Court : Pakistan Supreme Court
Jawwad S. Khawaja J: 1. This case was taken up earlier in the day. Before learned counsel for the applicant could state the facts of the case it was pointed out to him from the Bench that apparently there was an objection from some quarters in respect of the constitution/impartiality of the Bench. Therefore, the case was adjourned for hearing after the break at 12 noon. After the break it was stated by the Bench that the respondent or any other person having any objection against constitution of this Bench may come to Court and the matter was adjourned to 1:00 p.m. 1:00 p.m: 2. At 1:00 p.m. when the matter was taken up, the learned Attorney General appeared and stated that the Federation has no objection to the hearing of this petition by this Bench which includes (Jawwad S. Khawaja, J.). However, one Sabir Shakir, Bureau Chief, ARY, Islamabad appeared and stated that Mubashar Luqman who is Anchor Person of ARY had sent him to state that he would like to engage a counsel in this case. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Pakistan Supreme Court
1. Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J.:Cricket and judicial decision making may not have much in common except that there is an umpire in the game of cricket deciding 'appeals' and judging various issues arising during the progress of the game and there may be some judges sitting in their courtrooms who may sometimes be tempted to hit the ball over the boundary rope. Likeness of a judge to an umpire in a game of cricket has already been alluded to by none other than Lord Denning in his judgment delivered in the case ofJones v. National Coal Board[(1957) 2 Q.B. 55]. His lordship had observed that "Even in England, however, a Judge is not a mere umpire to answer the question "How's that?". His object, above all, is to find out the truth, and to do justice according to law;". Another common factor between the two is that both cricket and judicial decision making are played/ practised by gentlemen, and now by noble ladies as well. All of us know that cricket has moulded itself over time and has adap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Pakistan Supreme Court
Anwar Zaheer Jamali J: 1. On 2.2.2011, the petitioners brought Constitution Petition No.6 of 2011, under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 (œthe Constitution?), for agitating their two fold grievances against the Employees Old Age Benefit Institution (œEOBI?), a body established under the Employees Old Age Benefit Act XIV of 1976 (œthe Act 1976?), and its management, arraying EOBI, the Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Labour and Manpower, M/s Zafar Iqbal Gondal, Chairman, EOBI, Mushtaq Samoo, Director, EOBI/Secretary Board of Trustees, Kanwar Waheed Khursheed, Director General Const. Petition No.6 of 2011 etc. (Investment)/Convener of Selection Committee-2, Muhammad Hanif, Officiating Director General/ Convener of Selection Committee-I and Mirza Imtiaz Ahmed, Acting Director General (Finance and Accounts), Convener of Selection Committee-3, as respondents. The averments made in the petition reveal that the first grievanc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Pakistan Supreme Court
Jawwad S. Khawaja, J: 1. This order follows from our previous order dated 26.2.2014. Today Malik Haider Zaman Advocate has appeared alongwith Mian Israr-ul-Haq, ASC. Mian Israr-ul-Haq statesinter alia,that the respondent would like to submit an unconditional apology and for this purpose has already apologized to the Presiding Officer of the learned trial Court and to the Judicial Officer who is her husband. However, he also added that Malik Haider Zaman Advocate was unwell on 21.7.2012 when his alleged misbehaviour with the Court was noted in the order sheet of that Court. 2. We have clarified to Mian Israr-ul-Haq, ASC and Malik Haider Zaman Advocate that the later should not feel pressured or obliged to tender an apology because his legal right to due process will be ensured even if he decides to put up a defence instead of submitting an apology. Mian Israr-ul-Haq ASC acknowledged that our legal system could not function if due respect was not shown to presiding officers of Trial and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Pakistan Supreme Court
Dost Muhammad Khan J: 1. This appeal with the leave of the Court dated 10.05.2006, has been filed against the order of acquittal dated 2.06.2004 of respondent No.2 namely Sadiq Shah, charged for a crime under section 302/324/34 PPC, passed by the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench. 2. Briefly stated, Haider Zaman, while reporting the crime at 12:50 hrs. on 23.01.1997 alleged as follows:- "That on fateful day at about 10:00 hrs while present in his house, he was informed that firing was going onin the 'Bazar', hence he left for the crime spot where he saw (i) Shafique (ii) Azhar and (iii) Sher Muhammad lying dead, while (i) Waheed (ii) Waseem and (iii) Zareen were bound in injured condition. He has further alleged that on inquiries made, he was told that (i) Nazir Shah (ii) Sadiq Shah and (iii) Akram Shah had killed the deceased while injured the three victims. Motive for the crime shown was that a day prior to the fateful day, Akram Shah and Azhar quarreled with each other. And that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Pakistan Supreme Court
