Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Sentence---Enhancement of sentence in ATA/STA Cases----the petitioner who was convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for possessing 5080 grams of cannabis. He was sentenced to 7 years and 6 months of imprisonment and fined accordingly. The petitioner challenges the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which upheld his conviction, claiming that the evidence produced against him was flawed and maliciously fabricated by the prosecution.The prosecution's case is based on the routine patrol apprehending the petitioner with the contraband, which was documented in the daily diary and supported by site plans and inspection notes. The prosecution's evidence, including the safe custody of the contraband and chemical examiner's report, was found consistent and reliable by both the trial court and the High Court.The petitioner's plea that the case was false and an attempt to cover up an unauthorized raid on his house, where valuables were stolen by the police, was not substantiated with any supporting evidence. The court found no grounds to support this claim and rejected the petitioner's appeal. The court upheld the conviction, stating that the prosecution had proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the criminal petition was dismissed, and leave was declined. The judgment of the High Court stands without any interference.

Summary: NAB---Order---The petition sought to contest the order of the Trial Court dated 22.04.2021, which dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) related to the production of certain documents during the trial.The petitioner, who was the Managing Director of Pakistan Petroleum Limited, faced allegations of misappropriation, corruption, and fraud in the acquisition of shares of a company named Moravske Naftove Doly (MND) by Pakistan Petroleum Limited. The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) filed a Reference before the Accountability Court Sindh, which was still pending adjudication. During the trial, the petitioner objected to the lack of proper authorization from the Board of Directors of Pakistan Petroleum Limited for Munir Hassan Ali (PW-1), a witness who was supposed to produce certain documentary evidence. The Trial Court dismissed the petitioner's application, and the High Court upheld the decision.The petitioner argued that the documents produced by PW-1 should be deemed inadmissible due to the lack of proper authorization. However, the High Court ruled that the investigating officer does not need authorization for the production and seizure of documents from a company other than a banking company, and PW-1's testimony should be evaluated according to the provisions of Section 94 of Cr.P.C. The Court also discussed the presumption of genuineness attached to documents presented as evidence and clarified that the presumption is rebuttable.The Supreme Court held that the disputed question regarding authorization and admissibility of evidence should be decided by the Trial Court. The Trial Court was directed to hear the objections raised by both parties and make a decision in accordance with the law. The Court emphasized that the trial should proceed expeditiously. The petition was disposed of with these observations.

Summary: The court highlighted the delayed recording of statements by prosecution witnesses as a significant factor diminishing the credibility of the case against the petitioner. Moreover, the court pointed out that the petitioner was initially considered a prosecution witness and had played a role in facilitating medical treatment for the deceased. Considering these aspects and the principles of criminal jurisprudence, the court held that the scope of pre-arrest bail had expanded to allow for a more liberal approach.As a result, the Supreme Court granted the petitioner's appeal, setting aside the Lahore High Court's order, and confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner earlier. The court emphasized that the liberty of an individual is a precious right guaranteed by the Constitution, and courts should apply judicial discretion thoughtfully to protect this right.

Summary: Salary against services rendered cannot be denied on the pretext that the appointment was not lawful when there is no fault of the appointee. The petitioner served as an Assistant Professor on an ad hoc basis at Sheikh Zayed Medical College/Hospital, Rahim Yar Khan. The Board of Management appointed him for six months from July 1, 2019, to December 30, 2019. Despite performing his duties, the petitioner was not paid his emoluments/salaries for the period from September to December 2019.The petitioner argued that he is entitled to receive monthly salaries for the period served as an ad hoc employee, citing Section 16 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. He submitted an application for the release of his outstanding salaries, but no action was taken. The petitioner sought a declaration regarding his entitlement to unpaid salaries for the specified period.Respondents (Government and others) contended that the appointment was irregular, and salaries were withheld based on an audit objection. The Board disapproved the re-employment of the petitioner after retirement, referring the matter to a higher authority for directions on unpaid salaries.The court observed that the petitioner's service had been dispensed with, and the main issue was the disbursement of unpaid salaries. Relying on constitutional principles, the court held that denial of remuneration for services rendered amounted to forced labor, violating Article 11 of the Constitution. The court directed the respondents to release the petitioner's unpaid salaries within 30 days.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending