Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 – Art. 199: ----Issuance of Citizenship Certificate—Renunciation of foreign nationality—Direction to decide pending application—Scope— Petitioner, originally a Chinese national, married a Pakistani citizen and was granted Pakistani Citizenship Certificate in 2017—When she applied for a Pakistani passport, it was denied on the ground that she had not yet renounced her Chinese nationality—Petitioner filed application for renunciation before respondent authorities, which remained undecided—Held, High Court directed respondent No.2 to decide petitioner’s renunciation application within 30 days in accordance with law—Parties expressed satisfaction with consensual direction—Writ petition disposed of accordingly. Cited Provisions: Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 (b) Immigration & Passport Law: ----Nationality renunciation—Refusal to issue passport—Failure to process renunciation—Obligation of authorities—Scope— Authorities cannot indefinitely delay processing of nationality renunciation where individual has been granted Pakistani citizenship—Failure to act results in infringement of fundamental rights and bureaucratic paralysis—Court invoked constitutional jurisdiction to compel administrative compliance. ----Disposition: Writ Petition disposed of—Direction issued to respondent No.2 to decide petitioner’s application for renunciation of Chinese nationality within 30 days and submit a compliance report to the Registrar's office. "Petitioner is a Chinese national lady who married a Pakistani National, is aggrieved that her case for renunciation and citizenship of Pakistan is not being completed."

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860): **----S. 489-F—Dishonestly issuing a cheque—Loan repayment—Obligation—Conviction upheld with modification—Petitioner issued a cheque for Rs. 500,000/- allegedly to repay a loan, which was dishonoured on presentation—Trial Court convicted Petitioner under S. 489-F PPC and sentenced him to 1½ years of simple imprisonment with benefit of S. 382-B Cr.P.C—Appellate Court reduced sentence to 1 year—Held, issuance of cheque as a guarantee or in fulfillment of an obligation falls within the scope of S. 489-F PPC—Dishonest intention inferred from dishonoured cheque and failure to repay—Petitioner’s plea that it was a business transaction or investment not substantiated by any documentary evidence—Prosecution discharged initial burden; burden shifted to accused who failed to rebut effectively—No illegality or irregularity found in impugned judgments—However, sentence reduced to period already undergone considering quantum involved. Cited Law: S. 489-F, Penal Code, 1860 (b) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898: **----Ss. 435, 439-A & 342—Scope of revisional jurisdiction—Criminal Revision Petition filed against concurrent findings of guilt by Trial and Appellate Courts—Held, revisional jurisdiction does not permit re-evaluation of evidence unless material irregularity or manifest injustice is shown—No major contradiction or illegality found—Reduction of sentence justified considering cheque amount and period already undergone by convict. Cited Law: Ss. 435 & 439-A, Cr.P.C. **(c) Criminal trial—Principles of evidence—Onus—Admitted receipt of money and issuance of cheque—Defense plea of investment/guarantee unsupported by receipts or business documentation—In criminal trials, once prosecution proves issuance and dishonour of cheque in fulfillment of obligation, burden shifts to accused—Failure to discharge burden warrants conviction—Guarantee cheques also fall within the ambit of S. 489-F PPC. Disposition: Criminal revision petition partly allowed—Conviction under S. 489-F PPC maintained—Sentence reduced to period already undergone (since 18.10.2024) in view of mitigating circumstances and quantum of dishonoured cheque—Trial and Appellate Court judgments upheld otherwise. "Crl. Rev. against conviction in FIR No. 450/2017 dated 19.12.2017 U/s 489-F PPC P.S. Tarnol, Islamabad"

Summary: (a) Employment--- ----Recruitment as a constable in police department---Non-disclosure of FIR and arrest in recruitment affidavit---Effect---Refusal of appointment---Duty of full disclosure of material antecedents in recruitment affidavit---Scope---The petitioner applied for recruitment as a constable---He was qualified on merit but during character verification it was discovered that he had not disclosed an earlier registered FIR against him in pursuance of which he was arrested but later got discharged---The legal issue before the High Court was as to “whether a candidate who had been exonerated in a previously registered FIR was still legally required to disclose that FIR in the application and affidavit, and whether non-disclosure of such antecedents justified refusal of appointment?”---Held: The affidavit was an instrument through which information could have been accurately and completely disclosed and explained---The non-disclosure of the same amounted to concealment rendering the candidate/petitioner unfit for recruitment---It was unequivocally established that the petitioner deliberately and willfully concealed the fact viz his FIR and arrest in the sworn affidavit---He could have conveniently disclosed the fact of registration of FIR and subsequent discharge by the magistrate---If he had disclosed this information accurately in his affidavit, he could have been considered for appointment against the applied post---However, the fact of registration of FIR was discovered by the police department upon scrutiny of antecedents which led the functionaries of the department to decline his appointment---Real issue was not regarding innocence or honorable exoneration of the petitioner or that if he did or did not hold criminal record, rather, it was regarding deliberate and willful concealment of material information solicited by the police department as prerequisite for taking part in the recruitment