Purpose

Primary purpose of granting bail is to ensure attendance of an accused before the court; it also enables the accused, who is presumed to be innocent, to pursue normal activities which are essential for life such as earning a livelihood or taking care of the needs of the family.

Petitioners working as Physical Training Instructors (PTIs) under the Federal Government Educational Institutions (Cantonments and Garrison), Rawalpindi, were denied upgradation of their post from BS-16 to BS-17 on the ground that the status of the petitioners was quite different from the employee of the Federal Directorate of Education, Islamabad, where post was upgraded to BS-17 and that upgradation could not be claimed as a matter of right

Held, that upgradation is not a part of terms and conditions of service, rather it is based on a policy decision of competent authority, the purpose of which is to eliminate the sufferings of employees from stagnation and to avoid them being stuck up in some isolated post without any pathway or probability of promotion despite satisfactory length of service in a particular post

Upgradation cannot thus be claimed as a matter of right by an employee or group of employees, but at the same time once the competent authority decides to redress sufferings of employees, who may remain as dormant in future, and proceeds to upgrade a particular post, such benefit cannot be extended only to single or one set of persons serving at the same post

Article 25 of the "Constitution" ordains that every citizen shall be dealt with equally and there shall be no discrimination

Present petition was resisted by the respondents mainly on the ground that the since petitioners were serving in the Federal Government Educational Institutions (Cantonments and Garrison), they could not claim the upgradation of their post as allowed to the employees of the Federal Directorate of Education

Such contention held no water firstly on the ground that respondent had already recommended the upgradation of the post of Physical Training Instructors ("PTI") in BS-17 to dispel the discrimination in the employees of Federal Government Educational Institutions (Cantonments and Garrison)

Secondly, it was an undeniable fact that in another constitutional petition one of the petitioners was a "PTI" teacher, who was allowed relief of upgradation and said judgment was never challenged by the respondents

Respondents were thus precluded to draw any distinction in the case of the petitioners

Petitioners had been treated discriminately by the respondents, which offended the mandate of Art. 25 of the Constitution

Respondents were directed to upgrade/redesignate the post of PTI BS-16 to BS-17 (SST) accordingly

Petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Cantonments' lands, which were allotted or leased by the Federal Government or the Provincial Government were meant to be used as strategic lands for defence purposes and its activities

Nature of land and its title, apparently, could not be changed and given a private status

Conversion of cantonment land into private land, seemed contrary to the very mandate of the Cantonments Act, 1924 and the Land Administration Control Rules, 1937 and was also in violation of the Constitutional provisions

If any law or rule was made contrary to such mandate, the same would be ultra vires the Cantonments Act, 1924 and the Constitution.

Court underlines sanctity of an arbitration agreement and reinforces basic principle that where parties to an agreement have undertaken to resolve their inter se disputes through arbitration, the intention of parties ought to be respected and given effect

Provision of S.20 of Arbitration Act, 1940, fundamentally is limited to determination of existence of a real and alive dispute between the parties in a summary procedure

Court is only required to prima facie satisfy itself regarding existence of dispute measured with the yardstick of "sufficient cause".

Object of passing an interim/ interlocutory order is to maintain the status quo, the situation obtaining on the date when a party aggrieved by a certain action approaches the court, and to ensure that meanwhile no new development detrimental to rights of the parties is created, which may pose a hurdle in the way of deciding the case on merits.

Extra-ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail is meant for innocent persons to save them from humiliation and disgrace at the hands of police

Purpose of this remedy is to protect liberty and reputation of the citizens particularly in a case where the circumstances reflect that it is a case to be that of further inquiry on the basis of material on record

Power to grant bail under S.498, Cr.P.C., is not additional to or independent to S.497, Cr.P.C., and even while granting pre-arrest bail the provisions contained under S.497, Cr.P.C., are also to be kept in mind

Grant of bail or its refusal is essentially a matter of discretion to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily, and the facts of each and every case are to be considered separately and independently

Reasonable and plausible grounds must exist for grant of bail before arrest

Concept of pre-arrest bail was developed on three presumptions; firstly the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is found guilty; secondly, the accused should have a right to prepare his defence and prove his innocence before the Trial Court and thirdly, the accused should not be punished before the findings of his conviction are rendered by the Court.

