Summary: Appeal against acquittal in Case FIR No. 69/19 dated 27.02.2019 Offence U/s 13/20/65 AO, PS Khanna, Islamabad

Summary: Service/Reinstatement

Summary: Bail Dismissed----The incident took place when he lured the girl away under the pretense of buying her sweets. The applicant was promptly arrested and named in the FIR (First Information Report) under Sections 376 and 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The applicant's previous bail application was rejected, leading to the current proceedings. The court analyzed the arguments presented by both the applicant's counsel and the prosecution. The court referred to legal principles to define attempt and highlighted that even if the act towards the commission of the crime was unsuccessful due to intervening factors, it still constituted an attempt. The court examined the evidence, including the victim's statement, initial medical examination, and witness statements, which corroborated the offense. Consequently, the court found no reason to doubt the veracity of the FIR. The court rejected the notion that the victim's parents were attempting to blackmail the accused and stated that this assertion lacked substantiation. The court concluded that there was tangible evidence suggesting the applicant's involvement in the offense and that reasonable grounds existed to link him to the crime. Considering the serious nature of the offense and the legal disapproval of granting bail for such cases, the court dismissed the bail application. The court emphasized that its observations were tentative and wouldn't prejudice the trial for either party.The High Court of Sindh dismissed the bail application.

Summary: Background:In the Supreme Court of Pakistan, Suo Moto Case No. 01 of 2020 was brought before the court to address the government's response to combating the COVID-19 pandemic in Pakistan. The case involved various government officials, including the Attorney General for Pakistan, the Chairman of the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), and representatives from different provinces and territories.---Issues:Whether the government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Pakistan was adequate.Whether the Executive Authority of the Federation extends to giving directions to provinces to prevent a grave menace to peace, tranquility, or economic life, as per Article 149 of the Constitution.Whether there were grievances regarding the provision of protective gear and non-payment of salaries for sanitary staff in various provinces.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court recognized the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic in Pakistan and acknowledged the challenges faced by the government in addressing it.The court determined that the Executive Authority of the Federation extends to giving directions to provinces to prevent grave menaces to peace, tranquility, or economic life, as per Article 149 of the Constitution.The court directed relevant government officials to address grievances regarding the provision of protective gear and non-payment of salaries for sanitary staff promptly. It ordered the provision of protective gear, payment of salaries, and examination of contracts with contractors employing sanitary staff. Compliance reports were requested from all government departments, with the case adjourned to June 8, 2020.---Citations/Precedents:Article 149 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973

Summary: Background:The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard multiple connected cases regarding environmental pollution in Sector I-9/1, Islamabad, primarily due to activities related to an industrial estate. The case involved various parties, including the Capital Development Authority (CDA), Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT), Margalla Hills National Park, and several individuals and entities associated with the development and operation of commercial establishments in the Margalla Hills.---Issues:Whether the construction and operation of commercial establishments in the Margalla Hills National Park were legal and compliant with environmental regulations.Whether the removal of trees and expansion of certain restaurants, such as Monal, in the Margalla Hills violated environmental protection laws.Whether the authorities had taken sufficient action to address environmental pollution and illegal construction activities in the area.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court declared all constructions and commercial activities in the Margalla Hills National Park illegal and against its status as a heritage site and national park. It ordered the immediate cessation of all such activities and the demolition of existing structures.The court directed the Acting Chairman of the CDA/Chief Commissioner of ICT to take action against illegal constructions and ensure the restoration of any trees that were cut down or removed during such activities, specifically mentioning the Monal restaurant.The expansion or construction work of Monal restaurant and any other commercial establishments in the Margalla Hills was stayed altogether.Notices were ordered to be issued to all alleged owners/occupants of premises in the Margalla Hills, requiring their appearance before the court on the next hearing date.The court required the submission of reports from the Punjab and ICT governments regarding crushing activities in the Margalla Hills before the next hearing.---Citations/Precedents:Environmental Protection Act of Pakistan

Summary: Background: The petitioner, whose appeal was dismissed in default by the High Court on October 9, 2018, filed an application on September 30, 2019, to restore the appeal. The petitioner claimed that his counsel was engaged before another bench of the same court when the case was called, and therefore, his absence was not intentional. The High Court dismissed this application through an order dated September 30, 2019, prompting the petitioner to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. ----Issues: 1- Whether sufficient cause was shown for the non-appearance of the petitioner’s counsel at the time of the appeal hearing. 2- Whether the High Court's dismissal of the restoration application was justified. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, concluding that the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to support the claim that his counsel's absence was unavoidable. The petitioner failed to present a case diary, daily cause list, or other supporting documents to substantiate his claim. The Court cited previous case law establishing that sufficient cause must be proven with concrete evidence, which the petitioner did not provide. Furthermore, the delay in filing the restoration application indicated negligence. Consequently, the High Court's order was upheld as well-reasoned and not open to interference. ----Citations/Precedents: Mst. Lal Jan & others vs. Muhammad Younas Khan & others [2009 SCR 14] Mst. Allah Bachai & others v. D. C. Badin & others [1985 CLC 1985] Muhammad Ghazanfar v. Ali Haider [1979 CLC 84] 2013 SCR 1026

Summary: Background: The petitioner, Golden Star Ghee Mills, faced a decree for the recovery of a loan amounting to Rs. 1,85,32,307/- passed by the Banking Tribunal, Rawalpindi. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, the case was transferred to the newly constituted Banking Court in Mirpur, Azad Kashmir. The petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the Banking Court, Mirpur, but their application and subsequent review petition were dismissed up to the Supreme Court. The file was mistakenly consigned to the record but was later restored, and execution proceedings were initiated. The Banking Court, Mirpur, ordered the auction of the petitioner's pledged property, which led to the petitioner filing a revision petition before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the revision petition, prompting the petitioner to seek leave to appeal from the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. ----Issues: 1- Whether the Banking Court, Mirpur, was required to issue a fresh notice to the petitioners after restoring the consigned file. 2- Whether the order for the auction of the petitioner's property adhered to the statutory provisions of the law, specifically under Order XXI, Rule 66(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, recognizing the need for detailed deliberation on several important legal propositions, including the necessity of issuing notice to the petitioners/judgment debtors. The Court acknowledged that the petitioners' case presented arguable points that warranted further examination in a regular appeal. Consequently, the operation of the High Court's impugned order was suspended until the appeal's disposal. The petitioners were required to deposit a security of Rs. 1000/-, failing which the leave granting order would be rescinded automatically. ----Citations/Precedents: Order XXI, Rule 66(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 2007 YLR 126

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending