Summary: Background: The applicant, currently detained in District Jail Mirpur, was convicted under Arms Act by the Additional Tehsil Criminal Court No. II, Mirpur. The applicant was sentenced to multiple terms of simple imprisonment and fines. The applicant filed an appeal, and the District Criminal Court partly reduced the sentences. The applicant now seeks bail, claiming that he has completed his sentence. ----Issues: 1- Whether the applicant, having completed his sentence as per the jail superintendent's letter, should be released on bail pending the adjudication of appeals. 2- Whether the sentence should be suspended in light of the pending appeal and the principle favoring bail for short-term sentences. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Completion of Sentence: The court found that the applicant has completed his sentence as per the jail superintendent's letter dated 21.11.2023, which indicated the release date as 18.10.2023. Suspension of Sentence: The court referenced a judgment by the Hon’ble Apex Court of AJ&K, which established that when an appeal is pending, sentences for short-term imprisonment should generally be suspended unless exceptional circumstances warrant otherwise. The court emphasized that allowing the sentence to run out during the pendency of the appeal would render the appeal practically infructuous. The court ordered the release of the applicant on bail, provided a bail bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- and a personal bond in the same amount are furnished to the satisfaction of any Magistrate 1st class Mirpur. This is conditional on the applicant not being required or involved in any other case or offense. ----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Shafique Vs. The State (AJ&K Supreme Court Judgment, 19.06.2021) "It is now well settled principle that when a person is convicted and sentenced to a short term imprisonment, the normal rule is that when his appeal is pending the sentence should be suspended and rejection is only exceptional. In such cases endeavor should be made to have the appeal posted for early hearing and disposal. If the short term sentence is allowed to run out during the pendency of the appeal, the appeal itself will become, for all practical purpose, infructuous."

Summary: Soft Copy of Station Diary shall be prepared in addition to manual Record. Direction regarding maintenance of Station Diary issued.

Summary: Bail granted----(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898):----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F---Post-arrest bail---Cheque dishonor---Delay in lodging FIR---Scope and legal effect---Where FIR under S. 489-F, P.P.C. was lodged with a delay of over 26 days without plausible explanation, such delay was held fatal for the prosecution at bail stage---The offence not falling under the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C., bail was a rule and jail an exception---No specific allegation of dishonest intention or existing liability was disclosed in FIR---Case held to require further inquiry.---Cited Cases:• Riaz Jafar Natiq v. Muhammad Nadeem Dar (2011 SCMR 1708)• Abdul Hafeez v. The State (2016 SCMR 1439)• Muhammad Ramzan v. The State (2020 SCMR 717)• Muhammad Sarfaraz v. The State (2014 SCMR 1032)(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860):----S. 489-F---Elements---Dishonest issuance of cheque---Cheque must be for repayment of loan or liability---Cheque must be dishonored at fault of accused---No explicit evidence of any legally enforceable liability, nor explanation provided regarding issuance of cheque---Complainant failed to provide any corroborative evidence or motive---Held, mere dishonor of cheque insufficient without fulfillment of statutory ingredients of the offence.Cited Case:• Hakim Ali Zardari v. The State (PLD 1998 SC 1)(c) Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881):----S. 84(1) & (2)---Reasonable presentation time---Cheque presented for encashment after six months of its due date considered stale in trade and banking practice---Bank not obliged to honor such instruments unless instructed otherwise by drawer---Held, legal action based on such stale cheque not sustainable.Cited Reference:• Sheldon’s Practice and Law of Banking (10th Edition)• M.L. Tannan, Banking Laws and Practice in India (14th Edition)(d) Bail Principles:----Grant of bail in non-prohibitory offences---S. 489-F, P.P.C. punishable with up to 3 years’ imprisonment---Quantum of alleged amount irrelevant for purposes of bail---Even where charge involves substantial sums, bail cannot be denied merely due to seriousness unless supported by risk of abscondence, tampering with evidence, or repetition of offence.Cited Case:• Saeed Ahmed v. The State (1995 SCMR 170)----Disposition:Bail granted; applicant admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing solvent surety of Rs. 500,000 and personal bond in like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. Trial court directed to frame charge and record complainant’s evidence within one month.

