Summary: Petitioner was held entitled to dower by reversing concurrent Judgments and Decrees of the Courts below as Inquiry Report regarding false entry in Nikahnama had no legal basis and stipulations in Nikahnama are construed on the basis of intentions of the parties irrespective of their placement in the columns of Nikahnama.

Summary: [Civil Procedure Code CPC (Return of Plaint- O VII R 10)] The only concern of the plaintiff is that at therelevant time no notification was issued, which could identify theestablishment of Tribunal if it was operating and functioning at therelevant time under section 16 of ibid Act, when the suit was filed. Thisis not borne out of the pleadings as no such grounds have been raised atthe time of invoking jurisdiction of this Court. It was nowhere allegedthat since there is no notification with regard to notifying the tribunal orappointment of presiding officer, therefore, plaintiff was compelled tofile this suit. In the absence of such pleadings, it cannot be presumed orassumed that this Court had to exercise the jurisdiction, whichjurisdiction otherwise vests with the Tribunal

Summary: It is hereby declared that amendment made through section 15 of the Finance Act, 2019 in the Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015, passed through Money Bill (and not through an Act of Parliament) does not fall within the parameters prescribed under Article 73 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, hence, is ultra vires to the Constitution, and is hereby struck down.----The determination revolved around whether the Anti-Dumping Duties Act 2015 ("Act") could be amended through the Finance Act 2019 ("FA 2019") within the bounds of Article 73 of the Constitution.Section 15 of the FA 2019 amended the Act, specifically section 51, which the petitioners challenged as unconstitutional. They argued that the Act's amendment couldn't be undertaken via a money bill, as Article 73 primarily concerns taxation matters, and anti-dumping duties (ADD) are not akin to taxes but penalties.The respondents contended that since ADD is a tariff, it qualifies as a tax, justifying its amendment via a money bill. The court examined whether the amendment complied with Article 73.The Act, aimed at mitigating dumping-induced injuries, doesn't impose a general revenue-raising burden but targets specific purposes. Previous legal interpretations highlight ADD as a penalty rather than a tax or regulatory charge. The court emphasized that not all financial matters relate to taxation and that inserting non-tax-related amendments in a Finance Act doesn't automatically classify it as a Money Bill. It upheld that ADD doesn't fit the definition of tax and cannot be equated with it. Furthermore, a prior court ruling categorized ADD as a penalty for dumping with injury to domestic industries. Consequently, amending the Act through a money bill, as done in FA 2019, was deemed unjustifiable under Article 73. The court's verdict, rendered in March 2021, declared the amendment ultra vires to the Constitution and struck it down, nullifying associated show cause notices/orders and discharging related securities/guarantees. Goods subject to pending ad-interim orders were to be released without demanding ADD. In summary, the court's decision rested on the conclusion that the FA 2019 amendment to the Act via a money bill did not align with the constitutional mandate under Article 73, thus rendering it invalid.

Summary: Background: The case involves the acquisition of land measuring 177-Kanal 2-Marla in village Lab Thathoo, Tehsil Taxila, District Rawalpindi, for the expansion and security of the Air Weapons Complex (AWC). The Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) initiated proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The LAC's award provided compensation for the acquired land, which the landowners found inadequate and subsequently challenged. Multiple appeals arose from the award, leading to the consolidation of R.F.A No. 83, 84, 53 of 2014, and 155 of 2016. ----Issues: 1- Whether the compensation awarded by the LAC was adequate and fair. 2- Whether the acquired land was of commercial nature and if it was assessed correctly. Whether the landowners were entitled to higher compensation based on the commercial potential of the land. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Nature of Land: The court determined that the acquired land was commercial in nature based on evidence presented, including the location and surrounding commercial properties. This was a crucial factor in assessing the compensation. --Adequacy of Compensation: The court found that the compensation awarded by the LAC was not adequate. The Referee Court had enhanced the compensation to Rs. 60,00,000/- per Kanal, which the appellants challenged. The court re-evaluated the evidence and determined that the appropriate compensation should be Rs. 20,00,000/- per Kanal. --Evidentiary Value: The court examined the admissibility of the documents and evidence presented, including a membership form for a housing society, and concluded that the Referee Court had relied too heavily on inadmissible evidence. --Uniformity in Compensation: The court emphasized the need for consistency in compensation for landowners in similar circumstances to prevent discrimination, in line with Article 25 of the Constitution. ----Citations/Precedents: Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence and another v. Jaffar Khan and others (PLD 2010 Supreme Court 604) Askari Cement Limited (formerly Associated Cement Limited) through Chief Executive v. Land Acquisition Collector (Industries) Punjab and others (2013 SCMR 1644) Manzoor Hussain (deceased) through L.Rs. v. Misri Khan (PLD 2020 Supreme Court 749) Muhammad Iqbal v. Mehboob Alam (2015 SCMR 21) Gulzar Hussain v. Abdur Rehman and another (1985 SCMR 301) Pervez Akhtar and others v. Land Acquisition Collector and others (PLD 2022 Lahore 730) Federal Government of Pakistan through Ministry of Defence Rawalpindi and others v. Mst. Zakia Begum and others (PLD 2023 Supreme Court 277) Mst. Akhtar Sultana v. Major Retd. Muzaffar Khan Malik through his legal heirs and others (PLD 2021 Supreme Court 715) Air Weapon Complex through DG v. Muhammad Aslam and others (2018 SCMR 779)

