Summary: [failure to produce evidence] The appellant consistently failed to produce the evidence despite several opportunities. As a result, the trial court, applying the provisions of Order XVII Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, dismissed the suit. The high court concluded that the appellant's conduct was negligent, as they did not produce evidence despite multiple opportunities. The court determined that the trial court had no other choice but to close the appellant's right to produce evidence, as it seemed the appellant had no supporting evidence for their claim. The high court affirmed the trial court's decision to dismiss the suit under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code. Consequently, the high court dismissed the instant appeal, considering it misconceived.

Summary: (1)disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in constitutional jurisdiction (2) the dismissal of applications by an ex-officio Justice of Peace/Addl: Sessions Judge, based on a report from the concerned SHO, is valid] The learned Addl. Sessions Judge of Islamabad, after obtaining a report from the local police, issued the an order, the order stated that there is a dispute between the petitioner and the accused persons regarding a shop. The judge mentions that civil suits related to the shop are pending before the civil court in Islamabad and that the parties involved have a history of filing frivolous applications against each other. Therefore, the judge finds the petitioner's version to be doubtful and refuses to issue a direction for case registration. Instead, the judge suggests that filing a complaint would be an alternate remedy if desired. The order refers to a previous case, Rai Ashraf and others vs. Muhammad Saleem Bhatti and others (PLD 2010 S.C. 691), where the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in constitutional jurisdiction and that the dismissal of applications by an ex-officio Justice of Peace/Addl: Sessions Judge, based on a report from the concerned SHO, is valid. Considering the above perspective and finding no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Islamabad High Court dismissed the writ petition for lacking merits.

Summary: [CNS Act, 1997 (Conviction (Police officials are good witnesses and recovery proved) )No direct enmity or ill will has been suggested by the appellant against the complainant or any of the officials who participated in recovery proceedings during cross-examination and therefore in the circumstances the police officials were good witnesses and could be relied upon if their testimony remained un-shattered during their cross-examination. Even otherwise, section 25 of the CNS Act has excluded Section 103 Cr.P.C.

Summary: [Civil Servants Act, 1973, Law Reforms Ordinance,1972, Services Tribunal Act, 1973] The terms of the service were ensured at the time of his (respondent's) transfer, which cannot be lifted unilaterally depriving an employee of his post-retirement benefits or any of the terms of transfer, to which he was entitled at the time when he was inducted/transferred.The transfer confirmation letter dated 08.03.1992 does suggest variance in Scheme for employees but the boards decision has prospective application as far as lifting of any beneficial arrangements are concerned. Wisdom should have prevailed at the time when employees were being transferred and not at the twilight of their career when they (employees) only hoped to get their retirement benefits..

Summary: [Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (Minor Contradictions can be ignored)] Where some minor contradictions may be available which are not sufficient to create any serious doubt the same can be ignored which always are available in each and every case.

Summary: Petition Dismissed---The petitioner's admission had been canceled in 1986 due to fraudulent submission of educational credentials. The petitioner argued that the Syndicate's recommendation should be given effect, even though the cancellation had been upheld through various legal proceedings, including up to the Supreme Court. The petitioner's counsel argued that the Syndicate's recommendation should be enforced. The university's counsel highlighted that the cancellation of admission had been upheld by the Supreme Court and that the petitioner's fraudulent actions were substantiated. The court observed that the petitioner had tampered with his educational credentials and that the cancellation of admission had been legally justified. The court also noted that the petitioner's challenge to the cancellation had gone through various stages of adjudication and had been dismissed by the higher courts. The court stated that the petitioner had not demonstrated any vested right for the enforcement of his degree and dismissed the petition, determining it to be devoid of merit.

