Summary: S.489-F PPC:Not denied the fact of issuing of cheque(Bail dismissed)

Summary: In the course of legal proceedings, the petitioner's counsel argued the case on its merits and requested a directive to be issued to respondent No.1 (FBR, Islamabad) for the resolution of a representation submitted by the petitioner under Section 7 of the FBR Act, 2007, dated 07-11-2009. The respondents' counsel did not provide any legal counterarguments to the petitioner's counsel's request.As a result, the court issued a directive that respondent No.1/FBR must review and resolve the petitioner's application dated 07-11-2009 within two months, ensuring that all concerned parties have an opportunity to present their case during the process. It was also mentioned that any bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner should be encashable subject to the orders issued by FBR, as referred to above.Consequently, the writ petition was resolved according to the terms outlined in the directive.

Summary: Section 14 Provincial Employees Group Insurance Ordinance (Balochistan) (XII of 2007) and Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. Overriding effect of the Provincial Employees Group Insurance Ordinance (Balochistan), 2007---Provincial Employees Group Insurance Ordinance (Balochistan) (XII of 2007)-------S. 14--- Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199--- Constitutional petition---Civil service---Group Insurance, payment of contribution to employees upon retirement---Scope---Petitioners, inter alia, impugned clause of a notification issued subsequent to thepromulgation of the Provincial Employees Group Insurance Ordinance (Balochistan), 2007whereby it was specified that employees who retired between 1-7-2007 and 21-12-2008would be paid the actual amount of their contribution to the group insurance plus areasonable increase---Contention of the petitioners was that there was no distinction betweenold and newly retired employees in the impugned clause and having retired before 1-7-2007; they were entitled to be paid their contribution to the group insurance as a right since ithad been deducted from their own pay---Validity---Said clause of the notification was subjudice before the Supreme Court and High Court declined to give findings to that extent---Impugned notification, otherwise, only described enhancement of assured sum toemployees and therefore had to be read with S.14 and Schedule of the Ordinance---Petitioners had failed to question the Provincial Employees Group Insurance Ordinance(Balochistan), 2007 which had an overriding effect on other laws, rules, notifications etc.---Impugned notification, therefore, was no longer in the field---Petitioners, in view of the stateof facts, and not having challenged the Ordinance, had no case---Constitutional petitions weredismissed, in circumstances.

Summary: "PLJ 2012 Lahore 675. Present: Abdus Sattar Asghar, J. GHULAM QADIR - Petitioner versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE PHALIA, DISTRICT MANDI BAHAUDDIN and 14 others - Respondents. WP No. 25157 of 2011, decided on 21.2.2012. Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960 - S. 5(1)(a) - Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199 - Constitutional Petition - Release on probation for one year subject to surety bond ----Challenged. -----The Trial Court had authority to order the release of the accused on probation. It was held that the revision was also lawfully dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, noting it was filed approximately 15 months after the impugned order and after the accused successfully completed the probation period, having faced a trial of seven years for an offense with potential penalties of life imprisonment or ten years' imprisonment with a fine. In this case, the accused had endured a lengthy trial of seven years in addition to the probation period, and thus the petitioner had no grounds to invoke the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction to interfere with the lawful orders of the lower courts. Petition dismissed [P. 678] A, B." -----Background: The petitioner filed a constitutional petition challenging the probation order issued by the Magistrate, which allowed the accused to be released on probation for one year after they confessed to their guilt in an arson case. The accused had been on trial for seven years and successfully completed the probation period as directed. The petitioner also challenged the dismissal of his revision by the Additional Sessions Judge, who deemed the revision time-barred and upheld the probation order. -----Issues: 1- Whether the trial court was authorized to release the accused on probation under Section 5(1)(a) of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960. -----2- Whether the petitioner has grounds to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to set aside the probation order after the accused had completed their probation. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court dismissed the petition, affirming that the trial court acted within its authority to release the accused on probation as the offense did not fall under the exclusions of Section 5(1)(a) of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960. The court further held that, as the probation period had been successfully completed and the accused had already endured a prolonged seven-year trial process, there was no basis to overturn the lower court’s lawful orders. The delayed revision was also dismissed as time-barred. -----Citations/Precedents: Section 5(1)(a), Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960 (Authority of courts to grant probation, excluding certain offenses) Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan (High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction)

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.