GBLR 2016 Judgments

2016 G B L R 1

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Shahbaz Khan, JJ

REHMAN MANZOOR---Petitioner

Versus

AMIR SHAHZAD and another---Respondents

C. Misc. No. 33 of 2014 in C.P.L.A. No. 57 of 2014, decided on 31st March, 2016.

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---

----O.VII, R.2 & O. IX, Rr. 6, 7, 13---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 8 & 42---Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art. 60---Suit for possession, declaration and recovery of amount---Ex parte judgment and decree, setting aside of---Petition for leave to appeal---On the date when case was fixed for recording statements of the witnesses of the plaintiff, defendant and his counsel remained absent and case was proceeded ex parte---Trial Court after recording the statements of the witnesses of the plaintiff, announced its judgment/decree ex parte with detailed discussion on each and every issue---Revision filed by defendant against the judgment of the Trial Court was dismissed by the appellate court and writ petition filed by the defendant therefore having also been dismissed by Chief Court---Defendant had filed petition for leave to appeal before Supreme Appellate Court---Contention of the defendant was that ex parte judgment and decree had been passed against him due to intentional and mala fide advice of his counsel---Validity---Ill-advice of the counsel was no ground for setting aside ex parte decree---Procedure adopted by the counsel of defendant, was not in consonance with law and prescribed procedure---Law would come to rescue those persons who approached the court as per procedure and law---Defendant could not even append the detail of documents about his alleged ailment with the petition for leave to appeal to Supreme Appellate Court---Division Bench of Chief Court and courts below had exhaustively dealt with each and every point argued before it---No ground was available to interfere with the well founded judgment---Leave to appeal was refused, in circumstances.

Malik Shafqat Wali, Senior Advocate for Petitioner.

Amjad Hussain, Advocate for Respondents.

Rehmat Ali, Advocate-on-Record.

2016 G B L R 5

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Shahbaz Khan, JJ

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Gilgit-Baltistan and 3 others---Petitioners

Versus

JAMSHEED ALAM and another---Respondents

C. Misc. Nos. 95, 94, 90 and 67 of 2014 in Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2016 in C.P.L.A. No. 25 of 2012, decided on 18th May, 2016.

Gilgit-Baltistan Civil Servants Act (V of 2011)---

----S. 4--- Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art. 60---Appointment, cancellation of---Petition for leave to appeal---Chief Court in writ petition had passed order whereby cancellation of appointment was set aside declaring the same as illegal and without lawful authority---Advocate-General, could not show any illegality and infirmity in the judgment/order by the Chief Court---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by Supreme Appellate Bench and was dismissed---Judgment/order passed by the Chief Court was maintained.

Advocate-General along with Ali Nazar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

Malik Shafqat Wali, Senior Advocate on behalf of Respondent No.1.

Johar Ali Khan, Advocate on behalf of Respondent No.2.

2016 G B L R 8

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Shahbaz Khan, JJ

COMPLAINT AGAINST CUSTOM AUTHORITY ON SOST: In the matter of

C. Misc. No. 2 of 2016 in S.M.C. No. 9 of 2016, heard on 2nd June, 2016.

Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009---

----Art. 61(1)---Suo motu jurisdiction of Supreme Appellate Court---Establishment of the Regional Office of the Directorate General Intelligence and Investigation-FBR at Gilgit-Baltistan---Supreme Appellate Court appreciated the steps taken by the Federal Board of Revenue in establishing Regional Office of the Directorate General Intelligence and Investigation-FBR at Gilgit-Baltistan, but framed the questions that under what authority and whose orders the Customs check post/station at "Sost" was established and functioning; that under what authority and whose orders the Model Customs Collector at Gilgit was functioning, and that under what authority and whose orders the then Central Board of Revenue and now Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) was functioning in Gilgit-Baltistan---Supreme Appellate Court directed that the reply/answer to the framed questions should be submitted to the Registrar of the Court within a period of three (03) months, and that the Registrar must be kept informed of developments regarding establishment of Regional Office of the Directorate General, Intelligence and Investigation-FBR in Gilgit-Baltistan---Suo motu case was disposed off accordingly.

Advocate-General Gilgit-Baltistan, Deputy Attorney-General for Pakistan at Gilgit-Baltistan, Latif Shah, Advocate for Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) along with Muhammad Ali Raza, Custom Collector (FBR), Gilgit-Baltistan and Ali Nazar Khan, Advocate-on-Record present.

2016 G B L R 10

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Shahbaz Khan, JJ

PRESIDENT AL-SABAH MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY GUPIS OFFICE PUNIAL ROAD, GILGIT and 4 others---Petitioners

Versus

ZAR NAZIR KHAN---Respondent

Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2016 in C.P.L.A. No. 3 of 2015, heard on 13th May, 2016.

Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009---

----Art. 60---Revision petition by the petitioners was dismissed by the Chief Court on the basis of their non-appearance---Petition for leave to appeal by the petitioners was converted into appeal and same was conditionally allowed subject to the payment of Rs.50,000 as cost to be paid to the respondent within the period of fifteen days---Case was remand to the Chief Court to hear and decide the same afresh on its merits and disposal in accordance with law---Order passed by the Chief Court was set aside.

Ali Khan, Advocate along with Ali Nazar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

Amjad Hussain, Advocate along with Johar Ali Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.

2016 G B L R 12

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., and Javed Iqbal, J

KHUSH BAIG, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER---Petitioner

Versus

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Gilgit-Baltistan and 2 others---Respondents

C. Misc. No. 35 of 2016 in C.P.L.A. No. 14 of 2016, heard on 10th May, 2016.

Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009---

----Art. 60--- Delay in filing petition for leave to appeal---Condonation---Petition for leave to appeal was barred by time for a period of more than 70 days---No reasonable grounds had been given in the petition for condonation---Even one day's unexplained delay could not be condoned without sufficient grounds---Petition for condonation of delay was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused by Supreme Appellate Court.

1990 SCMR 1377; 1991 SCMR 1022; 1998 SCMR 292 and 1998 SCMR 1087 ref.

Amjad Hussain, Advocate along with Ali Nazar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Advocate-General for Respondents.

2016 G B L R 13

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J.

COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY GENERAL MANAGER SERENA HOTEL GILGIT: In the matter of

S.M.C. No. 10 of 2016, heard on 22nd July, 2016.

Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009---

----Art. 61(1)---Suo motu jurisdiction of Supreme Appellate Court---Complaint against Registrar, Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court ("the Registrar")---Failure to properly communicate directions of the Chief Court---Good faith---Secretary to the Registrar mis-communicated certain directions of the Chief Court to the Assistant Registrar---Supreme Appellate Court passed interim order to withhold administrative and judicial powers of the Registrar and also his powers as District and Sessions Judge---Registrar explained that the mis-communication of the directions of the Chief Court by his Secretary, to the Assistant Registrar, was due to weak signals and bad telecommunication system; that the directions were misunderstood and incorrectly conveyed to him which caused inconvenience and constrained the Supreme Appellate Court to take cognizance; that he regretted his inadvertent act in carrying out execution of the orders of the Chief Court, which were wrongly passed on to him due to misunderstanding---Held, that the complainant/petitioner was satisfied with the explanation provided by the Registrar, who had acted innocently in good faith---Supreme Appellate Court recalled the interim order passed against the Registrar and observed that the Chief Court may, however, call an explanation, if so required, from the responsible officers in creating misunderstandings and then mis-communicating directions to the Registrar---Suo motu case was disposed of accordingly.

Mumtaz Ahmed, Registrar Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Respondent is present in person.

Advocate-General, Gilgit-Baltistan.

Faisal Qayyum Khan, General Manager Serena Hotel, Gilgit Complainant present in person.

2016 G B L R 15

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J. and Shahbaz Khan, J

ABDUL RAZIQ---Petitioner

Versus

Mst. KHOSHAB JUMMA and 4 others---Respondents

C.P.L.A. No. 17 of 2012, decided on 20th April, 2016.

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---

----S. 42---Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art.60---Suit for declaration---Petition for leave to appeal---Conversion of petition into appeal---Suit for declaration filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the Trial Court, declaring the same as vague and without proof---Plaintiffs feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of the Trial Court filed first appeal before the Chief Court for setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court---Said appeal was accepted and judgment passed by the Trial Court was set aside being without force---Defendant being aggrieved, filed petition for leave to appeal for setting aside the judgment of Chief Court---Validity---Chief Court had rightly set aside the judgment/decree of the Trial Court as the same was the result of misconception of law and misreading of the facts of the case---No infirmity and illegality having been found in the judgment passed by the Chief Court, no interference was warranted---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and dismissed---Judgment of the Chief Court was maintained, in circumstances.

Nemo for the Parties.

2016 G B L R 18

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J.

Engineer YAWAR ABBAS---Petitioner

Versus

SECRETARY KASHMIR AFFAIRS GB and others---Respondents

C. Misc. No. 28 of 2016, decided on 14th April, 2016.

Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009---

----Arts. 60 & 71---Infringement of Fundamental Right---Petition for leave to appeal without first seeking remedy of writ petition in the Chief Court---Counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition in order to approach the Chief Court for availing remedy in accordance with law---Petitioner was allowed to withdraw the petition which was disposed of accordingly---Supreme Appellate Court observed that petitioner, could approach the Chief Court for seeking remedy in accordance with law.

2016 G B L R 19

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J.

COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY MST. HOORI: In the matter of

S.M.C. No. 15 of 2016, decided on 8th October, 2016.

Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009---

----Art. 61(1)---Suo motu jurisdiction of Supreme Appellate Court---Islamic law---Complaint filed by wife in respect of her insane husband---Wife complained that she had been severely tortured and beaten by her in-laws and thrown out from the house of her insane husband to deprive her from his property; that the alleged divorce given by her husband was not recognized as he was insane, and that she was not receiving any maintenance allowance---Held, that the Holy Quran clearly provided that divorce was not acceptable if the person was insane---Supreme Appellate Court directed that the complainant's father-in-law and his three sons should protect the complainant's insane-husband and take him to any psychiatrist for his treatment; that the custodian of the family (complainant's father-in-law) was alive and he was bound to take care and protect the rights of the family of his insane son, without harming his legal heirs and to treat them properly as per Islamic law and tradition; that the complainant should remain loyal to her insane husband and respect the laws of the area; that she should not pay visit to irrelevant individuals except her real brother in times of any happiness or sorrow, and that the complainant should take care of her ailing and insane husband without any complaint---Suo motu case was disposed of accordingly.

Complainant in person.

Saloo husband of Mst. Hoori.

Omer Khan father of Saloo.

Shehriyar and Zahoor sons of Omer Khan.

Hafeez-ur-Rehman, Mediator.

2016 G B L R 22

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Shahbaz Khan, JJ

Mst. FATIMA and others---Petitioners

Versus

Mst. HALIMA and others---Respondents

C.P.L.A. No. 9 of 2016, heard on 12th April, 2016.

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---

----Ss. 42 & 54--- Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art. 60---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction---Petition for leave to appeal---Suit having been decreed by the Trial Court, defendants filed first appeal before the appellate court below for setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court, which was partially accepted---Plaintiff feeling aggrieved, filed revision in the Chief Court against the judgment of appellate court below; which was accepted and Chief Court set aside impugned judgment of the appellate court below, declaring the same being based on mere conjectures and suffering from misreading of evidence---Judgment of the Trial Court was maintained by the Chief Court---Defendants had filed petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Chief Court---No infirmity and illegality had been pointed out in the well-reasoned judgment passed by the Chief Court---No interference being warranted in the judgment of the Chief Court, petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.

Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate along with Ali Nazar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

2016 G B L R 24

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Shahbaz Khan, JJ

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE through Secretary Defence (D4) Rawalpindi Cantt. and others---Petitioners

Versus

Major MUHAMMAD FAROOQ---Respondent

C. Appeal No. 18 of 2015 in C.P.L.A. No. 96 of 2014, heard on 5th April, 2016.

Gilgit-Baltistan Civil Servants Act (V of 2011)---

----Ss. 4, 5 & 10---Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art. 60---Civil service---Appointment---Termination of service---Petition for leave to appeal---Conversion of petition into appeal---Present petition had been directed against the impugned judgment passed by Chief Court in writ petition, whereby, respondent/employee had been declared entitled to continue his service in accordance with law with all back benefits and authorities were directed to reinstate the services of the employee and the termination order issued by the authorities, was set aside---Employee was terminated from his service without assigning any reason or issuing any show-cause notice; which was violation of the terms and conditions provided in the appointment order---Deputy Attorney-General, could not point out any illegality and infirmity in the judgment of Chief Court---Interference in the impugned judgment was not warranted---Petition was converted into appeal and same was dismissed and judgment of Chief Court was maintained, in circumstances.

Deputy Attorney General for Pakistan at Gilgit-Baltistan along with Ali Nazar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

Amjad Hussain, Advocate along with Johar Ali Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.

2016 G B L R 29

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Shahbaz Khan, JJ

PENSION OF EX-CHIEF JUDGE SUPREME APPELLATE COURT: In the matter of

Civil Review No. 6 of 2015 in S.M.C. No. 15 of 2010, heard on 12th April, 2016.

Supreme Court Judges Leave, Pension and Privileges Order (Presidential Order No. 2 of 1997)---

----Paras. 19 & 25---Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Arts. 60(10) & 65---Review petition---Judges of Supreme Appellate Court, Gilgit Baltistan---Benefits during service and after retirement---Provisions for personal-staff, medical facilities and use of vehicle---Supreme Appellate Court directed that notwithstanding the privileges contained in Supreme Court Judges Leave, Pension and Privileges Order, 1997 ("the Presidential Order No. 2 of 1997"), Chief Judge of Supreme Appellate Court, Gilgit-Baltistan, on completion of tenure, would be authorized to engage the services of Personal Assistant BPS-15 and one contingent employee in BPS-01 of his choice, and a Judge of Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit ¬Baltistan would be authorized to engage the services of one Telephone Attendant in BPS-07 of his choice; that a former or a serving Judge of Supreme Appellate Court was entitled to free medical treatment in terms of paragraph 19 of the 'Presidential Order No. 2 of 1997'; that if medical treatment required by the Judge and his dependent family members was not available at Gilgit, they may avail the medical facility in Government hospitals or in a recognized private hospital in down country, on recommendation of authorized Medical Officer, within the allocated budget; that the Chief Judges and Judges of Supreme Appellate Court, Gilgit-Baltistan were entitled to use a vehicle of the engine capacity of 1800 CC, and another vehicle for use by their families during their tenure of office, and on their retirement, they could purchase only one car in their use of the engine capacity of 1800 CC on payment of depreciated value as contained in Notification dated 31.05.1991 issued by Ministry of Law, Government of Pakistan to avoid inconsistency with Art. 60(10) of Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009---Review petition was partially allowed accordingly.

2011 GBLR 388 ref.

Deputy Attorney-General for Pakistan at Giligit-Baltistan.

Advocate-General, Gilgit-Baltistan.

2016 G B L R 33

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Shahbaz Khan, JJ

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Gilgit-Baltistan and 5 others---Petitioners

Versus

Mst. MASNONA SHEHZADI---Respondent

C.P.L.A. No. 112 of 2015, decided on 24th March, 2016.

Gilgit-Baltistan Civil Servants Act (V of 2011)---

----S. 4---Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art.60---Appointment---Non-payment of salary---Petition for leave to appeal---Employee, initially was appointed as M.T. teacher on contingent basis---Services of the employee were regularized/adjusted against the vacant post of teacher BPS-09, but authorities had not paid salary of the employee on the ground that employee was not a regular appointee and her contingent order was also illegal and incorrect---Appeal filed by the employee was accepted by the Service Tribunal, directing the authorities to release the pay of the employee from the date of her appointment order---Authorities challenged said order alleging the same as result of misconception of law and facts and not tenable---Advocate-General could not point out any infirmity and illegality in the judgment of the Service Tribunal---Leave to appeal was refused.