Summary: Background: The petitioners, owners of flour mills in District Attock, filed a constitutional petition seeking a writ of mandamus for the enhancement of their wheat quota. They argued that the respondents, specifically the Punjab Food Department, had decreased the wheat supply to their mills without any legal justification. The petitioners claimed that the wheat quota allocation was based on the population's needs, and the reduction was affecting their ability to operate effectively. They also contended that the State had a constitutional duty to provide basic necessities, including wheat, as per Article 38 of the Constitution of Pakistan. -----Issues: 1- Do the petitioners have a right to claim an enhancement of the wheat quota? 2- Is the reduction of the wheat quota by the respondents legally justified under the Wheat Release/Milling Policy, 2022-23? 3- Does the State's obligation under Article 38 of the Constitution extend to providing an enhanced wheat quota to flour mill owners for commercial purposes? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Right to Claim Enhancement: The court held that the petitioners, as flour mill owners, do not have a vested right to claim an enhancement of the wheat quota. The allocation of wheat is a matter of policy within the domain of the executive branch. Legal Justification for Quota Reduction: The respondents provided a comprehensive report explaining the wheat quota reduction. The court found the explanation logical, as the allocation was based on various factors, including population growth, wheat production in the area, availability of private wheat stocks, and the needs of the urban population. The gradual decrease was also due to the availability of wheat in the open market and other government support programs. State’s Obligation Under Article 38: The court held that Article 38(d) of the Constitution, which mandates the State to provide basic necessities of life, does not extend to the petitioners, who are flour mill owners seeking to enhance their commercial interests. The constitutional provision is intended to support citizens unable to earn a livelihood due to infirmity, sickness, or unemployment, not to promote the business of commercial entities. The petition was dismissed, with the court reaffirming that policy matters, including the allocation of wheat quotas, fall within the exclusive domain of the executive. The court emphasized that it cannot interfere in such policy decisions unless there is evidence of illegality, arbitrariness, or mala fide intent. -----Citations/Precedents: Ibrahim Flour and General Mills, District Sheikhupura vs. Government of Punjab (PLD 2008 Lahore 184) Dossani Travels Pvt. Ltd. and others vs. Messrs Travels Shop (Pvt.) Ltd. and others (PLD 2014 Supreme Court 1) The court reiterated the principles of trichotomy of powers, whereby the executive is responsible for policy decisions, and the judiciary’s role is limited to interpreting the law.

Summary: Background: The petitioner sought a better class jail facility for her husband, who was detained in Central Jail, Kot Lakhpat, Lahore, following his arrest under multiple serious charges, including Section 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), 1997. The petitioner’s application for a better class facility had been rejected by the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Punjab, on June 15, 2023. The rejection was based on the assertion that her husband was involved in offenses that disqualified him from such facilities, according to the Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978, as amended in 2018. -----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner’s husband was eligible for a better class facility under the Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978. 2- Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s application for a better class facility was lawful. 3- Whether the petitioner’s husband’s involvement in serious offenses, including Section 395 PPC and Section 7 of ATA, 1997, disqualified him from receiving the requested facility. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court allowed the writ petition, ruling that: The relevant prison rules (Rule 242) governing better class facilities for prisoners did not exclude first-time offenders like the petitioner’s husband from being granted such facilities. The legal interpretation of "has not been" in Rule 242(2)(c) indicated that this disqualification applied to habitual offenders, not first-time offenders. The court found no evidence that the petitioner’s husband had a criminal history. The rejection of the petitioner’s application was deemed discriminatory, particularly since similarly situated prisoners had been granted better class facilities. The court emphasized that the petitioner’s husband had the right to equal treatment under Article 4 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, and, given his social status, education, and mode of life, he was entitled to better class jail facilities. -----Citations/Precedents: Mst. AASIA alias SALAAM SHAIKH vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF SINDH THROUGH HOME SECRETARY AND 4 OTHERS (1997 P Cr. L J 79) ALI ASGHAR SHAH vs. THE STATE (PLD 2006 Karachi 162) SHAHID BAWANI vs. GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Home Secretary and another (1993 P Cr. L J 2528) PRAMATHA NATH CHOWDHURY AND 17 OTHERS vs. KAMIR MONDAL & OTHERS (PLD 1965 Supreme Court 434) THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER (INVESTIGATION) CIRCLE I, DACCA AND ANOTHER (PLD 1970 Supreme Court 80)

