Summary: (a) Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act (XXI of 2012)- -Ss. 7 & 11-Drugs Act (XXXI of 1976) S. 9-Drugs Pricing Policy 2018, Cl. 9-Drugs Pricing Committee-Fixation of maximum retail price ("MRP")-Consideration of Hardship Cases by Drugs Pricing Committee-Scope-Petitioner, which was manufacturer and importer of drugs, impugned decision of Drug Pricing Committee, under the Drugs Pricing Policy 2018, whereby petitioner's application to reconsider fixation of price of certain drugs, due to amendment in agreement between petitioner and foreign licensor, was rejected-Contention of petitioner, inter alia, was that such application of petitioner was made to ensure uninterrupted supply of said drugs and Drug Pricing Committee failed to consider commercial invoices submitted by petitioner as evidence therefore impugned order was based on misreading/non-reading of relevant material on record-Validity-Perusal of record revealed that only material available to Drug Pricing Committee at relevant time were commercial invoices reflecting prices which were in force before amendment in agreement between petitioner and licensor of drugs, and such invoices did not bolster petitioner's claim within scope of Cl.9(3) of Drugs Pricing Policy, 2018-Pro-forma invoices submitted by petitioner were beyond pale of said clause and were rightly excluded from consideration-Bare agreement reflecting amendment in agreement of petitioner and licensor could not for basis for revision of prices-Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. (b) Constitution of Pakistan- -Art. 199-Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court-Judicial review-Nature and scope-Scope of judicial review by High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution was not to inquire into merits of a decision being challenged so as to dissect and reconstruct the same but was to conduct review of process by which such decision was reached in order to assess whether same was flawed in the sense of being illegal, irrational or suffering from some element of procedural impropriety. Hajj Organizers Association of Pakistan through Authorised Officer and 11 others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Religious Affairs and Interfaith Harmony, Islamabad and 2 others PLD 2020 Sindh 42 rel.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Against judgment dated 27.3.19 passed by the Learned ADJ whereby appeal against ex parte judgment dated 25.5.18 passed by the Learned Civil Judge has been dismissed. (suit for declaration, cancellation mandatory and permanent injunction)

Summary: Crl Revision: Against conviction order dated 21-11-2019 whereby Learned ASJ is modified the conviction awarded to convict. Offences U/s 489-F PPC

Summary: Remarks/Issue/Section of lawWrit petition seeking quashment of FIR.Held: (1) The provisions of Section 154, Cr.P.C. are mandatory in nature and when an FIR is registered, the under Section 156, Cr.P.C. the local police has statutory rights to investigate the case and interference by the Court with duties of police is not permissible under the law.(2) If an accused is found blameless during investigation, he can be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of sections 169/173(3) Cr.P.C. read with section 249-A/265-K, Cr.P.C.(3) High Court has no jurisdiction to take the role of investigating agency.(writ petition was dismissed in limine)

Summary: It is settled law that ocular account in such cases plays a decisive and vital role and once its intrinsic worth is accepted and believed then the rest of the evidence, both circumstantial and corroboratory in nature, would be required as a matter of caution. Conversely, once the ocular account is disbelieved then no other evidence, even of a high degree and value, would be sufficient for recording conviction on a capital charge, as such, the probative value of the ocular account in light of the facts and circumstances of the case would be seen.The delay of about four and a half hours in lodging the report could not be explained satisfactorily by the prosecution during evidence and what would be the significance of such delay in the circumstances of the case. In the repot, nothing was mentioned about the said delay, however, thecomplainant PW-7 in her statement attempted to justify the delay by stating that her father in law went to the police station to inform the police about the occurrence, who consumed three hours and when police came to the spot, she lodged the repot. Anyhow, the explanation furnished for such delayis not plausible because the police station is situated just at a distance of 3/4 kilometers from the spot. Moreover, it is not explained by the complainant that whey her father-in-law had not lodged the report to the police when he went to the police station to inform them about the occurrence. The factsnarrated by the complainant in her report at the spot could be disclosed by her father-in-law to the police in the police station.Delay of four and a half hours in lodging the F.I.R in the particular circumstances of the case had assumed great significance as the same could be attributed to consultation, taking instructions and calculatedly preparing the report and that too without mentioning the names of the eyewitnessestherein. Non-explanation of the delay in making the report to the police coupled with the improvements and contradictions made by the eyewitnesses in their statements had rendered their testimony doubtful and unreliable which did not inspire confidence.Secondly, the very presence of the alleged eyewitness, Mst. Sobia on the spot at the relevant time was not established because as per evidence of DW-1, Sultan Ahmad, Head Master GPS Makra Miana produced by the accused/respondent in his defence, both Mst. Sobia Bibi (PW-7) as well as Mst. Sidra Bibi, abandoned PW, were present in school on the eventful day i.e. 17.04.2015. Thus, in such circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly held that neither Mst. Sobia Bibi (PW-7) alleged eyewitness of the occurrence was present at the spot nor she witnessed the occurrence.Thirdly, the prosecution has failed to produce other major female inmates/women folks i.e. Mst. Hussan Bano etc. of the house, who were stated to have present at the relevant time, and they were abandoned being won over. However, the obvious inference which could be drawn in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case is that the occurrence was an unseen occurrence, as such, other female inmates of the house refused to stand as a witness to depose falsely against the accused/respondent.

Summary: International Child Abduction----The case involved a South African Muslim petitioner who got married to Respondent No.3 from Pakistan in 2010. In 2016, the family came to Pakistan for a visit, and after the petitioner returned to South Africa, Respondent No.3 stayed in Pakistan with the children on the pretext of his father's illness. The petitioner alleged that he deceived her, keeping the children in Pakistan. In April 2019, when she came to Pakistan, Respondent No.3 mistreated her, leading to the filing of a writ petition for the recovery of the children.The court noted the increasing international disputes involving child custody due to globalization. The court referred to international conventions like the Hague Convention and the need for prompt decisions in abduction cases. However, due to the complex nature of the case, the court decides that a detailed inquiry is required to determine factors like the family's intention to settle in Pakistan, acquiescence, and the children's development of roots in the country. The court advised the petitioner to seek remedies before the Guardian Court, considering the Guardianship Certificate's legal standing. The court also highlighted the petitioner's obligation to obtain a court order before taking the children out of Pakistan. The jurisdiction of the Guardian Court is acknowledged, given the children's status as citizens of Pakistan by descent. The court emphasized the need for an in-depth inquiry and redirected the petitioner to the Guardian Court for a comprehensive resolution of the custody dispute.