process---Such concealment was viewed as a conscious act on the part of the petitioner with the intention to effectively escape scrutiny regarding suitability to appointment---Act of refusal of the respondents to issue appointment letter to the petitioner was in consonance with the terms of recruitment---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Zeeshan Ahmad v. Government of Punjab through Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and others (Civil Petition No. 4709 / 2019) and Rizwana Altaf v. Chief Justice, High Court of Sindh through Registrar 2020 SCMR 1401 rel. Umar Sheraz v. Government of Punjab and others 2025 LHC 965; Abdul Manan v. Provincial Police Officer and 2 others 2017 PLC (C.S.) 862 and Ali Hamza v. Government of Punjab and others 2018 PLC (C.S.) 1103 ref. (b) Employment--- ----Recruitment process---Mandatory information required to be disclosed---If the terms of recruitment seek provision of mandatory information and the same is withheld or falsely provided, the applicant may validly be disqualified for consideration in that recruitment process although he may have successfully sailed through the recruitment process. Syed Athar Hasan Shah Bukhari for Petitioner. Ms. Samina Mehmood Rana, A.A.G. along with Iftikhar, DSP and Sajjad, ASI for Respondents. Date of hearing: 8th April, 2025.

Summary: (a) Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013)--- ----Ss. 25 & 23(1)(a)---Possession of unlicensed weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of seven days in sending the weapon to Ballistic Expert---Consequential---Prosecution case was that an unlicensed 9mm pistol along with magazine was recovered from the possession of accused, which was used in the commission of main offence registered under S.393, P.P.C---Perusal of Ballistic Expert's report reflected that the crime weapon was received to their office on 20.11.2023 while it was allegedly recovered on 14.11.2023---Thus, there was delay of seven days in transmitting crime weapon from malkhana to Ballistic Expert, creating serious doubt into its safe custody at malkhana more particularly when the Mashir of recovery and arrest himself was Incharge Malkhana---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013)--- ----Ss. 25 & 23(1)(a)---Possession of unlicensed weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Enmity proved---Probability of false implication---Prosecution case was that an unlicensed 9mm pistol along with magazine was recovered from the possession of accused, which was used in the commission of main offence registered under S.393, P.P.C---Perusal of record reflected that during trial in main case, it was admitted by complainant and witness in cross-examination that father of co-accused had already lodged FIR under S.302,P.P.C., against the father of complainant regarding the murder of his son, therefore, appellant and co-accused were falsely implicated in main case which created serious doubt into the veracity of prosecution case---Hence, prosecution failed to bring home guilt of the accused and they were acquitted of the charge by Trial Court---In view of such background of standing enmity, false implication of present appellant in the present case by police at the behest of complainant party of main case could not be ruled out---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (c) Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013)--- ----Ss. 25 & 23(1)(a)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103---Possession of unlicensed weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Non-association of private witnesses at the time of arrest and recovery---Consequential---Prosecution case was that an unlicensed 9mm pistol along with magazine was recovered from the possession of accused, which was used in the commission of main offence registered under S.393, P.P.C---No denial that the prosecution had advance information of the availability of appellant, who was also absconder in main case registered with same police station---However, the raiding party did not associate a public mashir to witness the arrest and recovery proceedings nor took any effort to arrange private person to act as mashir and attest that all proceedings were being undertaken by the police impartially---Thus, there was clear violation of S.103,Cr.P.C---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (d) Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013)--- ----Ss. 25 & 23(1)(a)---Possession of unlicensed weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Infirmities in the case of prosecution---Prosecution case was that an unlicensed 9mm pistol along with magazine was recovered from the possession of accused, which was used in the commission of main offence registered under S.393, P.P.C---Complainant himself had acted on three counts being complainant, author of FIR as well as Investigating Officer while mashir/Police Constable had also acted as InchargeMalkhana, testimony of such highly interested witnesses lacked credibility---An officer, who was himself complainant in the case, could not be expected to collect and preserve evidence, which would go against his case---Such complainant could not properly perform duties of an independent and fair Investigating Officer---Such practice of complainant Police Officers acting as Investigating Officers had never been approved---Besides, according to para 3 of R.25.2 of Police Rules, 1934, it was the duty of an Investigating Officer to find out the truth and his object shall be to discover the actual facts and for the achievement of such object he shall not commit himself prematurely to any view of the facts for or against any person---Moreover, the appellant had been acquitted from the charge of main case andit being offshoot case the appellant deserved to be acquitted from the charge of present case---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. The State v. Bashir and others PLD 1997 Sc 408; Yasir Chaudhry v. The