Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Constitutional and Administrative Law— Policy Guidelines for Foreign Appointments— Violation of Policy Guidelines— Establishment Division’s Office Memorandum, dated 16.02.2016— Community Welfare Attaché Selection Process— Petitioners, civil servants, challenged the decision of the Special Selection Board (S.S.B.) not to appoint them as Community Welfare Attachés (C.W.A.s) despite their success in the written test. The petitioners argued that the decision violated the policy guidelines under the Establishment Division’s office memorandum, which mandated 80% weightage to the written test and no minimum passing marks for the interview. It was further argued that the vacancies were greater than the number of candidates who passed the test, meaning the petitioners should have been appointed. The court held that the S.S.B.’s decision violated the policy, as there were no passing marks for the interview, and no candidate could be disqualified based solely on interview performance. The decision not to appoint the petitioners was set aside. (b) Administrative Law— Amendment of Policy— Retrospective Application— Amendment of Policy Guidelines Post-Participation— The policy was amended on 10.12.2019 to provide 40% weightage to the interview and 50% passing marks for the interview. However, the court held that the amendment could not apply retrospectively to the petitioners' selection process, as they had participated under the previous policy guidelines. (c) Public Administration— Vacancies and Selection Process— The court emphasized that the S.S.B.'s decision not to appoint the petitioners was erroneous, as the number of vacancies exceeded the candidates who had qualified the written test. Consequently, the non-selection of the petitioners contradicted the established policy, and the petitioners were entitled to appointment. Disposition: The writ petition was allowed. The decision of the Special Selection Board (S.S.B.) not to appoint the petitioners as Community Welfare Attachés was declared contrary to the policy guidelines and set aside. No order as to costs.

Summary: Appeal against conviction and sentence.Held: (1) Chance witnesses cannot be safely relied upon on a capital charge in the absence of satisfactory explanation regarding their presence near the place of occurrence.(2) No certificate was given by the doctor regarding the condition of the injured and even the report of the injured was not taken down in his presence.(3) to believe or disbelieve a dying declaration thus is left to the ordinary human judgment, however, the Courts always insist strong, independent and reliable corroboratory evidence for the sake of safe dispensation of justice.Appeal was allowed by setting aside the conviction and sentence.

Summary: Sections of law; Article 199 of the Constitution and sections 3, 6 & 9 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Prohibition of Interest on Private Loans Act, 2016 read with section 200 Cr.P.C.(a) Heading or sub-heading of a section may be read in aid of wordings of the section but same does not control wordings of the main section, particularly when no ambiguity exists therein.(b) Offences under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Prohibition of Interest on Private Loans Act, 2016 are cognizable in nature and local police are fully competent to register an FIR, thereunder, without an order of the Justice of Peace.

Summary: Sections of law; Article 199 of the Constitution and Rule 10 of the APT Rules, 1989.(a) Vacancies in government service cannot be allowed to be filled without proper advertisement, as required in the APT Rules, except vacancies in Class-IV.

Summary: Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 199---Notification No. DS(B)Laptop4thphase/2017---Constitutional petition---"ChiefMinister's Laptop Scheme"---Sovereignty, doctrine of---Scope---Petitioners, throughconstitutional petitions, sought direction to the authorities to issue them the laptops under"Chief Minister's Laptop Scheme"---Validity---Held, Government, under the doctrine ofSovereignty, was bound to adhere to its commitments---Commitments made on behalf of theGovernment should neither be lightly disregarded nor deliberately ignored---Orderlydevelopment of a civilized society required that citizens should be entitled to place implicitfaith and confidence on representations which were made by or on behalf of thegovernmental authorities---Importance of this underlined the sustained thrust towards theindustrialization of the country in which both the nationals of Pakistan as well as nationals offoreign countries should have complete confidence that official commitments would be dulyhonoured and acted upon in letter and spirit---Authorities had offered that if the petitionersapproached its Focal Person along with their relevant documents, the matter would bedecided in accordance with the policy/criteria---Petitioners were directed by the High Courtto appear before the Focal Person and the authorities were directed to deliver laptops to thepetitioners, if found eligible, as per policy/criteria---Constitutional petition was disposed ofaccordingly.

Summary: In this case while interpreting section 390(3)(b) and section 390(4) of the Companies Act, 2017, the Court held that assets subject to floating charge shall remain available for payment of liquidation expense and to general creditors even if secured creditors want to remain outside the winding up and the option to stay outside the winding up and realize its security under section 47 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 shall only be available in respect of mortgage (fixed assets). Further Court held that where the winding up expense are utilized to preserve the mortgaged assets which are to be realized by the secured creditors outside the winding up, then secured creditors are required to bear the winding up expense to manage and preserve those assets till same are realized by the secured creditors as they will be the ultimate beneficiary of those assets exclusively.

Summary: Background:Bashir Ahmed Leghari, along with co-accused Muhammad Hussain and Waryam, was implicated in a case of murderous assault against Saleem Raza. The incident occurred on July 30, 2008, at Police Station Dadu, resulting in severe injuries to the victim, including the amputation of one of his legs. While the co-accused were acquitted in 2013, Leghari contested his indictment in 2017 and was subsequently convicted of murderous assault and Itlaf-i-Udw (injury). His appeal in the High Court was unsuccessful, leading to the filing of a Jail Petition challenging the judgment.---Issues:Leghari's culpability in the murderous assault against Saleem Raza.The adequacy of evidence and legal proceedings leading to Leghari's conviction.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court reviewed the grounds presented by Leghari in his petition and examined the case records. Despite prosecution's failure to recover the weapon used in the assault, Leghari's prolonged absence from the law enforcement authorities after the incident raised suspicions. The victim's injuries, consistent with a .12 caliber repeater, supported the prosecution's case. Witness testimonies corroborated the sequence of events, and Leghari's cross-examination failed to undermine their credibility. The Court found no reason to overturn the concurrent decisions of the lower courts, as they aligned with the principles of fair criminal justice. Leghari's petition was dismissed, and leave was declined.

Summary: Background: The appellant challenged the judgment and decree dated March 29, 2019, from the High Court. The case involved the acquisition of the appellant's brick kiln for the Mangla Dam Raising Project. The Collector Land Acquisition initially assessed the compensation at Rs.29,98,410/-. Dissatisfied with this amount, the appellant filed a reference application, claiming the market value of the brick kiln to be Rs.2,00,00,000/-. The Reference Judge increased the compensation to Rs.3,89,793/-. The appellant then appealed to the High Court for further enhancement, which was dismissed, leading to this appeal. ----Issues: 1- Whether the compensation determined by the Collector was a result of miscalculation. 2- Whether the High Court properly considered the evidence and the claim of miscalculation. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not adequately address the appellant's claim of miscalculation in the award determined by the Collector. Key points of the judgment included: Evidence Consideration: The High Court discussed the evidence presented but failed to consider the alleged miscalculation by the Collector. Miscalculation Claim: The appellant's counsel argued that the compensation was miscalculated. The respondents' counsel could not satisfactorily address this point during the arguments. Remand for Re-evaluation: The Supreme Court decided to set aside the High Court's judgment and remand the case for re-evaluation. The High Court is directed to resolve the issue of miscalculation and decide the case afresh within one month from the communication of this judgment.