Summary: Identification of an accused by a Prosecution witness in the nocturnal hours through bulb is a suspect identification, most particularly when neither the bulb was taken into possession by the investigation officer nor the same was shown in the site plan.

Summary: Sections of law; Section FCR(a) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 had become applicable in the area erstwhile FATA the moment 25th Amendment was effected in the Constitution and Article 247 was omitted thereof.(b) The confessional statement recorded before NaibTehsildar after repeal of Article 247 of the Constitution has got no legal sanctity. (c) Conviction must be founded on unimpeachable evidence and certainty of guilt.

Summary: Pending

Summary: Regularization of Service-defination of contract employee--settled law where a project employee is recruited by a company, such an employee doesn't become a employee of the provencial government---Appeal Allowed.

Summary: Regularization of Service---Contract Employee----Appeal Dismissed.

Summary: Regularization of Service---Contract Employee----Appeal Dismissed.

Summary: Regularization of Service---Contract Employee----Appeal Dismissed.

Summary: Background:The case involves Civil Appeals No. 228 and 234 of 2020, challenging judgments passed by the Peshawar High Court regarding the regularization of services for employees working at the Rehman Baba Shrine and Khushal Khan Khattak Library. The respondents sought regularization of their services, which was allowed by the High Court.---Issues:Whether the respondents are covered by the provisions of the KP Regularization Act 2009.The consequence of the handing over of the Rehman Baba Shrine and Khushal Khan Khattak Library to the Archives and Libraries Department, KP.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court examined the provisions of the KP Regularization Act 2009 and determined that the respondents are covered by its provisions. The Act provides for the regularization of services of certain employees appointed on a contract or ad hoc basis before its promulgation. Since the respondents were employed on a contract basis before the Act came into effect, they fulfill the conditions for regularization as per Section 3 of the Act. Therefore, the refusal of the appellants to regularize the respondents was deemed arbitrary, illegal, and violative of their constitutional rights. The Court upheld the decision of the Peshawar High Court and directed the appellants to reinstate and regularize the respondents.---Citations/Precedents:KP Regularization Act 2009: The Act provides for the regularization of services of employees appointed on a contract or ad hoc basis before its promulgation.Government of Khyber Agricultural, Livestock and Cooperative Department through its Secretary and others v. Ahmad Din and another (Civil Appeal No. 687 of 2014): Referred to by the Advocate General to support the contention that employees on project posts, contract basis, or under Section 42 of the Companies Act 2017 cannot be regularized.Preamble of the KP Regularization Act 2009: Provides the purpose of the Act as the regularization of services of certain employees appointed on contract or ad hoc basis.

Summary: University of Balochistan Act (III of 1996)-------Ss. 10 & 11---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.199 & 10-A---Constitutional petition---Rightto fair trial---Cancellation of degree---Scope---Petitioner assailed declaration issued byDeputy Controller of Examination (Certificates) on the order of Chancellor whereby his B.A.Annual Examination result and degree were cancelled---Petitioner's result and degree wereearlier declared to be genuine but on an appeal of the petitioner's political opponent underSs.10 & 11 of the University of Balochistan Act, 1996, the Chancellor had passed theimpugned declaration---Validity---Respondents had failed to place on record a single iota ofevidence of proceedings carried out by the Chancellor to establish that the petitioner hadfailed to appear before the appellate authority, which prima facie reflected that whatsoeverhad been done nothing was carried out in accordance with law---Petitioner was condemnedunheard (Audi alteram partem) in sheer violation of Art. 10-A of the Constitution---Noopportunity of fair trial was extended to the petitioner and the manner so adopted fordecision of appeal was highly objectionable and had rendered the impugned declaration asillegal, void ab initio and without lawful authority---No provision of appeal was provided inSs.10 & 11 of the University of Balochistan Act, 1996, against the inquiry report inconnection with the unfair means of examinations---Constitutional petition was accepted andthe impugned declaration was set aside.

Summary: Bail granted---Background:The petitioners sought post-arrest bail under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the order of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, which declined bail to them in a case involving charges under sections 302, 324, and 34 PPC.---Issues:Whether the petitioners should be granted post-arrest bail considering the circumstances of the case.Whether the decision of the Peshawar High Court to decline bail was justified.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court considered arguments from both parties. It noted that the occurrence took place in broad daylight, with the parties being close relatives, eliminating any doubts about the identity of the accused. The motive behind the occurrence was a dispute over property. However, the crucial questions requiring scrutiny were whether the petitioners shared a common intention, their ascribed role, recovery of weapons, and a tentative assessment of the case. The record showed that the petitioners were accused of indiscriminate firing but the deceased sustained only a single shot, with no injuries to other witnesses. While empties were recovered from the spot, no weapon was found on the petitioners during the investigation. The court interpreted Section 497(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows bail if there are no reasonable grounds for believing the accused has committed a non-bailable offense but there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into their guilt. As no overt act was ascribed to the petitioners except ineffective firing, not supported by weapon recovery, the court concluded that their case fell within the ambit of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. and granted bail.---Citations/Precedents:Section 497(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.