Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Encroachment of public land ---- Instant Petition Dismissed

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Acquittal granted --- Background: The appellants, Saleem Bhelar, Fardoo @ Farhat Ali Bhelar, and Shah Muhammad Bhelar, filed criminal appeals challenging the judgment dated August 31, 2018, by the Anti-Terrorism Court, Khairpur, where they were convicted of offenses under Sections 376/2, 506/2 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), and Sections 6/7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), 1997. The complainant also filed a constitutional petition seeking an enhancement of the sentences. The case arose from an incident reported in FIR No. 78/2014, in which the complainant accused the appellants of committing gang rape and issuing threats to the victim, Mst. Abida. The trial court convicted the appellants based on the prosecution's evidence, but the appellants contended that the trial was unjust, and they were falsely implicated due to enmity over land. ---- Issues: 1) Whether the prosecution’s case was established beyond a reasonable doubt, based on evidence and testimonies. ---2) Whether the delay in the lodging of the FIR and the lack of forensic and corroborative evidence cast doubt on the prosecution’s claims. ---3) Whether the trial court appropriately evaluated the evidence, including medical reports, witness testimonies, and the absence of the victim’s testimony. ---4) Whether the rule of benefit of doubt applies in this case, warranting the acquittal of the appellants. --- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court allowed the criminal appeals and acquitted the appellants, concluding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted several significant discrepancies in the prosecution’s case, including the delayed lodging of the FIR, the absence of the victim’s testimony, and the lack of medical and forensic evidence to corroborate the allegations of rape. It was observed that the testimonies of "chance witnesses" required independent corroboration, which was not provided in this case. The victim was never produced in court, and the medical examination, conducted seven days after the incident, did not align with the prosecution’s narrative. The court found no signs of violence on the victim and noted that crucial evidence such as DNA tests and the recovery of clothing articles were not properly handled. Citing several precedents, the court emphasized that the principle of benefit of the doubt must apply when the prosecution’s case is inconsistent and lacks credible evidence. The court held that a single doubt was enough to acquit the appellants under the rule of prudence in criminal law. The constitutional petition seeking the enhancement of the sentences was dismissed, and the court ordered the release of the appellants, unless they were required in connection with any other case. ---- Citations/Precedents: Mst. Anwar Begum v. Akhtar Hussain alias Kaka (2017 SCMR 1710) Haider Ali and others v. The State (2016 SCMR 1554) Saira Bibi v. Muhammad Asif (2009 SCMR 946) Muhammad Javed v. The State (2019 SCMR 1920) Mehr Noor Muhammad v. Nazir Ahmed (PLD 2024 Supreme Court 45)

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 ----Art. 199---Writ jurisdiction---Maintainability---Regularization of contractual employees---Scope---Petitioners, contractual employees of the Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authority (ERRA), sought regularization of their services. Held, ERRA was established as a time-bound project with specific functions under the ERRA Act, 2011, and the Regulations, 2007. Petitioners were employed on contractual terms without any assurance of permanency. In the absence of statutory service rules, contractual employees are not entitled to invoke constitutional jurisdiction for regularization. Their remedy lies in pursuing damages for breach of contract, if applicable. Cited Cases: • Imran Ahmad v. Federation of Pakistan 2019 PLC (CS) Note 19 • Maj. (R) Syed Muhammad Tanveer Abbas v. Federation of Pakistan 2019 SCMR 984 • Muhammad Zaman v. Government of Pakistan, etc. 2017 SCMR 571 • Chairman NADRA, Islamabad v. Muhammad Ali Shah 2017 SCMR 1979 • Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Azam Chatta 2013 SCMR 120 (b) ERRA Act, 2011 & ERRA Regulations, 2007 ----S. 20 & S. 28---Project employees---Nature of employment---Scope---ERRA was established for disaster rehabilitation, and its employment framework explicitly limited appointments to a contractual basis for specific durations. Under the Regulations, 2007, employment could be terminated with one month’s notice, highlighting the non-permanent nature of posts. The court affirmed that project employees could not claim regularization unless their projects transitioned from development to non-development status, a policy decision outside judicial intervention. (c) Government Regularization Policies ----Applicability to project employees---Petitioners argued for regularization under government policies. Held, regularization applies only to employees whose projects transitioned to non-development phases with permanent posts. As ERRA remained a development project with its functions nearing completion and subsumption into the NDMA, petitioners were ineligible for regularization. (d) Contempt Proceedings ----Non-violation of court orders---Scope---Petitioners filed contempt applications alleging non-compliance with status quo orders. Held, ERRA's non-extension of contracts did not constitute adverse action against petitioners, as status quo orders only prevented punitive measures, not the natural expiration of contracts. (e) Future Considerations--- The court noted that if ERRA is subsumed into NDMA, the fate of petitioners should be considered in line with relevant policies and judicial guidance, including preferential treatment in future appointments as provided in Imran Ahmad v. Federation of Pakistan. Disposition: Writ petitions and contempt applications dismissed. No legal right to regularization was established by the petitioners. Future employment considerations, if any, were left to the discretion of NDMA upon ERRA's subsumption.

Summary: Devolper of PUBG Game Impugned act of PTA to block the game in Pakistan