Summary: Acquittal granted---Background: Ali Ahsan alias Sunny was convicted for the murder of Saddam Khalid, based on FIR No.227 of 2017 registered under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) at the police station Kallur Kot, District Bhakkar. The trial court sentenced Sunny to death and imposed a compensation of Rs. 500,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased. This conviction and the subsequent appeals (Crl. Appeal No.193932 of 2018 by the appellant, Crl. Appeal No.206624 of 2018 by the complainant, and Murder Reference No.164 of 2018) were addressed in this judgment. ----Issues: 1- Whether the conviction of Ali Ahsan alias Sunny was justified based on the evidence presented. 2- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and procedural lapses affected the prosecution's case. 3- The credibility of the eyewitnesses and their presence at the scene. 4- Whether the recovery of the murder weapon (knife) was credible. 5- Whether the acquittal of co-accused Touseef was justified. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ---Issue 1: Justification of Conviction The court found numerous inconsistencies and procedural lapses in the prosecution's case, including delays in lodging the FIR and discrepancies in witness testimonies. The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the conclusion that the conviction was not justified. ---Issue 2: Delay in FIR and Procedural Lapses The court noted that the FIR was ante-timed and not entered as required by law, casting doubt on the prosecution's timeline. This delay and the failure to follow proper procedures weakened the credibility of the prosecution's case. ---Issue 3: Credibility of Eyewitnesses The court found inconsistencies in the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, Muhammad Khalid (PW-8) and Nadir Ali (PW-9), regarding their presence at the scene and their actions during the incident. Their accounts conflicted with other evidence, making their presence and testimonies doubtful. ---Issue 4: Recovery of Murder Weapon The recovery of the knife was found to be suspicious. The weapon was allegedly found in the appellant's house long after the incident, and there was no credible evidence that it was the same weapon used in the murder. The investigating officer's testimony further undermined the credibility of this recovery. ---Issue 5: Acquittal of Co-accused Touseef The court upheld the acquittal of Touseef, finding no substantial evidence linking him to the crime. The prosecution failed to provide credible evidence against him, and the principles of criminal jurisprudence supported his acquittal. Criminal Appeal No.193932 of 2018 by Ali Ahsan alias Sunny was accepted, and his conviction and death sentence were set aside. He was acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released. Murder Reference No.164 of 2018 was answered in the negative, meaning the death sentence was not confirmed. Criminal Appeal No.206624 of 2018 filed by the complainant against the acquittal of Touseef was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.

Summary: Promotion (/disciplinary proceedings is no ground for denying for promotion, Selection Board-II shall consider the Petitioner's case fairly )

Summary: The appellate court can interfere in an order passed in contempt of court petition refusing to initiate proceedings against the contemnor where some serious question of law is prima facie made out or some case of grave miscarriage of justice is established either by reason of the fact that the findings sought to be impugned could not have been arrived at by any reasonable person or that the findings are so ridiculous, shocking or improbable that to uphold such finding would amount to a travesty of justice. Only when the finding of a High Court refusing to initiate proceedings for civil contempt is arbitrary, perverse, ridiculous or improbable, can the same be interfered with by the appellate court.

