Summary: The CONTROLLER GENERAL OF ACCOUNTS, ISLAMABAD-Respondent (Against the judgment dated 16.02.2018, passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No. 426(L)/2017) Civil service- -Regular inquiry after retirement from service-Appellant who was a Senior Auditor in the office of the Provincial Accountant General, along with four other employees was proceeded against for taking out a procession, and forcefully closing down their office-Competent authority dismissed appellant and three others from service, while the fourth employee was compulsorily retired-Service Tribunal reinstated all four employees in service with direction to hold regular inquiry against them, whereas in case of appellant his major penalty of dismissal from service was converted into compulsory retirement and it was ordered that since appellant had reached age of superannuation therefore there question of conducting a regular inquiry did not arise-Held, that case of the appellant was similar to that of the remaining four persons, and the very fact that the appellant retired from service before his appeal came to be decided, could not provide justification to the Tribunal to take a different view from the one taken in the case of the other four employees-Since the appellant seemed to have been treated differently by the impugned judgment from four other employees, the impugned judgment to the extent of the appellant was not sustainable in law-Impugned judgment was set-aside and the matter was remanded to the department to hold regular enquiry in the case of the appellant and thereafter, to pass necessary order in accordance with law-Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: TY 2008

Summary: Bail denied---Background:Arif Hussain, the petitioner/accused, filed a bail application under Section 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) in Cr.Misc. No.67/2020 before the Hon'ble Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court. He was accused under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) in FIR No.38/2020 for his alleged involvement in an altercation that led to injuries.---Issues:Whether Arif Hussain is entitled to bail given the allegations against him.Whether the offense under Section 324 PPC attracts the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Justice Ali Baig presided over the case. The court dismissed Arif Hussain's bail petition after considering arguments from both parties. The court noted that Hussain was directly named in the FIR with a specific role, and the offense fell under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Eye-witnesses implicated Hussain in the occurrence, indicating his participation in facilitating the principal accused. Although an affidavit was submitted claiming Hussain's assistance to the victim, the court deemed it insufficient for further inquiry, deferring such determination to the trial court. Citing precedent, the court concluded that Hussain was not entitled to bail, and the petition was dismissed.----Citations/Precedents:PLD 1990 Supreme Court 83

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: The prosecution seeks corroboration from recovery of one empty of 30 bore from the spot andrecovery of pistol from the accused/respondent Faraz Hussain Shah, at the time of his arrest. Theevidence on record, however, suggests that the IO visited the spot and recovered blood stainedstones and two bullets during spot inspection through recovery memo Ex PW-10/1, while on thesame day, through a separate recovery memo Ex PW-4/1, the IO recovered one empty of 30 bore.The marginal witnesses of both the recovery memos are different and the marginal witness torecovery memos Ex PW-10/1 & Ex PW-4/1 materially contradicted the investigating officer.Moreover, the preparation of two separate recovery memos at the same spot, during the sameproceedings, does not appeal to a prudent mind and create a reasonable doubt in recovery ofempty from the spot.So far as confessional statement of the respondent-accused is concerned, record shows thatrespondent/accused Jawad Ali Shah was arrested on 14.12.2012 and remained in police custodytill 17.12.2012. the confessional statement of the respondent Jawad Ali Shah was recorded by PW-12. In her statement, PW-12 stated that accused might have been produced before her at 08:30 to08:45 AM. She gave him time to ponder over his confession and after an hour. The accused wasproduced before the Court for confessional statement by Shamraiz Khan (PW-6). He states that heproduced the accused before the Court for recording his confessional statement at 10:00 AM.When the statement of PW-6 and PW-12, is read in juxtaposition, it seems that no proper timewas given to the accused before recording his confessional statement. Moreover, after recordingconfessional statement, the respondent was again handed over to the police and the probabilitythat he was under the fear that in case he would not tender his confessional statement, he wouldbe again handed over to police, cannot be ruled out.

Summary: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd and common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefitof doubt---Delayed FIR--- Dishonest improvement---Withholding best evidence--- Relatedwitness--- Chance witness--- Scope---Accused along with others were alleged to haveattacked upon the deceased, who took shelter in a shop but the accused persons being armedwith pistols entered into the shop and made firing upon the deceased---First InformationReport was lodged with a delay of about 23 hours without any plausible reason---Accusedwas nominated in the FIR but he was not assigned any role---Accused was later on assignedthe role of holding the deceased but no reliance could be placed upon such an improvedstatement---No plausible explanation was furnished as to why the shopkeeper or the personwho took the deceased to the hospital was not examined---Non-production of most naturaland material witnesses strongly led to an inference that they would not have supported theprosecution case---Prosecution witnesses were closely related to the deceased and werechance witnesses---Prosecution case was highly doubtful and was not proved beyondreasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.