Summary: Background: The appellant, a Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate, was appointed in 2010 and later promoted to BS-18 in 2014. Facing disciplinary proceedings for misconduct, the appellant submitted a resignation in October 2015, which was accepted on February 1, 2016, terminating the proceedings. In 2018, the appellant sought to withdraw the resignation, claiming it was made under duress due to threats from a proscribed organization. This appeal was filed under Section 5 of the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act, 1991, contesting the rejection of the appellant's representation. ----Issues: 1- Was the appellant's resignation voluntary or submitted under duress? 2- Is the appellant entitled to withdraw the resignation after its acceptance? 3- Is the appeal barred by time due to a delay in filing the representation? ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court dismissed the appeal, holding that: The appellant's resignation was voluntary, as no threats or compelling circumstances were mentioned in the resignation letter itself. Once a resignation is accepted by the competent authority, the employee is precluded from withdrawing it, as per established legal principles. The appellant's departmental appeal was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period, making this appeal time-barred. The resignation was accepted in February 2016, but the appellant's appeal was not submitted until April 2018, far beyond the 60-day limit under Section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. ----Citations/Precedents: MUHAMMAD ZAHOOR vs. REGISTRAR LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE (2005 SCMR 1194) Dr. MUHAMMAD MUNIR-UL-HAQ vs. Dr. MUHAMMAD LATIF CHAUDHRY (1992 SCMR 2135) NABEELA KIRAN vs. GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB (2020 PLC (C.S.) 560) Syed FAISAL RAZA GILLANI vs. LAHORE HIGH COURT (2015 PLC (C.S.) 137) SAJJAD HUSSAIN vs. SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS (2012 SCMR 195) MUHAMMAD SALIM KHAN vs. DIRECTOR-GENERAL, BUREAU OF EMIGRATION (1991 SCMR 440) MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs. WAPDA (2007 SCMR 513)

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: The appellant, was implicated in a narcotics case involving the recovery of 40.8 kilograms of contraband charas. He was convicted under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (CNSA, 1997), and sentenced to death by the Special Court for CNS, Lahore. The prosecution alleged that he was apprehended at a police checkpoint, and upon searching his vehicle, narcotics were found in concealed compartments. Shakil-ur-Rehman challenged his conviction, arguing procedural lapses, specifically in the forensic testing process. ----Issues: 1- Whether the forensic report met the legal requirements under Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001. 2- Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. 3- Whether the death sentence was appropriate given the procedural deficiencies in the forensic analysis. 4- Whether the vehicle involved in the case should be returned to its owner, following the acquittal. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal of Shakil-ur-Rehman and set aside his conviction and death sentence due to serious deficiencies in the forensic report. The court emphasized that: The forensic report did not comply with Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, which mandates the provision of full test protocols. The report merely stated that the samples contained charas without detailing the tests and procedures used to arrive at this conclusion. Citing Imam Bakhsh (2018 SCMR 2039) and Khair-ul-Bashar (2019 SCMR 930), the court reiterated that a forensic report that lacks such protocols is inconclusive and unreliable. The court concluded that when stringent penalties like the death sentence are involved, the burden of proof on the prosecution must be strict and beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to meet this standard. Since the prosecution’s case was found unreliable, the death sentence was not confirmed, and Shakil-ur-Rehman was acquitted and ordered to be released. Regarding the vehicle, since the primary charge could not be sustained, the court dismissed the appeal regarding the return of the car to its real owner. ----Citations/Precedents: The State through Regional Director ANF vs. Imam Bakhsh (2018 SCMR 2039) Khair-ul-Bashar vs. The State (2019 SCMR 930) Ameer Zeb vs. The State (PLD 2012 Supreme Court 380) Qaisarullah and others vs. The State (2009 SCMR 579) Mir Muhammad Khan and others vs. Haider and others (PLD 2020 Supreme Court 233) Shahid Pervaiz vs. Ejaz Ahmad and others (2017 SCMR 206) Shafa Ullah Khan vs. The State (2021 SCMR 2005) The court ultimately acquitted Shakil-ur-Rehman, set aside his conviction, and rejected the capital sentence reference for confirmation.