conditions that would meet the behavioral, social and physiological needs of animals-High Court directed the Board constituted under Islamabad Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Ordinance, 1979, to relocate all animals to their respective sanctuaries-High Court further directed the Board to take over management of the Zoo-High Court directed Islamabad Metropolitan Corporation and Chief Commissioner to assist the Board till all animals were relocated-High Court restrained the Board from keeping any new animal in the Zoo till a reputable international agency/ organization, specializing in matters relating to zoological gardens would certify that facilities and resources were available to provide for behavioral, social and physiological needs of each species of animals-Federal Government was also directed to consider advising respective Provincial Governments to include in curriculum of Islamic Studies, the teachings of Islam regarding importance of taking care of animals, their welfare and well-being as highlighted in Ahadiths and the Quran-High Court directed the media to consider educating and informing general public regarding manner in which creation of Allah i.e. animal species had to be treated-Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. Messers Mustafa Impex, Karachi and others v. The Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and others PLD 2016 SC 808; State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan through Chairman and others v. Mst. Sardar Begum and others 2017 SCMR 999; N. R. Nair and others v. Union of India and others AIR 2000 Kerala 340; Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja and others (2014) 7 SCC 547; Dr Manilal v. Valliyate, The Constituted Attorney of People for Ethical Treatment of Animals v. The State of Maharashtra through Chief Wildlife Warden and others Writ Petition No.2662 of 2013; Nithin Singvi v. Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Environment and Forests and others Writ Petition No.06 of 2016; National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and another [2016] ZACC 46; Muhammad Arif v. S.H.O. City Police, Depalpur and 5 others PLD 1994 Lah. 521; Ghulam Asghar Gadehi and others v. Senior Superintendent of Police Dadu and 4 others PLD 2018 Sindh 169; Province of Sindh and others v. Lal Khan Chandio and others PLD 2016 SC 48; Government of Punjab and others v. Aamir Zahoor ul Haq and others PLD 2016 SC 421; Surrah An-Nahl 16:5; An-Nahl 16:7; Surrah An-Nahl 16:8; Surrah Al Haj 22:36; Surrah Al-Anam 6:38; Surrah An-Noor 24:41; Surrah Ar-Rahman 55:8-10 and Ms Shehla Zia and others v. WAPDA PLD 1994 SC 693 rel. (d) Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (XI of 1890)- -S. 3-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 428 & 429-Islamabad Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Ordinance (LXX of 1979), S.4-Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 9-Right to life-Animals, rights of-Wildlife is the most essential foundation of healthy ecosystems-Threat of climate change and its ensuring devastating consequences for human race can only be avoided if environmental degradation and damage to ecosystems and biodiversity can be stopped-Protection and preservation of wildlife species is a precondition for meeting challenges that stem from damage to ecosystems and degradation of environment-Welfare, well-being and survival of animal species is foundational principle for survival of human race on this planet-Without wildlife species there will be no human on this planet-Neglect of welfare and well-being of animal species, or any treatment of an animal that subjects it to unnecessary pain or suffering, has implications for right of life of humans guaranteed under Art. 9 of the Constitution-Relationship of treatment of animals and right to life of humans make it an obligation of the State and its authorities to jealously guard against cruel and illegal treatment of animals-Protecting, preserving and conserving animals species and preventing them from harm is a Constitutional obligation of the State and its authorities. (e) Words and phrases- -"Legal right"-Meaning-Legal right means"a right related to or recognized by law". Eleventh Edition rel. (f) Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (XI of 1890)- -S. 3-Islamabad Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Ordinance (LXX of 1979) S.4-Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 9-Animals' natural rights-Scope-Animals' natural rights of not to be treated in a manner that subjects them to unnecessary pain and suffering have been recognized in Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1890-Constitutional and statutory obligation of the State and its functionaries to ensure that such rights are not infringed-Such is a natural right of every animal to be respected because it is a living being, possessing precious gift of 'life'-Humans cannot arrogate to themselves a right