Summary: The petitioner seeks several declarations regarding circulars and clarifications issued by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, which they argue are ultra vires the Ordinance and the Constitution, mala fide, and without lawful authority. The petitioner also contends that the funds mentioned in the petition do not require an Exemption Certificate under Section 159 of the Ordinance to enjoy the exemption granted under Clause 47B. Furthermore, they assert that these funds are not liable for tax collection or deduction by Respondent No. 10 under Section 37A of the Ordinance. Finally, the petitioner challenges certain sections of the Ordinance, arguing that they treat the exempted funds in an irrational and unreasonable manner, violating the Constitution.The dispute revolved around the interpretation of Clause 47B of the Ordinance, which provides exemptions from various tax provisions for certain funds, and Section 159, which deals with Exemption Certificates. The petitioner argued that Clause 47B provides sufficient exemption without the need for additional Exemption Certificates under Section 159.The case has seen conflicting interpretations in various High Courts, with the Sindh High Court upholding the requirement for Exemption Certificates, while the petitioner argues that Clause 47B should suffice.Ultimately, the court allowed the petitioner's claims, declaring the impugned circulars as ultra vires and stating that the funds do not require Exemption Certificates under Section 159 if they meet other Ordinance requirements. This decision is based on the argument that the legislative intent was already fulfilled by Clause 47B, and the circulars issued by the respondents were without lawful authority.

Summary: The appellant, had been convicted under Section 9(c) of The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for possession of narcotics. The incident occurred on 11th August 2009, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,00,000, with a default sentence of six months in case of non-payment. The prosecution's case was based on the recovery of five packets of charas (cannabis) weighing one kilogram each from the appellant's possession. Upon review, the High Court noted that the appellant had already served more than six years of his substantive sentence and had earned remissions. Citing a previous judgment as a guideline, the court reduced the appellant's sentence to the time already served. The court maintained the appellant's conviction but reduced his sentence to time served and the fine amount. The appellant would be released on payment of the reduced fine, and the appeal was dismissed.

Summary: The petitioners sought an amendment, citing an order for a recount of votes in Union Council-8, Kolo Tarar, Distt. Hafizabad. The dispute involved candidates for the Chairman and Vice Chairman seats in the 2015 local body elections. The court emphasized the procedural importance of Rule 36 of the Punjab Local Government (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2013, which mandates the Returning Officer to follow specific steps before consolidating results. The court declared the consolidation of results as ultra vires, citing the Returning Officer's failure to adhere to procedural formalities, and ordered a recount of valid ballot papers in accordance with the law. The judgment referenced relevant case law, highlighting the significance of fair procedures in the electoral process.

Summary: The petitioner, a local manufacturer, sought to have this clause declared unconstitutional. Tender Enquiry dealt with the responsibility for bearing increased duties and taxes in case of changes in the law. Specifically, it imposed the burden of such increases on local bidders, while foreign bidders were exempt from this obligation. The petitioner argued that this clause was discriminatory and violated Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan. However, the court found that the clause was not discriminatory and did not create an unfair advantage for foreign bidders. In FOB (Free on Board) contracts, foreign suppliers had to bear any increased duties and taxes in their own country, and SNGPL was not responsible for these changes. Additionally, the court noted that the petitioner had previously participated in similar tenders by SNGPL without any objections to such clauses. Therefore, the petitioner's conduct was seen as contradictory, and the petition was dismissed. The court upheld the validity of clause 43.1 and ruled against the petitioner's challenge to its constitutionality.

Summary: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302, 324, 436, 147, 148 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 7(a) & 25---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13-D---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 417& 540---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, mischief by fire or explosive, rioting armedwith deadly weapons, terrorism and recovery of unlicensed weapons---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Failure to produce case property---Material witness, summoning of---Negligence of Special Prosecutor---Accused persons were arrested and after recovery ofunlicensed weapons from their possession, recovery memos were attested by prosecutionwitnesses, who were cited as prosecution witnesses in challan---Due to negligence of SpecialProsecutor neither those material witnesses were examined nor case property was produced---Trial Court after conclusion of trial acquitted all accused persons---Validity---Trial Court whiledealing/passing judgment had completely ignored the principal objective with which provisionunder S.540, Cr.P.C. was brought into the statute---Trial Court while conducting trial had noteven bothered to verify whether prosecution exhausted its material witnesses along with the caseproperty, therefore, judgment passed by Trial Court could not be sustained and the same was set aside---High Court directed Trial Court to declare complainant as hostile and record thestatements of attesting witnesses of recovery memos along with case property---High Courtfurther directed Trial Court to provide opportunity to parties to produce their evidence and todecide the case afresh---Appeal was allowed accordingly.1972 SCMR 672; Farrukh Sayyar and 2 others v. Chairman, NAB Islamabad and others2004 SCMR 1; AIR 1976 SC 202; Mukhtar Ahmad v. The State 2003 SCMR 1374 andMuhammad Zahar v. Muhammad Iqbal and others PLD 1984 SC 95 rel.