2016 G B L R 35

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Shahbaz Khan, JJ

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Gilgit-Balstistan and 2 others---Petitioners

Versus

MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN (RETD. SP), GILGIT-BALTISTAN POLICE through Legal Heirs---Respondent

C. Misc. No. 75 of 2016 in C.P.L.A. No. 83 of 2014, heard on 6th September, 2016.

Gilgit-Baltistan Civil Servants Act (V of 2011)---

----S. 8---Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art. 60---Pro forma promotion---Civil servant who retired from Police Department as Superintendent of Police on 10-7-2009, filed writ petition before the Chief Court seeking ante-dated pro forma promotion on 18-4-2011 as Assistant Inspector General BPS-19, after two years of his retirement but during pendency of writ petition he died---Case of Civil Servant, on establishment of Service Tribunal in Gilgit-Baltistan was transferred to the Tribunal---Service Tribunal allowed the appeal of Civil Servant---Validity---Advocate-General, could not point out any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment---Post of S.P., BPS-18 i.e. the Assistant Inspector General BPS-19 was vacant at the relevant time against which the Civil Servant was required to be promoted; as it was to be filled in through promotion from amongst the S.S.P./S.Ps. of Police---Working paper for promotion of the Civil Servant as A.I.G. was also prepared and forwarded---Leave to appeal against order of Service Tribunal was refused by the Supreme Appellate Court and judgment passed in appeal by Service Tribunal, was maintained, in circumstances.

Advocate-General along with Ali Nazar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

2016 G B L R 37

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Shahbaz Khan, JJ

SECRETARY LAW AND PROSECUTION GILGIT-BALTISTAN and 3 others---Petitioners

Versus

ASLAM KHAN, SUPERINTENDENT, CUSTOMS AND BANKING COURT, GILGIT and 15 others---Respondents

C. Misc. No. 86 of 2014 in C.P.L.A. No. 90 of 2014, heard on 5th September, 2016.

Civil service---

----Judicial allowance and special judicial allowance---Entitlement to---Writ petition by the employees in various categories in BPS-1 to 16 of the Customs and Banking Court, with contentions that they were entitled to all the benefits i.e. Judicial Allowance and Special Judicial Allowance; equal to three time of their substantive pay scale was allowed by the Chief Court---Validity---Advocate-General, could not point out any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment---Claimed Judicial/Special Judicial Allowance was paid to all the court staff and officials in all the Provinces of Pakistan, Islamabad Capital; as well as to the staff of officers of Supreme Appellate Court and Supreme Court of Pakistan but the government of Gilgit-Baltistan, in the present case failed to treat equally among equals---Leave to appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Appellate Court and judgment passed by the Chief Court was maintained---Authorities were directed to pay/release all back benefits in shape of arrears.

Advocate-General along with Ali Nazar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

2016 G B L R 39

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Shahbaz Khan, JJ

WAJAHAT ULLAH NASIM and another---Petitioners

Versus

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary Gilgit and 3 others---Respondents

C. Appeal No. 44 of 2015 in C.P.L.A. No. 31 of 2015, heard on 30th June, 2016.

Gilgit-Baltistan Civil Servants Act (V of 2011)---

----Ss. 4 & 6---Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art.60---Regularization of service---Petition for leave to appeal---Writ petition filed by the petitioners, having been dismissed by the Chief Court, petitioners had filed petition for leave to appeal---Petitioners who were appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer BPS-17 on contract basis; joined their duties and continued their job for about one and half years---Summary for regularization of the services of the petitioners had been withdrawn vide an office order---Chief Court dismissed the writ petition against withdrawal of summary for regularization---Validity---Petitioners were appointed purely on the contract basis and on completion of the period of the project, their services could not be regularized without the recommendation of the Authority which had appointed the petitioners---Petitioners could not point out any illegality and infirmity in the said order---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and dismissed---Judgment passed by Chief Court in writ petition, was maintained.

Malik Shafqat Wali, Senior Advocate along with Rehmat Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

Advocate-General for Respondents.

2016 G B L R 41

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Shahbaz Khan, JJ

RIFAQAT ALI and 3 others---Petitioners

Versus

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary Gilgit-Baltistan, Gilgit and 15 others---Respondents

C.P.L.A. No. 92 of 2015, heard on 28th June, 2016.

Gilgit-Baltistan Civil Servants Act (V of 2011)---

----Ss. 4 & 6---Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art. 60---Regularization of service---Writ petition before Chief Court---Petitioners had contended that their services be regularized in line and cadre of other employees and back benefits also be allowed accordingly---Chief Court partially allowed the petition to the extent of adjustment of petitioners and declined the grant of back benefits---Validity---Petitioner could not point out any illegality/ infirmity in the judgment of Chief Court---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and dismissed---Order passed by the Chief Court was maintained, in circumstances.

Munir Ahmed, Advocate for Petitioners.

Advocate-General for Respondents.

2016 G B L R 43

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., and Javed Iqbal, J

MUHAMMAD ABUZAR---Petitioner

Versus

CHAIRMAN PARC BLUE AREA ISLAMABAD and 3 others---Respondents

C. Misc. No. 21 of 2014 and C.P.L.A. No. 5 of 2013, heard on 23rd June, 2016.

Gilgit-Baltistan Civil Servants Act (V of 2011)---

----Ss. 4 & 10---Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art. 60---Termination of service---Petition for leave to appeal---Petitioner, employee was appointed as Assistant/Store keeper (BPS-9) on contract basis vide office order under certain terms and conditions---Services of the employee were terminated, due to non-availability of funds etc.---Employee being not a graduate, was not eligible for the post of Assistant/Store keeper---Rules and Regulations of the department did not permit to appoint a non-graduate against the post of Assistant-cum-Store keeper---Employee could not point out any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and dismissed---Judgment in writ petition by Chief Court was maintained, in circumstances.

Malik Shafqat Wali, Senior Advocate along with Johar Ali Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Muhammad Riaz, Advocate for Respondents.

2016 G B L R 46

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., and Javed Iqbal, J

CHAIRMAN PAKISTAN AGRICULTURE RESEARCH COUNCIL (PARC) and another---Petitioners

Versus

EJABAT SHAH---Respondent

C. Misc. No. 100 of 2015 in C.P.L.A. No. 16 of 2012, heard on 23rd June, 2016.

Gilgit-Baltistan Civil Servants Act (V of 2011)---

----Ss. 4 & 10---Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art. 60---Termination of service---Petition for leave to appeal---Employee who was appointed on regular basis as Assistant Admin Officer Authorities stopped him to continue his services and his salary was stopped---Employee against said action filed writ petition before the Chief Court which was allowed---Authorities had filed petition for leave to appeal with contention that writ petition was not maintainable for the reason that employee had not exhausted remedies at the departmental forum against discontinuation/termination of his service---Validity---Employee had not exhausted the departmental appeal against his termination---Factual controversies were involved in the case of the employee and he had claimed that he had been appointed by the competent authority while authorities had contended that said appointment order was factitious and bogus as the post against which the employee was appointed was neither created nor vacated/available---Where alternate remedy was available and/or in the case factual controversies were involved writ petition would not lie---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and allowed---Impugned judgment passed in writ petition by Chief Court, was set aside, in circumstances.

Ehsan Ali, Advocate along with Rehmat Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

Ali Dad Khan, Advocate for Respondent.

2016 G B L R 49

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., and Javed Iqbal, J

Mst. SHABNAM RIAZ---Petitioner

Versus

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT/GOVERNMENT OF GILGIT-BALTISTAN through Chief Secretary Gilgit-Baltistan and 3 others---Respondents

C. Appeal No. 19 of 2016 in C.P.L.A. No. 105 of 2015, heard on 7th September, 2016.

Gilgit-Baltistan Civil Servants Act (V of 2011)---

----Ss. 4 & 10---Termination of service---Petitioner who was initially appointed as M.T. teacher BPS-09, her services were regularized being found satisfactory---Petitioner performed her duties for approximately three and half years to the entire satisfaction of authorities---Authorities, after lapse of considerable period, constituted, Special Recruitment Committee and in the light of the recommendation of said Committee services of the petitioner were terminated---Validity---Service Tribunal dismissed appeal of the petitioner on the sole ground the no departmental appeal was filed by the petitioner---Appointment of the petitioner having been regularized on merit, her services could not be terminated, except her being proven guilty of misconduct, as she had acquired legitimate expectancy after her services were regularized---Once the right of the petitioner accrued, same could not be taken away by subsequent administrative order---Impugned judgment of the Service Tribunal, as well as order issued by the authorities were set aside---Authorities were directed by the Supreme Appellate Court to reinstate the petitioner from the date, her services were terminated and to pay/release all the back benefits to the petitioner from the date of her regularization in service within three months.

Muhammad Nadeem Arif v. IGP Punjab 2011 SCMR 408; Nadeem Ahmed Panawar v. Government of Sindh 2009 PLC (C.S.) 161 and Executive District Officer (Education) Rawalpindi v. Muhammad Yunas 2007 SCMR 1835 rel.

Munir Ahmed, Advocate along with Ali Nazar Khan, Advocate for Petitioner.

Advocate-General along with Johar Ali Khan, Advocate for Respondents.

2016 G B L R 53

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., and Shahbaz Khan, J

ABDUL RASHEED---Petitioner

Versus

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF GILGIT-BALTISTAN through Chief Minister Gilgit-Baltistan, Gilgit and 5 others---Respondents

C. Misc. No. 62 of 2015 in C.P.L.A. No. 43 of 2015, decided on 2nd June, 2016.

Civil service---

----Petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme Appellate Court---Writ petition of civil servant was dismissed by the Chief Court as time barred---Contention of Civil Servant was that time was consumed due to administrative orders passed by the Registrar of the Chief Court and the Service Tribunal, which could not be counted against the petitioner---Advocate-General conceded that Chief Court was to hear the case and decide the same on merits in accordance with law and also supported the contensions raised by the petitioner/civil servant---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and allowed---Case was remanded to the Chief Court for its de novo consideration by hearing afresh and decided the same on its merits within two months.

Johar Ali Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Advocate-General for Respondents.

2016 G B L R 54

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., and Javed Iqbal, J

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary Gilgit-Baltistan and 10 others---Petitioners

Versus

Dr. GHULAM ALI and 21 others---Respondents

C. Misc. No. 35 of 2015 in C.P.L.A. No. 26 of 2015, heard on 9th May, 2016.

Civil service---

----Incentive package/health professional allowance---Entitlement---Appeal filed by officers of Administrative Cadre Health Department was accepted by Service Tribunal and were held entitled to receive incentive package/health professional allowance---Authorities being aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment, filed petition for leave to appeal, contending that incentive package was given to the senior Medical Consultants/Specialists while the officers of administrator cadre were not entitled to the said package---No infirmity and illegality had been pointed out in the impugned judgment by the Advocate-General---Leave to appeal was refused---Impugned judgment passed by Service Tribunal being well reasoned, was maintained.

Advocate-General, Gilgit-Baltistan along with Ali Nazar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

Respondents in person.

2016 G B L R 56

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., and Javed Iqbal, J

QAYYUM SHAH---Petitioner

Versus

AKESP GILGIT-BALTISTAN through Incharge AKESP and 5 others---Respondents

C. Misc. Nos. 28 of 2013, 86 of 2015, and C. Appeal No. 26 of 2015 in C.P.L.A. No. 22 of 2013, heard on 17th August, 2016.

Gilgit-Baltistan Civil Servants Act (V of 2011)---

----Ss. 4 & 10---Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art. 60---Termination of service---Petition for leave to appeal---Petitioner, who was appointed as teacher had successfully rendered 31 years long service in the institution---Petitioner, during his service had availed professional training from recognized educational institutions in order to improve his teaching skills---Authorities terminated the services of the petitioner in line with the Human Resources Policy and Procedure Manual, meanwhile 'Voluntary Early Retirement Scheme (VERS) was introduced for the employees/ teachers---Said package extended financial benefits to all the employees/teachers, except to the petitioner---Writ petition by the petitioner was dismissed by the Chief Court---Validity---Petitioner was nearing retirement at the time of his termination---Authorities were supposed to include the petitioner in the said retirement package at par with other employees/teachers instead of termination of his 31 years service---Petitioner should have been treated equally amongst equals---Petitioner was condemned unheard, which was against the principles of natural justice---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and allowed---Judgment passed by the Chief Court in writ petition, as well as termination letter of petitioner were set aside---Authorities were directed to extend the benefits of "Voluntary Early Retirement Scheme" in favour of the petitioner as given to other teachers.

Amjad Hussain, Advocate for Petitioner.

Ali Dad Khan, Advocate for Respondents.

2016 G B L R 59

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Shahbaz Khan, JJ

MUHAMMAD YOUNUS---Petitioner

Versus

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary Gilgit-Balistan and 7 others---Respondents

C. Appeal No. 38 of 2016 in C.P.L.A. No. 42 of 2014, decided on 11th August, 2016.

Gilgit-Baltistan Civil Servants Act (V of 2011)---

----Ss. 4 & 6--- Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art.60---Appointment---Petition for leave to appeal---Petitioner who was appointed as Chowkidar BPS-1 on contingent basis at a fixed pay, was performing his duties against said post---Respondent/District Health Officer, converted the contingent service of the petitioner into contract service for a period of one year---Request of the petitioner to convert his service into permanent one in line with the other contingent/contract employees, was refused by the respondent/ Authority---Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed writ petition which was dismisses in limine by the Chief Court---Validity---Petitioner had no locus standi to file writ petition---Civil suit filed by the petitioner against the subject matter was decided by the court of competent jurisdiction, and same was upheld by the first Appellate Court---Since, no revision was filed by the petitioner, judgment of the Trial Court held field---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and was dismissed---Order passed in writ petition by the Chief Court, was maintained, in circumstances.

Malik Shafqat Wali, Senior Advocate along with Rehmat Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Amjad Hussain, Advocate for Respondent No.6.

Advocate-General for Respondents.

2016 G B L R 62

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Shahbaz Khan, JJ

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary Gilgit-Baltistan and 3 others---Petitioners

Versus

Syeda KISHWAR BATOOL---Respondent

C. Appeal No. 55 of 2016 in C.P.L.A. No.37 of 2016, decided on 11th August, 2016.

Gilgit-Baltistan Civil Servants Act (V of 2011)---

----S. 4--- Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art.60---Appointment---Post of EST teacher in BPS-14 was lying vacant, whereupon respondent approached Deputy Director Education for her appointment, who recommended the case of the respondent to Director Education---Director Education further recommended the case to Secretary Education, who referred the matter to District Recruitment Committee/(DRC) to examine and issuing order of appointment---Four members of District Recruitment Committee/(DRC) recommended the respondent for appointment against said vacant post---Writ petition filed against said order was dismissed by the Chief Court---Validity---Advocate-General could not point out any illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the Chief Court in writ petition---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and was dismissed---Impugned judgment passed by the Chief Court was maintained---Petitioners/Authorities were directed to appoint the respondent in the light of the recommendation of District Recruitment Committee (DRC).

Advocate-General Gilgit-Baltistan for Petitioners.

Muhammad Issa, Senior Advocate for Respondent.

2016 G B L R 64

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Shahbaz Khan, JJ

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary Gilgit-Baltistan and 4 others---Petitioners

Versus

TAUQEER AHMED and 7 others---Respondents

C. Appeal No. 17 of 201(sic.) in C.P.L.A. No. 13 of 2015, heard on 2nd August, 2016.

Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009---

----Arts. 71 & 60---Suo motu jurisdiction of Chief Court---Scope---Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan would exercise jurisdiction under Art. 71 of the Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, when it was satisfied that, subject to the said Article no other adequate remedy was provided by law; on the application of a person, whether aggrieved or not on an information or on its own knowledge---Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan, could not exercise suo motu jurisdiction under Art.71 of Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and allowed---Impugned judgment in suo motu passed by the Chief Court was set aside being without jurisdiction.

