Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Conviction upheld -- Muhammad Shabbir alias Hanzla and Muhammad Khubaib against their conviction and sentences. They were charged under sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The trial court convicted them but acquitted them under section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act.The appellants claimed innocence, arguing that the case was fabricated. The prosecution relied on the statements of witnesses, including police officers Muhammad Shoaib and Azhar Hayat, who witnessed the arrests and recoveries of hand grenades. The trial court, after evaluating the evidence, convicted the appellants.The appellants appealed, asserting that the prosecution failed to prove the case, and there was no corroborative evidence. The High Court, after considering arguments, found that the prosecution had successfully proven the case. The court highlighted the prompt lodging of the FIR, the credible testimony of police witnesses, and the recovery of hand grenades. The positive reports from the Bomb Disposal Commander and Punjab Forensic Science Agency further supported the prosecution's claims.The High Court concluded that there was no merit in the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentences of the appellants. The judgment was deemed justified, and the appeal was dismissed.

Summary: The appeal challenged the judgment of the Sessions Judge which had convicted Ali Shahzad under Section 316, PPC (Pakistan Penal Code). The conviction was related to an incident arising from F.I.R. No. 172/14, dated 21.07.2014, registered under Sections 302 and 34 PPC at Police Station Takht Mehal, District Bahawalnagar.The appeal argued that Ali Shahzad had been falsely implicated in the case. The prosecution's version of events claimed that Ali Shahzad, along with co-accused Muhammad Ahmad, had a quarrel with the complainant's son, Ahmad Sher, resulting in Ali Shahzad causing fatal injuries to Ahmad Sher. The judgment highlighted several inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution's case, including a delay in reporting the incident to the police, discrepancies in witness testimonies, and contradictions in the complainant's statements.The court observed that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of the complainant and other eyewitnesses at the scene of the crime, casting doubt on the credibility of their testimonies. The medical evidence was considered supportive but not corroborative, and the court noted a lack of blood evidence at the alleged place of occurrence.The judgment emphasized the acquittal of co-accused Muhammad Ahmad by the trial court, stating that the complainant had conceded the prosecution's failure to prove charges against him. Applying the principle of "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" (false in one thing, false in everything), the court concluded that if a witness's testimony is unreliable on one point, it cannot be trusted on other aspects. Therefore, the court allowed Ali Shahzad's appeal, setting aside his conviction and ordering his immediate release.Furthermore, the court directed the Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar, to initiate proceedings under Section 194 Cr.P.C. against the complainant for resorting to deliberate falsehood on a material aspect.

Summary: Background:The case involves challenges to certain provisions of educational regulations in Punjab and Sindh, Pakistan. Private educational institutions and parents contested rules regarding tuition fee increases and regulatory oversight.---Issues:Validity of Section 7-A of the Punjab Private Educational Institutions (Promotion and Regulation) Ordinance, 1984.Validity of Rule 10 of the Sindh Private Educational Institutions (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2005.Reasonableness of Rule 7(3) of the Sindh Private Educational Institutions (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2005.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Section 7-A Validity: Section 7-A upheld as intra vires the Constitution.Precedent: None mentioned.Rule 10 Validity: Rule 10 upheld as intra vires the statute and the Constitution.Precedent: None mentioned.Rule 7(3) Reasonableness: Rule 7(3) not unanimously upheld; one judge found it unreasonable.Precedent: Ahmed Hassan v. Government of Punjab (PLD 2004 SC 694) cited as relevant to striking down unreasonable restrictions.Recommendation made to amend Rule 7(3) to allow an automatic increase up to 8% without recourse to the Registering Authority.---Citations/Precedents:PLD 2018 Lahore 509PLD 2018 Sindh 4982018 MLD 2007Ahmed Hassan v. Government of Punjab (PLD 2004 SC 694)---Quote:The court held that Section 7-A of the Punjab Private Educational Institutions (Promotion and Regulation) Ordinance, 1984, and Rule 10 of the Sindh Private Educational Institutions (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2005, were constitutionally valid----Following the main appeals' resolution, interim orders ? including the 20% fee reduction ? were lifted. Schools were instructed to recalculate fees according to legal guidelines and to adhere to the prevailing regulations when collecting fees

Summary: Background:Numerous private schools in Punjab challenged the vires of Section 7A of the Punjab Private Educational Institutions (Promotion and Regulation) Ordinance, 1984, along with subsequent amendments.The Lahore High Court heard the writ petitions and delivered a judgment on April 5, 2018.The judgment invalidated certain provisions of Section 7A and directed the Provincial Government to take specific actions to ensure fair regulation of private school fees.---Issues:Whether the regulatory mechanism provided in Section 7A of the Punjab Private Educational Institutions (Promotion and Regulation) Ordinance, 1984, is constitutionally valid.Whether the restrictions on fee increase imposed by the amendments are reasonable.What actions should be taken by the Provincial Government to enforce fair regulation of private school fees.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court held that while the State can regulate unaided private educational institutions through a licensing system under Article 18 of the Constitution, certain provisions of Section 7A were found to be unreasonable and disproportionate restrictions on fundamental rights.The court struck down the complete bar on fee increases beyond certain limits imposed by the amendments, as well as the provision regarding the refund of fees.The court directed the Provincial Government to:Notify "The Punjab Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2014" to ensure enforcement of fundamental rights of education.Frame uniform regulatory regime rules within 90 days considering various factors such as costs, quality of facilities, and justification for fee increases.Ensure that schools do not compel parents to purchase specific materials from particular vendors and establish transparent complaint handling procedures.Obtain annual data of teachers and staff qualifications and conduct periodic inspections of private schools.---Citations/Precedents:City School Private Limited v Government of the Punjab and others (PLD 2018 Lahore 509)Ahmed Hassan Vs. Government of Punjab (PLD 2004 SC 694)---Quote:Section 7-A of the Punjab Private Educational Institutions (Promotion and Regulation) Ordinance, 1984 (the Ordinance of 1984), is intra vires the Constitution. Rule 10 of the Sindh Private Educational Institutions (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2005 (the Rules of 2005) is intra vires the Sindh Private Education Institutions (Regulation and Control) Ordinance, 2001 (the Ordinance of 2001), and the Constitution. All interim orders passed during the pendency of the present case have ceased to be effective, subject to recalculation of fee by using the fee prevailing in the year 2017 as the base fee, in accordance with the provision(s) of the Punjab Private Educational Institutions (Promotion and Regulation) (Amendment) Act, 2017 (the Act of 2017) and onwards, for the Province of Punjab. For the Province of Sindh, fees may be recalculated using the fee prevailing on 29-06-2017 as the base fee and onwards, in accordance with the Rules of 2005. The private schools shall not recover any arrears on account of the reduction in fee by reason of the interim order of the Supreme Court dated 13-12-2018 till the date of present judgment; that all schools shall collect the fee, strictly in accordance with the procedure and timeframe provided by the law, the rules and regulations including, but not limited to the Ordinance of 1984, as amended by the Act of 2017 and the Rules of 2005.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary Pending