Summary: The precise question involved in the instant writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to the remissions and whether the provisions of Section 21-F inserted through Anti- Terrorism (Amendment) Ordinance, 2001, are applicable to the case of the petitioner or otherwise.The said amendment Ordinance was promulgated through Ordinance No.XXIX of 2001, which was published in the Gazette of Pakistan, Extraordinary, Part-I, dated 15th August, 2001. The case was registered against the petitioner vide F.I.R dated 27.05.2001, prior to the promulgation of the amended ordinance. Thus, the registration of F.I.R is prior in time, as such, the provisions of amended ordinance cannot be applied to the case of the petitioner retrospectively but the law existed at the time of registration of F.I.R would certainly be applicable to the case of the petitioner and he would be entitled for the remissions. Writ Petition allowed.

Summary: The private schools alone are not suffering due to the lockdown imposed by thegovernment. In-fact all the business sectors of the country have badly affected due to the currentoutbreak of virus, however, the restrictions imposed by the government are for the safety ofpublic at large, as yet there is no treatment of the disease caused by the virus which spreadsspeedily. Since, it is a policy matter of the government, in order to curb further spread of the virus,that private schools have been kept close, therefore, interference by the High Court in such matteris not warranted.It has time and again been held by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan that the HighCourt is not enjoying the jurisdiction to interfere in the policy matters of the Executive as it isagainst the principle of trichotomy of powers, the foundational principle of the Constitution ofIslamic Republic of Pakistan. The High Court in its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitutionof Islamic Republic of Pakistan can annul an order or a Policy framed by the Executive, if it is violative of the Constitution, law or is product of mala fides.

Summary: Conviction passed by trial court against accused was not in consonance with the facts of the case---Farooq Hussain filed an instant miscellaneous application seeking the suspension of the sentence awarded to him by the trial court in Faisalabad. He was convicted under Section 302 (b) PPC for causing the murder of Imran Khan. The sentence included life imprisonment as Taz'ir and payment of compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. The court noted that there were two deceased persons and two injured individuals in the case. The role attributed to the applicant was causing a firearm injury to one of the deceased, Saba Iqbal. However, during the trial, all legal heirs of Saba Iqbal compromised with the applicant, and the injured individuals did not appear. Notably, the applicant did not cause any injury to the other deceased, Imran Khan. Considering the circumstances, the court observed that the conviction against the applicant for the murder of Imran Khan needs a reappraisal of evidence. As a result, the court allowed the miscellaneous application, suspends the execution of the sentence, and orders the release of Farooq Hussain on bail until the final disposal of the main criminal appeal.

Summary: Bail granted---Background:Saleem Khan, the petitioner, was involved in a criminal case where he was initially charged under section 394 PPC but later accused of an offense under section 302 PPC after the victim succumbed to his injuries. The incident occurred on 21.05.2018, leading to the registration of FIR no. 241 of 2018 at Thana Lower Mall, Lahore. Saleem Khan, along with his co-accused, was implicated in the crime. Subsequently, Saleem Khan, through his counsel, moved a bail application based on statutory grounds after being declared a juvenile by the trial court. ---Issues:Whether the petitioner, a juvenile offender, is entitled to bail on statutory grounds.Whether the delay in trial, caused by determining the petitioner's age, should be attributed to the petitioner.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The petitioner, Saleem Khan, moved a second bail application on statutory grounds after being declared a juvenile by the trial court.The prosecution opposed bail, citing the Juvenile Ordinance, which allows refusal of bail if the juvenile is over 15 years of age and involved in serious offenses.The Supreme Court reviewed relevant provisions of both the Juvenile Ordinance and the Juvenile Act.It noted that under the Juvenile Act, the responsibility for determining the age of the accused initially lies with the police, but the court of general jurisdiction can make this determination in the absence of police inquiry.The court emphasized that the time spent by the court in determining the accused's age cannot be considered a delay caused by the accused, as it is a statutory requirement.Under the Juvenile Act, a juvenile must be released on bail if detained for over six months without trial completion, unless the delay is attributable to the juvenile.Considering that the petitioner had been in detention for over six months without trial completion, and the delay was not caused by him, the court allowed the appeal and granted bail to Saleem Khan.---Citations/Precedents:District Bar Association, Rawalpindi v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2015 SC 401)---Quote:Determination of age of a juvenile and the continuation of the trial.

