Summary: Background:Mumtaz Ali, the appellant, was indicted in Accountability Court-I, Sukkur, for misappropriation of government funds under Section 9 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 (NAO, 1999). He was convicted by the Accountability Court and sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.61,79,238. After an appeal, the High Court reduced his sentence to the period already served but maintained the conviction and the fine. As part of the bail conditions, Mumtaz Ali had deposited the entire fine amount with the Supreme Court's Assistant Registrar.----Issues:Whether the deposited fine amount should be returned to the appellant or remain with the National Accountability Bureau (NAB).Whether the appellant's son, acting as surety, should be discharged from liability.----Holding:The Court dismissed the application for the return of surety and directed the Office to hand over the Defense Savings Certificates to the NAB for encashment of the liability determined by the NAB Court and affirmed by the High Court. Any excess amount after encashment would be refunded to the applicant after adjusting the liability/fine.----Citations/Precedents:Shamraiz Khan vs. The State (2000 SCMR 157)State and others vs. Muhammad Kaleem Bhatti and others (PLJ 2020 SC (Cr.C.) 225)----Key Points:The appellant voluntarily deposited the fine amount as part of the bail conditions, not as surety.The fine amount was determined by the NAB Court and affirmed by the High Court, making it a confirmed liability.The provisions of Section 33-E of the NAO, 1999 govern the recovery of fines, which is not controlled by Section 70 of the PPC.Imprisonment in default of payment of fine does not absolve the liability to pay the fine.Any excess amount after encashment of Defense Savings Certificates would be refunded to the applicant.The Court held that the deposited amount should be handed over to the NAB for encashment, and any excess amount would be refunded to the applicant after adjusting the liability/fine.

Summary: Background:This case involves multiple civil appeals (Nos. 26-K to 38-K of 2021) against a common judgment dated 08.04.2021 by the Sindh High Court, Karachi, which dismissed various constitutional petitions related to the regularization of services. The appellants, initially appointed on a contract basis as Deputy District Attorneys and other positions, sought regularization under the Sindh (Regularization of Adhoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013. Despite fulfilling the criteria and being in service, their regularization was not processed, prompting them to approach the High Court. The High Court, while dismissing their petitions, also declared the 2013 Act ultra vires (beyond the powers) without the appellants challenging the Act?s validity.----Issues:Whether the appellants, being contractual employees, were entitled to regularization under the Sindh (Regularization of Adhoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013.Whether the Sindh High Court could declare the 2013 Act ultra vires without it being directly challenged and in the absence of any aggrieved parties challenging its validity.------Holding/Reasoning:The Supreme Court found that the Sindh High Court had overreached its jurisdiction by declaring the 2013 Act ultra vires when the appellants had not challenged the Act's validity. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court does not possess suo motu jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution similar to the Supreme Court's under Article 184(3). The judgment by the High Court affected the rights of numerous employees already regularized or under consideration for regularization without giving them an opportunity to be heard, violating Article 10-A of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair trial and due process.The Supreme Court held that the High Court should have confined its decision to whether the appellants were entitled to regularization under the 2013 Act, rather than delving into the validity of the Act itself. The Supreme Court underscored the principle that courts should aim to uphold laws rather than striking them down, ensuring not to overstep their jurisdictional bounds.-----Citations/Precedents:Dr. Imran Khattak v. Ms. Sofia Waqar Khattak, establishing limits on judicial jurisdiction.Jahanzaib Malik v. Balochistan Public Procurement Regulatory Authority, on the High Court's lack of suo motu jurisdiction.Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and others v. Muhammad Habib Wahab Al-Khairi and others, regarding the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution.Raja Muhammad Nadeem v. The State and another, Mian Irfan Bashir v. The Deputy Commissioner, Lahore and others, and M/s Sadiq Poultry (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, all reinforcing the High Court's lack of suo motu jurisdiction and the principle of judicial restraint.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: ----Ss.376 & 383---Police official---Succession certificate---Death on duty---Compensation amount---Tarka---Scope---Petitioner/widow of Shaheed police official was aggrieved of inclusion of name of mother of deceased in succession certificate pertaining to compensation amount awarded on death in line of duty---Validity---Compensation granted to a person after his death does not fall within the definition of Tarka---Mother of deceased could not claim any share in compensation amount---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside order passed by Lower Appellate Court and restored that of Trial Court, excluding name of mother of deceased from succession certificate for amount in question---Revision was allowed accordingly. Jamil Shah for Petitioner. Munir Ahmed Kakar for Respondent No. 1. Allauddin Kakar, Assistant Advocate General for Respondents Nos. 2 to 4. Date of hearing: 22nd December, 2023. NAZEER AHMED LANGOVE, J.--- This petition is directed against the order dated 24th July 2019, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-I Quetta with powers of District Judge Quetta (in revocation application No.04/2016), and order dated 7th August 2021, passed by the learned Additional District Judge-II, Qetta (in appeal No.02/2020), with the prayer to set aside the orders passed by the courts below and to dismiss respondents Nos. 1, 5 and 6's application for revocation of succession certificate No. 56/2015, dated 19th November 2015.

