Summary: Matter of Income Tax ordinance 1979. Assessment Year, 1998 -99

Summary: Bail on ground of sickness & infirmity

Summary: Criminal Appeal with Murder Reference.Held: (i) An unborn child whose existence in the mother s womb exceeds five months till its birth is treated a child in existence, and such child can be called a person in terms of chapter-II: General Explanation section 11 of the Pakistan Penal code.(ii) Foetus is another life in the woman and it transforms in to a baby in the course of time. Though foetus grows in the body of the woman, but cannot be equated to or considered to be a part of the body of the woman and loss of the foetus consequent upon the death of the pregnant woman is actually loss of a child-in-the offing for the husband of the woman.(iii) At the time of death of deceased the foetus of 39 weeks (who was a complete child) was too lost his life and his killing can only and only be taken as the killing of a person, whereas section 338-C P.P.C refers to foetus whose some organs are developed and some to develop, so in this eventuality, the exact section of law should have been 302 P.P.C and not 338-C P.P.C. (Criminal appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside and the case was remanded)

Summary: Sec. of Law: Article 199 of The Constitution & Order XLV Rule. Execution of decrees of the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan

Summary: I find that in none of the judgements, the disciplinary proceedings carried out by Commercial or Industrial Establishment against their employees under their own rules were deprecated rather the emphasis of the Courts is that the rights secured and guaranteed under the provisions of (Standing Orders) Ordinance, regarding departmental proceedings are to be adhered to and shall not in any case be less favourable than the rights provided therein. Thus so far as the question that PESCO can proceed against its employees under their framed rules is not open to any exception. However, the issue remains that till date, the PESCO has not framed its own rules. Though it has been argued with vehemence that the absorbed employees of WAPDA will be governed under the WAPDA (E&D) Rules, 1978 till such time, the PESCO framed its rules and also that the WAPDA rules were adopted by the PESCO. In any case, I am of the view that since PESCO isan independent entity, duly incorporated as Public Limited Company under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 and governed by the Board of Directors, as such, for the applicability of WAPDA (E&D) Rules, 1978 to its employees, it is incumbent that for the adoption of the Rules, there must be some proceedings of the Board of Directors and not by a mere letter from an officer of the PESCO.

Summary: The constitutional jurisdiction for quashing of F.I.R where alternate remedy is provided, which is convenient and beneficial, cannot be invoked.----Farzana Maqsood, the respondent, lodged the FIR with P.S. ACE, Bahawalpur, alleging that the petitioner and others conspired to exclude her from inheritance rights despite being entitled to a share from her grandfather's legacy. The petitioner argued that the FIR should be quashed as the respondent's share has been transferred to her, and the civil litigation was resolved through an amicable settlement. Conversely, the respondent's counsel contends that while the respondent received her share from one property, the accused, including the petitioner, refused to transfer her due share from another property. The investigation is concluded, and the report under section 173 Cr.P.C. has been submitted to the Trial Court. The court observed that since the investigation is completed, and the Trial Court has taken cognizance based on the report, the alternate remedy under section 249-A Cr.P.C. would be more appropriate. The court cites legal precedents including "MUHAMMAD ABBAS v. SHO BHARA KAHU and others" (PLD 2010 Supreme Court 969), "Col. SHAH SADIQ v. MUHAMMAD ASHIO and others" (2006 SCMR 276), and "MUHAMMAD SALEEM BHATTI v. Shed SAFDAR ALI RIZVI and others" (2006 SCMR 1957) to support its decision. Regarding the competency of the writ petition, the court refers to the case of "DIRECTOR-GENERAL, ANTI-CORRUPTION ESTABLISHMENT, LAHORE and others v. MUHAMMAD AKRAM KHAN and others" (PLD 2013 Supreme Court 401), stating that partial quashing of an FIR after cognizance by the Trial Court is legally impossible. The court emphasizes that the opinion of the investigating agency cannot be considered sacrosanct, and the determination of guilt or innocence lies within the domain of the trial court. Thus, the court concluded that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked when an alternate, convenient, and beneficial remedy is provided.

Summary: Regularization of Service---Dismissed---No Merit. It is settled law, nobody should be able to benefit from their own fault.

Summary: Disabled Persons (Employment, Rehabilitation) Ordinance, 1981 (XL of 1981)------S. 10--Balochistan Civil Servants Appointment Promotion and Transfer Rules, 2009, R. 13--Reservation of posts for disabled person--Applications for appointment of JVT--Issuance ofdisability certificate--Recommendations of assessment board--Entitlement for appointment--Appointment against one post reserved for disabled person from District Zhob as JVT has beenmade on merits and Petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 had secured marks lesser than appointed disabledPetitioner Nos. 1 & 2 are not entitled for relief claimed for in instant constitution petition--Petitioner No. 3 has qualified NTS test and is entitled for appointment as JET against postreserved for disabled person for District Sherani but Petitioner No. 3 was not issued appointmentorder by competent authority--Disability Certificate of Petitioner No. 3 was also got verified byHigh Court--No disabled person has been appointed in District Sherani against post reserved fordisabled person in pursuance of advertisement made for recruitment--Petitioner No. 3 is entitledfor relief claimed for in instant constitution petition--Order accordingly.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: PLJ 2021 Quetta 123 (DB) Present Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Abdul Hameed Baloch JJ USMAN ALI and 17 others - - Petitioners versus SECRETARY RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS AND INTER - FAITH HARMONY DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN and another - - Respondents CP No 1542 of 2018 decided on 3092019 Constitution of Pakistan 1973 - - - - - - Arts 4 5 199 - - Constitutional petition - - Advertisement for vacant posts of different categories - - Recommendations of departmental recruitment committee to appointment Imposing of ban - - Lifting of ban - - Non - issuance of appointment orders - - Violation of - - Direction to - - Petitioners have succeeded in test and interview but respondents without any plausible reasons did not issue appointment orders of petitioners which act on part of respondents amounts to violation of Articles 4 and 5 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan - - As per Article 4 of Constitution every citizen has right to be treated in accordance with law - - Public functionary is bound to act within four corners of Constitution as same being superior law of country is binding on every organ of country - - Respondents are directed to issue appointment orders of petitioners being qualified candidates - - Petition allowed [P 126] A B Ms Abdul Razaq Shar Najamuddin Mengal and Hafeezullah Advocates for Petitioners Mr Abdul Latif Kakar AAG for RespondentsJudgement Result:Petition allowed