State and another 2012 MLD 1315 and Muhammad Akram v. The State 2009 SCMR 230 rel. (e) Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013)--- ----Ss. 25 & 23(1)(a)---Possession of unlicensed weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions in the statements of witnesses---Prosecution case was that an unlicensed 9mm pistol along with magazine was recovered from the possession of accused, which was used in the commission of main offence registered under S.393, P.P.C---Prosecution evidence consisted of only two prosecution witnesses---Complainant/Investigating Officer stated in cross-examination that after leaving Police Station, they patrolled through firstly “B” Pull, then “K” Pull and then arrived at place of occurrence, which was contradicted by Mashir/InchargeMalkhana by stating that they patrolled through “KP” City, then “K”, then “SG” and then arrived at place of occurrence---Complainant stated that they noticed accused at the distance of 50/60 paces which was contradicted by Mashir by stating they noticed accused at the distance of 30/40 paces---In his cross-examination, complainant/Investigating Officer claimed that they asked private persons to act as mashir but no one was ready which was contradictory to the version of FIR in which there was no mention about saying anybody to act as mashir, while the mashir simply stated that due to non-availability of private mashirs, complainant associated him and another Police Constable as mashirs---Thus, the prosecution evidence on such material points contradicted each other---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Appellant in person (on bail). Nazir Ahmed Bangwar, D.P.G for the State. Date of hearing: 8th April, 2025.

Summary: (a) Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)--- ----Ss. 7, 17 & 25---Custody of minor---Determining factors/ considerations---Welfare of minor---Paramount consideration---Foremost consideration to decide the question of custody of a minor is his or her welfare and betterment---Welfare of the minor would overweigh against all other considerations---Under S. 17(2) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, (Act) character and capacity of the proposed guardian as well as age and sex, is also an important factor to be considered while determining the welfare of the minor---Right of custody of minor is not an absolute right of any of the parent rather it is always subject to the welfare of the minor---Court in the light of facts and circumstances of each case considers the question of custody on the basis of welfare of minors and there can be no deviation to this settled principle---Under Muhammadan Law a Muslim father being the natural guardian of the minor has the preferential right of custody of minor but this rule does not apply rigidly. (b) Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)--- ----Ss. 7, 17 & 25---Custody of minor---Welfare of minor---Paramount consideration---Hizanat, right of---Plea of second marriage of wife/respondent---Right of the one of the parents versus welfare of minor---Preference---Trial court on the ground of second marriage of wife and mothering of another female child from second husband granted custody of minor to her first husband/petitioner---Appellate Court granted custody to mother/respondent on the ground of Hizanat---Validity---Right of Hizanat with respect to male child goes to the mother until minor becomes independent and capable of understanding things, that is to say, he becomes capable of easy walking, eating, drinking and performing other natural functions without assistance---Hizanat with respect to a boy ceases at the end of seven years of age---Although Muhammadan Law delineates that the mother loses her right to the custody of minor if she re-marries, however, this is not an absolute rule and may be departed from in exceptional circumstances to justify such departure, and even in a situation of a second marriage if the welfare of the minor lies with the mother then she should be awarded custody---Guardianship Courts while dealing with matters relating to custody of minor children exercise parental jurisdiction---Custody of a minor can be delivered by the Court only in the interest and welfare of the minor and not as right of one parent or another---Muslim father is the lawful guardian of his minor child and is ordinarily entitled to his custody provided if it is for the welfare of the minor---Similarly the right of the mother to claim the custody of a minor son aged below 7 years is not absolute, in that, the mother may disentitle herself to custody on account of her conduct in the light of the facts and circumstances---Respondent/mother neglected the child since the separation of the spouses and did not make arrangements for his schooling and opted for second marriage and mothered a baby girl leaving the minor exposed to the onslaught of step-motherly and step-fatherly treatment---All the factors disentitled respondent from custody of minor, yet in view of tender age of minor, he could not be deprived of the care of mother---High Court keeping the custody of the minor with respondent enhanced the visitation right of the petitioner from 03 hours in a week to 03 days in a week with liberty to initiate proper proceedings for permanent custody of minor after attaining the age of 07 years---Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly. Gul Sadem Khan v. Mst. Halima PLD 2025 SC 47 rel. Naseer Ahmed Wagan for Petitioner. Sajid Ali Mahessar and Aftab Ahmed Bhutto, Assistant A.G for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Date of hearing: 8th April, 2025.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: The concealment of registration of F.I.R in Police recruitment by a candidate against the specific terms and conditions of recruitment will lead to his disqualification for deliberately and willfully concealing or withholding of solicited information.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending