Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Service/Regularization

Summary: Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972-- ----S. 3--Appointment on daily wages--Time to time extension--Absence from duty--Termination from service--Filing of writ petition--Dismissed--Relationship of master and servant--Scope for interference--Law is well settled that a daily wager or contract employee is precluded to invoke constitutional jurisdiction of this Court with regard to matters relating to terms and conditions of service, as relationship interse appellant and department shall be deemed to be as of master and servant--Thus in case of breach of any of terms and conditions of contract or any other issue ensuing therefrom grouse can only be remedied by filing a suit for damages-- There was no scope for interference in constitutional jurisdiction and Single Judge in Chamber has rightly proceeded to dismiss constitutional petition--Petition dismissed [Pp. 575 & 576] A & B

Summary: Petitioner seek direction to register FIR against respondent No. 02

Summary: Sec. of Law: Article 199 of the constitution & Sec. 55-A of repealed FCR.A remedy available under a repealed law shall be deemed continuing for the purpose of order impugned & may be continued even after repeal of the law.

Summary: This case involved a petition filed by a mother concerning the alleged illegal detention of her minor son, Ali Raza, by the father, Sajjad Ahmed. The petitioner claims that the child was taken from her custody by the father on 18.11.2020 without proper consent. The father asserted that custody was transferred according to a decision made by a Jirga, supported by an affidavit allegedly signed by the petitioner. However, the petitioner denies the authenticity of the affidavit and states that the child was taken under false pretenses. The court examined the circumstances surrounding the transfer of custody and finds them contentious. Both parties agree that the child had primarily lived with the mother before the incident. The court also considers the child's preference to live with the mother and the absence of a strong bond with the father. It notes that agreements regarding custody cannot be enforced if they appear unconscionable or coerced, citing legal precedents such as "Mst. SHEHNAZ BIBI v. MUHAMMAD AKRAM" (1995 PCrLJ 307), "Mst. RIFFAT BIBI v. AMANAT ALI" (1997 M L D 1562), "AFSHAN NAUREEN v. NADEEM ABBAS SHAH" (1997 M L D 197), and "Mst. TAHERA BEGUM v. SALEEM AHMED SIDDIQUI" (P L D 1970 Karachi 619). The court emphasized the distinction between guardianship and custody, highlighting the importance of the child's welfare. It asserted its authority to consider the best interests of the child under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, referencing cases such as "Mirjam Abreras Lehdeaho v. S.H.O., Police Station Chung, Lahore" (2018 SCMR 427) and "Mst. MADIHA YOUNUS v. IMRAN AHMED" (2018 SCMR 1991). Ultimately, the court orders the custody of the minor, Ali Raza, to be returned to the petitioner, the mother. It directs the father to file any further applications regarding custody under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and ensures that the matter will be decided based on its merits without influence from the current order. This summary outlines the court's decision to return custody to the mother based on the child's best interests, legal principles, and prior case precedents.

Summary: The issue revolves around the amendments made to sections 122C and 127 of the Income Tax Ordinance. The relevant provisions of the Ordinance are discussed, including section 121, which allows the Commissioner to make a "best judgment" assessment, and section 127, which grants the right of appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) against certain orders. The amendments made by the Finance Acts of 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2017 are also explained. The factual aspect of the appeals is briefly mentioned, highlighting that provisional assessment orders were made against the respondents under section 122C, and the respondents filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 127. The High Court held that there was a right of appeal in all cases. The Supreme Court examined the changes made to section 127(1) and concluded that the right of appeal against a best judgment assessment existed prior to the amendments. The Court categorized the different periods based on the changes in the law and the impact on the right of appeal. Based on these reasons, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals.

Summary: Other Sentences--7 Years R.I.--Muhammad Makki and Alam Sher, along with two other co-accused, were indicted for abduction for ransom. They were tried through a private complaint before a Special Judge under the Anti-Terrorism Act. The trial court acquitted them of the charge, but Abdul Ghafoor was convicted under section 365 of the Pakistan Penal Code and the remaining accused were sentenced to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500,000 each. The acquittal of Abdul Ghafoor and the conviction of the others were challenged in the Islamabad High Court, which upheld the conviction of the remaining accused. The petitioners, Muhammad Makki and Alam Sher, filed criminal petitions before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Islamabad High Court.The petitioners argued that there was no valid reason for the High Court to overturn the well-reasoned judgment of the trial court, especially since the co-accused were acquitted. They contended that the High Court's refusal to consider the abduction for ransom charge led to the dismissal of the entire case, and they sought the intervention of the Supreme Court.The incident occurred in September 2009 when the abductee, Aamir Shahzad, went missing. The complainant, his sister, received a ransom call demanding 25 crore rupees. The abductee was later rescued, and some of the accused were apprehended from the scene.The Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the trial court judgment dealt excessively with peripheral issues and lapses in the investigative process. It highlighted discordance within the crisis-stricken family but failed to consider the preponderance of evidence furnished by natural witnesses. The High Court had rightly assessed the evidence, which successfully established the charge against the petitioners.The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of a dynamic and realistic approach in administering criminal justice while ensuring procedural fairness. It upheld the High Court's decision to convict the petitioners, stating that their partial failure on one charge and the acquittal of a co-accused did not invalidate the integrity of the overall charge. The petitions were dismissed, and leave to appeal was declined.

Summary: Transfer of Offenders Ordinance (XXXVII of 2002)-------Ss. 2(c), 9 (4) & 12---Agreement between Islamic Republic of Iran and Islamic Republicof Pakistan on the transfer of Prisoners [enforced on 11-05-2014]---Invoking jurisdiction ofCourt---Waiving of the fine---Scope---Applicant/offender was convicted and sentenced fortwo years imprisonment plus 11,636,706,670 Riyals fine by the Court of criminal jurisdictionIslamic Republic of Iran for recovery of 12512 Cans of Alcoholic drink in Iran---Applicant/offender was transferred to Pakistan under "the Agreement between Governmentof the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Government of Islamic Republic of Pakistan on thetransfer of Prisoners---Applicant/offender filed application for waiving of the fine on thebasis of being pauper---Validity---Offence related to intoxicating liquor, in Pakistan, waspunishable under Art.4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979---Keeping inview Art.9(4) of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and Arts. 8 & 9 of theAgreement, in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under S.561-A, Cr.P.C., the sentence of thepauper applicant was adopted and was made compatible by High Court under S.4 of theProhibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979---Application of pauper was disposed of withthe direction for the compliance/implementing the sentence accordingly.

Summary: Summary pending