Summary: Art. 199, 212 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973.Bar on Jurisdiction of High Court in matter relating to Terms and conditions of service of civil servant.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302---Qatl-i-amd--- Appreciation of evidence---Accused was alleged to have murdered her husband by strangulation----Neither the injuries to the victim in the present case were proved to have been caused by accused nor strangulation was proved by medical reports as postmortem report was declared substandard by Medical Board and except her natural presence at the scene of incident being wife nothing else was before the court to treat as circumstantial evidence connecting accused with the offence---Alleged rope said to have been used for strangulation was not recovered by prosecution---Trial Court in the impugned conviction order had already held that prosecution had failed to prove motive and medical evidence did not prove strangulation, thus accused had no reason/motive to kill and same was sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution story---Burden was on prosecution to prove accused's involvement particularly her criminal role in the unnatural death of her husband to be treated as murder but Trial Court shifted the burden on accused---Mere unnatural death without any corroborating piece of evidence in shape of medical reports could not be treated as murder on suspicion alone---Trial Court convicted the accused on sole presumption that sudden death of deceased in short span of time without any clinical cause and reason was unusual and since the death took place inside the house of the lady accused in the night hours, her failure to provide necessary treatment was wilful, though it was not the case of prosecution that deceased suffered death as medical aid was denied to him---Trial Court outrightly rejected or ignored the medical evidence---Trial Court had misunderstood place and value of motive in criminal cases and had declared that motive in a criminal case was of no consequence and its existence and non-existence by itself neither proved nor disproved commission of a crime---Judgment of Trial Court, in circumstances, was set aside and the accused was acquitted of charge, accordingly. PLD 1966 SC 664 rel.

Summary: There is no explanation for this failure to establish safe custody of recovered "Bhukki" (Poppy straw). It is also to be taken note of that there is also a lacuna in the link evidence produced by the prosecution to prove that the recovered substance 'Bhukki' (Poppy Straw) was deposited in the "Malkhana" and the same was not tempered with. The alleged recovered substance shrouded in mystery and remained unexplained as to what was recovered from the possession of the appellant. In other words, there is strong doubt as to whether the sample analyzed by the Chemical Examiner was taken out of same material that allegedly recovered from the accused at the time of raid. The said discrepancy does create a reasonable doubt with respect to the link evidence produced on behalf of the prosecutor and in such circumstances the non-mentioning of name of the person who weighed the poppy straw also gains importance. Criminal l. Appeal accepted.

Summary: Procedural History:Akram's conviction under Section 302(a) PPC for his wife's murder was modified by the Supreme Appellate Court to Section 308 PPC, with the sentence altered to fourteen years of rigorous imprisonment and an order to pay Diyat of Rs. 1,70,000. His sentences were directed to run consecutively. Akram sought to have his sentences run concurrently through a writ petition at the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, which was granted. This decision was appealed to the Supreme Court.---Issue:The main issue was whether the sentences awarded to Akram for the murder of his family members should run consecutively or concurrently.---Judgment:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Lahore High Court's judgment that allowed the sentences to run concurrently.---Reasoning:The Supreme Court emphasized that the discretion to direct sentences to run consecutively or concurrently must be exercised based on the facts and circumstances of each case, the nature of the offense, and its gravity. The Court found it unreasonable for the Lahore High Court to have exercised its writ jurisdiction to alter the conditionality of the sentences for such heinous crimes. The Supreme Court also noted that the precedents relied upon by the Lahore High Court were reviewed and upheld by a larger bench, reinforcing the principle of not offering leniency for grave offenses.Citations and Precedents:The judgment referenced several key cases to support its decision, including:Javed Shaikh v. The State (1985 SCMR 153)Shah Muhammad alias Manna v. State (1994 SCMR 582)Bashir v. The State (PLD 1991 SC 1145)Muhammad Arshad v. The State (PLD 2011 SC 310)Ali Khan Kakar v. Hammad Abbasi (2012 SCMR 334)The Court also ordered that the deposited Diyat amount of Rs. 8,50,000 by Akram be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased, as mandated by law.Conclusion:The Supreme Court's decision underscores the judiciary's stance on not mitigating the sentences for severe crimes, particularly those involving the murder of family members, and reaffirms the principle that sentences should reflect the gravity of the offense.Court: ''The discretionary power vested in the Court to direct that the awarded sentences shall run consecutively or concurrently is to be exercised in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case, keeping in view the scope of section 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908, the nature and manner of occurrence and the gravity of the offence. Thus, it seems quite strange and unreasonable that through impugned judgment, the learned Division Bench of the High Court had done away with the conditionality of such sentences to run consecutively while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, which is equitable and discretionary in nature and not meant to give premium to a criminal for commission of heinous crime.''

