Summary: Appeal U/s 8 A against Conviction and Sentence U/s Illegal Dispossion Act.

Summary: Bail granted --- The Supreme Court of Pakistan declared that evidence related to recovery of narcotics must be preserved through video recording and by taking photographs ---- the forensic report regarding electronic evidence will also be required to be added to the police file to ensure that genuineness of the scientific evidence is not unnecessarily questioned in court --- The petitioner, Zahid Sarfaraz Gill, claimed false implication in a case related to narcotics. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner was not present at the alleged incident, which the Investigating Officer did not adequately consider.The State, argued that the chemical report confirmed the seized substance as narcotics (charas) weighing 1833 grams. This falls under the third category of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, mandating a minimum imprisonment of nine years and a maximum of fourteen years, along with a fine. The State contended that the petitioner was caught red-handed in a public place, and the case against him was well-established.The court, led by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, noted the petitioner's claim of mala fide against the police. Despite the seriousness of the charges, the absence of video recordings or photographs of the seizure and arrest raised concerns. The court granted bail to the petitioner, converting the petition into an appeal and setting aside the impugned order.The judgment highlighted the need for further inquiry, expressing puzzlement over the lack of recordings during searches, seizures, and arrests by the police and Anti-Narcotics Force (ANF). The court emphasized the importance of modern devices and techniques for evidence, urging institutions to consider amending rules to mandate video recordings and photographs in such cases. The order was sent to relevant authorities, stressing the societal consequences of narcotics and the responsibilities of law enforcement and prosecution in tackling this issue.

Summary: Background: The petitioners (Collector of Customs and others) sought leave to appeal against a decision by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, where the court had ruled that the imposition of mobile handset levy on phones other than smartphones was unlawful and without jurisdiction. The respondents, various mobile phone importers, challenged the imposition of the mobile handset levy under section 10 of the Finance Act, 2018, which specified that the levy applied only to smartphones. The dispute arose when the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) attempted to expand the scope of the levy to include feature phones through an amendment in the table attached to section 10 in the Finance Act, 2022. ----Issues: 1- Whether the imposition of the mobile handset levy on phones other than smartphones was lawful under section 10 of the Finance Act, 2018. 2- Whether the amendment of the table in the Finance Act, 2022, could lawfully extend the scope of the levy beyond smartphones without amending the charging section. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, upholding the decision of the High Court. The court ruled that the power to impose a levy must originate from the charging section of the statute, not from the table that merely specifies rates. Since section 10 of the Finance Act, 2018, specifically mentioned smartphones, the levy could not be extended to other types of phones through a mere amendment to the table. The court found that the charging section remained unaltered, and the legislature's intent to limit the levy to smartphones was clear. Any attempt to recover the levy on feature phones was therefore without lawful authority. The court reiterated the settled legal principle that a table or schedule in fiscal statutes is subordinate to the charging section and cannot independently create new liabilities or expand the scope of a tax without proper legislative amendments to the charging provision itself. ----Citations/Precedents: Settled principles of law on interpretation of fiscal statutes and tax laws.

Summary: Bail granted ---- Issues:1) Whether the petitioner's pre-arrest bail should be confirmed considering the alleged inconsistencies between the FIR and medical reports.--- 2) Whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner has been falsely implicated.----- Judgment:The Supreme Court confirmed the petitioner's ad-interim pre-arrest bail, noting significant inconsistencies between the FIR and medical evidence, and the statement from the Investigation Officer suggesting the petitioner's non-involvement. The Court highlighted the need for further inquiry into the case, emphasizing the principle that bail decisions should not prejudge the trial's outcome.Reasoning:The Court observed the discrepancies between the FIR's account of a firearm injury and the medical reports suggesting a sharp-edged weapon injury, which was later deemed fabricated by a Special Medical Board. The Investigation Officer's report under Section 168 Cr.P.C., which was disregarded by the SHO, further questioned the petitioner's culpability. The Court underscored the importance of a tentative assessment of the evidence at the bail stage, the role of mala fide in granting pre-arrest bail, and the necessity for the trial court to make a definitive judgment on guilt.Order:The Supreme Court confirmed the petitioner's pre-arrest bail granted on 17th July 2023, converting the petition into an appeal and allowing it. The observations made were declared tentative, not to affect the trial proceedings. The Court also provided for the possibility of bail cancellation upon misuse.Key Principles:Pre-arrest bail may be granted in cases of apparent mala fide implication.Discrepancies in FIR and medical evidence require further judicial inquiry.Tentative assessments at the bail stage should not prejudice the trial's outcome.