PLD 1960 SC 295; 2000 SCMR 1046; 1982 SCMR 540 and 2014 SCMR 122 ref.

PLD 2013 Quetta 75 distinguished.

Advocate-General Gilgit-Baltistan along with Ali Nazar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Amjad Hussain, Advocate along with Johar Ali Khan, Advocate for Respondent.

2016 G B L R 72

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., and Javed Iqbal, J

MUHAMMAD ARIF and 5 others---Appellants

Versus

NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through President NBP and 6 others---Respondents

Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2016 in C.P.L.A. No. 20 of 2015, decided on 3rd May, 2016.

National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)---

----Ss. 9, 18, 19 & 31--- Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art.60---Corruption and corrupt practices---Cognizance of offence---Inquiry and investigation---Petition for leave to appeal---For purpose of an inquiry or investigation, the officer so inquiring/investigating would have all the powers as were available with Officer-in-charge of a Police Station under Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 provided under Chapter XIV of the said Code---Inquiry/investigation could be initiated only by the Chairman of the Bureau or an Officer of the NAB duly authorized by him---If an inquiry or investigation was ordered in respect of offence punishable under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 by Chairman NAB, then during the course of said inquiry or investigation of such offence, any officer duly authorized by Chairman, was competent to call for information from any person for the purpose of satisfying himself; whether there had been any contravention of the provisions of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, or any rule or order made thereunder---Mere irregularity or illegality on the part of the Investigating Officer in following procedure within meaning of Chapter XIV of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 would not cost an offence to go unattended; because an irregularity or illegality in procedure could be cured, but not the impacts and effects of an offence, if same was let un-touched, despite its being coming to light---National Accountability Bureau authorities, could not be precluded to issue call-up notices or restrain to conduct an inquiry/investigation---Said authorities were lawfully authorized to conduct inquiry/investigation, and interference into such inquiries/investigations by the NAB authorities would seriously prejudice the prosecution towards its right in probing into an investigation/inquiry of an offence---No illegality or infirmity had been pointed out in the impugned judgments/order---Impugned judgment being well reasoned and well founded, no interference was warranted---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and was dismissed.

2010 PCr.LJ 13; PLD 2005 Lah. 692; PLD 2001 Kar. 419; PLD 2001 SC 60 and 2002 YLR 1811 distinguished.

2009 SCMR 335 and PLD 2009 Kar. 469 ref.

Amjad Hussain, Advocate for Petitioners.

Muhammad Hussain Shehzad, Advocate for Respondents.

Muhammad Abbas, Additional Prosecutor-General NAB, Gilgit-Baltistan.

2016 G B L R 82

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J. and Javed Iqbal, J

TAHIRA YASUB DSP and 18 others---Petitioners

Versus

GOVERNMENT OF GILGIT-BALTISTAN and 6 others---Respondents

Civil Misc. Nos. 2 and 3 of 2016 in Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2016 in C.P.L.A. No. 1 of 2016, heard on 31st March, 2016.

Gilgit-Baltistan Civil Servants Act (V of 2011)---

----S. 10---Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art. 60---Deputationist---Posting and transfer---Absorption of deputationist---Services of employee who was serving as Inspector (BPS-16) in Airport Security Force were placed at disposal of the Gilgit-Baltistan Police as Deputy Superintendent of Police on deputation for a period of three years on standard terms and conditions---Said deputationist, after thirty nine (39) days, was absorbed in Gilgit-Baltistan Police---Validity---According to Service Rules, a deputationist could not be absorbed during deputation period---Deputationist, could not be given another deputation before expiry of the first deputation period---Government would refrain from issuing posting orders of any non-Cadre Officer to a Cadre post by transfer under S.10 of the Gilgit-Baltistan Civil Servants Act, 2011, nor would it depute by transfer any officer from occupational group in the Government, except in exigency, unless the deputationist would meet the criteria of matching qualifications, eligibility and experience to the proposed post---Absorption of employee within thirty nine (39) days after assuming charge on deputation, would not only be unconstitutional, without undertaking competitive and transparent process, but would also deprive the seniority and progression of career of the meritorious Police Inspectors/petitioners---Illegal absorption, was not a perpetual right of the employee gained on the basis of an illegal order---Absorption of employee, was illegal, without lawful authority and ultra vires of the service laws and rules---Impugned orders were set aside by Supreme Appellate Court---Employee was directed to report to his parent department/Airport Security Force---Appeal was accepted.

Asad Ullah Khan, Advocate for Petitioners.

Amjad Hussain, Advocate for Respondent No.7.

2016 G B L R 100

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., and Javed Iqbal, J

SHABIR WALI KHAN and 3 others---Petitioners

Versus

NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through Branch Manager---Respondent

Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2016 in C.P.L.A. No. 20 of 2013, decided on 3rd May, 2016.

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---

----S. 107(2) & O.VII, R.10---Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art. 60---Return of petition---Scope---Petitioners submitted that they had inadvertently filed petition before Supreme Appellate Court instead of filing the same before the Chief Court---Petitioners requested to return the petition so that the same could be filed before the right forum in order to proceed with the matter in accordance with law---Respondents had strongly opposed the contention of the petitioners and submitted that case could not be returned to the petitioners as there was no provision for returning the petition to the petitioners---Validity---Order VII, R.10, C.P.C., dealing with the return of plaint, had provided the procedure to be followed at the time of returning of plaint; whereas S.107(2), C.P.C., laid down that appellate court would have the same powers and would perform the same duties as were conferred by C.P.C. on the courts of original jurisdiction in respect of suits instituted therein---Petitioners had successfully established that appeal was filed in wrong forum---If the request of petitioners was not allowed, petitioners/legal heirs of the deceased would seriously prejudiced and would suffer an irreparable loss and injury--- Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and was allowed---Original petition for leave to appeal was ordered to be returned to the petitioners enabling them to file the same in the competent court of law.

Mst. Khadija Begum v. Mst. Yasmeen and 4 others PLD 2001 SC 355 rel.

Bolan Bank Limited v. Capricorn Enterprise Private Limited 1998 SCMR 1961 distinguished.

Malik Shafqat Wali, Senior Advocate for Petitioners.

Muhammad Hussain Shehzad, Advocate for Respondent.

Deputy Attorney-General for Pakistan at Gilgit-Baltistan.

Advocate-General, Gilgit-Baltistan.

2016 G B L R 103

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Shahbaz Khan, JJ

Mst. HOOR NAZ---Petitioner

Versus

MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT DISTRICT HEADQUARTER HOSPITAL, GILGIT and 3 others---Respondents

Civil Appeal No. 38 of 2015 in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.2 of 2015, decided on 2nd May, 2016.

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---

----O. VII, R.11--- Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art. 60---Rejection of plaint---Scope---Petition for leave to appeal---Where the plaint would not disclose cause of action, same had to be rejected and for that purpose only the plaint was to be looked and nothing else---Written statement also could not be looked---In the present case, plaint showed that plaintiff had disclosed cause of action in the plaint and defendant had filed application under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C., for rejection of plaint urging that plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit---Validity---Plaintiff in fact having disclosed cause of action in the suit, petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and was allowed---Impugned orders/judgments of the courts below were set aside and case was remitted to the Trial Court to decide the matter on merits.

Mir Ikhlaq Hussain, Advocate for Petitioner.

Advocate-General, Gilgit-Baltistan for Respondents.

Ali Nazar, Advocate-on-Record.

2016 G B L R 106

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Shahbaz Khan, JJ

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary Gilgit-Baltistan, Gilgit and 3 others---Petitioners

Versus

Dr. MUHAMMAD ZABOOR---Respondent

Civil Misc. No. 5 of 2016 in C.P.L.A. No. 25 of 2016, heard on 29th April, 2016.

Gilgit-Baltistan Civil Servants Act (V of 2011)---

----S. 8---Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art. 60---Pro forma promotion---Petition for leave to appeal---Employee had claimed pro forma promotion against the post of Director Animal Husbandry (Live Stocks) BPS-19 and appealed to the Service Tribunal which was accepted---Validity---Employee was assigned the duty of Director Animal Husbandry on current charge basis and he retired after about 1 year from said assignment on attaining the age of superannuation in the post of Deputy Director---Service Tribunal while accepting appeal of the employee directed the department to prepare working paper for promotion of the employee from date of assigning the duty of Director Animal Husbandry to the date of his retirement along with all back benefits including pensionary benefits---Judgment by the Service Tribunal was well reasoned and well founded---No interference was warranted in the said judgment---Advocate-General could not point out any illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and was dismissed, in circumstances.

Advocate-General, Gilgit-Baltistan for Petitioners.

Respondent in person.

2016 G B L R 108

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Shahbaz Khan, JJ

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary Gilgit-Baltistan and 2 others---Petitioners/Appellants

Versus

Dr. JOHAR ALI---Respondent

Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2016, decided on 12th June, 2016.

Gilgit-Baltistan Civil Servants Act (V of 2011)---

----S. 8(4)(5)---Pro forma promotion (after retirement)---Entitlement---Scope---Service Tribunal had directed the authorities to prepare working paper for promotion of the employee (Chief Consultant BS-20) to be placed before Departmental Promotion Committee for consideration with effect from due date with pensionary benefits of the higher grade after retirement and complete the process within three months with compliance report to the Registrar of the Tribunal---Advocate-General on behalf of the authorities had sought reversal of order of Service Tribunal---Employee defended impugned judgment by submitting that he was entitled to get promotion on the basis of fitness-cum-seniority basis---Employee was appointed as Medical Officer in BPS-17 in 1983, and was promoted as Senior Medical Officer in BPS-18 in the year 1990; after doing post graduation in 1995, he served as Child Specialist against a temporary post---Case for promotion of the employee along with cases of other Specialist Cadre doctors was submitted to the Departmental Promotion Committee, but he was not considered for promotion due to faulty presentation of working paper by the department---Promotion cases of three junior Colleague Doctors were considered for promotion in the Specialist Cadre, resultantly they became senior to the employee due to negligent/wilful act of the concerned authorities---Concept or right of promotion of a civil servant after retirement existed all over the world---Employee had a fundamental right to be promoted even after retirement through pro forma promotion, provided his right of promotion had accrued during service and his case for promotion could not be considered for promotion for no fault of his own and retired on attaining age of superannuation---Employee being qualified and senior most specialist, could not be penalized for departmental lapses and wrongs of the concerned Officials in respect of delay in deciding the seniority dispute and failure of holding Departmental Promotion Committee meeting till his retirement---Decision of Service Tribunal passed in appeal was right---Appeal against order of Service Tribunal was dismissed by the Supreme Appellate Court with direction to the authorities to implement the judgment of Service Tribunal to complete the process of consideration of the case of pro forma promotion of the employee with back benefits within the specified period of three months.

2012 PLC (C.S.) 929; 2010 SCMR 1466; 2006 SCMR 1938; Secretary School of Education v. Arshad Khan and others 2012 SCMR 126; 2008 SCMR 1535; P.N. Premchandran v. State of Kerala and others 2004 (1) SCC 245 and Chaman Lal Lakhanpal v. Union Public Service Commission and others 1998 (3) SLR 436 ref.

Advocate-General, Gilgit-Baltistan along with Ali Nazar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

Amjad Hussain, Advocate along with Johar Ali, Advocate-on-Record.

2016 G B L R 120

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., and Shahbaz Khan, J

MUHAMMAD AMIN---Petitioner

Versus

GOVERNMENT OF GILGIT-BALTISTAN through Chief Secretary, and 3 others---Respondents

C. Misc. No. 23 of 2013, C. Appeal No. 2 of 2011 in C.P.L.A. No. 54 of 2011, decided on 7th June, 2016.

Gilgit-Baltistan Civil Servants Act (V of 2011)---

----S. 10---Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art. 60---Termination of service---Service of the petitioner was terminated on the allegation of mis-appropriation of 771 bags of wheat---Civil suit filed by the petitioner, was partially decreed by the Trial Court in favour of the petitioner---Judgment of the Trial Court was upheld by the appellate court below---Concurrent findings of both the courts below were set aside by the Chief Court in revision---Validity---Petitioner had passed away while leaving behind eight legal heirs and five of them were minors; one widow and two daughters who were also reliant, could not be deprived from the monetary benefits as their father/petitioner had rendered service for a considerable period of 15 years 3 months and 19 days and he had died during pendency of the petition---No show-cause notice was served to the deceased petitioner, no inquiry was conducted and no opportunity was provided to him to defend the allegation---Mandatory provisions of law had been violated and petitioner was condemned unheard---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and allowed---Order passed by the Chief Court in revision was set aside, while judgments passed by two courts below were maintained being well reasoned---Legal heirs of the petitioner were entitled to all pensionary/monetary benefits including the back benefits accordingly.

Rehmat Ali, Advocate for Petitioner.

Advocate-General, Gilgit-Baltistan for Respondents.

2016 G B L R 124

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Shahbaz Khan, JJ

MEHBOOB RIAZ---Petitioner

Versus

FIYAZ AHMED and 6 others---Respondents

C. Misc. No. 22 of 2016 in C.P.L.A. No.26 of 2016, decided on 21st July, 2016.

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---

----S. 42---Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art. 60---Suit for declaration---Suit was dismissed by the Trial Court and appeal filed by the plaintiff against judgment of the Trial Court was also dismissed by appellate court below being meritless---Chief Court allowed the revision by setting aside concurrent judgments of the Trial court and appellate court below---Validity---Suit premises which was owned by government, initially was allotted to the plaintiff, but later on same was allotted to the defendant/petitioner by the competent authorities, as the plaintiff had been posted out to another Tehsil where he was residing in a rented house---Competent authorities had rightly cancelled the allotment order of suit house in plaintiff's favour---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and allowed---Order of Chief Court was set aside and judgments of the Trial court and appellate court below, being well reasoned, were maintained---Trial Court was directed to proceed with the suit and decide on its merits.

Malik Shafqat Wali, Senior Advocate along with Ali Nazar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Advocate-General, Gilgit-Baltistan for Provincial Government.

Asadullah Khan, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

2016 G B L R 127

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Shahbaz Khan, JJ

The STATE---Petitioner

Versus

NIAMAT WALI---Respondent

Cr. Appeal No. 9 of 2016 in Cr. P.L.A. No. 19 of 2016, heard on 1st September, 2016.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S. 497(5)--- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.365-B, 34, 494, 420, 493-A, 471 & 468---Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel for marriage, common intention, marrying again during the life time of a husband or wife, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage using as genuine a forged document, forgery for the purpose of cheating---Bail, cancellation of---Trial Court dismissed bail application on the basis of material on record---Prima facie accused was involved in the commission of alleged offence---Punishment provided in the offence was life imprisonment and case of accused fell within prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.---Chief Court granted bail to accused---Validity---Prima facie, case was made out against accused which disentitled him from the grant of bail---Impugned order passed by Chief Court was not sustainable as accused was caught red-handed---Bail granted to accused, was cancelled---Impugned order passed by the Chief Court was set aside; whereas order passed by the Trial Court, was maintained.

Muhammad Afzal and others v. The State 1997 SCMR 278; Lal Muhammad v. The State 1990 SCMR 315; Abdul Aziz v. Saleem Muhammad and another 1990 SCMR 346 and Imtiaz Ahmed and others v. The State PLD 1997 SC 545 ref.

Advocate-General, Gilgit-Baltistan for the State.

Asadullah Khan, Advocate for the Complainant.

Mir Ikhlaq Hussain, Advocate along with Johar Ali Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.

2016 G B L R 131

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Shahbaz Khan, JJ

WAZIR and another---Petitioners

Versus

The STATE---Respondent

Cr. Appeal No. 14 of 2015 in Cr. P.L.A. No. 24 of 2015, decided on 11th August, 2016.

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----S. 302---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13---Qatl-i-amd, act of terrorism, possessing unlicensed arm---Reappraisal of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Life imprisonment awarded to accused by the Trial Court, was reduced to 14 years imprisonment by the Chief Court, while maintaining other sentences awarded by the Trial Court---Recoveries of crime, were neither sent to the Arms Expert for verification, nor same were exhibited---Recovery witnesses had turned hostile---Autopsy report was not produced in the Trial Court---Evidence of the eye-witnesses of the case, were contradictory in nature---State did not move revision for enhancement of sentence of accused persons---Eye-witness had admitted that the deceased was a weak and unhealthy person and his wife resided with him; whereas other eye-witness who was close relative of the deceased was an interested witness---Said witness was not present, and had not seen the alleged firing upon the deceased by accused persons, which had created serious doubts in the prosecution case---Prosecution had failed to prove its case against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt---Judgment, by the Chief Court was set aside by Supreme Appellate Court and accused persons were ordered to be released forthwith.

1999 SCMR 2444; PLD 2004 SC 371 and 1993 PCr.LJ 2393 distinguished.

Amjad Hussain, Advocate for Petitioners.

Advocate-General, Gilgit-Baltistan for Respondent.

2016 G B L R 139

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., and Javed Iqbal, J

NAVEED HUSSAIN---Petitioner

Versus

The STATE---Respondent

Cr. Appeal No. 3 of 2011 in Cr. P.L.A. No. 10 of 2010, decided on 28th June, 2016.

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----Ss. 302(b) & 109---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, act of terrorism, possessing unlicensed arms---Appreciation of evidence---Trial Court, convicted accused, but acquitted the co-accused by giving him benefit of doubt, despite the said co-accused was found fully involved in making the accused escaped from the jail---Prosecution had successfully proved its case against accused and the acquitted co-accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Counsel for accused could not point out any illegality and infirmity in concurrent judgments passed by two courts below to the extent of accused---Judgments by the both courts below were maintained to the extent of accused by the Supreme Appellate Court---Murder reference was confirmed---Supreme Appellate Court to meet the ends of justice and in view of material on record, issued show-cause notice to the acquitted co-accused to appear in person or through his duly briefed counsel to explain as to why he be not convicted and sentenced in the case in accordance with law---Order accordingly.

2006 PCr.LJ 1671; 2006 PCr.LJ 1693; 1998 PCr.LJ 1236; 1998 PCr.LJ 2104; 1983 PCr.LJ 1113; 1983 PCr.LJ 1398; 2010 GBLR 249; 1982 PCr.LJ 720; 1982 PCr.LJ 724; 1982 PCr.LJ 635; 1982 PCr.LJ 642; PLD 1989 SC 20; 1982 PCr.LJ 635; PLD 1963 (W.P) Peshawar 161; 1996 PCr.LJ 528 and 2010 GBLR 256 distinguished.

Noor Elahi v. The State 2000 PCr.LJ 11; Muhammad Zaman v. The State 2007 SCMR 813; Muhammad Amin v. The State PLD 2006 SC 219; Abdu Razak Rathor v. The State PLD 1992 Kar. 39 and Sajjad Ali and 3 others v. The State PLD 2005 Kar. 213 rel.

Johar Ali Khan, Advocate along with Amjad Hussain, Advocate for Petitioner.

Advocate-General, Gilgit-Baltistan for Respondent.

2016 G B L R 148

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Shahbaz Khan, JJ

ABDUL RAHIM---Petitioner

Versus

The STATE through FIA Gilgit---Respondent

Cr. Appeal No. 8 of 2015 in Cr. P.L.A. No. 20 of 2015, heard on 24th March, 2016.

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----Ss. 409, 420, 468 & 471---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---Criminal breach of trust by public servant, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged document; taking illegal gratification---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Legal evidence must be on record and the crime had to be proved through cogent evidence beyond reasonable doubt---Prosecution had to stand on its own legs to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt---Where co-accused was acquitted on the same facts, evidence and question of law, accused, could not be deprived from the benefit of doubt on the principle of equity---Concept of benefit of doubt was deep rooted, it was not necessary that there should be series of circumstances creating doubt in the prosecution case; benefit of a slightest doubt, if any, must go to the accused---Prosecution had failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt--- Accused could not be convicted or sent for re-trial on the same set of allegation and same set of evidence---Accused was entitled for benefit of doubt as given to the co-accused---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and judgment of the Chief Court was set aside.

1992 SCMR 96; SBLR 2008 Sindh 1546; PLD 1983 SC 117; 1986 SCMR 806 and 1983 SCMR 550 ref.

Amjad Hussain, Advocate along with Ali Nazar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Deputy Attorney General for Pakistan at Gilgit-Baltistan for Respondent.

2016 G B L R 152

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Shahbaz Khan, JJ

GUL ZEB---Petitioner

Versus

MUHAMMAD ISHAQ and 2 others---Respondents

Cr. Appeal No. 18 of 2015 in Cr. P.L.A. No. 28 of 2015, Cr. Appeal No. 19 of 2015 in Cr. P.L.A. No. 12 of 2014, decided on 18th August, 2016.

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----Ss. 302(b), 114 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Trial Court awarded death sentence to accused---Chief Court, on appeal, reduced the death sentence into life imprisonment---Complainant, in his appeal against judgment of the Chief Court alleged that case was that of brutal murder---Validity---Prosecution had successfully proved its case against accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Motive of committing murder of the deceased was proved through material on record---No mitigating circumstances existed to reduce the sentence awarded to accused by the Trial Court---Appeal filed by the complainant was allowed by the Supreme Appellate Court---Judgment by Chief Court and sentence awarded to accused was modified from life imprisonment to death sentence---Chief Court was directed by the Supreme Appellate Court to answer the murder reference in positive.

2011 SCMR 1148; 2003 SCMR 522; 2014 PCr.LJ 885 and 2014 PCr.LJ 1366 ref.

1973 SCMR 12; 2007 PCr.LJ 27; 2008 SCMR 707; 2013 PCr.LJ 931; 2002 MLD 964; 2012 SCMR 74; 2008 SCMR 1082; 1985 PLJ 36 and PLD 1993 Pesh. 138 distinguished.

Jahanzaib Khan, Advocate along with Ali Nazar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner No.1 (in Cr. Appeal No. 18 of 2015).

Amjad Hussain, Advocate along with Haji Peer Muhammad, Advocate for Respondent No.1 (in Cr. Appeal No. 18 of 2015).

Amjad Hussain, Advocate along with Haji Peer Muhammad, Advocate for Petitioner No.1 (in Cr. Appeal No. 19 of 2015).

Advocate-General for the State.

2016 G B L R 158

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Shahbaz Khan, JJ

REHMAT AZEEM---Petitioner

Versus

NASIR IQBAL and another---Respondents

Cr. Appeal No. 7 of 2016 in Cr. P.L.A. No. 10 of 2015, decided on 11th August, 2016.

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----S. 302---Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13--- Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000), S.7--- Qatl-i-amd, possessing unlicensed arms---Age of accused---Determination of---Accused, during pendency of the case, filed application before the Trial Court claiming juvenility and the Trial Court declared accused as juvenile on the basis of academic certification and the assessment certificate by the Doctors---Chief Court upheld the order of the Trial Court---National Identity Card (CNIC), issued by the National Data Base and Registration Authority (NADRA) had been deliberately concealed by accused---National Identity Card showed that age of accused was 18 years at the time of commission of alleged offence, which had been verified by 'NADRA'---Order of the Chief Court was set aside, in circumstances.

Amjad Hussain, Advocate along with Johar Ali Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Advocate-General, Gilgit-Baltistan along with Jahanzaib, Advocate and Ali Nazar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.

2016 G B L R 161

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Shahbaz Khan, JJ

ISFANDIYAR---Petitioner

Versus

The STATE---Respondent

Cr. Misc. No. 8 of 2016 in Cr. P.L.A. No. 25 of 2016, heard on 24th August, 2016.

Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009---

----Art. 71---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.561-A---Jurisdiction of Chief Court---Inherent powers of Chief Court---Chief Court has inherent power to pass any order to secure the ends of justice.

Johar Ali Khan, Advocate for Petitioner.

Advocate-General, Gilgit-Baltistan for the State/Respondent.

2016 G B L R 163

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., and Javed Iqbal, J

SALAHUDDIN---Petitioner

Versus

The STATE through Police Station Astore---Respondent

Criminal Appeal No. nil of 2016 in Cr. P.L.A. No. 10 of 2016, heard on 28th June, 2016.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S. 497(2)(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324, 337-F(v), 337-A, 353, 147 & 148---Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing hashimah, shajjah, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharging of his duty, rioting, possessing unlicensed arm---Bail, grant of---Trial Court granted bail to accused, but Chief Court cancelled the bail granted to accused---Bail was granted to accused by the Trial Court on the ground that accused was minor, school going, and the role assigned to the accused was on the basis of misstatement of the rival party and that the case of accused was that of further inquiry---Contentions of accused were that order granting bail to accused passed by the Trial Court was in accordance with law and facts; whereas order cancelling bail, passed by the Chief Court was the result of misconception of law and misreading/non-reading of the record of the case file; which was not tenable and was liable to be set aside to meet the ends of justice and equity---Validity---Prima facie, case of accused was of further inquiry---Accused who was juvenile, could not be kept in jail for indefinite period; law permitted him to release on bail---Order cancelling bail passed by the Chief Court was set aside and that of the Trial Court granting bail was maintained being well reasoned and well founded---Appeal was allowed.

Amjad Hussain, Advocate for Petitioner.

Advocate-General for Respondent.

2016 G B L R 165

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., and Shahbaz Khan, J

MUHAMMAD ABIDEEN---Petitioner

Versus

The STATE through FIA Gilgit-Balistan---Respondent

Cr. Misc. Nos. 5, 9 of 2015, Cr. Appeal No. 3 of 2015 in Cr. P.L.A. No. 8 of 2015, heard on 17th May, 2016.

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----S. 409---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---Criminal breach of trust by public servant---Taking illegal gratification---Appreciation of evidence---Counsel for accused submitted that he would be satisfied, if the directions were issued to the Trial Court to dispose of the case expeditiously on its merits within shortest possible time and that he could be allowed to withdraw the petition---Accused was allowed to withdraw his case with the directives to the Trial Court that all the material prosecution witnesses be examined expeditiously within a period of 3 months positively; whereafter accused would be at liberty to move an application under S.249-A or under S.265-K, Cr.P.C., in the Trial Court.

Malik Shafqat Wali, Senior Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Deputy Attorney-General for Pakistan at Gilgit-Baltistan for Respondent.

2016 G B L R 166

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Shahbaz Khan, JJ

ZUBAIR AHMED---Petitioner

Versus

The STATE---Respondent

Cr. Misc. No. 4 of 2015 in Cr. P.L.A. No. 9 of 2015, heard on 8th April, 2016.

Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)---

----S. 9(c)---Possessing and trafficking narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Accused did not press his appeal against his conviction and prayed for reduction in his sentences with contention that he was a young man having large family responsibilities and that due to his detention in jail, he and his family had morally and mentally suffered a lot and financially crippled; that he had learnt a lesson and had shown remorse and penitence and he wanted to unburden his conscious; that during serving his sentence in jail, he had improved himself and realized his mistake by committing such shameful offence which had given bad name to his religious family; that he undertook not to repeat such an offence in future; that he wanted to reform and rehabilitate himself as a responsible citizen; and that ends of justice had already been served---Validity---Accused who was in custody since 30-1-2013, was the first offender, who had shown his remorse and penitence during serving the sentence in jail---Accused had already served upon more than 3 years in jail and as per record his conduct was found satisfactory---Accused wanted to reform and rehabilitate himself as a responsible citizen in the society in future---Supreme Appellate Court observed that accused deserved leniency as prayed for, conviction of accused was maintained, but his sentence was reduced from 8 years' R.I. to 5 years' R.I. and fine of Rs.100,000 was also reduced to Rs.50,000.

Jameel Khan and others v. The State PLD 2008 Kar. 376; Waris Khan v. The State PLD 2006 Kar. 648; Muhammad Hashim v. The State PLD 2004 SC 856; Unchenna Ibeneme v. The State 1992 MLD 1823; Rodriguez Narciso v. The State 2000 MLD 218; John Chibuzo v. The State 2000 MLD 235; Jaffar v. The State 2008 PCr.LJ 1540; Rubina v. The State and others 2009 PCr.LJ 107; Ikhtiar v. The State 2009 PCr.LJ 355 and Muhammad Ayub v. The State 2009 PCr.LJ 403 ref.

Amjad Hussain, Advocate along with Johar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Manzoor Hussain, Advocate/Special Prosecutor ANF for the State.

2016 G B L R 171

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., and Javed Iqbal, J

ABBAS and 9 others---Petitioners

Versus

RAZA and another---Respondents

Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2016 in C.P.L.A. No. 9 of 2015, decided on 28th December, 2016.

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---

----S. 42---Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art.60---Suit for declaration---Respondents/plaintiffs claimed that they were owners of suit property which was gifted to them by their late father and filed suit seeking declaration that they were the owners of the suit property---Trial Court dismissed the suit being meritless---Appellate Court dismissed the appeal against judgment of Trial Court---Respondents challenged said judgment before Chief Court; which allowed the revision setting aside both the judgments of the courts below---Validity---Concurrent findings of the Trial Court and appellate court below were well reasoned, which should have been maintained by the Chief Court---Judgment of the Chief court was set aside---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and allowed.

Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate for Petitioners.

Wazir Walayat Ali, Advocate for Respondents.

2016 G B L R 174

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., and Javed Iqbal, J

PRINCE SALEEM KHAN---Petitioner

Versus

NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through President NBP and 5 others---Respondents

Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2016 in C.P.L.A. No. 29 of 2015, decided on 3rd May, 2016.

National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)---

----Ss. 9, 18(5) & 19---Corruption and corrupt practices---Power to call for information---Suit for recovery of amount---Pending suit for recovery, entertainment of complaint and investigation of accused---Accused was Vice-Chairman of a Company and Bank loan of Rupees fifty million was sanctioned to the company---Bank, alleged that accused had got sanctioned said loan on the basis of fraud and forgery---Bank proceeded against accused by filing suit in the Banking Court for recovery of amount in question---Federal Investigation Agency and National Accountability Bureau authorities also initiated inquiries against accused for his involvement in obtaining loan from Bank fraudulently and National Accountability Bureau issued notice under S.19 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999---Accused filed writ petition before the Chief Court praying therein to restrain the NAB authorities from inquiry/investigation---Counsel for accused contended that a civil suit for recovery filed by the Bank on the subject would preclude the NAB authorities to entertain the complaint and to investigate or conduct inquiry against accused---Validity---National Accountability Bureau could not be restrained from the inquiry/investigation for the allegations levelled against accused---Accused had committed offences under S.9 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, which could only be determined after conducting inquiry/investigation---Notice had been issued under S.9 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, whereby any person involved could be investigated for the offence mentioned therein---Issuance of notice, even if found to be not within its purpose and object, a wrongly issued notice would not, under any case, justify quashing the route (an investigation, initiated under S.18(c) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999)---When an offence was committed, the effect thereof would start, but a procedural error, irregularity and even illegality by Investigating Officer, could well be judged by the competent court towards the effect and consequences---NAB authorities, could not be precluded to issue call-up notices, or restrain to conduct an inquiry/investigation under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999---NAB authorities were lawfully authorized to conduct inquiry/ investigation and interference therein would seriously prejudice to the prosecution towards its right in probing into an investigation/ inquiry of the offence---Impugned judgment being well reasoned and well founded, no interference was warranted---Impugned judgment of Chief Court was maintained---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and dismissed.

2010 PCr.LJ 13; PLD 2005 Lah. 692; PLD 2001 Kar. 419; PLD 2001 SC 60 and 2002 YLR 1811 rel.

Amjad Hussain, Advocate for Petitioner.

Muhammad Abbas, Additional Prosecutor-General, NAB, Gilgit-Baltistan.

Muhammad Hussain Shahzad, Advocate.

2016 G B L R 183

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., and Javed Iqbal, J

SHABAN ALI and 8 others---Petitioners

Versus

Mst. ZAINABA and 6 others---Respondents

C. Misc. No. 50 of 2014 in C.P.L.A. No. 62 of 2014, heard on 23rd November, 2016.

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---

----Ss. 42 & 8---Suit for declaration and possession---Suit was filed on the basis of gift and as alternative their shari share which was decreed by the Trial Court to the extent of 4/7th share---Appeal against the judgment of Trial Court was dismissed by appellate court and revision was also dismissed by the Chief Court---Validity---Factum of gift had been admitted---Defendants/petitioners, could not point out any illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the Chief Court---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and dismissed---Judgment of the Chief Court was maintained.

Muhammad Issa, Senior Advocate along with Johar Ali Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

Manzoor Ahmed, Advocate along with Rehmat Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.

2016 G B L R 185

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., and Javed Iqbal, J

AFZAL KHAN---Petitioner

Versus

MUHAMMAD SHARIF and 2 others---Respondents

C. Appeal No. 29 of 2015 in C.P.L.A. No. 93 of 2015, decided on 3rd November, 2016.

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---

----Ss. 8 & 42---Suit for possession and declaration---Plaintiff, claimed that he was the owner of suit land which was given to the defendant temporarily to take the benefits from its grass etc., with the commitment that the defendant would pay the entire amount of Rs.25,000 plus Rs.10,000 mark up to the 'Zarai Taraqiati Bank'; that the defendant paid only Rs.14,000 to the Bank and failed to pay the whole amount as per commitment---Plaintiff, alleged that the defendant with the connivance of Tehsildar fraudulently prepared bogus documents of the suit land in his name and declared himself as owner of the land---Defendant resisted the suit contending that defendant had paid amount of Rs.14,000 to the Bank on behalf of the plaintiff against his loan and the plaintiff had failed to pay the same---Defendant contended that the claim of the plaintiff that the suit land was given to the defendant as Amanat, just to take benefits in shape of grass, was baseless---Defendant had successfully proved his case through credible evidence which had rightly been appreciated by courts below; whereas the plaintiff had failed to produce any evidence in support of his contentions---Two courts below had rightly dismissed the suit---Plaintiff could not point out any illegality, infirmity and mis-appreciation of evidence in the concurrent findings of the three courts below---Appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Appellate Court.

Ali Nazar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Manzoor Ahmed, Advocate for Respondents.

2016 G B L R 189

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., and Javed Iqbal, J

UMAR KHAN and 112 others---Petitioners

Versus

ALL JUMLA MALIKAN ZANGARI HETI GOHARABAD TEHSIL CHILAS through Lumberdar and 11 others---Respondents

Civil Appeal No. 76 of 2016 in C.P.L.A. No. 22 of 2015, decided on 3rd November, 2016.

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---

----S. 42---Suit for declaration---Plaintiff claimed to be lineal descedents of one who was alleged to be the owner of the property in question and migrated to other district about 200/250 years ago and his property remained with the off-springs of his brothers undivided---Plaintiffs claimed that they like the defendants were getting the "Malikana/Royalty" from the property of their forefathers, but some of the defendants had denied payment of said royalty to them for the last 5-6 years---Plaintiffs had sought declaration that they were also entitled to get 'Maalikana/Royalty' and other benefits---Suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed being barred by time---Appellate court below set aside judgment of the Trial Court, but Chief Court in revision upheld judgment of the Trial Court---Validity---Alleged owner of the suit land who had migrated to another place, never turned up and claimed the rights of 'Royalty/Maalikana', nor his first generation claimed the said collective rights---All of a sudden and after lapse of a considerable period of two and half century, the third and fourth generation of said owner had alleged that they had the rights of Royalty/Maalikana---Plaintiffs, could not even prove their ancestral property, owned, possessed and looked after by any of their relatives at the said village---Trial Court had held that the suit of the plaintiffs was barred by time; which was rightly upheld by the Chief Court---Plaintiffs had themselves admitted that their forefathers had wilfully abandoned the rights long ago, which could not be regained without obtaining its basic source---Plaintiffs, themselves were ignorant about the actual quantity of land and its status---Plaintiffs could not point out any illegality, infirmity and mis-appreciation of evidence on record---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and dismissed---Impugned judgment passed by the Chief Court and that of the Trial Court, were maintained, in circumstances.

Mir Ikhlaq Hussain, Advocate along with Ali Nazar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

Rai Muhammad Nawaz Kharal, Advocate along with Rehmat Ali, Advocate and Johar Ali Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.

2016 G B L R 193

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., and Javed Iqbal, J

FARMAN ALI and 4 others---Petitioners

Versus

MUHAMMAD YASEEN---Respondent

Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2016 in C.P.L.A. No. 8 of 2015, decided on 28th December, 2016.

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---

----Ss.42, 8 & 39---Suit for declaration, possession and cancellation of gift-deed---Plaintiff/respondent filed suit against the defendants/ petitioners for declaration, possession and cancellation of gift-deed regarding his share in property---Defendants contested the suit with the plea that mother of the plaintiff had already gifted out her Shari share in favour of father of defendants vide a deed---Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff---First appeal filed against the judgment of the Trial Court was partly accepted by the appellate court below---Revision against judgment of appellate court was dismissed by the Chief Court---Validity---Counsel for petitioners could not point out any illegality and infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Chief Court---No interference was warranted in the judgment of the Chief Court---Orders passed in revision by the Chief Court, as well as by the appellate court and that of the Trial Court, were maintained by Supreme Appellate Court, in circumstances.

Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate along with Ali Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

Muhammad Issa, Senior Advocate for Respondent.

2016 G B L R 196

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., and Javed Iqbal, J

The STATE---Petitioner

Versus

BILAL AHMED and 3 others---Respondents

Cr. Appeal No. 1 of 2015 in Cr. P.L.A. No. 4 of 2014, heard on 3rd November, 2016.

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----Ss. 221, 222, 223, 224 & 225---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 21-I & 21-L---Intentional omission to apprehend on the part of public servant bound to apprehend, escape from confinement or custody negligently suffered by public servant, resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension, resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension of another person, act of terrorism---Reappraisal of evidence---Court competent to try case---Provisions of Ss.6 & 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, were not attracted and applicable to the case---Chief Court had rightly held that the case was triable under the ordinary jurisdiction of the competent court of law i.e. the Sessions Court---Advocate-General, could not point out any illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment, which was well reasoned and well founded---Impugned judgment passed by the Chief Court was affirmed---Sessions Court was required to hear and dispose the case on merits---Order accordingly.

Advocate-General along with Ali Nazar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Haji Peer Muhammad, Advocate along with Johar Ali Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.

2016 G B L R 199

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., and Javed Iqbal, J

HALEEMA SADIA---Petitioner

Versus

SHAKEEL AHMED and another---Respondents

Cr. Appeal No. 8 of 2016 in Cr. P.L.A. No. 7 of 2016, decided on 13th December, 2016.

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----Ss. 376, 377, 363, 392, 506, 337-A & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Rape, unnatural offence, kidnapping, robbery, criminal intimidation, causing Shajjah, common intention, act of terrorism---Reappraisal of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Ocular account furnished by one of the prosecution witnesses fully corroborated the statements of other prosecution witnesses---Forensic, Serological Examination Report, also corroborated the confessional statements of accused persons---Prosecution had successfully proved its case against accused persons---Accused persons were alleged to have abducted the victim girl for committing gang rape which had created a sense of fear and insecurity in the public generally and among girls students particularly---Commission of such offence by accused persons, created the sense of insecurity in the society---Said offence was triable under the special law and the Anti-Terrorism Court had rightly tried the case and convicted accused persons by appreciating the evidence on record---Impugned judgment passed by Chief Court was set aside, whereas the judgment passed by Anti-Terrorism Court was upheld and conviction and sentences so awarded were maintained---Death sentence awarded to accused persons was reduced to life imprisonment.

PLD 2011 SC 554; PLD 2010 SC 47; 2012 YLR 652 and 2011 SCMR 1665 ref.

2013 PCr.LJ 1720; 2005 MLD 1096; 2012 SCMR 517; PLD 2005 Kar. 177; 1969 SCMR 454; PLD 2005 Quetta 157; 2013 SCMR 669; 2011 PCr.LJ 470; 2009 PCr.LJ 1226; 2005 PCr.LJ 1384; 2012 MLD 518; 1990 PCr.LJ 731 and 2010 PCr.LJ 1750 distinguished.

Asadullah Khan, Advocate along with Ali Nazar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Amjad Hussain, Advocate along with Johar Ali Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.

2016 G B L R 209

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., and Javed Iqbal, J

SAFA and others---Petitioners

Versus

The STATE and others---Respondents

Cr. Appeal No. 21 of 2015 in Cr. P.L.A. No. 7 of 2015 and Cr. Appeal No. 20 of 2015 in Cr. P.L.A. No. 27 of 2015, heard on 17th October, 2016.

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention--- Appraisal of evidence--- Counsel for the complainant had submitted that; it was a day light occurrence and FIR had been registered promptly; that accused persons had been attributed a specific and direct role in commission of brutal murder and injuring a lady; that witnesses, had directly charged accused persons attributing them the specific roles; and that prosecution had proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt by producing eye-witnesses, recovery of blood-stained earth from the scene of occurrence, inquest report, Chemical Examiner's Report, Fire Arm Expert's Report, report of Radiologist and the recovery of weapon of crime on the pointation of accused persons---Trial Court convicted and sentenced accused persons and appeal against the judgment of the Trial Court was dismissed---No illegality, infirmity or mis-appreciation of evidence was pointed out in the concurrent findings of the courts below which were maintained, in circumstances.

Johar Ali Khan, Advocate along with Munir Ahmed, Advocate and Ali Nazar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2015).

Johar Ali Khan, Advocate along with Munir Ahmed, Advocate and Ali Nazar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent (in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2015).

Advocate-General, Gilgit-Baltistan for the State.

Jahanzaib Khan, Advocate for the Complainant (in both Appeals).

2016 G B L R 214

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., and Javed Iqbal, J

The STATE---Petitioner

Versus

EHSAN ALI, ADVOCATE and 6 others---Respondents

Cr. P.L.A. No. 15 of 2015, heard on 7th October, 2016.

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----S. 342---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.196 & 561-A---Wrongful confinement---Quashing of FIR---Impugned FIR was quashed, State being aggrieved filed petition for leave to appeal to Supreme Appellate Court---FIR in question was registered in violation of the mandatory provisions of S.196, Cr.P.C.---Advocate-General could not point out any illegality and infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Chief Court---Petition for leave to appeal was refused.

Advocate General along with Ali Nazar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Ehsan Ali, Advocate/respondent along with Israr-ud-Din, Muhammad Farooq, Faizan Mir, Aziz Ahmed, Safdar Ali and Muhammad Javed for Respondents/Accused.

2016 G B L R 216

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., and Javed Iqbal, J

NAZIM and others---Petitioners

Versus

MUHAMMAD MUSA and 2 others---Respondents

C.P.L.A. No. 58 of 2014, heard on 19th September, 2016.

Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)---

----Ss. 58, 60, 67 & 68---Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art. 60---Mortgage of property---Redemption of mortgage---Mortgagee failed to pay mortgage amount within stipulated time, mortgaged land was transferred through sale---Mortgagor being aggrieved filed suit for redemption and possession of mortgaged property, which was decreed in his favour subject to payment of specified amount---Appeal against the judgment of the Trial Court was rejected by Appellate Court and revision against judgment of Appellate Court was dismissed by the Chief Court---Validity---Petitioners/vendees had contended that on failure of mortgager to pay debt amount to mortgagee within the stipulated time, mortgagee who had become the real owner of the land in question, had rightly sold out land in question to them---Contentions of respondents were that "once a mortgage always a mortgage" and that the petitioners/vendees were well aware about the transaction of the suit land, who malafidely entered into the illegal purchase of the land in question; that responsibility of such illegal transaction was on the petitioners/vendees as respondents could not be held accountable for such illegal deal---Petitioners/vendees could not point out any illegality and infirmity in the judgment of Chief Court---Impugned judgment was well reasoned and well founded having been passed in accordance with law and facts of the case, and no interference was warranted---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and dismissed---Impugned judgment by the Chief Court was maintained.

Amjad Husain, Advocate along with Ali Nazar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

Muhammad Hussain Shehzad, Advocate for Respondents.

2016 G B L R 218

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Shahbaz Khan, JJ

ZAFAR IQBAL---Petitioner

Versus

BABA JAN and 2 others---Respondents

Civil Appeal No. nil of 2016 in C.P.L.A. No. 40 of 2016, heard on 28th June, 2016.

Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976)---

----Ss. 7, 11, 14(5), 99 & 108--- Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Arts.37(c), 60 & 61---Bye-election---Rejection of nomination papers---Petition for leave to appeal was directed against impugned order passed by Election Tribunal whereby the Tribunal set aside order passed by Returning Officer for rejection of the nomination papers of the candidate and he was declared as qualified candidate to contest the bye-election---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and was disposed of with directions that: Election Commission was to announce fresh schedule of bye-election to fill in the vacant seat of the constituency; that Election Commission would issue notifications thereto strictly in terms of Ss.11, 14(5), 108 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 and earlier notification, if any issued in violation of said provisions of law, would be considered illegal, void ab initio and without lawful authority; that notification No.ELC-1(1)/2014-GBLA dated 28-4-2016 appointing Mr. Justice Malik Haq Nawaz as Member Election Tribunal in place of Mr. Justice Yar Muhammad (being on leave), was set aside being illegal, void ab initio and without lawful authority and judgment passed by the Election Tribunal, was set aside; that stay order, by single Judge of Chief Court was set aside and Chief Court was directed to decide appeal on its merits within a period of 2 weeks; that Election Commission was directed to appoint Returning Officer in terms of S.7 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 and in case the contesting candidates would show any reservation, a Judicial Officer not below the rank of Additional District Judge be appointed with the consultation of the Chief Judge, Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court.

Manzoor Ahmed, Advocate for Petitioner.

Advocate-General, Gilgit-Baltistan.

Deputy Attorney-General for Pakistan at Gilgit.

Amjad Hussain, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

Munir Ahmed, Advocate along with Shaheen Shah, Returning Officer for Election Commission, Gilgit-Baltistan.

2016 G B L R 223

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Shahbaz Khan, JJ

The AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT and others---Petitioners

Versus

Haji JUMA SHAH---Respondent

C. Misc. No. 53 of 2016 in C.P.L.A. No. 49 of 2014, heard on 23rd June, 2016.

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---

----Ss. 8 & 42--- Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Arts.60 & 71---Suit for declaration and possession---Inspection by the Civil Judge and disposal of the suit---First appeal before Additional District Judge was accepted and judgment/decree passed by the Civil Judge was set aside and case was remanded to the Civil Judge for fresh determination of the rival claims of the parties---Parties filed separate appeals before the Additional District Judge, whereby appeal filed by the plaintiff was accepted and that of defendant dismissed---Chief Court maintained the judgment and order passed by District Judge---Judgment passed by First Appellate Court as well as impugned judgment passed by Chief Court, were well founded---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and was dismissed---Trial Court was required to hear and decide the case on its merits expeditiously within a period of three months.

