Summary: Background: The case involves the petitioners, Qadeer Ali and others, who are employees of the projects. These projects, initially on a development budget, were later converted to a non-development budget. The petitioners, appointed on a contractual basis, sought regularization of their services from the date of their initial appointments. ----Issues: The primary issue is whether the petitioners, being employees of projects converted from the development side to the non-development side, are entitled to be regularized as a matter of right. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the petitioners are not entitled to regularization as a matter of right. The judgment articulated several key points: There is no inherent right to regularization merely because a project has transitioned from development to non-development status. The terms and conditions of the petitioners' employment are governed by the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, and related rules and policies. The petitioners must undergo a competitive process for regularization, as mandated by the government's uniform policy. The policy provides safeguards such as age relaxation and additional marks for experience to benefit the project employees during the recruitment process. The court directed that the recruitment process for the regular posts should adhere to these safeguards and that the petitioners, currently in service, should continue working until the recruitment process is completed. ----Citations/Precedents: Government of the Punjab through Secretary Environment Protection Department, Lahore, & another v. Maqsood Ahmed & others (Supreme Court of Pakistan, Civil Appeal Nos. 275 and 276 of 2014) The Supreme Court held that project employees could not be dismissed arbitrarily when their roles transitioned to permanent non-development departments. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary and others v. Muhammad Younas (2021 SCMR 1045) The Supreme Court determined that project employees do not have an automatic right to regularization. Mst. Samrana Nawaz and others v. M.C.B. Bank Ltd. and others (PLD 2021 SC 581) The Supreme Court held that in case of conflicting judgments, the earlier one should be followed. ---Qupte: ''Following question has been put for opinion of this Court: "Whether an employee of a project that has been converted from the development side to non-development side, is entitled to be regularized, as a matter of right? Held that the legal question is well settled in case titled "Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary and others v. Muhammad Younas" (2021 SCMR 1045). It has been further observed that in the Province of Punjab, earlier there was no policy for regularization of the project employees, however, now through letter dated 06.06.2022, certain safeguards are put in place for the benefit of the project employees by way of age relaxation as also additional marks (maximum upto 10 marks) additional marks on account of experience during the life of the project and therefore, project employees seeking employment on regular basis are obligated to compete alongwith other candidates. However, it has also been observed that the respondents have intended to continue the Projects and converted the same from the development to non-development side. Any organization aims at continuity in its working and functions which may run into difficulty if the serving employees are ousted from the service and asked to compete in the process. Therefore, it is prudent that the petitioners, who are admittedly in service, are allowed to continue to work till the completion of the process of recruitment, on regular basis, through competitive process and further continuation of the petitioners would be determined only if they qualify and stand on the merit list.''

Summary: Acquittal granted --- Background: The petitioners, Abdul Hameed (a junior clerk at the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge IV East Karachi) and Khawaja Saeed Ahmed (a private individual), along with Muhammad Asif Nawaz (surety for accused Adnan Afzal), were convicted by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Provincial), Karachi on October 28, 2022. They were sentenced under Section 409 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Their convictions were upheld by the High Court of Sindh at Karachi, leading them to file criminal petitions for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. ----Issues: Whether the petitioners, Abdul Hameed and Khawaja Saeed Ahmed, along with Muhammad Asif Nawaz, were rightly convicted under Section 409/34 PPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Whether the acquittal of surety Muhammad Asif Nawaz by the Appellate Court affects the standing of the convictions of the petitioners. ---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Section 409/34 PPC Conviction: The Supreme Court found no evidence of mens rea or illegal consideration received by Abdul Hameed from Khawaja Saeed Ahmed or Muhammad Asif Nawaz. The prosecution failed to prove that the petitioners misappropriated the Defence Saving Certificates (DSCs) or converted them to their own use. Thus, the conviction under Section 409/34 PPC could not be sustained. Section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act Conviction: Similar deficiencies in the prosecution’s case led the Court to conclude that no offense under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, was made out against the petitioners. Acquittal of Muhammad Asif Nawaz: The Appellate Court's decision to acquit Muhammad Asif Nawaz, the beneficiary of the encashed DSCs, was significant. His acquittal, unchallenged by the State, raised further questions about the convictions of Abdul Hameed and Khawaja Saeed Ahmed. Based on these reasons, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the judgments of the High Court and the trial court. The petitioners were acquitted and ordered to be released if not detained in any other case. ---Citations/Precedents: The judgment emphasized the importance of proving mens rea and illegal consideration for convictions under Sections 409/34 PPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The acquittal of a co-accused (Muhammad Asif Nawaz) played a crucial role in reassessing the guilt of the petitioners, highlighting the need for consistency in judicial reasoning. ----Conclusion: The Supreme Court of Pakistan acquitted Abdul Hameed and Khawaja Saeed Ahmed due to insufficient evidence of criminal intent and misappropriation, setting aside the lower courts' judgments and ordering their release.

