Summary: The petitioner, Ghulam Hussain, challenged the legality of an order dated 24.04.2018 by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jaranwala, which dismissed the petitioner's application for obtaining blood samples of accused/respondents for re-analysis through a DNA test.The petitioner had filed a case regarding the murder of Mst. Sumera alias Sonia, and the respondents were implicated based on a postmortem examination revealing sexual assault. The respondents underwent DNA testing, and the report showed negative results. Dissatisfied with the report, the petitioner applied for re-analysis, but this was denied by the Magistrate.The summary includes the judge's consideration of the case, noting that the Investigating Officer had conducted DNA analysis during the investigation. The report from the Punjab Forensic Science Agency excluded the respondents from contributing to the DNA obtained from specific samples. The judge found no grounds to doubt the report's credibility and dismissed the petitioner's argument.Consequently, the judge concluded that the impugned order had no illegality, perversity, or irregularity, and the petition was dismissed. The judge emphasized that the trial court should decide the case based on the available evidence. The petition was deemed devoid of force and dismissed in limine.

Summary: (a) Administration of justice-------"Doing of a thing"---Principle---When an act requires a thing to be done in a specificmanner; it must be done in same manner or not at all.(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)-------S. 32(3)---Show-cause notice---Preconditions---If notices issued by authorities do notcontain specific allegations of false statement, such notices do not fulfill criteria of violationof S.32(3) of Customs Act, 1969---Such show-cause notices are defective and noadjudication can be initiated upon same.Assistant Collector Customs (ACC) v. Khyber Eclectic Lamps 2001 SCMR 838 rel.(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)-------Ss.19, 32(3), 79, 179 & 196---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), S.3(2)---Notification SRO No.678(I)/2004 dated 07-08-2004---Import Policy Order, 2013, Para. 12(a)---Reference---Showcause notice, issuance of---Temporary import for re-export---Submission of Bank guarantee---Scope---Tug boats were imported for offloading oil tankers and importer companiessubmitted corporate guarantees as same were to be re-exported---Customs authorities issuedshow-cause notices claiming that importer companies had violated provisions of Ss.32(3) &79(1) of Customs Act, 1969---Appellate authority directed customs authorities to withdrawshow cause notices and orders passed by Appellate authority was maintained by CustomsAppellate Tribunal---Validity---Provisions of Import Policy Order, 2013 allowed temporaryimport-cum-re-export of goods mentioned therein---Goods Declaration clearly showed thattugs were imported temporarily with intention to re-export them---Importer company hadsubmitted Bank guarantee to satisfaction of customs authorities in such behalf, therefore, itwas not an import simplicitor---Tax and duties applicable on permanent import of goodscould not be imposed on temporary-cum-re-export of goods---If customs authorities disputedexemption of duties upon tugs in question imported by company, remedy provided by Notification SRO No.678(I)/2004 dated 07-08-2004 was to be adopted but instead, showcause notice were issued which was violation of Notification SRO No.678(I)/2004 dated 07-08-2004---Importer company intended to import tugs temporarily, therefore, Federal Boardof Revenue permitted them to do so---Once competent authority had allowed respondents toimport tugs temporarily with an undertaking to re-export them, then there was no occasionfor customs authorities to issue show-cause notices---High Court declined to interfere in thematter as authorities had failed to point out any illegality or irregularity or jurisdictionaldefect in concurrent findings of law and fact of two forums below---Reference was dismissedin circumstances.

Summary: Background:The appellant, a bank based in Dubai, filed a suit for the recovery of funds from a company in Pakistan. The suit was initially filed before the Banking Court No. 1, Lahore, but was returned for presentation in the Court of proper jurisdiction. The appellant challenged this decision through an appeal, which was dismissed by the Lahore High Court. The appellant then appealed to a higher court.---Issues:Whether the appellant bank qualifies as a financial institution under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001 (FIO, 2001).Whether transactions conducted by the appellant bank in Dubai fall under the jurisdiction of Pakistan's banking courts.Whether interest-based transactions conducted outside Pakistan are void under the Contract Act.Whether State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) Circulars have the force of law and affect the validity of transactions.----Holding/Reasoning:The court held that:The definition of "financial institution" under FIO, 2001 includes companies incorporated in Pakistan transacting business abroad. This interpretation is supported by the history of banking laws and legislative amendments.The jurisdiction of Pakistan's banking courts extends to transactions outside Pakistan involving parties residing within its territorial jurisdiction. The principle of forum non-conveniens supports adjudication in Pakistan when parties are present there.Interest-based transactions outside Pakistan are not necessarily void under the Contract Act. SBP Circulars do not have the force of law to void transactions.The impugned order is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the Banking Court for reconsideration. Respondents are given the opportunity to raise legal and factual objections. The Banking Court is directed to decide the matter within three months.----Citations/Precedents:Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) CircularsContract ActForum non-conveniens principle---Quote:The factors to be considered by a special court before the assumption of jurisdiction are firstly whether it has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the lis and secondly whether the parties to the lis are subject to its jurisdiction. When the appellant bank and the respondents are present in Pakistan then it is the courts in Pakistan which must assume jurisdiction. The primary consideration before the Court must be where the ends of justice in the case will be best served. The governing law at the time unequivocally recognised interest based loans as being legally binding and treated the same as recoverable under the law, therefore, the assertion that the transaction(s) in question were void under Section 23 of the Contract Act for not having a lawful purpose, is entirely flawed and illogical.

