Summary: Writ Petition/Others

Summary: Writ Petition/Others

Summary: Writ Petition/Others

Summary: Acquittal granted --- Facts:On 20th July 2009, Muhammad Shahbaz was fatally shot, and Muhammad Ramzan survived an assault in an incident arising from a dispute over irrigation water. The appellant was identified as the shooter in the crime reported by the deceased's brother, Muhammad Riaz (PW-8). Despite the recovery of weapons and the appellant leading to the recovery of the .30 caliber pistol used in the crime, the forensic reports did not support the prosecution's case.---Issues:The credibility of the evidence and witnesses, given the acquittal of the majority of the accused and the lack of independent corroboration.The plausibility of the occurrence being a nighttime affair with limited visibility and the identification of the assailants.The reliability of witness testimonies, especially considering the miraculous escape of eyewitnesses and the absence of casings at the crime scene.----Judgment:The Supreme Court found several issues with the prosecution's case, including the failure to establish a motive, the miraculous escape of eyewitnesses, the absence of casings at the scene, and the investigating officer's failure to recover the weapons. The Court highlighted that maintaining the appellant's conviction based on discredited witness statements posed a significant risk of error, inconsistent with safe criminal justice administration principles.---Holding:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and acquitted Tariq Mehmood of the charge, ordering his immediate release unless required for detention in another case.

Summary: Background:The GIDC Act, 2015, aimed to levy a cess for infrastructure development, particularly for gas pipeline projects. The Act's validity was contested in several High Courts, leading to conflicting judgments. The Supreme Court consolidated these challenges to deliver a unified verdict on the Act's constitutionality.----Key Legal Issues:The constitutionality of the GIDC Act, 2015.Application of the principle of res judicata in cases where legislative enactments are challenged on constitutional grounds.The correlation between the collection of cess under the Act and the expenditure for the specified infrastructure projects.Discrimination in the imposition of cess rates among different categories of gas consumers.-----Judgment Summary:The Supreme Court allowed the review petitions based on several grounds:It found errors apparent on the face of the record regarding the interpretation and application of the GIDC Act, 2015.The Court clarified that the principle of res judicata, as settled in previous cases, is fully applicable, ensuring uniform application of law regardless of individual High Court judgments.It emphasized the need for a visible correlation between the collection of cess and expenditure on specified projects, critiquing the government's failure to demonstrate this correlation.The Court held that the cess collected under the GIDC Act should be earmarked and accounted for separately, not merged into the Federal Consolidated Fund, to ensure transparency and accountability.It also addressed the issue of discrimination in cess rates among different gas consumer categories, asserting that equality under the law must be maintained.----Holding:The direction to recover arrears of cess was recalled.If the GIDC Act becomes inoperational due to the government's failure to commence the specified projects, the collected cess should be refunded to the payers.The benefits under specific provisions of the GIDC Act must not be affected by the judgment.The collected cess should be credited to the Public Account, ensuring it is used solely for the purposes specified in the Act.Discriminatory cess rates among different categories of gas consumers were deemed unconstitutional.

Summary: Conviction upheld ---- The case involves the transportation of a large quantity of cannabis, and the Supreme Court's judgment, authored by Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, ultimately dismisses the appeal, affirming the conviction and the findings of the lower courts.The judgment outlines the facts of the case, where Shah Nawaz Khan was apprehended by the police while transporting 12070 grams of cannabis in his vehicle. Despite retracting a previous judicial confession, the court found overwhelming evidence against him, including the ownership and control of the vehicle used to transport the narcotics and the seizure of a significant amount of cash which added credibility to the operation conducted by the police.The Supreme Court's decision emphasizes the credibility of the witnesses and the lack of substance in the cross-examination. It also notes that the acquittal of co-accused individuals based on the appellant's confession does not benefit him. The judgment concludes with the dismissal of the appeal, stating that the view taken by the lower courts is well within the law and does not require any interference.

Summary: Background:The petitioner, National Savings Central Directorate Islamabad, introduced a profit-generating scheme called the "Bahbood Saving Certificate Scheme." This scheme was designed to provide special benefits to senior citizens aged 60 years or above and widows. The respondent, Muhammad Farooq Raja, a Pakistani national holding dual nationality with Denmark, invested three million rupees in this scheme under the impression that he was eligible. However, later, the petitioner informed him that he was ineligible due to his dual nationality and asked him to submit an application for irregular investment.---Issues:Whether the respondent, a dual national of Pakistan and Denmark, was eligible to avail the benefits of the "Bahbood Saving Certificate Scheme."Whether the petitioner's action in denying the respondent's eligibility after he had already invested in the scheme was legally justified.---Holding/Reasoning:The Court held that the respondent, being a citizen of Denmark, was eligible to hold dual nationality under Pakistani law. Moreover, he met the age requirement for the scheme. The Court found that the petitioner had a duty to scrutinize the respondent's eligibility before accepting his investment. Since the respondent had acted in good faith based on the petitioner's acceptance, the petitioner could not later deny him the benefits of the scheme. The Court applied the principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation, holding that the petitioner could not act detrimentally to the rights accrued by the respondent. Additionally, the Court cited Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which prevents the withdrawal of accrued rights unless obtained through fraud or misrepresentation.---Outcome:The Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Lahore High Court's decision that the respondent was eligible for the benefits of the scheme. Leave to appeal was declined.---Legal Precedents:The principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation were applied.Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, was cited to prevent the withdrawal of accrued rights.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Service Matter, Seeking direction for counting of previous service for pensioner benefit.

Summary: The contention of the learned Counselfor the Petitioners that the petroleum levy is in fact a customs dutyand on filing of goods declaration any vested rightaccrued to the Petitioner or for that matter the rate of petroleumlevy was crystalized and remained valid for 7 days as is the case ofthe customs duty for a GD filed under s.104 of the Act. We are ofthe considered view that the petroleum levy is to be charged andpaid on the basis of Notification issued by the Ministry ofPetroleum, Government of Pakistan from time to time and itsapplicability and determination has no nexus with filing of GD(except the mode and manner of its collection and payment) if any, or forthat matter with fixation of rate of customs duty pursuant to filingof Goods Declaration under Section 30 of the Customs Act, 1969.The petroleum levy is to be charged / levied and paid at the rate(s)as notified under the 1961 Ordinance and as prevalent at the timeof actual payment of the same along with Customs Duty.