Advocate-General, Gilgit-Baltistan for Petitioners.

Manzoor Ahmed, Advocate along with Rehmat Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.

2016 G B L R 225

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., and Javed Iqbal, J

SENATE KIU through Chairman and 2 others---Petitioners

Versus

KARIM KHAN---Respondent

Civil Appeal No. 57 of 2016 in C.P.L.A. No. 91 of 2015, heard on 16th August, 2016.

Gilgit-Baltistan Civil Servants Act (V of 2011)---

----S. 8--- Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art.60---Promotion---Respondent performing his duties as Additional Registrar (Administration) BPS-19 was not considered for promotion to next grade by the Selection Board, despite he being at Serial No.1 of the seniority list---Allegations against the respondent were misuse of power and nepotism---Junior colleagues of the respondent had been considered and promoted to next higher grade i.e. BPS-20---Inquiry Committee submitted its report and declared the respondent not guilty for nepotism---Inquiry Committee was again constituted, who recommended minor penalty for the respondent, but authorities imposed penalty of withholding of promotion of the respondent till his retirement---Writ petition of the respondent against such action of the authorities was allowed---Validity---Three inquiry Committees were constituted to probe into the alleged allegations against the respondent; out of said three Committees, the two had exonerated the respondent from the charges, whereas the third "one Member Committee" had imposed minor penalty for the respondent, but contrary to the facts and rules, authorities penalized the respondent by awarding him major punishment i.e. withholding of the promotion of the respondent---On conclusion of one inquiry against an Officer, no second or third inquiry was allowed as per relevant rules/law---Authorities could not point out any illegality/infirmity in the impugned judgment---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and dismissed.

Ikhlaq Hussain, Advocate for Petitioners.

Asadullah Khan, Advocate for Respondent.

2016 G B L R 229

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Javed Iqbal and Shahbaz Khan, JJ

Raja SHAHDURAN ALI---Petitioner/Plaintiff

Versus

HABIB-UR-REHMAN---Respondent/Defendant

C. Appeal No. 16 of 2015 in C.P.L.A. No. 89 of 2014, decided on 5th August, 2016.

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---

----Ss. 8 & 42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.IX, R.13---Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art.60---Suit for possession and declaration---Ex parte decree, setting aside of---Defendant/respondent after appearing before the Trial Court remained absent---Trial Court after proceeding ex parte against the defendant, allowed the plaintiff/petitioner to prove his case through evidence and the Trial Court passed ex parte decree in favour of the plaintiff---Defendant after expiry of limitation, filed application under O.IX, R.13, C.P.C., for setting aside ex parte decree which was dismissed by the Trial Court---Appellate court below having upheld the judgment/order of the Trial Court---Chief Court, in revision accepted the petition and set aside both judgments/orders of the courts below and also set aside ex parte decree and ordered for de novo trial---Validity---Defendant had failed to substantiate his non-availability in the city---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and allowed, setting aside the judgment/order of the Chief Court and maintaining judgments/orders of lower courts.

2005 CLC 522; 1996 SCMR 596; 2011 GBLR 334; 2008 SCMR 287; PLD 1991 SC 1104; 2007 SCMR 834; PLD 1986 Quetta 121; 2004 YLR 1536; 1980 CLC 1261; 1999 YLR 2465; PLD 1976 SC 208 and 1992 SCMR 207 ref.

Ehsan Ali, Advocate for Petitioner.

Johar Ali, Advocate for Respondent.

Rehmat Ali, Advocate-on-Record.

2016 G B L R 232

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., and Javed Iqbal, J

Mst. MEHERJANI and another---Petitioners

Versus

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary Gilgit-Baltistan and others---Respondents

C. Appeal No. 12 of 2015 in C.P.L.A. No. 39 of 2014, heard on 8th September, 2016.

Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)---

----Ss.4 & 23---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 8 & 42---Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art.60---Acquisition of land---Suit for possession and declaration---Land in question owned by the plaintiffs/petitioners, was acquired by the authorities, without paying compensation to the owners---Suit for declaration and possession filed by the plaintiffs was decreed by the Trial Court---Lower Appellate Court dismissed the first appeal, however the judgment of the Trial Court to the extent of delivery of structure/buildings and compound interest was varied---Chief Court, in revision, set aside the concurrent findings of the courts below and authorities were directed to prepare fresh award as per prevailing rates of the relevant year---Validity---Land in question, admittedly was acquired by the authorities, who had constructed a school on the land in question, without giving compensation to its owners/petitioners---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and allowed---Judgment in revision passed by the Chief Court, was set aside whereas judgment passed by Civil Judge was maintained.

Johar Ali Khan, Advocate for Petitioners.

Advocate-General for Respondents.

2016 G B L R 235

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Shahbaz Khan, JJ

MUHAMMAD NASEEM and 8 others---Petitioners

Versus

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Gilgit-Baltistan and 4 others---Respondents

Civil Appeal No. 65 of 2016 in C.P.L.A. No. 39 of 2015, decided on 20th September, 2016.

Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009---

----Arts. 60 & 71---Writ petition before Chief Court---Competency---Chief Court dismissed the writ petition holding that matter was of civil nature---Petitioners, who were contractors were awarded contract of transportation of wheat to various Districts and Tehsils as per agreed terms of contract---Contention of the petitioners was that government had paid the escalation amount for the year 2008-2009 in line with the agreement, but had not paid said amount for the years 2009-2010 and onward---Writ petition by the petitioners was dismissed by the Chief Court holding that petitioners should have filed civil suit for claiming escalation amount instead of filing writ petition---Validity---Writ, did not lie where alternate remedy was available to the petitioner---Where factual controversy was involved, writ jurisdiction could not be invoked---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and dismissed---Order passed in writ petition by the Chief Court was maintained---Supreme Appellate Court observed that petitioners, would be at liberty to seek alternate remedy available to them in accordance with law before the competent court of jurisdiction.

Malik Shafqat Wali, Senior Advocate for Petitioners.

Advocate-General, Gilgit-Baltistan for Respondents.

2016 G B L R 237

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., and Javed Iqbal, J

Mst. ZAINABA and 3 others---Petitioners

Versus

SHER SULIEMAN and another---Respondents

C. Appeal No. 37 of 2016 in C.P.L.A. No. 80 of 2015, decided on 3rd November, 2016.

Inheritance---

----Suit for distribution of inherited property amongst the co-sharers---Plaintiff and defendant were sister and brother inter se---Plaintiff/respondent filed suit claiming that disputed land was given to him by his father as his share in consequence of the partition of his legacy in his life time, however, it was retained by his father as "Amanat"---Defendant/petitioner who was then residing with her father, after the death of his father was not ready to deliver the possession of land in dispute contending that same was gifted to her by her father---Trial Court decreed the suit dividing the land amongst legal heirs of the deceased according to Shari shares---Lower Appellate Court and Chief Court upheld the judgment and decree of the Trial Court---Validity---Judgment by the Chief Court was maintained by Supreme Appellate Court.

Johar Ali Khan, Advocate along with Ali Nazar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

2016 G B L R 240

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., and Javed Iqbal, J

AHLIAN-E-ZAIL through Representatives---Petitioners

Versus

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Gilgit-Baltistan and 11 others---Respondents

C.P.L.A. No. 69 of 2014, heard on 19th September, 2016.

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---

----S. 42--- Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.151 & O.XXXIX, Rr.1, 2---Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art. 60---Suit for declaration, with consequential relief---Plaintiffs/petitioners filed suit for declaration with consequential relief against the defendants/respondents, along with an application under O.XXXIX, Rr.1, 2 read with S.151, C.P.C., for grant of temporary injunction---Trial Court, dismissed application for grant of temporary injunction and fixed main case for hearing on its merits---Appellate Court below on appeal, instead of deciding application filed under O.XXXIX, Rr.1, 2, C.P.C., dismissed main suit pending in the Trial Court---Chief Court dismissed the revision against judgment of the lower appellate court---Validity---Prima facie, both questions of facts and law were involved in the case, which could only be resolved/decided after framing of issues and recording of evidence of the parties thereto---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and allowed---Judgment by the Chief Court and appellate court below, were set aside, and case was remanded to the Trial Court to proceed with the case accordingly.

Amjad Husain, Advocate along with Ali Nazar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

Advocate-General for Respondents.

Johar Ali Khan, Advocate for Respondents Nos.6 to 12.

2016 G B L R 243

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Shahbaz Khan, JJ

MUHAMMAD ALI AKHTER and another---Petitioners

Versus

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT and others---Respondents

C. Misc. No. 54 of 2016 in C.P.L.A. No. 59 of 2016, heard on 4th August, 2016.

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---

----O. XXXIX, Rr.1, 2 & S. 151---Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art. 60---Application for grant of interim injunction---Petitioners agreed to pay cost, so fixed by the Chief Court if the case was remanded to the Chief Court---Request of the petitioners was allowed by the Supreme Appellate Court in the interest of justice and petitioners were directed to pay the cost---Case was remanded to the Chief Court to hear and decide the same on its merits---Supreme Appellate Court observed that status quo be maintained by the parties till the case fixed and application under O.XXXIX, Rr.1, 2 read with S.151, C.P.C., filed by the petitioners was heard and decided by the Chief Court.

Manzoor Ahmed, Advocate for Petitioners.

2016 G B L R 244

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Shahbaz Khan, JJ

CHAIRMAN PARC and another---Petitioners

Versus

KHALID IKHLAQ and 2 others---Respondents

Civil Review No.1 of 2015 in C.P.L.A. No. 19 of 2014, heard on 16th August, 2016.

Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009---

----Art. 65---Review of the judgment of Supreme Appellate Court---Limitation---Petitioners had conceded that review petition was barred by time and could not explain plausible justification in that regard---Even one day's unexplained delay being not condonable, review petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

1990 SCMR 1377; 1991 SCMR 1022; 1998 SCMR 292 and 1998 SCMR 1087 ref.

Ehsan Ali, Advocate along with Rehmat Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

2016 G B L R 246

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Javed Iqbal and Shahbaz Khan, JJ

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Gilgit-Baltistan and 5 others---Petitioners

Versus

SAJID ULLAH and 5 others---Respondents

C. Misc. No.10 of 2016 in C.P.L.A. No. 83 of 2015, heard on 26th August, 2016.

Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)---

----Ss. 4, 12, 18 & 34---Acquisition of land---Compensation---Determination of---Reference to Referee Court---Referee Judge in the light of pleadings, framed issues and parties produced their respective evidence pro and contra and passed a decree in favour of land owners---Authorities filed First Appeal before the Chief Court which upheld the judgment of Referee Court---Validity---Concurrent judgments had been passed by the Division Bench of the Chief Court and Referee Court after thrashing out entire documentary evidence---No substantial grounds or reasons existed for interference in the impugned judgments of the Chief Court and Referee Court---Petition was dismissed.

Advocate-General, Gilgit-Baltistan for Petitioners.

Ali Nazar Khan, Advocate-on-Record.

2016 G B L R 248

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Shahbaz Khan, JJ

BABAR KHAN---Petitioner

Versus

GHULAM and 4 others---Respondents

C. Appeal No. 19 of 2015 in C.P.L.A. No. 40 of 2014, decided on 2nd September, 2016.

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---

----O. VI, R. 17 & S. 151---Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art. 60---Amendment in plaint---Scope---Trial Court allowed amendment in the plaint, which having been upheld by appellate court below in civil revision, plaintiff had filed writ petition, which was also dismissed in limine without giving any reason by the Chief Court---Impugned order of Chief Court was not a speaking order as no reason had been given while dismissing writ petition in limine---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and allowed---Order of Chief Court was set aside and remanded with direction to hear the parties afresh, and decide the same on its merits.

Malik Shafqat Wali, Senior Advocate for Petitioner.

Munir Ahmed, Advocate along with Rehmat Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.

2016 G B L R 250

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Shahbaz Khan, JJ

UBAID-UR-REHMAN MUQADDAM---Petitioner

Versus

GOVERNMENT OF GILGIT-BALTISTAN through Chief Secretary and 7 others---Respondents

C. Misc. No. 31 of 2016 in C.P.L.A. No. 36 of 2016, heard on 3rd June, 2016.

Educational institution---

----Admission in Medical College---Petitioner applied nomination against the reserved seats in the medical colleges of Punjab, Azad Kashmir and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for the relevant academic year---Authorities vide provisional selection list nominated the name of the petitioner in Azad Jammu and Kashmir, but subsequently his name was dropped from the list---Petitioner had qualified on merit amongst 11 other candidates, said 11 candidates were adjusted against the allocation quotas of Punjab, Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, whereas the petitioner was deprived of admission in though he was placed equally among equals---Supreme Appellate Court observed that since the matter pertained to the career of a Student, petition was partially allowed, with the direction that the Government of Gilgit Baltistan, without affecting the reserved seats quota of Medical Colleges for the relevant year the petitioner be accommodated in any of the Universities of the Punjab--- Order accordingly.

Asadullah Khan, Advocate for Petitioner.

Advocate-General, Gilgit-Baltistan along with Amjad Hussain for Respondents.

2016 G B L R 252

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Shahbaz Khan, JJ

MANSHAH ALI KHAN and another---Petitioners

Versus

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary Gilgit-Baltistan and 5 others---Respondents

C. Misc. No. 20 and C. Appeal No. 34 of 2015 in C.P.L.A. No. 98 of 2015, decided on 21st July, 2016.

Gilgit-Baltistan Civil Servants Act (V of 2011)---

----S. 8--- Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art. 60---Promotion---Entitlement to---Petitioners, who were performing their duties in the department of Fisheries as Assistant Wardens, having been promoted in BPS-11 against the vacant posts, respondent feeling aggrieved by said promotion filed writ petition which was allowed by Chief Court and orders were set aside---Review petition filed by the petitioners, was also dismissed being barred by time---Validity---Respondent, who being senior to the petitioners on the seniority list, fulfilled all the codal formalities for the promotion against the post in BPS-11---Respondent, therefore, was rightly promoted---Petitioners, could not point out any illegality/infirmity in the impugned orders/judgments---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and was dismissed.

Amjad Hussain, Advocate for Petitioners.

Advocate-General, Gilgit-Baltisan for Provincial Government.

Malik Shafqat Wali, Senior Advocate along with Munir Ahmed, Advocate for Respondent No.6.

2016 G B L R 255

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., and Shahbaz Khan, J

ZAMINDARAN-E-SAMIGAL BALA AND PAIN through Representatives and 4 others---Petitioners

Versus

ZAMINDARAN-E-DODOSHAL through Representatives and others---Respondents

Civil Misc. No. 23 of 2016, Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2016 in C.P.L.A. No. 27 of 2016, decided on 22nd June, 2016.

Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)---

----Ss. 4, 18, 23 & 31(2)---Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art.60---Acquisition of land---Award of compensation---Partial payment of compensation received by landowners---Order to surrender partial payment---Reference to referee court---Acquiring authority being dissatisfied with the payment of amount filed reference petition under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before Referee Court who directed the landowners to surrender the partial payment received by them---Judgment of the Referee Court was maintained by the Chief Court---Validity---Referee Court and Chief Court had passed the judgment in accordance with law and facts of the case---Well reasoned and well founded concurrent judgments of the courts below were maintained by the Supreme Appellate Court---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and dismissed---Petitioners, submitted that instead of surrendering the amount in cash, Bank Guarantee of the same/equal amount, was to be accepted by the Trial Court---Such request of the petitioners was accepted by Supreme Appellate Court---Order accordingly.

Malik Shafqat Wali, Senior Advocate along with Ali Nazar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

Muhammad Hussain Shehzad, Advocate for Respondents.

