Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, S.9(1)6(d)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324, 353, 225 & 186---Post-arrest bail---Recovery of 1020 grams heroin---Petitioner was arrested at the spot during police raid conducted on spy information near Zia Masjid Stop, Islamabad---Upon search of bag held by petitioner, three envelopes containing brown-coloured heroin weighing 1020 grams were recovered---Recovery was directly from petitioner’s physical possession and prima facie connected him with commission of offence---Quantity recovered fell within prohibitory clause---Post-arrest bail was declined. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 497---Tentative assessment at bail stage---Narcotics recovery from possession---At bail stage Court is not required to conduct deeper appreciation of evidence; only tentative assessment is to be made whether reasonable grounds exist to believe accused’s involvement in non-bailable offence---Recovery of substantial quantity of heroin from petitioner, coupled with arrest at spot, constituted sufficient material against him---No material contradiction, mala fide or procedural irregularity was shown to bring case within further inquiry. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 497(2)---Further inquiry---Narcotics case---Petitioner argued delay in road certificate, doubtful allegation of firing and non-submission of challan for more than five months---High Court held that on available record, defence could not point out such material contradiction or irregularity as would render narcotics recovery case one of further inquiry under S.497(2), Cr.P.C. (d) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---- ----Narcotics offences---Bail---Offence against society---Court observed that narcotics offences are not merely crimes against individuals but offences against society at large---Menace of narcotics devastates youth, public health, social order and national security---Courts must exercise caution while extending bail in cases involving commercial/substantial quantities of narcotics. (e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 173---Submission of challan/investigation report---Mandatory statutory framework---Investigation report under S.173, Cr.P.C. is not a mere procedural formality but foundational step by which criminal trial is set in motion---Statute requires investigation agency to complete investigation and submit report to Court through Public Prosecutor within prescribed period---Destination of report is Court of competent jurisdiction, not merely office of Public Prosecutor. (f) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 173---Challan submitted to prosecution office but not Court---Effect---Prosecution stated challan was prepared and submitted to office of Deputy District Public Prosecutor but admittedly not filed before Trial Court---High Court held that submission to prosecutor’s office alone does not amount to compliance with S.173, Cr.P.C.; report must reach Court of competent jurisdiction. (g) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art. 10-A---Fair trial and due process---Delay in submission of challan---Effect---Right to fair trial is not confined to trial stage alone but extends to every phase of criminal process, including investigation---Delayed challan amounts to denial of timely justice not only to accused but also to victim and society---Unjustified delay in submission of investigation report violates mandatory statutory framework and constitutional guarantee of fair trial and due process. Cited Cases: • 2021 SCMR 1458 • PLD 2021 Supreme Court 795 • PLD 2017 Supreme Court 147 (h) Criminal justice system---- ----Delay in challans---Systemic failure---Consequences---Delay in submission of charge-sheets, challans and interim challans prolongs incarceration without trial, weakens quality of evidence, causes witnesses to become unavailable or influenced, increases backlog, erodes public confidence and may encourage private vengeance or lawlessness---Such delay is not routine irregularity but systemic failure requiring judicial and administrative correction. (i) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 173---Constitutional duty of Courts---Enforcement of statutory timelines---Courts are constitutionally obligated to ensure that S.173, Cr.P.C. is not reduced to dead letter---Investigating agency, prosecution and supervisory police hierarchy are interdependent components of criminal justice chain and must ensure timely completion of investigation and submission of challans. (j) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 173---Directions to Sessions Judges and Special Courts---High Court directed all Sessions Judges in Islamabad Capital Territory to undertake comprehensive review of criminal cases pending before their courts and administrative domain where challans had not been submitted within statutory period---Sessions/Additional Sessions Judges dealing with CNSA cases and FIA Courts were directed to call reports from investigating officers and supervisory police officials explaining reasons for delay. (k) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 173---Disciplinary proceedings for unjustified delay---Where delay in submission of challan is found unjustified or attributable to negligence or misconduct, Sessions Judges and Special Court Judges shall report matter to competent authorities for disciplinary proceedings---Investigating agencies and prosecution branches must adhere strictly to statutory timelines for challans and interim challans. (l) Police and prosecution---- ----Timely submission of challans---Monitoring mechanism---Inspector General of Police, Islamabad was directed to devise and implement effective monitoring mechanism for timely completion of investigations and submission of challans---Prosecutor General, Islamabad was directed to establish internal review system so challans received by prosecution are promptly scrutinized and forwarded to competent courts within statutory framework---Both were directed to submit compliance report to Deputy Registrar Judicial within one month. (m) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 497---Bail refused but right to expeditious trial protected---Although post-arrest bail was declined due to recovery of 1020 grams heroin from petitioner’s possession, High Court held petitioner’s right to fair and expeditious trial could not be denied---Investigating Officer directed to submit S.173 report and Trial Court directed to conclude trial within two months after receipt of report. (n) Criminal trial---- ----Bail order---Tentative observations---Effect---Observations made while deciding bail were tentative in nature and would not prejudice rights of parties before Trial Court, which would decide case on its own merits. Disposition: Crl. Misc. No.2130 of 2025 seeking post-arrest bail was dismissed. Investigating Officer was directed to submit report under S.173, Cr.P.C.; Trial Court was directed to conclude trial within two months after receipt of S.173 report. Administrative directions were issued to Sessions Judges, Special Courts, Inspector General of Police Islamabad and Prosecutor General Islamabad for monitoring and ensuring timely submission of challans.

Summary: Public institutions are under a duty to conduct promotion processes in accordance with law and the consequences of institutional neglect cannot be a burden upon the employee The Government is held to a higher standard of fairness reasonableness and accountability and cannot rely on its own inaction or inefficiency to deny timely consideration for promotion to an eligible civil servant

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: 46ITR (Income Tax Reference) 62-25 CIR OKARA ZONE VS SHAKOOR AHMAD Mr. Justice Anwaar Hussain 14-01- 2026 2026 LHC 939

Summary: Following questions of law have been put before this Court for opinion: 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue Multan Bench, Multan ("the Tribunal") was justified in upholding the order of the learned Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) ["CIR(A)"] wherein the learned CIR(A) has reduced the turnover of the taxpayer for charging of advance tax under Section 236H of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 ("the Ordinance") upto 33% of the total turnover without quoting any provision of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in mechanically validating the order of the learned CIR(A) who relied on an earlier judgment of CIR(A) for restricting application of Section 236H of the Ordinance only to the extent of 33% of the total turnover?thereby relying on another case which was decided in violation of the existing legal provisions and for which no rationale or evidence existed? Held that the tax law requires determination of liability to be based on actual verifiable transaction, and not arbitrary percentages, more so, when the law does not prescribe such percentage/formula, therefore, the CIR(A) as also the Tribunal erred in applying the said percentage. At the same time, we find force in argument of learned counsel for the respondent-taxpayer inasmuch as the Assessing Officer also failed to discharge its duties to make the assessment based on facts and record presented by the respondent-taxpayer. It was obligatory on the Assessing Officer to assess the record and see whether the portion of sales by the respondent-taxpayer went directly to the end users/consumers and should not be subjected to the withholding tax under Section 236H of the Ordinance for the purpose of advance tax. Further held that if the sales are made directly to the end users/consumers, the same do not fall under the ambit of sales to the retailers. Section 236H of Ordinance primarily deals with sales to the retailers and in cases where the distributor claims direct sale to the general consumer against gross sales/receipts, the Assessing Officer shall examine the nature of transaction for the purpose of advance tax, as the case may be.

Summary: Summary pending