Summary: ''The act of honour killing would amount to "terrorism" only if accompanied by the design or purpose specified in section 6(1)(b) or (c) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.'' --- Background: The appellant, Khuda-e-Noor, was accused in FIR No. 19 at Levies Station Dasht, District Mastung, for the murder of Mst. Samreen under section 302 PPC read with section 34 PPC. Initially alleged to be an honor killing due to Samreen living with her mother post-divorce, the motive was later alleged to be her illicit relations with Atta Ullah. The Sessions Judge transferred the case to an Anti-Terrorism Court under section 6(2)(g) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, influenced by the precedent set in Gul Muhammad v. The State (PLD 2012 Balochistan 22). This decision was upheld by the High Court of Balochistan, leading to this appeal.Issue: Whether the case qualifies as "terrorism" under section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, thereby necessitating trial by an Anti-Terrorism Court.Holding: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Sessions Judge and the High Court, and declared that the appellant's case does not attract the jurisdiction of an Anti-Terrorism Court and is to be tried by a court of ordinary jurisdiction.Reasoning: The Court clarified that section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, requires both a specified action and a design or purpose (mens rea) for an offense to be classified as "terrorism." The High Court's reliance on section 6(2)(g) alone was incorrect, as it failed to consider the necessary mens rea. The appellant's case, stemming from a private motive and carried out in privacy, lacked the broader design or purpose outlined in section 6(1)(b) or (c) of the Act. Therefore, it did not meet the criteria for "terrorism" under the Act.Rule: For an offense to be considered "terrorism" under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, it must involve both an action specified in section 6(2) and the mens rea detailed in section 6(1)(b) or (c). Cases stemming from private motives without broader societal implications do not fall within this definition.Key Precedent Cited:Gul Muhammad v. The State (PLD 2012 Balochistan 22), which was determined to have misconceived the legal position of "terrorism" under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.

Summary: ''The seniority of the respondents was to be determined in terms of Rule 4 of the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993, which provided that seniority of persons on deputation was to be reckoned from the date of their regular appointment/permanent absorption in the transferee Group or Department and not from their posting or transfer (date) or any earlier date.''

Summary: PLJ 2015 Lahore 336 [Multan Bench Multan] Present M SOHAIL IQBAL BHATTI J ZAHOOR AHMED and 13 others - - Petitioners versus Qari MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and 16 others - - Respondents CR No 971 - D of 2014 decided on 1382014 Civil Procedure Code 1908 (V of 1908) - - - - - - S 12 (2) - - DECREE WAS NON - EXISTENT FORGED AND MUTATION WAS BASED UPON NON - EXISTENT DECREE - - MAINTAINABILITY - - PLAINTIHFFASD NOT CHALLENGED JUDGMENT AND DECREE on basis of fraud and MIS - REPRESENTATION BUT THEY HAD CHALLENGED SO - CALLED JUDGMENT AND DECREE - - PLABEININT G NON - EXISTENT FORGED AND FABRICATED - - JUDGMENT AND DECREE WAS NON - EXISTENT AND MUTATION WAS SANCTIONED ON BASIS OF A DECREE WHICH IS NON - EXISTENT - - JUDGMENTA ND DECREE COULD ONLY BE CHALLENGED THROUGH AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 12 (2) C PC IF IT WAS IN - EXISTENCE - - JUDGMENT AND DECREE WAS NOT AVAILABLE IN ANRYE CORD AND IS NON - EXISTENT FILING OF AN APPLICATION IS A FUTILE EXERCISE ANDP ROPER REMEDY IS TO FILE A SUIT FOR DECLARATION HENCE HIGH COURT IS OF VITEHWA T APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 12 (2) CPC COULD NOT HAVE BEEN FILED and was not maintainable in peculiar circumstances of case [P 339] A B C Qanun - e - Shahadat Order 1984 (10 of 1984) - - - - - - ART 100 - - THIRTY YEARS OLD DOCUMENT WACSH ALLENGED - - PRESUMPTION OF TRUTH - - SUIT WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION - - NEITHER TOITF LSEU IT WAS MENTIONED NOR NAME OF COURT WAS MENTIONED - - BENEFICIARY OF DOCUMENT - - VALIDITY - - IITS AN ESTABLISHED LAW THAT PRESUMPTION UNDER ART 100 OF QANUN - E - SHAHADOATR DER 1984 IS ATTACHED ONLY TO THOSE DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE FREE FROM SUSPICION - - PRESUMPTIONM ENTIONED IN ART 100 OF QANUN - E - SHAHADAT ORDER 1984 IS PERMISSIVE AND NOITM PERATIVE - - EVEN IF A DOCUMENT IS 30 YEARS OLD AND IS PRODUCED FROM PROPERC USTODY COURT IS NOT BOUND TO PRESUME ITS GENUINENESS - - IT IS SETTLED PRINCIPLEO F LAW WHEN BASIC DOCUMENT ON BASIS OF WHICH MUTATION WAS PASSED WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE ALL SUPERSTRUCTURE AND CONSECUTIVE MUTATIONS FALLS TO GROUND - - A DWUATYS CAST UPON beneficiary when opposite party challenged very genuineness of document - - When a party is a beneficiary of a document allegedly based upon FORGERY AND FRAUD ONUS TO PROVE AUTHENTICITY OF SAID DOCUMENT WOULD SHIFT UPONB ENEFICIARY - - PETITIONERSDEFENDANTS ARE BENEFICIARY OF DOCUMENTS BUT THEEIVRI DENCE SHOWS THAT PROPERTY WAS TRANSFERRED ON BASIS OF JUDGMENT AND DECREE - - DEFENDANTSPETITIONEHRAS D FAILED TO PROVE MUTATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ANY OTHER RIGHT transferred to them through mutation which has been challenged in civil suit [Pp 340 341] D E F G Civil Procedure Code 1908 (V of 1908) - - - - - - S 115 - - CONCURRENTF INDING - - CIVIL REVISION - - JURISDICTION - - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT UNDER SECTIO1N1 5 OF CPC IS VERY LIMITED TO DISTURB CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT unless decisions suffer from jurisdictional defect illegality or material irregularity [P 341] H Ch Rustam Ali Advocate for PetitionersJudgement Result:Revision dismissed