Rationale underlying the notice is to provide information with respect to the alleged action, infringement brought about by defendant and quantum of claim/damages

Mere dispatching the notice in a mechanical manner without disclosure of essential ingredients such as specific date of plaintiff's knowledge about the defamatory remarks, its source, the precise contents of defamatory remarks and explicit monetary claim, would not suffice as it could not be a true demonstration of the objective compliance of the constant principle underlying law nor could it serve the purpose in a beneficial manner

Foremost purpose to serve the notice was to facilitate the recipient to reconsider his remarks for withdrawal/abandonment thereof and thereby to avail such opportunity for settlement of the dispute, if so advised, without recourse to the trouble and cost of litigation.

Officials making searches, recoveries and arrests are reasonably required to associate private persons more particularly in those cases in which presence of private persons is admitted, more particularly where there is prior information regarding effecting any recovery from a specific place, so as to lend credence to such actions and to restore public confidence.

In view of provisions of S. 103, Cr.P.C., the officials making searches, recoveries and arrests were reasonably required to associate private persons, more particularly in those cases in which presence of private persons was admitted, so as to lend credence to such actions and to restore public confidence

Such aspect of the matter must not be lost sight of indiscriminately and without exception

Only cursory efforts were not enough merely in order to fulfil casual formality, rather serious and genuine attempts should be made to associate private mashirs of the locality.

Competition Commission of Pakistan, in deceptive marketing cases, is inclined towards a compliance-oriented approach and the purpose of S. 10 of Competition Act, 2010 aims at bringing about correction of behaviour rather than imposing penalties.

Raison d'etre of S. 19 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 is not meant for giving any caution but it is serenely congregated for requiring information for purposes of inquiry or investigation to investigate and unearth any offence.

Purpose of S.14 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, is to cater for the special category of landlord by a convenient mechanism to acquire possession.

Pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief and is only available in cases where there has been mala fide on part of complainant or investigating agency.

Mutation was sanctioned through summary proceedings intended to keep the record update for the collection of land revenue.

Purpose of judicial review were, first, to check abuse or detournement of power; second, to ensure to citizens an impartial determination of their disputes with officials; and third, to protect them from unauthorized encroachment on their rights and interests.

Partition had to be sought for all the undivided immovable properties and partial partition thereof would not be competent

All the co-sharers of said undivided property had to be impleaded in the suit for partition

Court to ensure that each co-sharer was allotted his share equitably depending on the value thereof which would depend upon the area, location and nature of property

Suit property sought to be partitioned was situated within the Abadi Deh and civil court was competent to adjudicate the partition proceedings

Defendants had failed to point out any other joint immovable property within Abadi Deh in the Mauza

Immovable undivided property outside the Abadi Deh had to be partitioned by the Revenue hierarchy

Plaintiffs could not have included the land owned by the parties in Shamilat Deh in their suit filed before the Trial Court

Trial Court was required to first determine the respective rights of the parties and record the same in the preliminary decree

Said preliminary decree would ensure each party /co-sharer to know exactly their rights which would include their respective shares and if any improvement was made thereon

Both the courts below had accepted the prayer for partition but had not determined the respective rights of the parties

Impugned judgments passed by both the courts were set aside and case was remanded to the Trial Court with direction to determine the rights of the parties and decide the same within specified period.

Identification parade was conducted under Art.22 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 for two purposes, the first was to establish the identity of accused and the other to rule out the possibility of false implication of accused by the complainant/witnesses for any ill designs.

Cross-examination is to test credibility of a witness and to bring true facts on the record which witness has either not brought on record or has deliberately concealed.

Bar was also meant to stand up for upholding the rule of law, but it could discharge these functions only if its members abided by their code of conduct and were subjected, like everyone else, to the rule of law.

Purpose of the registration of F.I.R., was not meant to hold a person guilty of an offence, but to set the law in motion for the process of investigation; and if at any stage during inquiry or trial, it was found that case was false or could not be made out against accused, then discharge the accused under S.169, Cr.P.C.; or his acquittal could be ordered under S.249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C.