Summary: Appointment cannot be rejected for reason that the candidate is over qualified --- Despite being at the top of the merit list, he was not appointed because he was deemed overqualified. --- Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa criticized the provincial government for what he deemed frivolous litigation, highlighting that disqualifying a highly qualified candidate deprived both the candidate and the students of the benefits of superior knowledge. The court found no reason to interfere with the high court's judgment, declined leave to appeal, and dismissed the petition. The court ordered the government to pay two hundred thousand rupees in costs to Amjad ur Rahman and instructed the government to implement the judgment regarding his appointment by December 31, 2023. The court warned of contempt proceedings against the Secretary of Elementary & Secondary Education if the judgment was not complied with. The Chief Justice also emphasized the need to avoid generating unnecessary litigation, urging responsible officials to prevent such challenges without valid legal reasons, which drain government resources funded by taxpayers.

Summary: The cases were directed to be fixed for hearing in early January 2024 before a Bench constituted by the Committee under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023.--- The key focus of the appeals is the duration of the disqualification. The appellants argued for a lifelong disqualification, citing the precedent set in the case of Sami Ullah Baloch v Abdul Karim Nausherwani. On the other hand, the respondents argued that the disqualification period should be limited to five years, as per section 232(2) of the Elections Act, 2017, enacted through the Elections (Amendment) Act, 2023.The court recognized the need for clarity on this matter, as it could impact future elections and lead to confusion among returning officers. The court also highlighted the potential flood of cases in election tribunals and courts due to uncertainty. Considering the significance of constitutional interpretation, the Chief Justice directed the issuance of notices to the Attorney-General for Pakistan, Advocate Generals of the provinces, and the Election Commission of Pakistan.The court requested concise statements addressing the constitutional and legal questions raised, without delving into individual case details. It emphasized that the pendency of these appeals should not be used to delay the upcoming general elections scheduled for February 8, 2024. The cases were directed to be fixed for hearing in early January 2024 before a Bench constituted by the Committee under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023.

Summary: ''Soft Copy of Station Diary shall be prepared in addition to manual Record. Direction regarding maintenance of Station Diary issued'' --- The petitioner sought the recovery of detainees Shahbaz Ali, Asim, and Tahir Imran from alleged illegal custody. The court heard arguments from the petitioner's counsel, Ch. Shahid Pervaiz Kahloon, and the state's representative, Mr. Shahid Nawab Cheema, along with other police officials.The court, in its assessment, considered relevant constitutional provisions, particularly Article 199 of the Constitution of The Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. During the hearing, the court examined the records and found that, following the filing of the petition, a Bailiff was deputed to recover the detainees. the court delved into Rule 22.45 and Rule 22.48 of the Rules, emphasizing the importance of the Station Diary in ensuring transparency and fairness in police activities. It cited legal provisions and precedents, including the case titled "Mst. ASMAT PARVEEN vs. The STATE and another ? PLD 2021 Lahore 105," which underscored the significance of maintaining a manual Station Diary to prevent fabrication or alteration.The judgment directed strict adherence to these rules and issued clear directions to the concerned police authorities. Additionally, it highlighted the legal consequences of wrong entries in the Station Diary, stressing the accountability of supervisory officers. The court also referred to the amendment in Rules 22.3 and 22.4 through Notification No. 43604/DIG/I.T dated 15-12-2017, emphasizing the dual maintenance of manual and electronic records.Regarding the detainees, the court found that Shahbaz Ali's arrest was regulated under the law, leading to the withdrawal of the petition concerning him by the petitioner. The SHO's report stated that Asim Shafique and Tahir Imran were neither in custody nor required in any criminal case. The court, with these observations, referred the matter to the concerned Superintendent of Police (Operations) for appropriate action.