2016 G B L R 258

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Shahbaz Khan, JJ

FAZAL SHAH and another---Petitioners

Versus

Molvi RAMAZAN and 6 others---Respondents

Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2016 in C.P.L.A. No. 7 of 2012, decided on 19th May, 2016.

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---

----O. VII, R.2--- Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art.60---Suit for recovery of amount---Territorial jurisdiction---Transaction of purchase of land was executed at Rawalpindi and Trial Court at Astore (Gilgit-Baltistan) decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff---Question of territorial jurisdiction was involved---Chief Court in appeal held that judgment of Trial Court Astore (Gilgit-Baltistan) was without jurisdiction and lawful authority---Validity---Defendant had suffered irreparable loss because of uncalled for prolonged litigation by the plaintiffs and the judgment passed by the Trial/Civil Court was without jurisdiction---Supreme Appellate Court observed that administration of justice demanded that defendants be compensated; plaintiff was directed to pay cost of Rs.50,000 to the defendants within 15 days---No infirmity/illegality could be pointed out in the impugned judgment passed by the Chief Court in First Appeal---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and dismissed---Judgment passed by the Chief Court, being well founded and well reasoned, was upheld, whereas judgment/decree passed by the Trial Court, being without jurisdiction, was set aside, in circumstances---Defendants, however, could claim damages against the plaintiff in accordance with law.

Johar Ali Khan, Advocate for Petitioners.

Respondent No. 6 present in person.

2016 G B L R 261

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Shahbaz Khan, JJ

SHER AFRAZ---Petitioner

Versus

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary Gilgit-Baltistan and 6 others---Respondents

Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2016 in C.P.L.A. No. 37 of 2013, heard on 26th September, 2016.

Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)---

----Ss. 4, 18 & 23--- Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art. 60---Acquisition of land---Compensation---Determination of---Reference to court---Landowner having not been properly compensated for acquired land, filed reference before the Collector to properly compensate him according to the prevailing market rate; as the acquired land was of more value than the assessed amount---Said reference having been dismissed on the ground of limitation, petitioner filed writ petition before the Chief Court, which was dismissed by the Chief Court by a non-speaking order---Validity---Supreme Appellate Court, remanded the case to the Collector; who would refer the same before the Court to hear and decide the same on its own merits in accordance with law---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and allowed accordingly.

1984 CLC 2353 ref.

Amjad Hussain, Advocate along with Rehmat Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Advocate-General for Respondents Nos. 1 to 5.

Johar Ali Khan, Advocate on behalf of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) Gilgit.

2016 G B L R 264

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Shahbaz Khan, JJ

BAHADUR SHAH---Petitioner

Versus

Contractor REHMAN SHAH---Respondent

Civil Appeal No. 64 of 2016 in C.P.L.A. No. 18 of 2015, heard on 20th September, 2016.

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---

----O. XLI, R. 19--- Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art. 60---Dismissal of case for non-prosecution---Submission of the petitioner was that he appeared before the Chief Court and made a request for an adjournment as his counsel could not appear being busy in another court, but Chief Court dismissed the case of the petitioner for non-prosecution---Petitioner being aggrieved filed application under O.XLI, R.19, C.P.C., well within time and sufficient grounds were also presented for restoration of the case, but same was also dismissed---Validity---Case could not be dismissed for non-appearance when petitioner was present in the court---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and allowed---Case was remanded to the Chief Court to hear and decide the same on merits within a period of two months.

Sharif Ahmed, Advocate along with Johar Ali Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

2016 G B L R 266

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., and Shahbaz Khan, J

DENG XIAO BIN DIRECTOR PAK CHINA SOST PORT COMPANY (PVT.) LIMITED and another---Petitioners

Versus

REGISTRAR JOINT STOCK COMPANIES, GILGIT-BALTISTAN, GILGIT and 3 others---Respondents

C. Appeal No. 35 of 2015, decided on 22nd June, 2016.

Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) [as amended by Companies Ordinance (Amendment) Act (C of 2002)]---

----Ss. 290 & 170---Companies Act (VII of 1913), Preamble---Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Arts.60 & 71---Application for prevention of oppression and mismanagement of company---Powers of Registrar, Joint Stock Companies/Security Exchange Commission to call meetings of Board of Directors of the Company---Registrar Joint Stock Companies on the direction of the Chief Court, convened meeting of the Board of Directors of the company; petitioners had challenged the holding of said meeting, contending that after promulgation of Companies Ordinance Amendment Act, 2002 all the powers enjoyed by the Registrar of Companies had been assigned to the Securities and Exchange Commission and that the acts done by the Registrar in that regard were without authority---Validity---Convening of meeting of Board of Directors by the Registrar was not at his sweet will or an act under the influence of other respondents; rather the same was implementation of court order and due to non-establishment of Securities and Exchange Commission in Gilgit-Baltistan---Registrar Joint Stock Companies Gilgit-Baltistan exercised all powers including registration of companies and other corporate issues in Gilgit-Baltistan---Contention of counsel for the petitioners was that vide Companies Ordinance, 1984, as amended by Amendment Act, 2002, the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies Gilgit-Baltistan, had seized to exercise powers given under S.170 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, as the same had been vested with the Security Exchange Commission---Validity---Companies Ordinance, 1984 was not applicable to Gilgit-Baltistan in the year 2002 rather the Companies Act, 1913 was in operation and neither the Gilgit-Baltistan Council nor Government of Gilgit-Baltistan established the Securities and Exchange Commission; as a result, the Registrar of the companies was still exercising the powers including the registration of companies---If there was mismanagement or complaint to the effect that the affairs of the company were not being properly conducted; or were likely to be conducted in an unlawful or fraudulent manner, or in a manner not provided for in its memorandum, then the responsibility would shift on the petitioners exclusively being the responsible managers and responsible for conducting all affairs of the company---Purpose of S.290 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, appeared to keep company going well; while at the same time securing the interest of minor share holders from acts of oppression and mismanagement---Proceedings under S.290 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, were to be resorted to when it was complained that affairs of the company were being conducted in an unlawful or fraudulent manner; or in a manner not provided for in memorandum and articles of association---Submission of present application by the petitioners, being the Directors and Managers of the company, before the Chief Court under S.290 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 was against the spirit of the provision of law---Under S. 290 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 only the members, creditors and the Registrar, were entitled to submit application before the Chief Court in case of any complaint against the management of the company---Section 290 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, did not provide any statutory right to any Director, Board of Directors or the persons in management responsible for running affairs of the company, to file an application before the court; who himself was responsible for the management and administrative affairs of the company---Any member of Board of Directors, Director or Chief Executive of a company, did not fall under the scope of S.290 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984.

Amjad Hussain, Advocate for Petitioners.

Malik Shafqat Wali, Senior Advocate along with Rehmat Ali, Advocate-on Record for Respondents.

2016 G B L R 280

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., and Javed Iqbal, J

Mir SHAKEEL-UR-REHMAN and others---Petitioners

Versus

The STATE OF GILGIT-BALTISTAN---Respondent

Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2016 in Cr. P.L.A. No. 4 of 2016 and Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2016 in Cr. P.L.A. No. 18 of 2016, decided on 30th September, 2016.

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----Ss. 295-A, 298-A & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, S. 95---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.403---Deliberation and malicious acts intended to outrage religion feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs, use of derogatory remarks in respect of Holy personages, common intention, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Double jeopardy---Accused persons were prosecuted almost in all the four provinces of Pakistan; most of the cases registered on the same set of allegations, same set of fact and the same set of evidence and many of the FIRs had been quashed; in two cases accused were acquitted---No body could be prosecuted and punished twice for the same offence in violation of Fundamental Rights of accused persons---Provisions of Art.13(a) of Constitution of Pakistan, read with Art.95 of Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009 and S. 403, Cr.P.C., as well as S.26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, were fully attracted in the case---Order accordingly.

(b) Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance (XIII of 2002)---

----Ss. 30, 33, 34, 35 & 37---Overriding effect of Ordinance---After promulgation of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Ordinance, 2002, same being a special law, had exclusive jurisdiction and Authority under the said Ordinance could take cognizance of offences committed by Media Channels in violation of PEMRA Laws and Rules thereunder---In presence of penal provisions, Authority under the Ordinance could suspend, cancel licence; prosecute and impose fine, whosoever would violate the PEMRA Laws and Rules, thereunder---Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 had an overriding effect upon other previous enacted special laws---Every case was to be decided on its own merits---Order accordingly.

Government of Punjab v. Ziaullah Khan 1992 SCMR 602; Muhammad Fazil and others v. The State 2006 SCMR 1432; Muhammad Arif v. The State 2008 SCMR 829 and Mir Ikhlaq Ahmed v. The State 2008 SCMR 951 ref.

Amir and others v. The State PLD 2004 Quetta 16; Hassan Akhtar and another v. The State 2005 YLR 1283; Mairaj Begum v. Ejaz Anwar and others PLD 1982 SC 294; Begum Nusrat Bhutto through Daughter v. The State through Chairman NAB PLD 2002 Lah. 74; Mumtaz Hussain v. Deputy Inspector General Faisalabad and 7 others PLD 2002 Lah. 78; Gul Hassan and another v. The State PLD 1969 SC 89; Mst. Ramzan Bibi v. District Magistrate and Tribunal Sahiwal and another PLD 1969 SC 97; Muhammad Aslam and others v. Ejaz Ahmed and others 1982 SCMR 622; Hayat Bakhsh and others v. The State 1982 SCMR 623; Mst. Razia Begum v. Jahangir and others PLD 1982 SC 294; Chan Shah v. The Crown PLD 1956 FC 43 and Benazir Bhutto, MNA, Leader of the Opposition v. The State 1999 SCMR 1619 distinguished.

Mahram Ali v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1998 SC 1445; Muhammad Ashfaque alias Chief and 18 others v. The State 1998 PCr.LJ 1486; M. B. Abbasi v. The State 2009 SCMR 808; Fateh Ali v. Pir Muhammad 1975 SCMR 221; Muhammad Darvaish Al-Gilani and 14 others v. Muhammad Shareef and others 1997 SCMR 524; Meherwan Cavashi Irani v. Khuda Bukhsh Marri 1998 SCMR 537; Adam v. Collector Customs Karachi PLD 1969 SC 446; The State v. Hadi Bukhsh 1981 SCMR 1008; Muhammad Ayub v. Chairman Electricity Board Rawalpindi PLD 1987 SC 195; Muhammad Ashraf and others v. The State 1995 SCMR 626; Mark Mifsud Mrs. Rosemarie Morley and another v. Investigating Officer, Customs Karachi and 2 others PLD 1999 Kar. 336 and Nazir Ahmed v. Capital City Police Officer Lahore 2011 SCMR 484 rel.

Muhammad Issa, Senior Advocate for Petitioners (in Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2016 in Cr. P.L.A. No. 4 of 2016).

Johar Ali Khan, Advocate for Petitioners (in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2016 in Cr. P.L.A. No. 16 of 2016).

Advocate-General, Gilgit-Baltistan for the State of Gilgit-Baltistan (in the both Appeals).

Munir Ahmed, Advocate along with Asadullah Khan, Advocate and Amjad Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for the Complainant (in the both Appeals).

2016 G B L R 303

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., and Javed Iqbal, J

STATE through National Accountability Bureau---Petitioner

Versus

QALAB ALI and 2 others---Respondents

Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2016 in Cr. P.L.A. No. 11 of 2010, decided on 1st December, 2016.

National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)---

----Ss. 9, 18, 19 & 31-D---Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Arts. 60 & 71---Corruption and corrupt practices---Inquiry, investigation or proceedings in respect of Bank loans---Scope---Accused allegedly obtained loan fraudulently from the Bank without providing proper securities---Co-accused, who was Branch Manager of the Bank, sanctioned said loan without obtaining sanction from the competent authority---Accused, in circumstances, had committed fraud, causing loss and damage to the Bank in connivance with co-accused---Accused persons were arrested by NAB authorities and they filed writ petition before Chief Court against their arrest, which was allowed---Validity---Case against accused persons fell within scope of S.9 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1997---Chief Court fell in error and held that loan taken by accused was "imprudent loan"; that inquiry/investigation initiated by NAB, was illegal and without jurisdiction; and that accused persons had challenged only the jurisdiction of NAB authorities---Inquiry/ investigation initiated by NAB authorities, was with jurisdiction and they had legally taken the cognizance of the case---NAB authorities could not be precluded or restrained to conduct inquiry/investigation under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999---Mere filing of civil suit by the Bank against accused persons for recovery of loan, would not preclude or restrain NAB authorities for initiation of inquiry/investigation against accused persons, who allegedly obtained loan fraudulently, mis-used their authorities and committed offences of corruption and corrupt practices---Officer so inquiring/investigating, would have all the powers as were available with the Officer-in-Charge of a Police Station under Cr.P.C.---Inquiry/investigation could be initiated only by the Chairman or the Officer of the NAB, duly authorized---Interference in the inquiry/investigation of NAB authorities would seriously prejudice the right of prosecution---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and allowed---Judgment passed by Chief Court in writ petition, was set aside, in circumstances.

PLD 2001 Kar. 311 and PLD 2013 Sindh 357 rel.

Additional Prosecutor-General National Accountability Bureau along with Ali Nazar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Muhammad Issa, Senior Advocate for Respondent No.1.

Malik Shafqat Wali, Senior Advocate for Respondent No.2.

Amjad Hussain, Advocate along with Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate for Respondent No.3.

2016 G B L R 315

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Shahbaz Khan, JJ

The STATE---Petitioner

Versus

IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN and others---Respondents

Criminal Appeals Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 10 of 2015 in Cr. P.L.As. Nos. 18, 14, 17 and 16 of 2015, decided on 2nd July, 2016.

[Per. Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J.; Javed Iqbal and Shahbaz Khan, JJ dissenting] [Majority view]

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----Ss. 436, 435, 427, 448, 353, 147, 149 & 337---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 21-H & 21-I---Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house, mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to cause damage, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, house-trespass, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, rioting, common object, causing shajjah, haraabah, act of terrorism---Reappraisal of evidence---Prosecution had proved its case against all accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt by producing ocular evidence, circumstantial evidence, confessional statements of accused persons, recoveries on the pointation of accused persons, medical evidence coupled with the absconsion of accused persons---Trial Court had rightly convicted and sentenced accused persons, who had caused heavy loss to the Government Exchequer by putting on fire the Police Station and two Government vehicles---Accused persons had taken the arms and ammunitions from the Malkhana of Police Station and were responsible for the damages caused to Government property---Supreme Appellate Court directed that costs of all the damages be recovered from the accused persons as an arrear of land revenue and deposited into the Government Treasury.

Surendra and others v. The State of Uttarpardesh 2012 SCMR 1422; Afzal and another v. The State 2007 SCMR 315; Rashid Ahmed v. The State 2006 SCMR 1243; Muhammad Altaf and 5 others v. The State 2002 SCMR 189; Shafqat Ali and others v. Liaqat Ali and others 1985 SCMR 1151; Saee and others v. The State 1984 SCMR 1069; Nallamsety Yanadalah and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1994 SCMR 588; Naveed Hussain v. The State 2011 PCr.LJ 389; Gulbaz v. The State 2009 YLR 933 and Imran Ashraf and 7 others v. The State 2001 SCMR 424 ref.

PLD 1996 SC 219; PLD 1956 SC 249; 1987 SCMR 1015 and PLD 1968 SC 372 distinguished.

