Summary: Acquittal --- If any conversation is recorded through mobile phone and converted into Compact Disc (CD), then without production of the mobile phone as well as forensic analysis of the conversation and merely by producing CD, said conversation cannot be proved --- conversationrecorded in Audio or Video can be proved yet production of actual record ofconversation is necessary for the same; in this regard, case of ?ISHTIAQAHMED MIRZA and 2 others Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN andothers? (P L D 2019 Supreme Court 675) can be safely referred and relevantportion of the same is hereby reproduced: -?. The precedent cases mentioned above show that in the matter ofproving an audio tape or video before a court of law the followingrequirements are insisted upon: -No audio tape or video can be relied upon by a court until thesame is proved to be genuine and not tampered with ordoctored.--- An audio tape or video sought to be produced in evidence mustbe the actual record of the conversation as and when it wasmade or of the event as and when it took place. (emphasis added)--- Safe custody of the audio tape or video after its preparation tillproduction before the court must be proved.---The trial court, after concluding the trial and acquitting co-accused individuals Mian Nasir and Bismillah Begum, convicted and sentenced the appellants (Abu Bakar alias Samosa, Master Ansar, Jamshed, and Javed) based on a judgment dated 19.04.2018. The appellants, through their counsel, argued that the convictions and sentences were against the law and facts of the case, claiming that the evidence presented was neither trustworthy nor corroborated, and the prosecution failed to prove its case.The Additional Prosecutor General supported the judgment, seeking the dismissal of the appeals. The complainant's counsel, while supporting the convictions against Abu Bakar alias Samosa and partially supporting the convictions against Master Ansar, Jamshed, and Javed, prayed for the dismissal of the appeals filed by the convicts. The complainant's counsel also sought the enhancement of sentences for Master Ansar, Jamshed, and Javed, and challenged the acquittal of Mian Nasir and Mst. Bismillah Begum, arguing that their acquittal was against the law and facts.After hearing arguments and reviewing the records, the court scrutinized the prosecution's case. It emphasized the importance of explaining any delay in reporting incidents to the police and pointed out significant gaps in the evidence, such as the lack of documentation from hospitals regarding the deceased's treatment and the absence of key witnesses. The court highlighted inconsistencies and dishonest improvements introduced by certain witnesses, casting doubt on the credibility of the prosecution's version.The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the appellants, leading to the acquittal of the appellants. The death sentence for Abu Bakar alias Samosa was not confirmed, and the Murder Reference was answered in the negative. Additionally, the court dismissed the appeal filed by Shazia Siddiq (complainant) for the enhancement of sentences for Master Ansar, Jamshed, and Javed. The acquittal of Mian Nasir and Mst. Bismillah Begum was upheld, and the court stressed the double presumption of innocence attained by the acquitted individuals, dismissing the appeal seeking enhancement of their sentences.

Summary: Against order of acquittal under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. criminal revision under section 439, Cr.P.C. is not competent. Similarly, writ petition against order of acquittal is also not competent in the light of section 417(2), Cr.P.C. --- The petitioner, Hajra Javaid Makhdoom, initiated the petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, seeking redress, specifically requesting a retrial and criminal revision in a case involving the respondent, Muhammad Tehmas Nasir.The petitioner's grievance revolved around a private complaint filed under section 6(5) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, alleging that the respondent had contracted a second marriage without her consent. Subsequently, the Judicial Magistrate in Sargodha summoned the respondent to face trial under section 6(5) of the Ordinance. However, during the proceedings, the respondent submitted an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C., contending that the petitioner's complaint was baseless and driven by ulterior motives.The magistrate accepted the respondent's application, leading the petitioner to file a criminal revision. This revision was later dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner, dissatisfied with both decisions, filed the present writ petition, urging the Lahore High Court to refer the case back to the Judicial Magistrate for retrial and the criminal revision back to the Additional Sessions Judge.In the judgment dated December 19, 2023, Judge Muhammad Tariq Nadeem meticulously examined the legal aspects raised in the petition. The judge acknowledged the petitioner's contention that against an order of acquittal under section 249-A, Cr.P.C., a criminal revision was competent, citing "The State through Advocate-General, Sindh High Court of Karachi v. Raja Abdul Rehman" (2005 SCMR 1544) as a precedent.However, Judge Nadeem went on to analyze the relevant legal provisions, emphasizing section 417(2), Cr.P.C., which stipulates that an appeal lies against an order of acquittal. The judge observed that the petitioner had not satisfactorily addressed whether the order of acquittal under section 249-A, Cr.P.C., was amenable to criminal revision or could be challenged through a petition for special leave to appeal under section 417(2), Cr.P.C.The judgment delved into the interplay between sections 439, 439-A, and 417(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, clarifying that while an appeal could be filed against an order of acquittal, no proceedings by way of revision could be entertained if an appeal was available. Additionally, the judgment underscored the distinction between criminal appeals and revisions, highlighting that a revision against an order of acquittal was not competent under section 439(4)(a), Cr.P.C.Judge Nadeem concluded that the criminal revision before the court of the Additional Sessions Judge was not competent, as the order of acquittal could only be challenged through the remedy provided in section 417(2), Cr.P.C. The judge dismissed the writ petition, asserting that a constitutional petition was not maintainable when a specific alternate remedy of appeal against acquittal existed.