Summary: ''The widespread scale of the violations of election law committed by the election staff makes the pervasiveness of their default to infect the election process as a whole with doubt and suspicion thereby materially affecting the election result and non-compliance of the election laws render whole election void. However, there is no circumstantial, let alone, any direct evidence implicating the appellant in the commission of corrupt or illegal practices during his election. Consequently, there cannot be any finding that the result of the said election is vitiated by such practices under Section 68(1)(d) or Section 70(b) of the Representation of People Act, 1976. A finding of fact about the disqualification of a returned candidate in election matters must be based on affirmative evidence and not on presumptions, inferences and surmises. The state of evidence on record about the falsity of the appellant's educational qualification is cursory, defused and inferential. Any reasonable hypothesis available in the recorded evidence to avoid the disqualification of the returned candidate under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution ought to be adopted by the Court of law.'' --- Facts:Muhammad Siddique Baloch, the appellant, was elected as a Member of the National Assembly from NA-154 Lodhran-I in the General Elections held on May 11, 2013. Jehangir Khan Tareen, the respondent and runner-up, challenged the election results, alleging false declaration of qualifications by the appellant, corrupt and illegal practices, and non-compliance with the Representation of the People Act, 1976 (ROPA) by the election staff, which materially affected the election results.Issues:Whether the appellant made a false declaration regarding his educational qualifications.Whether there were corrupt and illegal practices that materially affected the election results.Whether the non-compliance with the ROPA by the election staff voided the election.Holding:The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal. It set aside the finding regarding the appellant's disqualification due to false declaration of educational qualifications but upheld the decision that the election was void due to non-compliance with ROPA and directed a fresh election in NA-154 Lodhran-I.Rationale:The Court found no direct or circumstantial evidence linking the appellant to corrupt or illegal practices or proving that his educational qualifications were falsely declared. The evidence presented, including the verification of the appellant's degree by the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan, was not sufficiently countered by the respondent. However, the widespread non-compliance with ROPA by the election staff, including issues with voter identification and ballot paper handling, materially affected the election's integrity, warranting a voiding of the results and a fresh election.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that while the allegations of false declaration of qualifications by the appellant were unfounded, the election's integrity was compromised due to significant procedural violations by the election staff. The court ordered a fresh election in the constituency to uphold the principles of fair and transparent electoral processes.

Summary: PLJ 2015 Lahore 490 [Multan Bench Multan] Present Mahmood Ahmad Bhatti J SUMAIRA JAVED DEPUTY DIRECTOR BASIC EDUCATION COMMUNITY SCHOOL PROJECT MULTAN - - Petitioner versus SPECIAL JUDGE RENTCIVIL JUDGE 1ST CLASS MULTAN and 2 others - - Respondents WP No 4631 of 2013 decided on 1352014 Constitution of Pakistan 1973 - - - - - - Art 199 - - Constitutional petition - - Attachment of salary - - Execution petition - - Tenanted premises was let out to NEF - - Default in payment of rent - - Petitioner was employee of NEF - - Being employee of foundation was not to be penalized for any act of commission or omission of tenant - - Status of tenant - - Validity - - Any liability which was to be discharged by her employer would not automatically devolve to her - - Under no circumstances could she be held liable for payment of any arrears of rent due from National Education Foundation - - If decree - holder intended to satisfy his decree he could have directed his efforts against legal entity National Education Foundation rather than pushing petitioner around - - No such provision of law exists to justify harsh and oppressive order passed by Executing Court - - Impugned orders passed by Special Judge were passed without jurisdiction and without lawful authority - - Orders made a mockery of law and travesty of justice and cannot be allowed to be sustained [P 493] A B Mr Muhammad Waseem Shahab Advocate for Petitioner Mr Mushtaq Mustafa Shah Advocate for Respondent No 3Judgement Result:Petition allowed