Summary: ----Ss.376 & 383---Police official---Succession certificate---Death on duty---Compensation amount---Tarka---Scope---Petitioner/widow of Shaheed police official was aggrieved of inclusion of name of mother of deceased in succession certificate pertaining to compensation amount awarded on death in line of duty---Validity---Compensation granted to a person after his death does not fall within the definition of Tarka---Mother of deceased could not claim any share in compensation amount---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside order passed by Lower Appellate Court and restored that of Trial Court, excluding name of mother of deceased from succession certificate for amount in question---Revision was allowed accordingly. Jamil Shah for Petitioner. Munir Ahmed Kakar for Respondent No. 1. Allauddin Kakar, Assistant Advocate General for Respondents Nos. 2 to 4. Date of hearing: 22nd December, 2023.

Summary: a) Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925) –– Ss. 372, 376 & 383 –– Succession certificate –– Revocation –– Government compensation for martyrdom –– Whether such amount constitutes "Tarka" –– Validity –– Petitioner (widow of deceased) was granted succession certificate in 2015 regarding Government compensation awarded after martyrdom of her husband –– Respondents (mother and daughters of deceased) filed revocation application alleging improper exclusion of legal heirs –– Trial Court and Appellate Court allowed revocation and granted succession certificate afresh as per Sharai Fatwa –– Held, latest Fatwa clarified that government compensation awarded after the death of a person does not fall within the definition of "Tarka" (inheritable estate), therefore, mother of deceased was not entitled to claim share in such posthumous benefit –– Further held, prior succession certificate was validly issued, and orders of courts below suffered from legal infirmity –– Rights of minor daughters were protected through declaration and assurance by maternal uncle who undertook responsibility for safeguarding their share –– Orders of courts below set aside and original succession certificate restored. Cited Case: • Mst. Hussain Jamala v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (PLD 2013 Peshawar 01) Disposition: Revision allowed; succession certificate dated 19th November 2015 restored. **(b) Islamic Law –– Compensation awarded posthumously by State –– Not part of "Tarka" –– Fatwa –– Applicability –– Held, only the wealth and assets owned or due to deceased during their lifetime constitute Tarka for the purpose of Islamic inheritance –– Financial benefits or compensation granted by the government after death as an ex gratia gesture or in recognition of service/martyrdom do not qualify as estate property and hence are not distributable among heirs as per inheritance law –– Fatwa dated 1st June 2023 by Mufti Gul Hassan reaffirmed this principle –– Accordingly, mother of deceased could not claim share in such amount. Disposition: Revision allowed. **(c) Civil Procedure –– Protection of minors’ interest –– Assurance of guardianship –– Unregistered property –– Relevance –– Minor daughters’ rights in succession were secured through their maternal uncle who undertook responsibility for preserving their share –– Though property purchased in their name was not yet registered, the Court accepted the undertaking of guardian and considered the arrangement sufficient under the circumstances –– Held, minors’ legal entitlements remained safeguarded and were not prejudiced by restoration of original succession certificate. Disposition: Revision allowed.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Provisioning of private benefit by non-profit organization disentitles it from claiming concession and benefits under Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.

Summary: Summary pending