Summary: Report by Water & Environment Commission: The Members of the Water & Environment Commission appointed by the Court submitted a report outlining sustainable efforts undertaken during 2023 in the areas of water and environment conservation. The report is detailed and comprehensive, listing numerous actions taken to address issues related to water conservation and environmental protection.Water Conservation Measures: The report highlighted various water conservation measures, including the construction of ablution water tanks in mosques, the construction of recharge wells, the installation of rainwater storage tanks, and the mandatory installation of car wash recycling systems and 'U' channels. It also mentioned actions to control water wastage and abuse and the installation of water meters.Environmental Measures: The report detailed environmental initiatives such as the conversion of brick kilns to zig-zag technology, efforts to control vehicular emissions, promotion of mass transit and public transport systems, tree plantation drives, and actions to tackle stubble burning and smog. It also mentioned measures to regulate industrial emissions and promote eco-friendly practices.Judicial Review and Enforcement: The order emphasized that these actions were a result of judicial review in action and the enforcement of climate justice. It highlighted the unique approach employed by the Court to enforce its orders and achieve substantial results in addressing climate and environmental issues.Directives for Water Usage: The Court directed that Lahore Waste Management Company (LWMC) should not use groundwater for sprinkling on roads and should instead use surface water or water from ablution tanks. It warned that if this directive was not followed, the Water and Sanitation Agency (WASA) would be held responsible, and the relevant tube-well operated by WASA would be sealed.Enforcement Against Industrial Units: The Court directed the Lahore Electric Supply Company (LESCO) to cut off electricity supply to industrial units in violation of environmental regulations on the recommendations of the Water & Environment Commission.Tree Plantation: The order mentioned the Court's previous orders to prevent the cutting of trees in Lahore and efforts to plant Miyawaki forests and rooftop gardens. It noted the substantial progress made in rooftop planting and tree plantation drives.Next Hearing: The case was adjourned to January 12, 2024.

Summary: (a) Inheritance Law – Right of Heirs ----Inheritance rights in the estate of a deceased Muslim----Constructive possession----Limitation Act, 1908----Scope. The estate of a Muslim, upon his death, devolves upon his legal heirs by operation of law. Each heir retains constructive possession of their share in the estate until partition or lawful transfer. If an heir is deprived of their share in an inheritance mutation, the cause of action arises when they seek their share and it is denied. However, where third-party rights have been created in the inherited property, the limitation period becomes applicable, requiring the claimant heir to establish fraud or ignorance of their rights to invoke an exception under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Cited Cases: Mohammad Boota (decd) v. Mst. Fatima (2023 SCMR 1901) Mst. Parveen (decd) v. Muhammad Pervaiz (2022 SCMR 64) Noor Din (decd) v. Pervaiz Akhtar (2023 SCMR 1928) Ghulam Qasim v. Mst. Razia Begum (PLD 2021 SC 812) Tahsinullah v. Mst. Parveen (decd) (2022 SCMR 346) Lal Din v. Muhammad Ibrahim (1993 SCMR 710) Bashir Ahmad Anjum v. Muhammad Raffique (2021 SCMR 772) Nazir Ahmad v. Abdullah (1997 SCMR 281) (b) Limitation Act, 1908 ----S. 18----Effect of fraud in inheritance disputes----Exceptions to limitation period----Scope. Under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1908, a claimant heir alleging fraud must demonstrate that they were kept from knowledge of their right to sue due to fraudulent concealment. The limitation period begins from the date the fraud first became known to the “injuriously affected person.” However, if the affected heir does not initiate legal proceedings within the prescribed limitation period upon discovering the fraud, no fresh period of limitation is available to their legal successors. Cited Case: Mst. Rabia Gula