Summary: Bail granted ---Background:The petitioner, Ch. Pervaiz Elahi, filed a petition under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, seeking post-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 09/2023 dated 03.06.2023. The FIR was registered under sections 420, 468, 471, 161, 162, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, along with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, at Police Station ACE, Lahore. The allegations involved the petitioner heading a departmental selection committee meeting on 09.08.2021, where it was claimed that the results of a written examination were altered through forgery. The petitioner had previously been conditionally granted bail, which was later revoked, leading to the current petition after a previous dismissal.-----Issues:Whether the petitioner, being an eighty-year-old citizen, is entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of age and other mitigating factors.Whether the prosecution has provided sufficient evidence to justify the denial of bail under the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C.Whether the alleged forgery dated 09.08.2021 can be substantiated when the results were published by Open Testing Service on 29.07.2021.Whether the recovery of Rs. 4,100,000/- and a laptop provides reasonable grounds for the petitioner's involvement in the alleged crimes.Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court granted the petitioner's request for post-arrest bail, finding that the case required further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt. The court noted several critical points:The FIR's allegations appeared implausible as the results were published before the alleged date of forgery.The prosecution did not provide specific details about the currency notes recovered, undermining the recovery's evidentiary value.The prosecution failed to explain the two-year delay in lodging the FIR.The court emphasized that bail should not be withheld as a form of punishment and cited the Supreme Court's stance that bail can be granted if reasonable grounds to believe the accused's guilt are not sufficiently established.----Citations/Precedents:Alam Khan and Others Versus The State (2022 P Cr. LJ 338)Mehboob Hassan Versus Akhtar Islam and Others (2024 SCMR 757)Imtiaz Ahmed and another Versus The State (PLD 1997 Supreme Court 545)Mst. Bashiran Bibi Versus Nisar Ahmad Khan and Others (PLD 1990 Supreme Court 83)Salman Mushtaq and Others Versus The State through P.G. Punjab and another (2024 SCMR 14)Zaigham Ashraf Versus The State and Others (2016 SCMR 18)Tariq Bashir and 5 Others Versus The State (PLD 1995 Supreme Court 34)Manzoor and 4 Others Versus The State (PLD 1972 Supreme Court 81)Chairman, National Accountability Bureau through P.G., NAB Versus Nisar Ahmed Pathan and Others (PLD 2022 Supreme Court 475)Khalid Saigol Versus The State (PLD 1962 Supreme Court 495)Husnain Mustafa Versus The State and another (2019 SCMR 1914)