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a suit in 2003 seeking a declaration and permanent injunction to transfer ownership of two properties. These properties were originally owned by the petitioner’s former wife, with one being co-owned and the other solely in her name. A compromise deed was reached in 2003, allowing the petitioner to have the properties transferred to his name. However, no steps were taken to enforce this decree during the wife’s lifetime. Following her death in 2014, the petitioner sought the Capital Development Authority's (CDA) assistance in transferring the properties. The CDA declined, instructing him to seek legal proceedings. Subsequently, the petitioner filed for a declaration to have the properties transferred, while the wife’s brother sought to be added as a party, claiming interest as her heir. -----Issues: 1- Whether the brother of the deceased (respondent) has the right to be impleaded in the case as a necessary or proper party. -----2- Whether the decree obtained by the petitioner in 2003 can still be enforced despite the lapse of the statutory limitation period. -----3- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to interfere with orders passed by a revisional court. -----Holding / Reasoning / Outcome: The court upheld the impleadment of the deceased's brother as a necessary party, emphasizing that his presence was essential for complete adjudication and avoiding multiplicity of litigation. The court found that the petitioner’s decree had lapsed due to the expiration of the limitation period and could not be enforced directly. The brother’s rights as an heir vested upon the wife’s death. The court ruled that a constitutional petition challenging a revisional order is maintainable only when the revisional court's decision is based on a clear error, misreading of facts, or incorrect application of the law. No such grounds were present in this case. The petition was dismissed, as the court found no merit in the petitioner’s claims. -----Citations / Precedents: --Joinder of Parties & Order 1 Rule 10 CPC: Central Government of Pakistan and others vs. Suleman Khan and others, PLD 1992 SC 590 Rauf B. Qadri vs. State Bank of Pakistan and another, PLD 2002 SC 1111 Said Alam and another vs. Raja Sohrab Khan and 8 others, 1970 SCMR 639 --Scope of Constitutional Jurisdiction in Revisional Orders: Muhammad Ashraf Butt and others vs. Muhammad Asif Bhatti and others, PLD 2011 SC 905 Muhammad Anwar and others vs. Mst. Ilyas Begum and others, PLD 2013 SC 255

Summary: In the trial it was necessary for the prosecution to establish by cogent evidence that the alleged charas weighing 20 K.G seized from the possession of the accused was kept in safe custody. In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid inconsistencies and contradictions considered cumulatively do lead to an irresistible inference that the prosecution has not been able to prove safe custody of the recovered substance through material and cogent evidence. There is, thus, no evidence to connect the Chemical Examiner report (Exh.PE) with the substance that was seized from the possession of the appellant. Since there was inherent illegality in the matter the conviction cannot be upheld and finding in this regard is required to be set aside and the same is set aside and appellants are ordered to be acquitted.

Summary: ''The Court should not pass restraining order against recovery of the amounts in terms of section 41 (b) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 without examining the three ingredients for grant of injunction i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss.'' --- Background: Pakistan Railways entered into an agreement with M/s Four Brothers International (Pvt) Ltd for operating a train service between Lahore and Karachi on a public-private partnership basis. The agreement, which was subject to terms and conditions including payment and performance guarantees, encountered disputes regarding payments and the execution of the contract terms. The respondent approached the civil court under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act for the appointment of an independent arbitrator, which led to an interim order against Pakistan Railways preventing them from recovering the agreed amounts.Issue: The main issue was whether the interim injunction granted by the civil court, which restrained Pakistan Railways from recovering the agreed amounts from the respondent, was justified under the principles governing the grant of injunctions.Holding: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the decisions of the Lahore High Court and the civil court which had granted the interim injunction in favor of the respondent.Reasoning: The Supreme Court found that the contract's financial commitments were binding and could not be negated by the respondent on the assumption that certain terms were based on assumed capacities and revenues. The court emphasized that the agreement's terms, including the continuation of the train service, must be read in conjunction with the entire agreement and do not absolve the respondent from their financial obligations. The court also highlighted that the principles for granting an injunction were not properly considered by the lower courts, as there was a prima facie case of default by the respondent in fulfilling their payment obligations under the contract.Rule: In contracts, especially those involving public welfare and services, financial commitments agreed upon by the parties cannot be disregarded on the basis of assumptions or external reports not binding to the contract. Furthermore, the grant of an injunction must be based on a proper examination of the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, which were not adequately addressed in this case.Order: The Supreme Court directed the parties to proceed with arbitration by appointing their respective arbitrators, as per the agreement, to resolve the dispute.