Summary: Constitution of Pakistan-------Art.199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Factual controversy---Alternateremedy---Contention of petitioner was that respondents were interfering into his possessionover the suit property---Validity---Controversial questions were involved in the matter,which could not be resolved while exercising constitutional jurisdiction---Authenticity ofdocuments produced by the petitioner could only be determined and established before CivilCourt after opportunity of hearing to both the parties---Petitioner had alternate remedy andconstitutional petition was not maintainable---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court couldnot be invoked in all matters as a matter of right rather such jurisdiction had certaincircumventions---High Court would not indulge in investigation of disputed question offacts, which required evidence---Extraordinary jurisdiction was intended for providing anexpeditious remedy in a case where illegality of impugned action could be establishedwithout any inquiry into complicated or disputed facts---Party invoking constitutionaljurisdiction had to establish clear right which should be beyond any doubt and controversy---Legal right and entitlement of petitioner were controversial and such disputed questions offact could not be decided in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Constitutionalpetition was dismissed in limine, accordingly.Rana Aftab Ahmed Khan v. Muhammad Ajmal PLD 2010 SC 1066 and Secretary tothe Government of the Punjab v. Ghulam Nabi PLD 2001 SC 415 rel.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss.22-A, 22-B & 155---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 427 & 504---Powers of Ex-officioJustice of Peace---Scope---Information in non-cognizable cases---Intentional insult withintent to provoke breach of peace---Scope---Petitioner assailed order passed by Ex-officioJustice of Peace whereby SHO was directed to place complaint of petitioner before theMagistrate---Allegations levelled in the complaint, prima facie, attracted Ss. 504 & 427,P.P.C., which as per Column 3, Chapter XXII of Sched. II to the Criminal Procedure Code,1898 were, non-cognizable offences---Station House Officer of Police Station was requiredunder S.155(1), Cr.P.C., to enter the substance of such information in the relevant book keptat the police station and refer the informant to the Magistrate---Constitutional petition wasdismissed, in circumstances.(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S.155---Information in non-cognizable cases---Scope---Section 155, Cr.P.C., providedthat for recording information relating to commission of non-cognizable offence a book isprescribed known as "Roznamcha or Station Diary", in which information relating tocommission of non-cognizable offence is entered---Generally police would not initiate anyaction and the complainant or informant, after having a copy of the said report is sent away,and if, the Station House Officer (SHO) deems it fit to initiate investigation then undersubsection (2) of S.155, Cr.P.C., police has to take permission of the Magistrate---Section155(2), Cr.P.C., requiring order of a Magistrate for investigation of a non-cognizable offenceis mandatory in nature, if any arrest is to be made then it can only be made after obtainingwarrant of arrest from the Magistrate as required under S.155(3), Cr.P.C

Summary: Background:Tariq Saeed (petitioner), a public servant, was posted as XEN (BPS-18) in Zila Council, Lahore.Allegations of corruption and corrupt practices were leveled against him, leading to an inquiry initiated on 12.09.2006.The inquiry was upgraded to investigation with the approval of the Chairman, National Accountability Bureau (NAB), on 19.10.2010.During the investigation, it was alleged that the petitioner amassed disproportionate assets and held bank accounts under his and his wife's names.A reference (No. 7/2015) was filed against the petitioner under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999.The petitioner was charged and tried in Accountability Court No.1, Lahore, where he was sentenced to seven years imprisonment and fined Rs.1,63,00,000/-.The Lahore High Court upheld the trial court's decision, prompting the petitioner to file this petition.---Issues:Whether the prosecution successfully proved the allegations of corruption against the petitioner.Whether the petitioner's sentence and fine were appropriate considering his age and health condition.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The courts below thoroughly examined the evidence and found the accusations against the petitioner to be well-founded.The petitioner's argument regarding the production of photocopies was dismissed as unsubstantiated, as the evidence was attested and available for scrutiny.The petitioner's involvement in previous cases of corruption further supported the courts' findings.Despite acknowledging the petitioner's age and poor health, the court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence from seven to five years.The fine and confiscation of assets were maintained.The decision was based on the principle of upholding justice while considering the petitioner's circumstances.---Citations/Precedents:Case of "MUHAMMAD ASHRAF alias Chaudhry versus THE STATE" (1994 SCMR 667)

