Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Arts. 199 & 212—Civil servant—Terms and conditions of service—Jurisdiction—Scope—Respondents, being civil servants, challenged the posting of a federal cadre officer (OMG) as Acting Additional Secretary, Health Department, Government of Balochistan—Held, High Court erred in exercising jurisdiction under Art. 199 in presence of explicit bar under Art. 212—Respondents were asserting rights relating to terms and conditions of service, which fall exclusively within the domain of service tribunals—Article 212, read with Balochistan Service Tribunals Act, 1974, provides a comprehensive and exclusive framework for redressal of such grievances—Invocation of High Court jurisdiction, even in presence of admitted pending proceedings before the Service Tribunal, was improper—Declaration by High Court was unsustainable and set aside accordingly. (b) Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974 & Balochistan Service Tribunals Act, 1974: ----S. 10 & S. 4—Posting/Transfer—Exclusive jurisdiction of tribunal—Scope—Where the grievance of a civil servant relates to service matters, including postings and transfers, the forum for redress lies with the Service Tribunal—High Court cannot assume jurisdiction merely because the grievance is framed in terms of cadre allocation or violation of fundamental rights—Even allegations of mala fide, want of jurisdiction, or statutory rule vires fall within the Service Tribunal’s competence where terms and conditions of service are involved—High Court’s failure to consider bar under S. 4 of the Tribunals Act rendered its decision legally flawed. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908): ----O. I, R. 8—Representative suit—Maintainability—Petition before High Court filed in representative capacity without fulfilling mandatory procedural requirements—Held, in absence of compliance with Order I, Rule 8, CPC, such petition could not be entertained—Violation of procedural law further undermined maintainability of writ petition. (d) Civil service—Jurisdictional bar—Pending proceedings before tribunal: ----Where grievance already forms subject matter of proceedings pending before competent tribunal under Art. 212, High Court jurisdiction is explicitly barred—Judgment rendered without addressing this bar constitutes legal nullity—Remedy lies within prescribed framework under the Service Tribunals Act. ---Cited Cases: • I.A. Sherwani v. Government of Pakistan PLD 1991 SC 1041 • Sajid Ali Khan v. Government of Punjab 2022 SCMR 1015 • Ali Azhar Khan Baloch v. Province of Sindh PLD 2015 SC 456 ---Disposition: Appeals allowed—Impugned High Court judgment set aside—Posting/transfer to be decided afresh by competent authority under applicable law—No automatic restoration—Pending proceedings before Tribunal unaffected.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) — S. 302(b) — Murder — Circumstantial evidence — Extra-judicial confession — Ocular corroboration — Defence of grave provocation — Sentence — Appellant convicted for Qatl-e-Amd (intentional murder) by striking deceased on head with a spade — No direct eyewitness, but conviction based on consistent circumstantial evidence including appellant's extra-judicial confession, recovery of weapon, corroborated site plan, medical report, and forensic analysis — Appellant confessed guilt in his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C., pleading that act was committed to protect modesty of his wife — Held, although confession was consistent with circumstantial chain and offence stood proved, conduct of the appellant after the incident showed absence of premeditation and presence of mitigating circumstances — Sentence of life imprisonment reduced to 14 years R.I. with Rs.500,000 compensation — Appeal partly allowed. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) — S. 302(a)(b) — Enhancement of sentence — Principles — Criminal revision filed by complainant seeking enhancement from life imprisonment to death sentence — Held, despite seriousness of offence, evidence indicated mitigating factors including surrender of appellant, non-repetition of attack, and plea of grave provocation — Trial court had already imposed life sentence with fine — High Court found sentence proportionate to facts — Revision dismissed. 2001 SCMR 1474; 2007 SCMR 518; 2010 SCMR 55 ref. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — Ss. 342, 340(2) — Confessional statement — Appellant’s own admission under S. 342 Cr.P.C. that he struck deceased with spade while preventing an alleged attempted assault on his wife — Held, voluntary admission constituted strong evidence and aligned with other circumstantial proof — Defence plea of private defence was not substantiated to the standard required by law — Right of private defence does not extend to disproportionate use of force where reasonable apprehension of danger is not clearly established. (d) Evidence — Circumstantial evidence — Extra-judicial confession — Legal value — Extra-judicial confession before three PWs found to be consistent and unrebutted — Defence failed to dislodge their presence at scene or credibility during cross-examination — Medical and forensic evidence consistent with prosecution version — Held, confession corroborated by independent pieces of evidence, forming an unbroken chain leading to conclusion of guilt. 2018 MLD 1654; 1992 SCMR 1983; 2017 SCMR 2036 ref. Disposition: Conviction maintained. Sentence reduced from life imprisonment to 14 years R.I. with Rs.500,000 compensation under S. 544-A Cr.P.C. Criminal Revision for enhancement of sentence dismissed.