v. Muhammad Janan (2022 SCMR 1009) (c) Limitation in Cases of Third-Party Rights in Inherited Property ----Applicability of limitation where third-party interests have been created----Doctrine of actual vs. constructive denial----Scope. A distinction is made between: (i) cases where an heir is deprived of their rightful share in inheritance at the time of mutation; and (ii) cases where third-party rights have been created in the inherited property. In the former, the limitation period starts when the heir is denied their share. In the latter, where land has been sold to third parties, the limitation period applies, barring claims after its expiration. In the present case, transactions affecting the disputed property took place decades ago, with sales occurring in 1994 and 1997, barring the claimants from seeking redress under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Cited Cases: Haji Muhammad Yunis v. Mst. Farukh Sultan (2022 SCMR 1282) Salamat Ali v. Muhammad Din (PLD 2022 SC 353) (d) Civil Procedure – Obligation of Courts to Consider Limitation ----S. 3, Limitation Act, 1908----Duty of courts to dismiss time-barred claims regardless of whether limitation is pleaded as a defense----Scope. Courts are bound to dismiss suits, appeals, and applications filed beyond the prescribed limitation period, even if the issue of limitation is not raised by the parties. The appellants’ claim, filed in 2007, was time-barred given that transactions creating third-party interests took place as early as 1994 and 1997. Disposition Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the appellants’ claim was barred by limitation. The Court reaffirmed that where concurrent findings of fact and law exist, it will not interfere unless exceptional circumstances warrant intervention, which were absent in this case.

Summary: ''Discussion: (1) Dishonest investigation (2) Section 166, 375, 376 & 511 P.P.C. (3) Role of I.O. (4) Section 4 (l) Cr.P.C. read with Rule 25.2 of the Police Rules, 1934 (5) Section 22 of the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021 (6) Rule 2 (v) of the Sindh Police (E & D) Rules, 1988 (7) Article 4 & 155 of Police Order 2002.'' --- Facts: The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector in the Investigation Wing of Police Station Mominabad, District West, Karachi, was assigned to investigate a rape case involving a minor victim. The petitioner was alleged to have improperly reduced the charge from rape to attempted rape despite substantial evidence confirming the rape, including medical reports and eyewitness accounts. This led to the issuance of a show cause notice, and subsequently, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The departmental appeal and subsequent appeal to the Sindh Service Tribunal were both dismissed.----Issue: The main issue was whether the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner, including his dismissal from service for allegedly converting a rape charge to an attempted rape charge in the investigation, was justified.----Holding: The Supreme Court held that the dismissal of the petitioner was justified based on the overwhelming evidence indicating misconduct in the investigation. The court found no illegality or perversity in the judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his dismissal.----Reasoning: The court emphasized the crucial role of an Investigation Officer in the criminal justice system and the need for conducting investigations with integrity, impartiality, and in accordance with the law. Given the clear medical evidence and eyewitness accounts establishing the commission of rape, the court found no justification for the petitioner's decision to alter the charge. The court also highlighted the importance of discipline and integrity in the police force and upheld the disciplinary action as being conducted in compliance with due process.----Disposition: The Civil Petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused, thereby upholding the disciplinary action against the petitioner, including his dismissal from service. The court's findings were limited to the disciplinary action and did not affect ongoing proceedings related to the original FIR in the rape case, which was to be decided on its own merits and in accordance with the law.