Summary: Background: The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance before the Judge Family Court in Mirpur on 22.12.2015. The trial court, on 09.02.2018, decreed that the plaintiff-respondents No.1 and 2 were entitled to Rs.7,000 each per month from 24.03.2015 until they reached puberty, and plaintiff-respondent No.3 was entitled to Rs.3,000 per month. The petitioner, Tahir Tariq, appealed to the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court, which dismissed the appeal on 09.01.2019. Dissatisfied with the High Court's decision, the petitioner sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. -----Issues: Whether the maintenance allowance decreed by the trial court and upheld by the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court was appropriately calculated, considering the petitioner's financial condition. Whether the petitioner’s obligation to provide maintenance is affected by the marital conduct and economic resources of the petitioner. Whether there was any misreading or non-reading of evidence by the lower courts. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir granted leave to appeal, recognizing that the issues raised by the petitioner required detailed deliberation. Specifically, the Court will examine: The appropriateness of the maintenance allowance fixed by the trial court in light of the petitioner's financial situation. The legal implications of the petitioner's obligation to maintain his wife and children, considering the marital conduct and the petitioner's economic resources. The accuracy and completeness of the evidence evaluation by the lower courts. ----Citations/Precedents: Umar Hayyat vs. Asia Bibi & others [2019 SCR 427]

Summary: Background: The petitioner a Junior Technical Teacher B-9 (Wood Work) at Government Pilot High School Samahni, District Bhimber, sought relief against alleged harassment by the respondents during an inquiry conducted by the Ehtesab Bureau. The petitioner requested the High Court to restrain the respondents from maliciously harassing him. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, leading the petitioner to file an appeal to the Supreme Court. ----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner was being harassed through malicious practices by the respondents during the inquiry. 2- Whether the inquiry being conducted against the petitioner should be allowed to continue without illegal harassment. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir addressed the petitioner's concern regarding harassment. The Court noted that the petitioner did not seek to restrain the inquiry itself but rather the harassment allegedly accompanying it. The petitioner's counsel expressed no objection to the inquiry continuing, provided that the respondents refrained from illegal harassment. The Chief Prosecutor and the Additional Advocate-General agreed to this condition. The Court disposed of the petition and the application for interim relief with the observation that while holding the inquiry, the respondents should not harass the petitioner through any malicious practice. No order as to costs was made.

Summary: Bail denied----Background: The petitioner was accused of obtaining an appointment and subsequent promotion using a doubtful M.A. Political Science degree. Complainants, who were employees of the Educational Board Mirpur, alleged that the degree was bogus. The Ehtesab Bureau investigated and found the degree to be fraudulent. The trial court convicted him and sentenced him to 7 years of simple imprisonment for each offense and ordered the recovery of Rs. 19,43,119/-. The High Court upheld the trial court’s decision, leading to this petition for leave to appeal. ----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner’s degree from the University of Sindh Jamshoro is genuine. 2- Whether the trial court and High Court overlooked critical aspects and evidence of the case. 3- Whether the conviction and the sentence were lawful and appropriate. 4- Whether the petitioner should be granted bail pending the final disposal of the case. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir granted leave to appeal, recognizing that important legal propositions requiring detailed deliberation were involved. Specifically, the Court will examine: The authenticity of the petitioner’s degree, especially in light of the documents provided by the petitioner that purportedly verify the degree as genuine. Whether the trial court and High Court appropriately considered all evidence and aspects of the case. The legality and appropriateness of the conviction and sentence handed down by the lower courts. Regarding the application for bail, the Court observed that no sufficient grounds existed to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. However, the Court directed the office to expedite the preparation of the case file for final disposal. ----Citations/Precedents: Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) Sections 10 and 11 of the Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001 The Court's decision to grant leave to appeal ensures a comprehensive review of the legal and factual issues surrounding the petitioner’s conviction and the authenticity of his degree, while denying bail to ensure the integrity of the ongoing judicial process.

Summary: Background: The petitioner sought an opportunity for a hearing to resolve a matter expeditiously. The petitioner’s counsel requested a direction for a swift conclusion of the case. The counsel for respondent No. 1 concurred with this request. ----Issues: 1- Whether the parties should be granted an opportunity for a hearing. 2- Whether a directive should be issued for the expeditious resolution of the matter. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The petition was disposed of with a directive to the official respondents to resolve the matter in accordance with the High Court's previous order within two months from the communication of this order. The petition, along with the petition for leave to appeal, was disposed of with no order as to costs.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, a Junior Technical Teacher at Government Pilot High School Samahni, District Bhimber, filed a writ petition seeking to restrain the respondents from harassing him through malicious practices. The High Court dismissed his writ petition on October 18, 2019. The petitioner then sought interim relief from the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. ----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner should be protected from harassment by the respondents during the inquiry process. 2- Whether the respondents should be restrained from harassing the petitioner maliciously. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: During the Supreme Court hearing, the petitioner’s counsel clarified that the primary concern was to prevent harassment through malicious practices, not to stop the inquiry itself. The respondents' counsel agreed to this proposition and undertook not to engage in any illegal harassment. The Supreme Court disposed of the petition and the application for interim relief, instructing the respondents to avoid harassing the petitioner while conducting the inquiry. The Court made no order as to costs.

Summary: Summary pending