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 497(5)—Grant and cancellation of pre-arrest bail—Principles—Misapplication of judicial discretion— Respondent, a former Medical Superintendent, was granted pre-arrest bail by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption in a case involving alleged embezzlement of hospital funds earmarked for poor patients—Held, pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy rooted in equity and may only be granted upon a showing of malice, ulterior motive, or risk of irreparable harm—Trial court granted bail without addressing whether a prima facie case existed or considering the nature of the allegations—Such omission constituted gross misapplication of judicial discretion—Where charges are based on documentary evidence and directly implicate the accused, judicial protection is not warranted unless supported by exceptional circumstances. Cited Cases: • Gulshan Ali Solangi v. The State 2020 SCMR 249 • Hidayat Ullah Khan v. The Crown PLD 1949 Lahore 21 • Saeed Ullah v. The State 2023 SCMR 1997 • Aurangzeb v. Muhammad Yaqoob 2022 PCr.LJ 1047 (b) Gilgit-Baltistan Anti-Corruption Establishment Act, 2019—Non-compliance with statutory requirements—Effect— Accused alleged that FIR was registered in violation of S.8 of the GB Anti-Corruption Act and that he was not originally named by the complainant—Held, registration of FIR followed a formal inquiry assigning responsibility to the respondent along with co-accused—FIR directly charged respondent in his capacity as Medical Superintendent—Allegation of false implication was without substance—Where public funds are involved and official capacity is misused, role of the accused must be examined through proper custodial investigation—Bail granted in disregard of statutory framework liable to be set aside. (c) Criminal Trial—Pre-arrest bail—Misleading court regarding cooperation of accused—Duty of trial court— Trial court granted bail partly on ground that prosecution admitted respondent’s cooperation—Held, such attribution to Prosecutor and Investigating Officer was factually incorrect and not supported by record—Trial court failed to record their statements or verify the claim—Bail order based on unsupported assumption rendered invalid—Courts must verify critical assertions, especially in corruption cases involving public office. Principle: Judicial orders must be based on record and verified facts; courts should not speculate on cooperation without recording evidence. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 497(5) & 561-A—Scope of High Court’s revisional jurisdiction—Improper exercise of discretion by trial court— High Court converted petition under S.497(5), Cr.P.C. into criminal revision and set aside pre-arrest bail order—Held, judicial protection extended on irrelevant and non-legal grounds amounts to abuse of discretion—Such orders, if sustained, create dangerous precedent and erode the standard of justice—High Court is empowered to intervene where trial court’s order is contrary to established legal principles. Order of trial court set aside; pre-arrest bail withdrawn. Revision allowed.

Summary: Punjab Local Government Act (XXXIII of 2022)--- ----S.186---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199--- Constitutional petition---Tenure post---Security of tenure---Petitioner was Municipal Officer and was transferred by Election Commission from his place of appointment to another place---Validity---Petitioner did not claim any vested right against any particular post but only wanted implementation of security of tenure provided under section 186 of Punjab Local Government Act, 2022---High Court set aside notification of transfer of petitioner as there was a ban imposed by the Election Commission---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. Rana Asif Saeed, Mehr Irshad Ahmad Arain, Syed Khawar Sahahzad and Ghulam Mustafa for Petitioner. Arshad Pervaiz Qureshi, Assistant Advocate General with Riaz Ahmad, Senior Law Officer on behalf of Secretary Local Government and Community Development Department for the Province of Punjab. Date of hearing: 17th May, 2024.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: In the present case, the petitioner failed to complete requisite qualification of B.Ed. within the cut-off date (even after expiry of period of contract) and mainly relied upon the cases of two individuals namely, Hussain Farabi of District Okara and Syed Atta-ul-Mustafa of District Faisalabad to contend that the said individuals were not only allowed extension in time to complete B.Ed. but their services were also regularized. Prima facie, the relaxation to similarly placed person is in negation of the uniform policy, which the government has put in place that no such extension shall be granted, therefore, this Court held that the principle of similarly placed person alone cannot be taken as ground for seeking the same benefit if same is not backed by any policy. It has been further held that the principle of similarly placed person in light of Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 can be examined from another angle. The requirement to complete B.Ed qualification was fully applicable across the Province of Punjab and hundreds of other employees of the Education Department, who could not obtain the said qualification, were not extended relief (by way of extension to complete B.Ed) and only two instances have been brought before this Court i.e., case of Hussain Farabi and Syed Atta-ul-Mustafa. This fact itself indicates that the Department is consistent across the Province by adhering to the applicable policy, clarified vide letter dated 03.09.2018 issued with approval of the Administrative Secretary, and majority of such employees were not extended any relief. If doctrine of similarly placed person is to be applied, the petitioners should also not be extended any such relief as any contra decision (like in case of Hussain Farabi and Syed Atta-ul-Mustafa), will become a case of reverse discrimination qua those individuals across the Province who have been denied the extension and their constitutional petitions were dismissed by this Court and they remained unsuccessful in appeals.

Summary: Summary pending