Summary: Background: The petitioner applied for a position as a Lecturer in English (B-17) with the Public Service Commission (PSC) of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK). The PSC advertised 26 posts for Lecturer in English, with 4 reserved for District Muzaffarabad. After the test and interview, the petitioner was placed at the top of the waiting list. The petitioner claimed that several posts of Lecturer in English were withheld from advertisement and requested the court to direct the PSC to appoint him to one of these posts. ----Issues: 1- Whether the PSC acted lawfully in withholding certain posts of Lecturer in English from advertisement. 2- Whether the petitioner, being at the top of the waiting list, is entitled to appointment to a vacant post. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ---Withholding of Posts: The court found that the PSC did not unlawfully withhold any posts. The Department of Higher Education confirmed that there were no withheld posts at the time of the advertisement. ---Entitlement to Appointment: According to Rule 13(1) of the AJ&K Public Service Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1994, a candidate next in merit from the waiting list can only be recommended for appointment if a position becomes vacant due to non-joining or medical unfitness of the selected candidates. The petitioner did not allege such a vacancy. Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir ruled that advertising a position is permissible only when a vacancy exists. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was not an aggrieved person under the law and that he could not challenge the selection process after participating in it and failing to achieve the desired result. The court also emphasized that any available posts should be advertised according to legal requirements and filled based on merit. ----Citations/Precedents: Rule 13(1) of AJ&K Public Service Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1994 A person appointed on the recommendations of the commission fails to join the service or is declared medically unfit, the next candidate in merit from the waiting list shall be recommended. Home Department through its Secretary Home Department Vs Aqib Farooq and 22 others Advertising a position is only permissible when a vacancy has arisen and not otherwise. Only the number of appointments equivalent to advertised positions must be made unless the law provides otherwise. 2016 SCR 15 If a person participates in the selection process and fails to achieve the desired result, they cannot later challenge the selection process. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs. The court ordered that any available posts should be advertised and filled according to the rules and based on merit.

Summary: Background: The petitioners, who are employees of the Education Department of Azad Jammu & Kashmir, challenged the recovery of amounts from their salaries by the respondents. The petitioners' salaries had been fixed by the District Accounts Officer in accordance with a Memorandum issued by the Finance Department on 12.12.2011, which aimed to resolve pay anomalies between senior and junior teachers. The petitioners claimed that the respondents began recovering amounts from their salaries without proper notice or justification. ----Issues: 1- Whether the respondents acted lawfully in recovering amounts from the petitioners' salaries. 2- Whether the fixation of salaries was properly conducted in accordance with the relevant Office Memorandum. 3- Whether the principles of natural justice were adhered to in the process of salary recovery. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Unlawful Recovery: The court found that the respondents acted unlawfully in recovering amounts from the petitioners' salaries. The fixation of salaries was conducted according to the Office Memorandum dated 12.12.2011, which had been sanctioned by the Finance Department. The respondents' recovery of these amounts without issuing proper notices to the petitioners was deemed unjustified. Proper Fixation of Salaries: The court noted that the salaries were fixed after due process and with the approval of the Finance Department. The respondents failed to provide satisfactory evidence that the fixation of salaries was incorrect or that the Finance Division of Pakistan's guidelines applied to the case. Principles of Natural Justice: The court held that the respondents violated the principles of natural justice by not issuing show-cause notices or providing an opportunity for the petitioners to be heard before initiating the recovery process. This failure to adhere to the Audi Alteram Partum principle rendered the respondents' actions unlawful. The court quashed the impugned FDR No. (13352)/2012 dated 11.05.2012 and directed the respondents to refund the amounts already recovered from the petitioners. The respondents were also restrained from making any further recoveries in this regard. The court emphasized the importance of following due process and respecting the rights of individuals in administrative actions. ----Citations/Precedents: Controlling Authority Vs. Abdul Salam PLD 1993 SC 200 Province of Punjab Vs. Pervez Iqbal 2004 SCMR 309 Govt. of Sindh Vs. Sher Mohammad PLD 1991 SC 973 Govt. of Sindh Vs. Sher Mohammad PLD 1992 SC 207 + 1989 PLC (CS) 332 Mohammad Saeed Vs. Secretary Finance 2019 PLC (CS) 893 The writ petitions were accepted, and the respondents were directed to stop the unlawful recovery and refund the recovered amounts to the petitioners. The court emphasized that any future recovery actions must adhere to due process and the principles of natural justice.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: The delay in recording judicial confession of the appellant, if any, may not be treated fatal to the case of prosecution. Neither any of the police officials who have conducted the investigation of the present case nor the Judicial Magistrate who has recorded the judicial confession of the appellant were having any enmity with the appellant to have involved him in this case falsely.