Summary: Background: The petitioners, the Secretary of School Education, Government of Punjab, challenged the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which had granted the respondents (Graduate Primary Teachers appointed in 1995) a "selection grade" based on their claim that they were entitled to financial benefits due to their long-term service. The respondents were regularized in 2004 and sought the selection grade, which they claimed was due under Rule 8(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants Pay Revision Rules, 1977, and a notification issued in 1983. ----Issues: 1- Whether the respondents, as Graduate Primary Teachers, were entitled to a selection grade based on Rule 8(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants Pay Revision Rules, 1977, and the 1983 notification. 2- Whether the Punjab Service Tribunal was correct in granting the selection grade despite no specific policy covering Graduate Primary Teachers. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the decision of the Punjab Service Tribunal. The Court held that: --No Entitlement to Selection Grade: The respondents could not prove any government policy entitling Graduate Primary Teachers to a selection grade. Rule 8(3) of the 1977 Rules applied only when a higher pay scale had been sanctioned for a class of posts, which was not the case for Graduate Primary Teachers. The 1983 notification also did not include their post for the purposes of selection grade. --Role of Policy in Granting Selection Grade: The Court clarified that the grant of a selection grade is not a right under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, nor under the relevant service rules. It is within the executive's discretion to formulate such a policy, and no tribunal or court can compel the government to create such a policy. Since no policy covered Graduate Primary Teachers for selection grade, the tribunal overstepped by granting it. --Withdrawn Policy & Retrospective Regularization: Even if the policy had included Graduate Primary Teachers, the respondents were not regularized during its enforcement. Therefore, they could not claim retrospective benefits from a withdrawn policy. The Tribunal was wrong in granting selection grade based on a withdrawn policy that never applied to the respondents' post. As a result, the petitions were converted into appeals, and the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal. ----Citations/Precedents: Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. Punjab Civil Servants Pay Revision Rules, 1977.

Summary: Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act (XVII of 2011)--- ----S. 7---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54---Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958, The New York Convention), Art. V(2)---Suit for declaration and injunction---Foreign award, enforcement of---Violation of public policy---Effect---Plaintiff company was award-debtor, and resisted enforcement of foreign award on the plea that it was in violation of public policy issued by State Bank of Pakistan---Validity---If plaintiff company (award-debtor) had any objections to recognition and enforcement of the award, it could raise the same in Enforcement Suit and suit of plaintiff company (award-debtor) seeking declaration and permanent injunctions of the award was not maintainable in light of Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011 and New York Convention---Question relating to maintainability of "Suit for Declaration and Permanent Injunction" was a question of law and had to be dealt with first before delineating questions of merits of the case---Legal challenge to the award raised by plaintiff company, including in terms of Art. V (2) of New York Convention, had to be in separate proceedings, and not under award-creditor's suit---Plaintiff company, did not submit on factual plane and avoided touching upon merits of the case and taking steps that could later prejudice his defence in other suit---Plaintiff company strategically saved his attack on the award under Art. V of New York Convention to plead in defendant's (award-creditor's) suit---Defendant (award-creditor) also did not commit himself and face its consequences in other suit seeking the recognition and enforcement of award---Parties did not draw themselves into any discussion about whether the award was contrary to public policy, or what constituted "public policy" under Art. V of New York Convention---Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in the Award as there was no violation of the grounds enshrined under Article V (2) of New York Convention---Suit filed by plaintiff company was not maintainable under Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011---Suit was dismissed, in circumstances. Abdullah v. Messrs CNAN Group SPA through Chief Executive/Managing Director and another PLD 2014 Sindh 349 rel. Auteurs Acteurs Associes v. Hemdale Film Corporation (XVI YCA 543 (1991); Lanifico Mario Zegna SpA v. Emernegildo Zegna Corporation and another (XXXI YCA 798 (2006)); Mary D. Slaney v. International Amateur Athletic Federation (244 F.3D 580 (2001), XXVI YCA 1091 (2001); Agricultural Workers Union v. The Registrar of Trade Unions 1997 SCMR 66, 81; Vikrant Tyres Ltd. and another v. Techno Export Foreign Trade Company Ltd., ILR 2005 Kar 4738; Jindal Drugs Ltd. v. Noy Vallesina Engineering SpA and others, 2002 (3) BOMCR 554; 2008 SCC Online Bom 1694 ; Goldcrest Exports v. Swissgen N.V. and another, 2005 (4) BOMCR 225; Bulk Trading SA v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat Ltd), 2006 (1) ARBLR 38 Delhi ; Hindustan Petroleum Cor. Ltd. v. M/s Videocon Ltd. and others, 2012 (3) ARBLR194 (Delhi)(MANU/DE/3196/2012) and Shriram EPC Limited v. Rioglass Solar SA, Civil Appeal No.9515 of 2018 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No.13913 of 2018) ref. Abdul Ahad, Ammar Suria and Ms. Hareem Godil for Plaintiff. Jahanzeb Awan and Rashid Khan Mehar for Defendant. Date of hearing: 20th September, 2023.