Summary: Background:The criminal petition arises from an order by the Lahore High Court transferring the trial of a complaint filed by Muhammad Sultan against Muhammad Raza and others from the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Tala Gang, District Chakwal, to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Lahore. The complaint alleged the extra-judicial killing of Sultan's son by the respondents, who are police officials. The trial court had taken cognizance of the offense and issued process against the respondents. However, the respondents moved an application before the Lahore High Court to transfer the trial to a court in Lahore, which was allowed by a Single Bench of the High Court.---Issues:Whether the Lahore High Court's order transferring the trial from Tala Gang to Lahore was legal and sustainable.Whether the jurisdiction and venue of the trial were appropriately determined.Whether the delay in filing the complaint affects its credibility or legality.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court upheld the Lahore High Court's order transferring the trial to Lahore. It noted that the offense, the alleged murder of Sultan's son, occurred within the jurisdiction of Police Station Defence-B, Lahore, where a case had been registered and post-mortem examination conducted. Additionally, the witnesses were residents of Lahore. The Court invoked Section 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows for trial in the district where the offense was committed or where its consequences ensued. Given that the alleged murder took place in Lahore, the High Court's decision to transfer the trial there was deemed appropriate. The Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the need for expedited proceedings and directing the trial court to decide the case within three months. It also ordered adequate security for Sultan during the trial.---Citations/Precedents:Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973Sections 302, 364, 109, 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC)Section 156 of the Police Order 2002Chapter XV Part VI of the Criminal Procedure Code"Muhammad Sultan vs. Sabir Hussain and 14 others" - Lahore High Court, Lahore

Summary: Challenging the impugned order dated 29.01.2019 of Pakistan post regarding decline request of the petitioner (a) Service Law – Upgradation of Post – Equal Protection of Law: ----Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4 & 25 – Education Division's O.M. dated 26.12.1985 – Policy for Upgradation of Librarian to Library Assistant (BPS-09) Petitioner was appointed as a Librarian (BPS-07) under recruitment rules set forth in Appendix-34 to Volume-IV of the Pakistan Post Office Manual. A policy decision contained in Education Division's O.M. dated 26.12.1985 approved the upgradation of the post of Librarian to Library Assistant (BPS-09) for incumbents holding matriculation with a certificate in Library Science. The petitioner, meeting the qualification criteria, was denied upgradation despite the policy being part of the Pakistan Post Office Manual. The court held that the policy decision provided a legal right to the petitioner to be considered for upgradation, and failure to extend the benefit was unjustified. Equal protection of law mandates that similarly placed individuals be treated alike. -----Cited Cases: WAPDA v. Abdul Ghaffar (2018 SCMR 380) Federation of Pakistan v. Ghulam Mustafa (2012 SCMR 1914) Hameed Akhtar Niazi v. Secretary, Establishment Division (1996 SCMR 1185) -----Disposition: Petition allowed; impugned order set aside. The petitioner was declared entitled to be considered for the re-designation and upgradation of his post to Library Assistant (BPS-09) in accordance with the Education Division's O.M. dated 26.12.1985.

Summary: Court has been informed that there are more than 8,000claimants and clearly billions of rupees are to be disbursedamongst these claimants, in the interest of transparency andgood accounting practices, let regular audit of all the transactionsconducted by the Office of the Official Assignee as an outcomeof this Order be made through a highly reputable firm ofchartered accountants (selected through public notice) everythree months and such audit reports be filed with the Courtimmediately upon becoming available along with an appropriatereference from the Official Assignee.IT Branch of this Court to place full text of this order in pdf formaton Sindh High Court website with a proper banner titled?Affectees of Fazaia Housing Scheme, Karachi ? PaymentScheme? at a prominent place till all monies are disbursed to theaffectees. Similar exercise be done on the web page of the officeof Official Assignee.

Summary: Service/Promotion

Summary: Intra Court Appeal in WP 2819-13 (QUA warranto, against appointment of CEO (Alternate Energy Development Board (AEDB))

Summary: Jail appeal, against conviction of life imprisonment, having offense u/s 302/34 PPC

Summary: The petitioners were appointed on Class IV posts without any transparent selection process. The posts against which they were appointed had not been advertised by official respondents. Norequisition was sent to the Employment Exchange as per the requirement of the Employment Exchanges provided in second proviso of rules of 1989 or notification of 2008 (supra). On the basis of such appointments, no right much less a vested right has been acquired by the private respondents to be continued in employment. As the appointment of the respondents did not precede by the advertisement of the posts or sending of requisition to the Employment Exchange with a view to enable other eligible persons to be considered for recruitment against the vacant posts. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the respondents (private) got entry in the service by back door method and they have been benefitted by fraudulent system of employment engineered by official respondents. It is their misfortune that the respondents did not consider it to adopt an appropriate mode, either without sending requisition to the Employment Exchanges or without issuingadvertisement with a view to give opportunity of competition to other eligible persons including the petitioners, which process were violative of the doctrine of equality embodied in Articles 18 of theConstitution. We, therefore, hold that the petitioners did not acquire any legal right to hold the post onwhich they were appointed.