Summary: Facts: The appeal concerns the dismissal of several Canteen Stores Department (CSD) employees on disciplinary grounds. The Lahore High Court had previously dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by the appellants against the order in favor of the respondents. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine whether CSD employees are considered in the service of the Armed Forces, thus barring the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 199(3) of the Constitution. Additionally, it questioned whether the CSD falls under the definition of "person" within the meaning of Article 199(5) of the Constitution, allowing employees to seek reinstatement orders from the High Court.----Issue: The main issues were whether CSD employees are considered in the service of the Armed Forces, and whether the CSD qualifies as a "person" under Article 199(5) of the Constitution, enabling employees to obtain High Court orders for reinstatement.----Holding: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Lahore High Court and dismissing the writ petition filed by the respondents.-----Reasoning: The Court analyzed the history, origin, organizational structure, and control mechanisms of the CSD. It determined that CSD is a non-government commercial organization, not part of the government or the Armed Forces, and its employees do not hold positions in the service of Pakistan. The Court clarified that CSD employees' relationship with the department is governed by the ordinary law of Master and Servant, making their writ petition before the High Court incompetent under Article 199 of the Constitution.----Disposition: The appeal was allowed, resulting in the setting aside of the Lahore High Court's orders and the dismissal of the writ petition filed by the respondents. The judgment clarified the legal status of the CSD and its employees concerning constitutional protections and the jurisdiction of the High Court.

Summary: #NAME?

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: ----S.18---Blocking of Computerized National Identity Card (CNIC)---Principle---Even though S. 18 of National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 explicates the power to cancel, impound or confiscate the CNIC as an eventual punitive action but no powers are integrated or ensuite to block CNIC of any person unless it is finally determined or adjudicated that the card issued to any such person should be cancelled, impounded or confiscated. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 54---National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance (VIII of 2000), S. 47---Suit for declaration and injunction---Adopted child---Computerized National Identity Card (CNIC), issuance of---Applicant/National Database and Registration Authority was aggrieved of concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below whereby suit and appeal were decided in favour of respondent/plaintiff---Respondent/plaintiff was an adopted child and applicant/Authority had denied issuance of CNIC to him---Validity---There is no provision under National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000, under which applicant/Authority is authorized or vested with any powers to not register an adoptee---Applicant/Authority can take help from S. 47 of National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 which deals with removal of difficulties---Applicant/ Authority had shown its willingness to issue CNIC to respondent/ plaintiff by mentioning name of his adopting father and name of mother as blank/Not applicable---Revision was disposed of accordingly. Atiq-ur-Rehman v. Muhammad Amin PLD 2006 SC 309; Naheed Nusrat Hashmi v. Secretary Education (Elementary) Punjab PLD 2006 SC 1124; Naseer Ahmed Siddiqui v. Aftab Alam PLD 2013 SC 323; Mehmood ul Hassan Khan v. DOW University of Health Sciences PLD 2008 Kar. 49; Joan Marg Carter v. Albert William Carter PLD 1961 SC 616; Mehr-un-Nisa Baloch v. Appellate Committee PLD 1978 Kar. 214; Muhammad Yar Khan v. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Political Agent Loralai 1980 SCMR 456 and Ziaullah v. District Magistrate Nawabshah 2000 CLC 406 ref. Mukesh Kumar G. Karara, Ghulam Hussain and Safdar Kamal, Alqamah Bin Mehmood for Applicant. Sarfaraz Ahmed Akhund, Ashfaque Hussain Abro, Assistant Attorney General and Ali Raza Balosh, A.A.G. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 2nd June, 2023.