Main thing underlining S.540, Cr.P.C. was to empower the court to adopt all possible devices in accordance with the law to discover the truth and thus give it a free hand, even to summon or recall a witness

Court had to exercise such power judiciously for just decision of the case, keeping in view circumstances of each and every case.

Tax was a fiscal tool to regulate the monetary policy of the State, hence, the primary focus of a tax law was the levy and collection of tax, however, as a white collar crime, tax evasion, etc had also been criminalized with the collateral effect of retribution and deterrence, in addition to achieving the fiscal incentives of the State

While assessment of tax liability was characteristically a civil proceeding, tax evasion or tax fraud, etc. could also be a tax crime and attracted both civil, as well as, criminal penalties

Under civil proceedings the tax was assessed and recovered as a compensation along with monetary penalties, while under criminal prosecution, tax evader was punished with imprisonment of fine or both.

Offence under S.489-F, P.P.C. was designed to penalize a person who issued a cheque knowing that it would be dishonoured

Said offence was not a device or mechanism to recover a disputed amount.

Shipping company filed suit for recovery of amount in lieu of freight, demurrage and other charges against defendant consignee

Application under Ss.731 & 759 of Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S.) was allowed by High Court and cargo was directed to be auctioned

Plaintiff company refused to release goods to defendant consignee as it only had mate's receipt and did not produce bill of lading

Validity

Mate's receipt was prima facie an evidence of quantity and condition of goods as it was a receipt of goods by carrier or ship owner and while taking goods alongside the ship, the ship-owner acknowledged receipt of the same through mate's receipt

Recipient or possessor of mate's receipt was entitled to have bill of lading issued to him

Shipper or anybody else did not lodge any claim with ship-owner and there was no issue of payment to be made to shipper, either on surrender of mate's receipt or of bill of lading

Plaintiff company did not deny that mate's receipt was not issued by them or the shipper or anybody else had lodged any claim in respect of goods in question

Name of defendant consignee mentioned in mate's receipt was not disputed and it was the notified party

No intimation or notice was served by shipper upon plaintiff company to withhold delivery of goods and being a donor of the goods had not undertaken to pay the freight, which had been received by plaintiff company

No ground existed to withhold delivery of subject goods, on the pretext that no bill of lading had been produced, as the same was admittedly withheld by plaintiff company

Division Bench of High Court set aside the order passed by Single Judge of High Court and directed plaintiff company to immediately hand over the goods loaded on vessel to defendant consignee

Division Bench of High Court further directed plaintiff company to issue necessary delivery order or release instruction for compliance and defendant consignee was directed to execute a personal bond for the total invoice value of goods

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Legal advice privilege was based on the need to ensure that a person could seek and obtain legal advice with candour and full disclosure, secure in the knowledge that the communications involved could never be used against such a person

Legal advice privilege was conferred for the benefit of the client, and might only be waived by the client; it did not serve to protect the legal profession

Legal advice privilege existed to ensure that there was full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients, which promoted broader public interests in the observance of law and administration of justice

Principle that communications between clients and lawyers, whereby the clients were hoping for the assistance of the lawyers' legal skills, should be secure against the possibility of any scrutiny from others, whether the police, the executive, business competitors, inquisitive busybodies or anyone else was founded upon the rule of law.

Law had imposed a condition on the pre-emptor to deposit Zar-e-Soem to prevent mischievous pre-emption suits; to check the bona fides of the pre-emptor and to save the vendee from mala fide pre-emption action.

Law of limitation could not be considered merely a formality but the same, being mandatory in nature, was required to be observed and taken into consideration

Purpose of limitation was to help the vigilant and not the indolent

Helping hand may not be extended to a litigant having gone into deep slumber, on having become forgetful of his rights

Concerned person had to be made aware of any invasion of his interests and such awareness had to be ascertained as a matter of fact.

Jurisdiction was vested in the Magisterial Court to complete the proceedings against absconding accused persons in matters triable by Sessions Court only to lessen the time taking exercise and was never meant to vest powers of Sessions Court (Trial Court) in the court of Magistrate.

