Summary: Under Rule 10(5 of the Civil Servants Promotion (BPS-18 to BPS-21) Rules, 2019, the reconsideration for promotion of superseded officer must only be after he/she earns one more PER of one full year from the date of supersession decision by the Central Selection Board (CSB).

Summary: Pending

Summary: The respondents sought their promotions as Superintending Engineers (BS-19) to be retroactively dated to 13.10.2016 instead of 14.04.2017. The High Court allowed the petition and directed PEPCO to implement this change.PEPCO challenged the High Court's decision, asserting that the respondents were employees of Quetta Electric Supply Company (QESCO), a separate legal entity with its own rules. PEPCO argued that the High Court lacked jurisdiction over this matter as there were no statutory rules involved.Upon examination, the Supreme Court found that QESCO did not possess statutory rules governing employee service conditions, which meant the relationship between PEPCO and the respondents was based on the "master and servant" principle. As a result, the respondents couldn't invoke constitutional jurisdiction in the High Court for their employment dispute.Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, rendering it unsustainable, and allowed the appeal.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 397 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, robbery, common intention---Appreciation ofevidence---Delay in recording the statement of eye-witness---Scope---Allegations against theaccused were that they all in furtherance of their common intention snatched the amountfrom the deceased and on his resistance, the absconding accused fired upon the deceased,who later on died---Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by sole eye-witness---Said witness despite witnessing the incident and observing that a person was first shot downby culprits and then was put in vehicle, remained silent for nearly a month without intimatingthe police authorities or even informing the complainant in time, who, as per his ownassertion, was well known to him for the last 2/3 years, his statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C.,was recorded about 24 days after the occurrence---Delayed recorded statement under S. 161,Cr.P.C., of said eye-witness had brought to a conclusion that the said delay was just used todevise and create an untruthful account of the occurrence---Said witness also admitted thathe visited the police station along with the complainant, whereas the Investigating Officer inhis cross-examination stated that he was called by the complainant and informed that oneeye-witness intended to record his statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C., which showed that thewitness was produced and introduced by the complainant---Initially the FIR was registeredagainst unknown persons, but thereafter, the accused were arrested, but as per prosecution'sversion the accused were arrested on basis of spy information and through latest technology,however, the case file was silent about any such source of information, nor the prosecutionbrought anything on record to show the source of arrest of accused, which too had not onlycreated doubt in the prosecution's case but had almost shattered the entire prosecution's case ---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against theaccused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused were acquitted bysetting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court.(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 161---Delay in recording statement of witness by the police---Scope---Credibility of awitness is always looked with serious suspicion, if his statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C., wasrecorded with delay without offering any plausible explanation. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 397 & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 22---Qatl-i-amd, robbery,common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Test identification parade---Infirmities---Allegations against the accused were that they in furtherance of their common intentionsnatched the amount from the deceased and on resistance, the absconding accused fired uponthe deceased, who was later on died---Identification parade conducted by Judicial Magistrate,carried out through eye-witness---Investigating Officer stated in his examination-in-chief thatthe identification parade was conducted---Judicial Magistrate, in his cross-examination,admitted that the accused was under investigation, but his identification parade wasconducted in the premises of Jail---Accused who was under investigation, how hisidentification parade was conducted in Jail premises, and what was the reason that persuadedthe Investigating Authorities and the Judicial Magistrate to conduct the process ofIdentification parade of an accused who was under investigation and was under policeremand, within jail premises---Eye-witness failed to identify the accused persons duringcourse of identification parade---Eye-witness had alleged that there were two persons in thepickup, then why the identification parade of three persons was conducted through him, thus,it could be presumed that the eye-witness was accommodated and incited in the process ofIdentification parade---Identification parade of the accused by the said witness was doubtful,which clearly shattered the prosecution's case, when it could not clarify that in theidentification proceedings, the other persons, amongst whom the petitioner was queued, wereof a similar age, height, physique and complexion---Main object of identificationproceedings was to enable a witness to properly identify a person involved in a crime to ruleout any possibility of mistaken identity---Neither the Investigating Officer nor the JudicialMagistrate, in whose presence the identification parade was conducted, had takenprecautionary measures prior to conducting the identification parade---Proceedings ofidentification parade did not support the case of the complainant to the extent of commissionof the offence of alleged armed robbery followed by murder of the deceased---Circumstancesestablished that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyondshadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused were acquitted by setting asideconvictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court.Kanwar Anwar Ali, Special Judicial Magistrate's case PLD 2019 SC 488 rel.(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 397 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, dacoity, common intention---Appreciation ofevidence---Delay in sending weapon of offence and crime empty for analysis---Scope---Allegations against the accused were that they in furtherance of their common intentionsnatched the amount from the deceased and on his resistance, the absconding accused firedupon the deceased, who later on died---Record showed that TT pistol was recovered onpointation of accused---Such recovery was immaterial on the point that allegedly the firingwas made through same pistol at the time of incident and allegedly an empty of pistol wastaken into possession from the place of incident---Witness to the recovery memo of emptyshell in cross-examination admitted that the empty shell produced before the court was of.9mm calibre pistol---Record further showed that the crime empty recovered from the spot and the recovered pistol were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory after 72 days of theoccurrence and 40 days of the alleged recovery on the alleged pointation of the accused---Prosecution had not explained with reasons that why the crime weapon and empties were notsent to Forensic Science Laboratory in time---Such lethargic attitude of the InvestigatingOfficer had vitiated the authenticity of Forensic Science Laboratory Report---Sending crimeempties along with alleged recovered pistol had created a serious doubt---Circumstancesestablished that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyondshadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused were acquitted by setting asideconvictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court.Jehangir v. Nazar Farid and another 2002 SCMR 1986 and Ali Sher v. The State 2008SCMR 707 rel.(e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 397 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, dacoity, common intention---Appreciation ofevidence---Medical evidence---Scope---Allegations against the accused were that they infurtherance of their common intention snatched the amount from the deceased and on hisresistance, the absconding accused fired upon the deceased, who later on died---Medicalevidence was not corroborated by any independent evidence, rather the sole alleged eyewitness of the incident also did not state a single word about the injury sustained by thedeceased, despite the fact that he claimed to have seen the deceased at the time of receivingfirearm injury---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its caseagainst the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused wereacquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court.(f) Criminal trial-------Benefit of doubt---Principle---Conviction must be based on unimpeachable evidence withcertainty of guilt---Any doubt arising out from the prosecution's case, must be resolved infavour of the accused.