Summary: Acquittal granted----(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 342, 382-B, 161, and 544-A---Conviction for murder and possession of illegal arms---Prosecution's failure to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt---Benefit of doubt---Acquittal. Appellant, a juvenile, was convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C., and section 15 of the KP Arms Act, 2013, for the murder of a minor boy and illegal possession of arms. The complainant’s testimony contained material contradictions and dishonest improvements, such as discrepancies regarding the place of occurrence and the sequence of events. The site of the crime, reported as a public area, was contradicted by evidence indicating it occurred inside the appellant's house. Testimonies of the complainant and eyewitnesses were deemed unreliable due to deliberate improvements. Additionally, the recovery of the weapon and empties lacked credibility as it was conducted without independent witnesses and after significant delay, diminishing the evidentiary value of the forensic report. In light of these inconsistencies and the absence of credible evidence, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The principle that even a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal was applied. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted. -----Cited Cases: Amir Zaman v. Mahboob 1985 SCMR 685 Akhtar Ali's case 2008 SCMR 6 Muhammad Afzal alias Abdullah v. The State 2009 SCMR 639 Muhammad Mansha v. The State 2018 SCMR 772 (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984--- ----Art. 129---Presumption of facts---Recovery evidence lacking corroboration. Under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, courts may presume facts based on the natural course of events; however, such presumptions require corroboration. In the present case, the recovery of the weapon and empties from the appellant's house lacked independent witnesses and credible evidence to establish exclusive possession. Delayed submission of recovered empties and weapon for forensic analysis further weakened the prosecution's case. The presumption under Article 129 could not be applied in the absence of reliable evidence, leading to the appellant's acquittal. (c) Juvenile offender--- ----Sentencing---Factors affecting credibility of prosecution witnesses in cases involving minors. The appellant, being a juvenile, was convicted by the trial court without considering material contradictions in the prosecution's case, including conflicting accounts of the place of occurrence and absence of corroboration by independent witnesses. The Supreme Court's principle of extending the benefit of doubt, particularly in cases involving juveniles, was upheld. Conviction and sentence were set aside due to a failure to meet the standard of proof required in criminal cases. -----Disposition: Appeal allowed. Convictions under sections 302(b), P.P.C., and 15 KP Arms Act, 2013, were set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released if not involved in any other case.

Summary: (a) Constitutional Petition—Encroachment on Public Property—Illegality of occupation—Court Directions for Eviction and Restoration of Possession. Key Legal Principles: ---Encroachment on Public Property: Encroachment by unauthorized individuals or groups on platforms designated for specific commercial purposes is illegal and cannot be tolerated under any pretext. Allotment and Breach of Agreement: The respondents (Mashakhors) were allotted 23 acres of land in Phase-II of the Fruit and Vegetable Market, Hazar Ganji, Quetta, for their business operations. However, they allegedly sold or misused the allotted land while continuing their illegal occupation of Phase-I platforms. ---Security Concerns: Illegal encroachments not only hinder smooth business operations but also pose significant security risks, as highlighted by incidents such as the tragic bomb blast on 12 April 2019. Failure of Authorities: Despite repeated complaints, notices, and directives by relevant authorities, no concrete action was taken to remove the illegal encroachers from Phase-I platforms. ---Legal Recourse Exhausted: The Mashakhors previously filed a civil suit (No. 71/2018) against the Agriculture Department and Market Committee, which was dismissed by the Civil Judge-III, Quetta, on 22 November 2018. ---Judicial Observations: Encroachment on designated platforms is an illegal act, and no person or group can justify occupying public property in the name of business. Despite the allocation of separate land for the Mashakhors in Phase-II, their continued occupation of Phase-I platforms is unjustified and illegal. The respondents’ disregard for multiple eviction notices and their failure to comply with directives from relevant authorities indicate deliberate misconduct. ---Disposition: The petition was allowed. The official respondents were directed to restore possession of the Fruit and Vegetable Market Complex Phase-I platforms to the Petitioner's Association. The restoration must be carried out in accordance with the law, ensuring that the illegal encroachments are permanently removed.