Per Shahbaz Khan, J Contra [Minority view]

(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----Ss. 436, 435, 427, 448, 353, 147, 149 & 337---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 21-H & 21-I---Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house, mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to cause damage, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, house-trespass, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, rioting, common object, causing shajjah, haraabah, act of terrorism---Reappraisal of evidence---Out of twelve directly named persons with the same role attributed in the FIR, Police had discharged and released ten persons under S. 169, Cr.P.C., which had demolished the prosecution story at the investigation stage---Conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, actually and factually was based on S.149, P.P.C., and accused persons had been declared to be convicted as they were members of an alleged unlawful assembly, but the Trial Court did not look at the evidence on record as well as law for making an arguable foundation---Case file, did not contain any kind of evidence or even allegation that accused persons pre-planned to make an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit the specific criminal acts as charged---Accused, were neither charge-sheeted under S.149, P.P.C., in a specific way nor any evidence was produced before the Trial Court to prove and substantiate the ingredients of S.149, P.P.C., which had defeated the rights available to accused persons---Judgment of conviction under cover and domain of S.149, P.P.C., by imposing the constructive liability in a case of unproved charges had caused prejudice and injustice to accused persons---Prosecution did not produce even a single independent person as witness hailing from the locality or even a non-partisan, non-interested private person, despite about 700/800 persons were reported to be present at the place of occurrence---Trial Court, while convicting accused, had relied upon Police Officials, who were neither named in the FIR nor they could be treated as eye-witnesses in the eye of law---Attack on Police Station by the mob must have resulted injuries to several Police Officials, but no Medico-legal Certificate about nature of injuries had been placed before the Trial Court---Statement of eye-witnesses under S.161, Cr.P.C., had been recorded after a delay of 9 to 47 days, without any explanation for such delay---Nothing was recovered from accused persons---Alleged recovery of weapons and the cartridges from accused persons had been made after a delay of 7, 8, 17 and 82 days of the occurrence respectively---Prosecution had demolished its case by not making the Police Officials as eye-witnesses who were specifically named by the complainant in FIR---Appeal was dismissed and judgment passed by the Chief Court was upheld and accused stood acquitted.

Case law referred.

Advocate-General, Gilgit-Baltistan for Petitioner/State.

Ehsan Ali, Advocate for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.

Amjad Hussain, Advocate for Respondent No.4.

2016 G B L R 390

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., and Javed Iqbal, J

NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU through Chairman---Petitioner

Versus

MIRBAZ ALI FARAZ and others---Respondents

Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2016 in Cr. P.L.A. No. 21 of 2016, Cr. Appeal No. 26 of 2016 in Cr. P.L.A. No. 22 of 2016 and Cr. Appeal No. 27 of 2016 in Cr. P.L.A. No. 23 of 2016, decided on 9th January, 2017.

(a) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)---

----Ss. 9 & 10---Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art. 71---Corruption and corrupt practices---Bail, grant of---Powers of Chief Court to grant bail to accused under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999---Chief Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under S. 71 of Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, (Writ jurisdiction) was empowered to grant bail to accused under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, and all the grounds which were relevant for grant of bail under ordinary law, could generally be considered for grant of bail under writ jurisdiction.

(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S. 497---Bail, grant/refusal of---Principles---Provisions of S.497, Cr.P.C., were not punitive in nature as there was no concept of punishment before judgment---Question of grant/refusal of bail, was to be determined judiciously, having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case---Where the prosecution would satisfy the court that there were reasonable grounds to believe that accused had committed the offence falling under prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C., the court must refuse bail---Where, however, accused would satisfy the court that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that accused was guilty of such offence, court must release him on bail---Court, for arriving at the conclusion as to whether or not there were reasonable grounds to believe that accused was guilty of offence, punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years, it would not conduct a preliminary trial/inquiry, but would only make a tentative assessment, i.e. would look at the material collected by the Police for and against accused and prima facie satisfied that some tangible evidence could be offered which, if left unrebutted, could lead to the inference of guilt---Deeper appreciation of evidence and circumstances appearing in the case were neither desirable nor permissible at bail stage---Court would not minutely examine the merits of the case or plea of defence at bail stage.

(c) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)---

----Ss.9 & 10---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 497(5)---Corruption and corrupt practices---Bail, cancellation of---Prima facie NAB authorities had made out a case of corruption and corrupt practices against accused person; which had to be decided by competent court of jurisdiction on merits---Grant of bail to accused, was not tenable---Bail granted to one of accused persons, was confirmed purely on medical ground and bail granted to two co-accused persons were cancelled by the Supreme Appellate Court, in circumstances.

Additional Prosecution General, NAB for Petitioner.

Malik Shafqat Wali, Senior Advocate along with Rehmat Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in Cr. P.L.A. No. 21 of 2016 and Cr. P.L.A. No. 22 of 2016).

Amjad Hussain, Advocate for Respondent (in Cr. P.L.A. No. 23 of 2016).

2016 G B L R 398

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., and Javed Iqbal, J

The STATE---Petitioner

Versus

SULIEMAN---Respondent

Cr. Appeal No. 3 of 2016 in Cr. P.L.A. No. 1 of 2015, decided on 5th January, 2017.

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appraisal of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Ocular account furnished by the complainant, fully supported the prosecution version as mentioned in the FIR---Complainant was put under lengthy cross-examination, but defence had failed to shatter his evidence---Defence had not denied the presence of accused at the place of occurrence---Crime weapon was recovered from accused on his pointation---Inquest report supported the version of the complainant---Motive part of evidence was not denied by the defence---Place of occurrence, presence of accused and complainant, eye-witnesses was not disputed by the defence---Application filed under S.22-A, Cr.P.C., for registration of FIR against the complainant and others filed by co-accused, and defence taken by accused before the Trial Court in his statement recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C., was contrary in nature---Fact disclosed before the Trial Court under S.342, Cr.P.C., had not been mentioned in the said application---Said co-accused after dismissal of his application under S.22-A, Cr.P.C., due to non-prosecution, had neither moved application for its restoration nor filed any private complaint against the complainant party for the occurrence as narrated by accused in his statement recorded in the Trial Court under S.342, Cr.P.C.---All said efforts of co-accused seemed to be an afterthought, which were disbelieved by the Trial Court---Prosecution had successfully proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt in bringing home the guilt for committing murder of the deceased by accused and co-accused through a credible and corroborative evidence on record---Failure in conducting post-mortem of the deceased at the request of his legal heirs as per their custom, would not cause any adverse effect to the prosecution case---Judgment passed by the Trial Court was well reasoned and well founded being passed in line with the facts of the case while appreciating the evidence on record and same was upheld---Judgment passed by the Chief Court was set aside---Convictions and sentences awarded to accused by the Trial Court were maintained by the Supreme Appellate Court---Death sentence, awarded to accused, was converted into life imprisonment with benefits of S.382-B, Cr.P.C.

1996 SCMR 678; 1999 SCMR 2444; 2003 SCMR 522; PLD 2002 SC 786; PLD 2002 SC 792; 2002 SCMR 1855; 2002 SCMR 1858; 2012 YLR 841; 2012 YLR 374; 2008 SCMR 1549; 2012 YLR 580; 2012 MLD 152; 2005 PCr.LJ 1378; 2012 YLR 986; 2011 MLD 1355; 2012 YLR 724; 2012 SCMR 82; 2010 SCMR 97 and Bashir Ahmed's case 1998 SCMR 1778 ref.

Advocate-General, Gilgit-Baltistan for the State.

Amjad Hussain, Advocate and Ali Nazar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for the Complainant.

Rai Muhammad Nawaz Kharal, Advocate along with Johar Ali Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.

2016 G B L R 406

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., and Javed Iqbal, J

The STATE---Petitioner

Versus

HAIDER---Respondent

Cr. Appeal No. 4 of 2016 in Cr. P.L.A. No. 5 of 2016, decided on 6th January, 2017.

Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)---

----Ss. 9(c), 21 & 22---S.R.O. No.656(I)/2004, dated 2-8-2004---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 156(2)---Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Arts. 60 & 71---Possessing and trafficking of narcotics---Appraisal of evidence---Re-opening of investigation by Anti-Narcotic Force---Scope---Chief Court had passed the order whereby the Trial Court was directed to return the challan, if the same was presented by the local Police and Anti-Narcotic Force was directed to re-open the investigation---Advocate-General contended that Ss. 21 & 22 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, had empowered the Police to take cognizance of the said offence and to investigate the same; that investigation conducted by the Police could not be questioned; that Chief court fell in error by directing the Anti-Narcotic Force for re-opening the investigation of the case and that the investigation of the said case had already been conducted by the local Police and nothing remained for re-investigation in that case---Validity---Police Officer, in pursuance of S.R.O. No.656(I)/2004, dated 20-08-2004, had powers to take cognizance and investigate the offence falling under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997---Order passed by the Chief Court was set aside by the Supreme Appellate Court and case was remitted to the Special Judge for trial of the accused---Trial Court was directed to hear and decide the case expeditiously within a period of six months.

The State v. Abdali Shah 2009 SCMR 291 ref.

Advocate-General for Petitioner/State.

Ehsan Ali, Advocate along with Johar Ali Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.

2016 G B L R 410

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., and Javed Iqbal, J

PRESIDENT FIRST MICRO FINANCE SKARDU and 3 others---Petitioners

Versus

MUHAMMAD ISHAQ---Respondent

C. Appeal No. 2 of 2016 in C.P.L.A. No. 10 of 2015, decided on 3rd January, 2017.

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---

----S. 42---Suit for declaration---Plaintiff/respondent filed suit for declaration that he had a right to continue his service in the defendant Bank as Officer Grade-1; that he was entitled to pay and other benefits and that order of his termination of service be ordered to be cancelled--- Defendant Bank contested the suit with assertion that the plaintiff had tendered resignation---Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff--- Appellate court below partially accepted the suit by setting aside judgment/decree of the Trial Court which was upheld by the Chief Court---Validity---Chief Court had rightly held that resignation was forcibly procured from the plaintiff by introducing the downsizing scheme---No illegality and infirmity, could be pointed out in the judgment passed by the Chief Court---Plaintiff having not tendered resignation wilfully and voluntarily, judgment of the Chief Court was affirmed by the Supreme Appellate Court.

Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate along with Ali Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

Muhammad Issa, Senior Advocate along with Ishaq Shakir, Advocate for Respondent.

2016 G B L R 413

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., and Javed Iqbal, J

MUHAMMAD and 2 others---Petitioners

Versus

GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Defence and 5 others---Respondents

C.P.L.A. No. 13 of 2015, decided on 3rd January, 2017.

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---

----Ss. 42 & 39---Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art.60---Suit for declaration and cancellation of mutation---Plaintiffs took the plea that suit property was a Shamilat deh and in their possession since ancient time and that interference in their possession on behalf of the government was illegal---Plaintiffs contended for restraining the defendants from interference over the property in question---Trial Court had dismissed the suit, which was upheld up to the Chief Court---Validity---Counsel for the plaintiffs, could not point out any illegality, infirmity and mis-appreciation of evidence on record in the concurrent findings of the three courts below---Leave to appeal was refused by the Supreme Appellate Court and concurrent judgments of the three courts were maintained.

Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate for Petitioners.

2016 G B L R 415

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., and Javed Iqbal, J

ALI HASSAN and 6 others---Petitioners

Versus

AKHON ISMAIL and 2 others---Respondents

Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2015 in C.P.L.A. No. 57 of 2015, decided on 5th January, 2017.

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---

----Ss. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction---Claim of the plaintiffs was that water channel in question was constructed by their forefathers to irrigate their lands and that defendants had no right to dig out another Channel from the same---Plaintiffs had also applied for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants in interfering into their water right---Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs; appeal filed by the defendants against the judgment of the Trial Court was dismissed and judgment of the appellate court below was upheld by the Chief Court---Validity---Chief Court had rightly held that the question involved in the matter, was purely question of fact which was resolved after appreciating the evidence and material on record by the Trial Court---Defendants could not point out any illegality and infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Chief Court---Judgment of the Chief Court was maintained by the Supreme Appellate Court.

Muhammad Issa, Senior Advocate for Petitioners.

Ali Khan, Advocate for Respondents.

2016 G B L R 418

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., and Javed Iqbal, J

NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU through Chairman---Petitioner

Versus

MUHAMMAD ALI YOGVI and another---Respondents

Cr. Appeal No. 22 of 2016 in Cr. P.L.A. No. 20 of 2016, decided on 5th January 2017.

(a) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)---

----S. 9---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 409---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---Criminal breach of trust by public servant, corruption---Bail, cancellation of---Prima facie, the National Accountability Bureau Authorities had made out a case of corruption and corrupt practices against accused---Sufficient material was on record and reasonable grounds existed to believe the involvement of accused persons in commission of alleged offence which disentitled them for concession of bail---Bail granted to accused person was cancelled, in circumstances.

(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S. 497---Grant or refusal of bail---Principles---Provisions of S.497, Cr.P.C., were not punitive in nature as there was no concept of punishment before judgment---Question of grant/refusal of bail was to be determined judiciously leaving regard to the facts and circumstances of each case---Where the prosecution would satisfy the court, that there were reasonable grounds to believe that accused had committed the crime falling in prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C., the court must refuse bail---Where accused would satisfy the court that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that he was guilty of such offence; the court must release him on bail---For arriving at the conclusion as to whether or not there were reasonable grounds to believe that accused was guilty of offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years, the court would not conduct a preliminary trial/inquiry, but would only make a tentative assessment i.e. would look at the material collected by the Police for and against accused and prima facie satisfied that some tangible evidence could be offered which, if left un-rebutted, could lead to the inference of guilt---Deeper appreciation of the evidence and circumstances appearing in the case was neither desirable nor permissible at bail stage---Court would not minutely examine the merits of the case or plea of defence at bail stage.

Additional Prosecution General NAB, Islamabad for Petitioner.

Rai Muhammad Nawaz Kharal, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

Shoukat Ali, Advocate along with Asadullah Khan, Advocate and Muhammad Abbas, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.2.

2016 G B L R 424

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., and Javed Iqbal, J

ABDUL KARIM and another---Petitioners

Versus

Mst. ZEHRA and 3 others---Respondents

Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2014 in C.P.L.A. No. 71 of 2014, decided on 5th January, 2017.

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---

----Ss. 8, 42 & 54---Suit for possession, declaration and perpetual injunction---Plaintiffs filed suit against the defendants/respondents for declaration and possession to the effect that they were the owners of suit land which was in possession of defendants without any legal authority---Plaintiffs had also prayed for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from constructing and alienating the suit land---Parties were inter se relatives---Plaintiffs claimed that they were owners of the suit property being the donees as their mother and sister had gifted said property in their names and the mutation was also duly prepared and attested by the concerned authorities---Plaintiffs could not produce any evidence of alleged gift-deed in support of their contention--- Defendants were the legal heirs of sons of the alleged doners and entitled to their shari share in the suit property---Trial Court, decreed the suit, but appellate court below and the Chief Court concurrently dismissed the suit---No illegality and infirmity could be pointed out in the impugned order/judgment of the Chief Court---No interference was warranted---Judgment passed by the Chief Court was maintained by the Supreme Appellate Court.

Muhammad Issa, Senior Advocate for Petitioners.

Ishaq Shakir, Advocate for Respondents.

2016 G B L R 427

[Supreme Appellate Court]

Before Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., and Javed Iqbal, J

Mst. HAMIDA and another---Petitioners

Versus

ALI MARDAN KHAN---Respondent

Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2016 in C.P.L.A. No. 6 of 2015, decided on 5th January, 2017.

Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009---

----Art. 60---Petition for leave to appeal---Present petition had arisen out of impugned order passed by Chief Court in civil revision, whereby the concurrent findings of the courts below were set aside and case was remanded to the Trial Court---Order of the Chief Court, was well reasoned and well founded; no interference was warranted as the same had been passed in accordance with law and the facts of the case---Said order of the Chief Court was affirmed by the Supreme Appellate Court.

Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate along with Wazir Walayat Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

Amjad Hussain, Advocate along with Ali Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.