Summary: Background: The appeals concern the legality of notifications issued by the Government regarding the delimitation of Local Council Constituencies and the conduct of Local Bodies elections. ----Issues: 1- Whether the notifications regarding delimitation issued by the Government were lawful. 2- Whether the High Court's decision to set aside these notifications and direct elections based on the previous census was appropriate. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Delimitation Process: The Supreme Court recognized the necessity of a consistent policy on delimitation. The Secretary of Local Government submitted a draft of an amended notification, which was found to be well-reasoned and consistent with the guidelines provided by the Court. --New Notification: An amended notification dated 20.12.2021 was introduced, specifying population criteria for single-member wards in Union Councils, Municipal Corporations, Municipal Committees, and Town Corporations. This notification repealed the earlier one dated 21.04.2017. --Delimitation Completion: The Chief Election Commissioner was directed to complete the delimitation process within 45 days based on the amended notification and to submit a compliance report to the Court. --Elections Timeline: The Government was instructed to arrange for free, fair, and transparent Local Bodies elections within six months after the delimitation process is completed, not later than August 2022. The elections were to be conducted based on the 2017 census. --High Court Judgments: The Supreme Court clarified that the amended notification was issued per its directions and was well-reasoned, thus protecting it from further litigation. Consequently, the High Court judgments would not obstruct the delimitation process. The appeals were disposed of with specific directives to complete the delimitation process and conduct elections accordingly, with no order as to costs. ----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Yar vs. Muhammad Amin [2013 SCMR 464] Clarifies the conditions under which a plaintiff can withdraw a suit with permission to file a fresh one. Bashir Ahmed Khan v. Azad Govt. and another [1997 SCR 67 (B)] States that an application for withdrawal of a suit with permission to file afresh is indivisible and must be allowed or dismissed as a whole. Karim Gul and another v Shahzad Gul and another [1970 SCMR 141] Reiterates the indivisibility of an application for withdrawal with permission to file afresh. Dilawar Hussain vs. The State [2013 SCMR 1582] Discusses the principle that even minimal mitigating circumstances are sufficient to justify a lesser sentence. Talib Hussain vs. State [1995 SCMR 1776] States that decisions in criminal justice must rest on the examination of the entire evidence. Saeed and others vs. The State [2003 SCMR 747] Confirms that even in the case of weak motive, strong and reliable evidence can sustain the prosecution's case. Qamar Shehzad & others vs. The State [2010 SCR 113] Notes that provisions of section 103, Cr.PC are not strictly applicable when an accused person leads to the recovery of incriminating articles. Abdul Rashid & others vs. Abdul Ghaffar & others [2001 SCR 240] Discusses that strict compliance with section 103, Cr.PC is not necessary for recoveries made by the police.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: NIRC / Connection of record: Petitioner was an employee of IESCO, his date of birth has wrongly been maintained as 1961 instead of 1964, and on this before his retirement is being processed. NIRC dismissed his claim.

Summary: Promotion (respondents are hereby directed to consider the petitioners case for promotion in DPC. CP Allowed.)

Summary: Where file was returned by office with objection i.e., "incomplete case" with direction to resubmit the same after removing the objection within three days and the petitioners after receiving the file do not re-file the same within provided time-frame without any plausible explanation and in the meanwhile limitation of 90-days for filing Civil Revision under Section 115 C.P.C had also expired, the Civil Revision being barred by time was dismissed.