Summary: PLJ 2018 SC (AJK) 41 [Appellate Jurisdiction] Present Ch Muhammad Ibrahim Zia CJ and Raja Saeed Akram Khan J EJAZ AHMED AWAN - - Appellant versus SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT POLICE RESERVE MUZAFFARABAD and 11 others - - Respondents CA No 229 of 2016 decided on 962017 (On appeal from the judgment of the High Court dated 1922016 in Writ Petition No 16392013) Police Act 1861 - - - - - - S 2 - - Advertisement to post of constables - - Father to son quota in police department - - Whether Assistant Director falls within definition of police force - - Police officersofficials defined - - Appellant contended that his father serves police department as Assistant Director as such appellant deserves appointment against 5 quota on regular basis instead of contractual basis - - Department appointed appellant on contract basis and denied regular appointment - - Writ petition filed by appellant was dismissed - - Civil appeal before supreme Court - - Held that notification issued by Government incorporates words children of police officersofficials - - There is no distinction of district range reserve police or field or ministerial staff - - Word used is officersofficials - - It hardly requires any deliberation that permanent civil servants of police department fall within scope of officerofficials - - Provisions of Police Act 1861 clearly speak that entire police establishment is deemed to be one police - force - - Appellants father is serving in police establishment thus he falls within ambit of beneficial notification - - Appeal accepted [Pp 43 44] A B C Mr Fiaz Ahmed Janjua Advocate for Appellant Ms Raza Ali Khan Advocate - General and Kokab Al - Sabah Roohi Advocate for RespondentsJudgement Result:Appeal accepted

Summary: Background:Ghulam Murtaza filed a Civil Second Appeal against the judgment/decree dated October 30, 2017, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gilgit. The lower court had dismissed his Civil First Appeal (No. 33/2017), upholding the decision of the Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Gilgit. The case involved a dispute over the occupancy of a shop in NLI Market, Gilgit, with Ghulam Murtaza claiming to be a bona fide tenant since 1995.----Issues:Whether the lower courts' judgments were contrary to law and facts.Whether there were valid grounds to set aside the judgments/decree of the lower courts.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court found that the disputed shop was originally allotted to Respondent No. 1, as evidenced by a rent agreement between Respondent No. 1 and No. 2. Ghulam Murtaza failed to produce substantial evidence to support his claim as a bona fide tenant. The court determined that there were no valid grounds to overturn the judgments of the lower courts, as they had properly evaluated the evidence. Consequently, the Civil Second Appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.----Citations/Precedents:Gilgit Baltistan Rented Premises Act 2010

Summary: (a) Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010: ----S. 2(h), 4(4)(ii)(d)(e), 8(5) & 11 Sexual harassment—Proof—Workplace environment—Burden of proof—Credibility of evidence—Complainant, a female officer employed at Zarai Taraqiati Bank Ltd., filed a complaint of persistent sexual harassment by her branch manager (Accused), including demands for sexual favours, objectionable conduct, hostile work environment, and wrongful termination—Allegations were substantiated by consistent narrative across forums including PM Portal, FIA, and Police—Complainant testified under oath and was not cross-examined on vital aspects of her testimony including physical assault, unwanted touching, and intimidation, thereby lending presumption of truth to her statements—Other witnesses including a former branch manager and ex-employees supported complainant's version through affidavits and oral evidence—Accused failed to rebut allegations or discredit the complainant through effective cross-examination—Held, complainant's evidence was found to be credible and confidence-inspiring, while Accused's defense was unconvincing—Sexual harassment was established as defined under S.2(h) of the Act—Accused was dismissed from service and directed to pay Rs. 500,000 as compensation to complainant—Inquiry conducted in accordance with rules of the Act—Order of termination of complainant declared illegal and void ab initio—Complainant entitled to reinstatement with all due benefits. ---Cited Case: • PLD 2016 Lahore 407 (b) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Art. 14 & Preamble Dignity of woman—Right to respect and workplace safety—Discrimination and exploitation—Conduct of the accused manager, including referencing the poor background of the complainant’s father and leveraging his dominant position to intimidate her, was held to be degrading, inhumane, and violative of human dignity—Constitutional protections under Art.14 and the preamble were invoked to emphasize protection against exploitation of weaker sections in a male-dominated society—Held, complainant demonstrated rare courage by standing up to workplace harassment, and such bold steps deserve commendation and support from judicial forums to ensure equality, safety, and dignity for women at the workplace. (c) Principles of Natural Justice: ----Maxim: Audi Alteram Partem—Right to fair hearing—Wrongful dismissal—Complainant was terminated from service without issuance of any explanation, show cause notice or holding of formal inquiry—Such an act held to be violative of fundamental principles of natural justice—Held, the termination was null and void and deemed to never have existed—Complainant restored to service with all attendant benefits—Judicial forums have consistently held that dismissal without hearing amounts to condemnation without trial and cannot be sustained. (d) Administrative Directions—Employer Responsibility: ZTBL management criticized for failing to constitute an inquiry committee as mandated under the Act—Directions issued to the bank to (i) install CCTV cameras and biometric systems in all branches for monitoring employee conduct, (ii) arrange awareness and training sessions regarding workplace harassment, and (iii) publicly display the Code of Conduct in all bank branches—Held, such preventive measures are essential for ensuring workplace safety and institutional compliance with the Act.

Summary: Recovery of Charas was made from the toll box of the reckshaw riven by the petitioner. A driver of the vehicle is to be saddled with responsibility of conscious possession of narcotic substance found in the vehicle being driven by him.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---Civil Procedure Code CPC (Recovery of amount/damages)----Art. 117---Evidence---Burden of proof---Principles---Whoever went to court and sought a judgment on basis of existence of certain facts, such person had to firstly prove said facts through cogent and convincing evidence.