Summary: Background:The petitioner, Jahangir Khan, was among the accused in a case where Khalid Latif and his wife were allegedly kidnapped by individuals posing as police officers. The accused, while wearing police uniforms, purportedly arrested and handcuffed Khalid Latif under the pretext of his involvement in a criminal case. They also stole valuables from the couple. The incident was interrupted by a contingent of Highway Patrolling Police, allowing Khalid Latif and his wife to be rescued, although the accused managed to escape with the stolen items. A case was registered against the accused under various penal provisions, including section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860.---Issues:Whether the case should be remitted to regular jurisdiction from the Anti-Terrorism Court.Whether the High Court's decision to reverse the remittance order was justifiable.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The petitioner argued that the accusation did not fall under the purview of section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, making it triable exclusively by an Anti-Terrorism Court. However, the High Court reversed the remittance order, prompting the petitioner to challenge this decision.The Supreme Court declined to comment on the merits of the case to avoid influencing the trial outcome. It found that the High Court had appropriately addressed the controversy and suggested allowing the trial to proceed, with the option for the accused to raise the issue again based on the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The Court concluded that the High Court's decision did not suffer from any jurisdictional error or flaw, and thus, the petition was dismissed, and leave was declined.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Seeking direction implementation of Judgement of This Hon'ble Court

Summary: Against impugned judgment dated 22.11.16 passed by learned ADJ/ Special Judge CNSA whereby appellant has been convicted in FIR No.238/13 dated 25.05.13 U/S 9C/15 CNSA

Summary: Criminal Appeal of Norcotics u/s 48 of CNSA u/s 9-C and 15 CNSA ASJ Amjad Iqbal Ranjha, 2 years

Summary: Background:The appeal stems from a judgment by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, dated July 31, 2019. In the impugned judgment, the Tribunal altered the major penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on the Respondent in departmental proceedings to "withholding of one increment for one year." The Respondent was ordered to be reinstated into service, with the intervening period treated as leave due.---Issues:Whether the Tribunal erred in modifying the major penalty imposed on the Respondent.Whether the departmental inquiry and subsequent actions were conducted in accordance with the law.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court heard arguments from the Additional Advocate General, Punjab, representing the appellants, and the counsel for the Respondent. After reviewing the evidence and arguments, the court concluded that the departmental inquiry was conducted thoroughly. Independent evidence, including witness statements and CD recordings, supported the allegation of the Respondent receiving a bribe. The appellate authority provided the Respondent an opportunity to defend himself, yet he failed to provide substantial evidence to refute the findings of the inquiry.Despite finding the Respondent guilty, the appellate authority reduced the penalty from dismissal to compulsory retirement, which the court found lenient. The Tribunal's judgment, however, lacked substantive reasoning for concluding the inquiry was defective or for advocating leniency towards the Respondent. The court set aside the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal and reinstated the major penalty of compulsory retirement. The Respondent's appeal was dismissed.---Citations/Precedents:Punjab Police (MO) Rules, 1975