Summary: ''Before passing detention order, the competent authority must have reasons to believe that said person within his territorial jurisdiction has acted, is acting or is about to act in a manner which is prejudicial to public safety or maintenance of public order'' ----- (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 4, 9, 10, 10A, 13(a), 199 Fundamental right to liberty—Preventive detention under Section 3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 (MPO)—Judicial review of executive action—Petitioner challenged the detention orders of his brothers, Abdul Rehman alias Mooni and Nasir Malik, passed by Deputy Commissioner, Gujrat, under S.3, MPO—Contention raised that the impugned orders violated constitutional protections under Arts. 4, 9, and 10A, as they were issued without any substantive evidence or material—Held, that liberty is a fundamental right, and no person shall be deprived of it except in accordance with law—Art.10A guarantees the right to a fair trial, and any executive order infringing this right must be subject to judicial scrutiny—Detention based on mere police recommendations, without specific evidence demonstrating an imminent threat to public order, is unconstitutional—Court held that mere apprehension without valid reason or cogent material cannot justify preventive detention—Impugned orders were declared illegal and set aside. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Irshad v. Government of Punjab (2020 P Cr. L J 206) • Abdul Latif Shamshad Ahmad v. District Magistrate, Kasur (1999 P Cr. L J 2014) • Mst. Sana Jamil v. Government of Punjab (2016 P Cr. L J 424) • Syed Mubbashar Raza v. Government of Punjab (PLD 2015 Lahore 20) (b) Preventive Detention—Scope and Judicial Review ----S.3, West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 Preventive detention—Judicial review—Requirement of objective satisfaction—Burden of proof on detaining authority—Held, that preventive detention is an extraordinary measure meant to prevent imminent threats to public safety, not a tool for arbitrary or punitive detention—Detaining authority must demonstrate through substantive material that the detenus are currently engaged in or preparing to engage in activities prejudicial to public order—Mere reliance on police recommendations or vague allegations is insufficient to justify preventive detention—Court observed that no independent material was placed before the Deputy Commissioner to justify detention, apart from the police reports—Held, that preventive detention in such circumstances is an abuse of executive power—Impugned orders were declared unlawful and set aside. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Zafar Iqbal v. Sadozai Khan (2021 YLR 1206) • Maqsood Yameen v. R.P.O. Multan (2015 P Cr. L J 923) (c) Public Order vs. Law and Order ----Interpretation of “public order” in preventive detention cases Distinction between public order, law and order, and security of the State—Held, that preventive detention under S.3, MPO, is justified only when an individual poses an immediate and significant threat to public order—Public order refers to disturbances affecting society at large, not individual criminal conduct—Court reiterated that “law and order” concerns individual acts, whereas “public order” relates to broader societal disruption—Detaining authorities failed to establish that the detenus had engaged in any activities prejudicial to public safety—Allegations in FIR No. 250/2023 registered against the detenus under Ss. 341, 188, 147, and 149, PPC were held to be separate criminal matters and could not be used to justify preventive detention—Held, that pending criminal cases must be dealt with through due process, and preventive detention cannot serve as an alternative mechanism to criminal prosecution—Impugned orders were declared unlawful. Cited Cases: • Mrs. Arshad Ali Khan v. Government of Punjab (1994 SCMR 1532) • Faizabad Dharna Case (PLD 2019 SC 318) (d) Absence of Evidence—Violation of Due Process ----Burden of proof on detaining authority—Subjective satisfaction must be based on tangible evidence Held, that executive authorities must substantiate their decision to detain an individual under preventive detention laws—In the present case, apart from the District Police Officer’s report, no independent material was placed before the Deputy Commissioner to justify detention—Mere apprehension or suspicion, without any tangible proof of involvement in anti-State activities or incitement to violence, is insufficient to justify deprivation of liberty—Court emphasized that preventive detention must meet strict legal requirements and should not be used arbitrarily—Impugned orders were declared illegal and set aside. Cited Cases: • Abdul Rasheed Bhatti v. Government of Punjab (PLD 2010 Lahore 484) • Munir Hussain Bhatti v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2011 SC 407) (e) Principle of Fair Trial and Double Jeopardy ----Arts. 10A & 13(a), Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 Preventive detention based on pending criminal cases—Violation of fair trial principles—Double jeopardy—Held, that a person facing trial in criminal cases cannot be detained under preventive detention laws based on the same allegations—Such detention amounts to double jeopardy, violating Art. 13(a) of the Constitution—Art.10A guarantees the right to due process, and executive action that undermines this right is unconstitutional—Court reaffirmed that an accused person must be tried through due process of law, and preventive detention cannot be used as an alternative to criminal prosecution—Detention of the petitioner’s brothers, solely based on a pending FIR, was held to be in violation of constitutional protections and was struck down. Cited Cases: • Abdul Rasheed Bhatti v. Government of Punjab (PLD 2010 Lahore 484) (f) Executive Overreach and Limited Government ----Arts. 90, 99, Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 Judicial review of executive discretion—Misuse of preventive detention laws—Held, that executive authorities must exercise their power within constitutional and legal limits—Preventive detention laws must not be used arbitrarily, and courts have the duty to intervene where fundamental rights are violated—Deputy Commissioner’s order lacked independent reasoning and was based solely on police recommendations, which is insufficient justification for curtailing personal liberty—Court reiterated that excessive delegation of detention powers to administrative authorities must be subject to strict judicial scrutiny to prevent misuse—Detention orders lacking lawful basis are liable to be struck down. Cited Cases: • Lahore Development Authority v. Imrana Tiwana (2015 SCMR 1739) • Federation of Pakistan v. Mustafa Impex (2016 SCMR 447) (g) Disposition Impugned detention orders found illegal, arbitrary, and without lawful justification—Preventive detention must be based on substantive grounds affecting public order rather than pending criminal charges—No reasonable apprehension of public disorder established—Impugned orders set aside—Petition allowed, and detenus ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