Summary: Acquittal --- '' suspicion howsoever grave or strong can never be a proper substitute for proof beyond treasonable doubt required in a criminal case'' --- Background:Muhammad Jamshaid was convicted for the murder of Mirza Yaqoob under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C.) read with section 34 P.P.C., and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, on December 4, 2006. The Lahore High Court upheld this conviction on June 6, 2011. Jamshaid appealed to the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which granted leave to appeal on December 14, 2012.--- Issue: Whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Jamshaid was guilty of the murder of Mirza Yaqoob.---- Holding: The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted Muhammad Jamshaid, granting him the benefit of the doubt.---Reasoning:The Supreme Court observed that the murder was unwitnessed and the prosecution's motive was disbelieved by the trial court. The primary evidence against Jamshaid was the discovery of Yaqoob's body in his house, which was also inhabited by other family members. The Supreme Court found this approach by the lower courts speculative, emphasizing that suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute for the proof required in a criminal case. The Court noted the absence of evidence directly linking Jamshaid to the murder and criticized the lower courts for concluding that the prosecution had met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.---Conclusion:The Supreme Court highlighted the need for courts to rely on concrete evidence rather than speculation in criminal cases. By acquitting Jamshaid due to the lack of direct evidence against him, the Court underscored the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Background: The petitioners, a group of companies engaged in the oil and gas exploration sector, filed a writ petition challenging the constitution of the Appellate Tribunal under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The petitioners argued that the appointment of the Chairman and Members of the Appellate Tribunal was made without the necessary consultation with the Chief Justice of Pakistan, which they claimed violated the constitutional principles of judicial independence. They further contended that the lack of judicial independence and the influence of the executive in the tribunal's constitution led to the denial of their fundamental rights to a fair and impartial hearing. The petitioners claimed that the Appellate Tribunal, in its capacity to adjudicate tax-related disputes, should be an independent judicial forum, and its constitution should comply with the constitutional mandates ensuring the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive. -----Issues: 1- Whether meaningful consultation with the Chief Justice of Pakistan is required in the appointment of the Chairman and Members of the Appellate Tribunal. -----2- Whether the Appellate Tribunal, as a forum performing judicial functions, qualifies as a 'Court' under the Constitution, necessitating its constitution in accordance with judicial independence principles. -----3- Whether the Supreme Court's judgment in a previous case, regarding the appointment of judicial officers, applies to the appointment of members of the Appellate Tribunal under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Judicial Functions of the Appellate Tribunal: The Court held that the Appellate Tribunal exercises judicial functions as it determines disputes regarding taxpayers' rights and liabilities, thereby qualifying it as a "Court" under Article 175 of the Constitution. This determination of rights and liabilities, coupled with the statutory obligation to discover relevant facts, mandates the tribunal’s independence from the executive. --Consultation with the Chief Justice: The Court concluded that the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in a prior case, regarding the appointment of judicial officers, are applicable to the Appellate Tribunal. The tribunal, as a judicial forum, requires appointments to be made following meaningful consultation with the Chief Justice of Pakistan to ensure judicial independence. The appointments made without such consultation were declared void. --De Facto Doctrine: Despite declaring the appointments void, the Court applied the de facto doctrine, meaning the actions of the current Chairman and Members remained valid until new appointments were made in compliance with the consultation requirement. --Appointment Process: The Court directed the Federal Government to initiate a fresh process of appointing the Chairman and Members, in compliance with constitutional requirements, and to complete the process within 45 days. -----Citations/Precedents: Sheikh Riaz ul Haq v. Federation of Pakistan [PLD 2013 SC 501] Mehram Ali v. Federation of Pakistan [PLD 1998 SC 1445] Sh. Riaz-ul-Haq & others v. Federation of Pakistan [PLD 2013 SC 501] Shahid Orakzai v. Pakistan [PLD 2011 SC 365] Lahore Development Authority through D.G. and others v. Ms. Imrana Tiwana and others [2015 SCMR 1739]

Summary: Summary Pending