or prerogative of enslaving or subjugating an animal because the latter has been born free for some specific purposes-Natural right of an animal not to be tortured or unnecessarily killed because gift of life it possesses is precious and its disrespect undermines the respect of the Creator-Right to life of humans is dependent on the welfare, well-being, preservation and conservation of all animals species-Any treatment in violation of the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1890, or subjecting an animal to unnecessary pain or suffering, is an infringement of the right to life guaranteed under Art. 9 of the Constitution-Destruction and loss of habitat also violates fundamental right to life of a human-State is responsible to ensure that no animal is treated in violation of the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1890 and Islamabad Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Ordinance, 1979-High Court is vested with jurisdiction to issue a writ of prohibition or mandamus, as the case may be in order to refrain an authority from doing anything not permitted by law or to compel them to do anything not permitted by law or to compel them to do anything the law requires them to do. Sh. Ansar Aziz, Mayor, Metropolitan Corporation, Islamabad. Ms. Naheed S. Durrani, Secretary Ministry of Climate Change. Sulyman Shah, Joint Secretary (Admin), Ministry of Climate Change. Syed Ali Raza Zadi, Dy. Director (Law), Ministry of Climate Change. Anisur Rehman, Chairman, Islamabad Wildlife Management Board. Rana Tahir Mehmood, Director Environment, MCI. Bilal Khilji, Dy. Director Zoo. Ali Asghar, Dy. Director (Law), MCI.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -S. 426-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302(b)/34 & 429-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)-Power of Appellate Court under S.426, Cr.P.C.-Scope-Accused/appellant was convicted under S.302(b)/34, P.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment by Trial Court-High Court on appeal, while suspending the operation of sentence released accused on bail-Complainant/respondent called in question the order passed by High Court for the reason that power given to Appellate Court under S.426, Cr.P.C., was to be sparingly exercised especially in cases where convict had been sentenced to life imprisonment-Accused while supporting order passed by High Court contended that he was found innocent during police investigation and also that his criminal liability under provisions of Penal Code, 1860, was yet to be determined-Observation of High Court that case required further inquiry for determination whether offence committed by accused would be covered by S.429, P.P.C. or it would also fall within scope of S.302, P.P.C., at bail stage amounted to giving undue benefit to accused which was likely to adversely affect prosecution case during proceedings of appeal before High Court-While granting bail or suspending sentence awarded to a convict, Court was not required to express opinion as to under what provision of law, the convict was likely be found guilty or whether his case was to come within scope of a particular section-Evidence produced by prosecution established that accused/appellant armed with Klashnikov had come to the scene of occurrence along with principal accused and fired a burst at deceased and the cow; which conduct and action of accused/appellant was considered by Trial Court as his sharing common intention with principal accused for causing death of deceased-Finding of Investigating Officer which did not have any binding value, had been disbelieved by Trial Court-Appellate Court, no doubt, had power to suspend the sentence of accused but the same was to be exercised with due care and caution; and satisfactory and cogent reasons were required for suspending the sentence especially in respect of sentence of life imprisonment-No exceptional circumstances had been highlighted by High Court in its order-Petition was converted into appeal and was allowed-Order passed by High Court was set aside. M. Akbar Tarar; Additional Advocate-General, Punjab for the State.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -Ss.497, 498 & 145-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 429, 149, 109 & 148-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)-Bail, grant of-Petitioners involved in case under Ss.302, 429, 149, 109 & 148, P.P.C.-Dispute about forcibly taking over possession of land of complainant-Earlier proceedings conducted under 5.145, Cr.P.C. indicating that a member of accused party was in possession of disputed land-Petitions admitted to bail by High Court but on complaints that they were intimidating and assaulting members of complainant party and thus abusing the concession, their bail was cancelled-Subsequent application for grant of bail dismissed by High Court-Order impugned-Petition converted into appeal and bail granted ~o three appellants only.