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) —- S. 561-A — Maintainability of petition under inherent jurisdiction of High Court — Illegal discharge of accused under S. 169, Cr.P.C. — Scope and jurisdiction of High Court — Powers under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C., are broad and undefined, and can be exercised to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice — Where Investigating Officer misused powers by discharging nominated accused despite existence of incriminating material on record, High Court was competent to interfere under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. — Held, inherent powers of High Court could be exercised where administrative actions of investigating agency amount to miscarriage of justice — Petition was therefore maintainable. Shoukat Bus Service, Shahkot v. The State and another 1969 SCMR 325 ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) —- S. 169 — Illegal discharge of accused by Investigating Officer — Role of Investigating Officer — Held, action of Investigating Officer in discharging accused under S. 169, Cr.P.C. was arbitrary, perverse and without lawful authority — Accused were nominated in FIR with specific roles involving serious cognizable offences under Ss. 395 & 365, P.P.C., and their pre-arrest bail had earlier been declined by competent court on basis of sufficient material connecting them to commission of offence — Recovery of snatched property (truck) was made during pendency of petition — Investigating Officer, despite this material, relied solely on unverified affidavits asserting plea of alibi — Held, plea of alibi is to be adjudicated at trial and cannot form sole basis for discharge during investigation without proper inquiry — High Court set aside the discharge order and directed reinvestigation and arrest of accused. (c) Constitution of Pakistan —- Art. 199 —- Police Rules, 1934 — Duty of Investigating Officer to follow prescribed procedure — Investigating Officer failed to act in accordance with Police Rules, 1934, while discharging accused — Held, investigating authority was required to conduct impartial investigation and collect evidence from both sides before forming any opinion — Failure to comply with mandatory investigative procedure vitiated discharge order — Investigation done in violation of law and rules cannot be sustained and warrants interference by High Court to ensure fair administration of justice. (d) Bail —- Pre-arrest bail — Principles — Rejection of bail relevant to validity of discharge — Trial Court, while declining pre-arrest bail, held that sufficient material existed to connect accused with offence and that no mala fide could be attributed to complainant or prosecution — High Court held that rejection of pre-arrest bail by Sessions Court was relevant and indicative of the fact that investigating officer’s subsequent discharge was contrary to judicial assessment — Extraordinary relief of bail cannot be extended where sufficient grounds exist for further inquiry — Discharge order in such circumstance held to be unjustified. Ghulam Nabi v. State 2016 PCr.LJ Note 46; 2015 SCMR 1394 ref. Disposition: Petition allowed. Discharge order under S. 169, Cr.P.C. set aside. Investigating Officer directed to arrest and properly investigate accused/respondents in accordance with law and rules and submit challan before competent Court.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Land Law—Charagah land—Nature and status—Distinction from state land: ----Charagah land—Definition, purpose, and legal status—Scope—Charagah land, historically maintained as common pasture for village livestock, is distinct from state land—It is not cultivable or available for private allotment and is reserved for public use or community benefit—Held, charagah land cannot be treated as state land and its usage is governed by specific conditions—Notifications of 2001, 2003, and 2013 explicitly excluded charagah land from grant of proprietary rights or long-term lease—Conversion of charagah land into state land without prior permission of Board of Revenue (BOR) is impermissible—High Court erroneously construed charagah land as state land, thus upholding an invalid allotment. (b) Land Law—Lambardari grant—Scope and limitations: ----Lambardari grant—Whether charagah land can be granted to a lambardar—Held, Notification of 2006 allows state land to be leased to lambardars during tenure, but does not extend to charagah land—Such allotments require specific permission from BOR and are only permissible for short-term public use—Granting 140 kanals of charagah land to respondent for an indefinite period violated government policy and lacked lawful authority—Respondent’s allotment was not supported by any valid notification permitting long-term lease of charagah land for lambardari purposes. (c) Constitutional jurisdiction—Judicial review of administrative orders—Scope: ----Revenue officers had cancelled the allotment of charagah land to respondent based on BOR advice and policy—High Court set aside these orders without properly considering governing legal framework or BOR's clarification—Held, High Court erred in ignoring relevant BOR notifications and advisory letters—Impugned order unsustainable and liable to be set aside. ---Cited Notifications / Legal References: • BOR Notification dated 09.07.2001 (proprietary rights exclusion) • BOR Notification dated 01.07.2003 (agricultural lease exclusion) • BOR Memorandum dated 1998 (preservation of charagah) • BOR Notification dated 10.06.2022 (clarifying non-allotment under lambardari grant) • Land Record Manual (definition of state land) ---Disposition: Appeals allowed—High Court judgment set aside—Charagah land allotment declared illegal—Land to resume to State—No order as to costs.