Dost Muhammad Khan J: CMA 762/2014: 1. Through this CMA, the petitioner seeks the permission of the Court to place on record, additional documents, which is allowed. Hence the same is disposed of. Civil Petition No.70/2014 2. Leave to appeal has been sought through this petition against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar dated 5.11.2013 dismissing Writ Petitions No.1643-P/2012, 2639-P/2012 and 380-P/2013 because identical question of law and the facts were involved in all the three petitions. 3. Arguments of the learned ASC heard and available record perused. 4. The official respondents advertised 10 vacant posts, to be filled up as Revenue Inspectors (BPS-10). The petitioner being eligible, applied and participated in the test conducted by the respondents and secured 66 marks out of 100 marks, thus, stood first, however, in the meanwhile the Government of KPK, Irrigation Department re-structured the Irrigation Circle Mardan, probably, for administrat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Pakistan Supreme Court
Dost Muhammad Khan J: 1. This CPLA is barred by 4 days. CMA No.5578/2013 has been filed, seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the impugned order isvoid ab initio,without jurisdiction and no limitation runs against the void order and because, the delay occurred in filing of the petition was due to misunderstanding and mis-calculation of time by the petitioner department. 2. We are in no manner convinced from the ground taken in the CMA and the submissions made at the bar by the learned ASC for the petitioners. On this ground alone, the main petition is liable to be dismissed, hence, the delay cannot be condoned and the CMA is dismissed. 3. There is another CMA No.5577/2013, seeking suspension of the operation of impugned judgment dated 14.05.2013 given in W.P.No.269(P)CS/2012, passed by the Federal Service Tribunal (FST), Islamabad. However, as we are deciding the main petition on merits, therefore, this CMA having become infructuous, is disposed of. 4. Precisely, stating fac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Pakistan Supreme Court
Dost Muhammad Khan, J: 1. This single judgment shall decide both the above titled appeals because the same have arisen out of a common judgment rendered by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No.202/1996, Criminal Revision No.245/1996 and Murder Reference No.379/1996; also because the same are the result of a single judgment given by the learned trial Judge, thus, the exercise of re-appraisal of the same evidence is to be carried out to reach at a proper conclusion. 2. Precise but relevant facts leading to the present tragedy are that on 25.08.1994 at about 8:00 pm, complainant Muhammad Sadiq (PW-6) was present in his sugarcane crushing machine, installed in his shop, opposite thereof was the shop of Muhammad Ayub, deceased, who along with his brother Abid Hussain deceased, was present there and were busy in chatting, when in the meanwhile appellants (i) Ghulam Mohay-ud-Din @ Babu, (ii) Ahmad @ Muhammad Ahmad (iii) Amanat Ali, (iv) Liaqat Ali (v) Allau-ud- Din and (vi) Neh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Pakistan Supreme Court
Dost Muhammad Khan, J: 1. This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned single Judge in Chamber of the Lahore High Court dated 23.12.2013 refusing pre- arrest bail of the accused petitioner in case FIR No.1145/2012 registered for crimes under sections 420, 468, 471 PPC on 21.11.2012 by Police Station Civil Lines, District Faisalabad. 2. It is alleged in the FIR by Muhammad Hussain respondent that a forged letter was manipulated ostensibly shown to have been written by the Director Excise and Taxation bearing No.ADM-111-39 dated 30.08.2008 containing an order of demotion of the complainant from the post of Excise Inspector to that of Clerk. During departmental inquiry this letter was found to be forged and tampered one. 3. It is also alleged in the FIR that complainant while attached to Circle Islam Nagar, Block No.5 of the Excise Department discovered that one Babar Naseem Junior Clerk with the connivance and assistance of Excise Inspector Iftikhar Hu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Pakistan Supreme Court
Jawwad S. Khawaja J: 1. The petitioner in this case is Pakistan Telecom Mobile Ltd. which is a Company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. (PTCL). The petitioner provides mobile cellular services under the trade name "Ufone". The respondent is the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) established under section 3 of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Reorganization) Act, 1996 (the Act). The respondent is mandated by lawinter alia,to issue and administer licenses including those issued to mobile service providers. 2. The petitioner is a licensee operating under a license issued by PTA. The license granted by PTA to the petitioner is consensual inasmuch as the terms thereof were drawn by PTA and agreed upon by the petitioner and PTA. The license is dated August, 1998 and amongst its various terms and conditions, specifies the charges, fees etc. which the petitioner is obliged to pay to PTA. The peti...
Tag this Judgment!