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Background: The Lahore Tax Bar Association filed a writ petition challenging the appointment of the Chairman of the Appellate Tribunal, Inland Revenue (ATIR), the constitutionality of Section 130 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, as amended, and the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (Appointment of Chairperson and Members) Rules, 2020. ----Issues: 1- Whether the ATIR is a Judicial Tribunal and thus subject to specific guidelines and rules for appointments. 2- The constitutionality of delegating appointment powers to the Prime Minister. 3- The legality of appointing members on a contract basis against sanctioned posts. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The petition was allowed to the extent of declaring the Appointment Rules of 2020 as ultra vires and illegal. Appointments under these rules were deemed illegal, but incumbents were allowed to continue until regular appointments were made. ---Judicial Tribunal Status: The ATIR was confirmed as a Judicial Tribunal, and thus appointments should adhere to the guidelines set forth in the judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, specifically in Sh. Riaz-ul-Haq and other relevant cases. ---Appointment Rules and Delegation of Powers: The Attorney General's office acknowledged that executive powers, including appointments, should vest with the Federal Government (Cabinet) rather than the Prime Minister alone. This was in line with the Mustafa Impex case, which invalidated unilateral decisions by the Prime Minister without Cabinet approval. Consequently, the phrase "Prime Minister" in Section 130 of the Ordinance was read down to mean "Federal Government." ---Contract Appointments: The Supreme Court's decisions in various cases, such as Nemat Ullah and Pakistan Railways v. Sajid Hussain, consistently held that appointments to sanctioned posts on a contract basis are illegal. Appointments must be made through a transparent, competitive process, ensuring merit and open competition. ---De Facto Doctrine: To maintain continuity, the de facto doctrine was invoked, allowing current members and the Chairman, appointed under the now-invalid rules, to continue their service until regular appointments were made. ---Transparency and Merit in Appointments: The judgment emphasized the need for appointments to be made transparently and competitively, particularly in judicial and quasi-judicial bodies like the ATIR, which play a crucial role in economic stability and tax collection. he Appointment Rules of 2020 were declared ultra vires and without lawful authority. The Members and Chairman currently serving under these rules were allowed to continue until regular appointments were made within a specified timeframe. The Federal Government was directed to frame new rules within thirty days and complete the appointment process within forty-five days thereafter. -----Citations/Precedents: Mustafa Impex Case (PLD 2016 SC 808): Affirmed that executive authority vests with the Federal Government (Cabinet), not the Prime Minister alone. Sh. Riaz-ul-Haq and another v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2013 SC 501): Set guidelines for appointments in judicial tribunals. Nemat Ullah and others v Chairman Governing Body, Worker Welfare Board (2016 SCMR 1299): Declared contract appointments to permanent posts illegal. Pakistan Railways v. Sajid Hussain (2020 SCMR 1664): Reinforced the requirement for transparent, merit-based appointments. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Sher Aman (2022 SCMR 406): Highlighted the need for transparent recruitment processes for permanent posts.

Summary: In a democracy General Elections cannot be delayed or derailed after announcement of Election Programme --- The High Court had declared the delimitation order of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) void and directed the ECP to notify the final delimitation for certain constituencies.The Supreme Court, led by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, acknowledged the vital role of elections in a constitutional democracy, emphasizing their importance in upholding democratic principles and public trust. The court considered the significance of timely elections and the potential consequences of delaying or prolonging legal disputes related to elections.The central question before the court was whether to proceed with adjudicating the controversy over constituency delimitation or defer the matter until after the general elections. The Balochistan High Court's order had created a situation where the ECP had not yet notified the final delimitation as directed by the court.The Supreme Court expressed concern about the timing of the High Court's order, considering that the ECP had already announced the Election Programme for the General Elections in 2024. The court highlighted the established principle that general elections are fundamental to representative governance, and their timely conduct takes precedence over issues related to constituency delimitation.In applying the principle of proportionality, the court concluded that the constitutional importance of holding general elections outweighed the need to re-examine constituency delimitation at that juncture. The court expressed the view that intervening in the delimitation matter at that stage would disrupt the electoral timeline and potentially undermine democracy.As a result, the Supreme Court suspended the operation of the Balochistan High Court's order, granting leave to appeal to consider the justification of the High Court's judicial intervention in the ECP's delimitation order. The court directed the ECP to organize and conduct the elections in the two constituencies based on the final delimitation notified on November 30, 2023, and in accordance with the Election Programme announced on December 15, 2023.The court decided to defer the resolution of the delimitation controversy until after the General Elections in 2024, with the case scheduled for hearing at that time.