Summary: (a) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)-------S. 15---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2)---Eviction petition---Tenant claiming adverse title---Abuse of process of court---Scope---Eviction petition filed by landlord was allowed and the said order was maintained up to High Court---Tenant, in execution proceedings, filed an application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. wherein he claimed that the attorney of landlord had sold out the demised premises to him---Application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. was concurrently dismissed by executing court and appellate court---Validity---Landlord had never informed the tenant about his intentions to sale the demised premises---Tenant, before entering into sale purchase of the demised premises with the attorney, should have insisted upon withdrawal of execution petition filed against him---Tenant could not defeat the order of Rent Controller by claiming title adverse to the title of landlord who had put him in possession of demised premises as tenant---Petition was dismissed and Rent Controller was directed by the High Court to issue writ of possession of the demised premises within 15 days. [Paras. 7 & 9 of the judgment] Muhammad Nisar v. Izhar Ahmed Shaikh and others PLD 2014 SC 347 rel.(b) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)-------S. 15---Eviction petition---Adverse title, claim of---Scope---Tenant cannot defeat the order of Rent Controller by claiming title adverse to the title of landlord who has put him in possession of demised premises as tenant. [Para. 7 of the judgment]

Summary: Background: The petitioner, filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, challenging an order dated April 6, 2022, by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore, and seeking re-investigation of an anti-corruption case (FIR No. 24/2019) against a Patwari (land record official). The petitioner alleged that the investigation was not properly conducted, and his witnesses were not included in the investigation process. The case related to charges of corruption and bribery under Section 161 of the PPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA). -----Issues: 1- Whether the investigation into the corruption allegations was conducted properly, as required by law. 2- Whether the cancellation reports filed during the investigation, which were based on non-participation by the complainant and witnesses, were legally sufficient. 3- Whether the impugned order passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore, agreeing to the cancellation report, was valid. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Investigation Flaws: The court held that the investigation was flawed as it was based solely on the non-appearance of the complainant and witnesses, without making proper efforts to summon them through legal means, such as arrest warrants, proclamations, and attachment orders. The court emphasized that the allegations against the accused (Patwari) were not investigated on their merits, as required by law. Cancellation Reports: Both cancellation reports (dated September 5, 2020, and December 13, 2021) were deemed defective since they were prepared without taking the necessary legal steps to compel the attendance of witnesses or thoroughly investigating the allegations. The court found that the cancellation reports lacked any substantial investigation into the veracity of the allegations. Impugned Order Set Aside: The court set aside the impugned order of April 6, 2022, passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore, and remanded the case back for re-decision. The Special Judge was instructed to pass a fresh order after reconsidering the second cancellation report within 30 days, taking into account the required legal processes for summoning witnesses and collecting evidence. -----Citations/Precedents: Bank of Punjab vs. Haris Steel Industries (PLD 2010 SC 1109) Afzal Ahmad vs. City Police Officer Faisalabad (PLD 2022 Lahore 721) Saira Fatima Sadozai vs. D.I.G. Investigation (2023 PCr.LJ 427) Muhammad Zafar Iqbal vs. Sadozai Khan (2021 YLR 1206) Maqsood Yameen vs. R.P.O. Multan (2015 PCr.LJ 923)