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: (a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001---- ----S. 5---Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Adaptation and Enforcement Order, 2001---Banking Court in Gilgit-Baltistan---Establishment and jurisdiction---Petitioners challenged functioning of Banking Court in Gilgit-Baltistan on ground that no valid Gazette notification existed and Chief Court, Gilgit-Baltistan was not equivalent to High Court for purposes of banking jurisdiction---Supreme Appellate Court held that no illegality or infirmity was shown in judgment of Chief Court upholding establishment/functioning of Banking Court---Objection to jurisdiction was rejected. (b) Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009---- ----Arts. 69, 71 & 84---Chief Court, Gilgit-Baltistan---Jurisdiction---Continuance of existing laws---Effect---Argument that Chief Court had no status equivalent to High Court and therefore could not exercise banking jurisdiction was not accepted---Existing laws, notifications and legal instruments in force before commencement of Governance Order, 2009 continued to remain operative under Art.84 until altered, repealed or amended by competent authority. (c) Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009---- ----Art. 84---Continuance of existing laws---Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Adaptation and Enforcement Order, 2001---Effect---Law relating to recovery of finances, already adapted/enforced in Gilgit-Baltistan, continued to have legal force after promulgation of Governance Order, 2009---Challenge based on change from Northern Areas framework to Gilgit-Baltistan framework was repelled. (d) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001---- ----S. 5---Nomination of Judge of Chief Court as Banking Judge---Wrong reference to repealed banking law---Effect---Petitioners contended that nomination of Judge as Banking Judge under repealed Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 rendered proceedings coram non judice---Held, mere reference to wrong provision/repealed law would not invalidate exercise of power where jurisdiction otherwise vested under applicable law. Cited Case: • Pakistan Fisheries Ltd. Karachi and others v. United Bank Limited PLD 1993 SC 109 (e) Jurisdiction---- ----Wrong citation of statutory provision---Exercise of lawful power---Principle---Where Court or authority possesses power to hear and decide matter, mere reference to wrong provision for invoking such power is not fatal---Substance of jurisdiction prevails over erroneous statutory description. (f) Banking Court---- ----Gilgit-Baltistan---Recovery suits exceeding Rs.50 million---Jurisdiction of Judge of Chief Court acting as Banking Judge---Petitioners objected that Banking Judge could not take cognizance of recovery cases exceeding Rs.50 million without proper establishment/notification---Supreme Appellate Court maintained Chief Court judgment and held that challenge lacked merit and substance. (g) Gilgit-Baltistan legal framework---- ----Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Gilgit-Baltistan Affairs---Notifications/adaptation of laws---Competence---Respondents’ stance that Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Gilgit-Baltistan Affairs was part and parcel of Federal Government and issued notifications/ordinances on behalf of Federal Government was accepted in context of continuation and adaptation of banking recovery law. (h) Constitutional / administrative law---- ----Technical objections to forum and notification---Banking recovery proceedings---Effect---Petitioners’ objections regarding form of notification, description of law and equivalence of Chief Court were held to be technical and insufficient to invalidate banking recovery jurisdiction where relevant adaptation/enforcement framework existed. (i) Chief Court, Gilgit-Baltistan---- ----Writ Petition No.38 of 2011---Judgment upholding Banking Court jurisdiction---Supreme Appellate Court review---No illegality or infirmity---Supreme Appellate Court found that petitioners failed to point out any legal defect in impugned judgment of Chief Court---Respondent-bank’s cited case law was held applicable while petitioners’ case law was distinguished. (j) Foreign precedent---- ----Indian case law---Distinguishable---Petitioners relied upon S.C. Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India, 1994 SCC (6) 731 / JT 1994 (6) 544---Supreme Appellate Court held that case law cited by petitioners was distinguishable and did not affect validity of Banking Court jurisdiction in Gilgit-Baltistan. Disposition: Petition was converted into appeal and dismissed as meritless; judgment of the Chief Court, Gilgit-Baltistan in Writ Petition No.38 of 2011 was maintained; objections to establishment/functioning of Banking Court in Gilgit-Baltistan were rejected.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.