Section 145, Cr.P.C. conferred powers upon the Magistrate to take preventive measures to ward off endangered disruption and maintain peace and tranquillity.

Purpose of investigation had never been to determine the question of guilt or innocence but collection of material and its submissions before court of law for determination.

Rationale for removing immunity of expert witness in the present case was that, an expert witness would owe a duty of care to his own client and there was no reason why he should not be liable if he had caused his client loss through the breach of that duty

Question which was not clear was whether the exception would apply only in a case where there was a contractual duty or whether it would apply in a case where there was no contractual duty but there might be a duty owed in tort, or was it to be assumed that the two were co-terminous

Not possible to say as to what effect the removal of immunity would have, either on the care with which the experts gave their evidence, or upon their willingness to do so

Object of the immunity rule was to protect all witnesses, the great majority of whom were trying to do a professional job and were well aware of their duties to the court, against the understandable but usually unjustifiable desire of a disappointed litigant to blame someone else for his lack of success in court

Policy considerations in favour of making the exception to the rule did not seem to be so strong that the court should depart from previous authority in order to make it

Making such a change on an experimental basis would be irresponsible and it was a topic more suitable for consideration by the Law Commission and reform, if thought appropriate, by Parliament rather than by the court

Appeal was dismissed, accordingly.

Main purpose of proceedings under S.145, Cr.P.C. was to maintain the peace and tranquillity, and to avoid the breach of peace

Magistrate would proceed only after satisfaction that there existed a dispute over possession of immovable property likely to cause breach of peace

Proceedings under S.145, Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate were not the ultimate solution of the problem, but in fact were of preventive nature for the time being; and subject to the final resolution of the controversy by the court of competent jurisdiction.

Trade mark laws were not only made for the protection of the owner of the trade mark but also for protection of the general public.

Article 204 of the Constitution was not to protect the ego of the Judges but in fact it protected the rights of public generally and specially of the litigant so that the rights given to them by courts could be enforced.

Effect.

Law of contempt of court was not a device to be used by courts for their self-aggrandizement, but must be employed where the will of the people (i.e. the Constitution) was being flouted.

Purpose behind infliction of sentence was twofold; firstly, it would create such atmosphere, which could become a deterrence for the people who have inclination towards crime and; secondly, to work as a medium in reforming the offenders.

Every adverse successive entry in the revenue record, would give a fresh cause of action.

Municipality could neither allot any portion of Public Street to a private person nor allow construction to be raised thereon to cause inconvenience to public

Principles.

Principle of jurisprudence that procedural law should not be construed strictly so as to put the parties to undue inconvenience, because principal object behind all legal formalities was to safeguard the paramount interest of justice

No one should be defeated merely on the basis of technicalities, unless offering insurmountable hurdles

Legal technicalities should not be allowed to stand in the way of justice, which might lead to unsettlement and uncertainty of law.

Main object of S.103, Cr.P.C. was to ensure the effecting of recovery honestly and fairly and to exclude any possibility of concoction and transgression

Section 103, Cr.P.C. was not meant to disbelieve the statement of official witness in any other circumstance

Police Officials were competent witnesses of recovery memo and their statements could not be discarded merely because they belonged to Police department.

Delay caused in F.I.R. hints at premeditation, consultation and combination.

Selection of cases for audit after trusting taxpayer and accepting his return on its face value would be for ensuring that all income required to be brought to tax had in fact been taxed

Once a taxpayer selected lawfully and properly, then department would be entitled to comprehensively examine his income tax affairs by carrying out a complete and robust audit.

No doubt the Ordinance recognized appointment of Polling Agents under Ss.20 & 21 of the Ordinance, the purpose was to watch the interest of the candidate; and to see that polling at the Polling Station was being conducted justly, fairly and honestly in accordance with the scheme of the Ordinance and rules and instructions of the Chief Election Commissioner

Procedure .to be followed by the Presiding Officer at the close of the poll, was provided under S.35 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly (Elections) Ordinance, 1970.

Pre-arrest bail is meant to protect the innocent citizens, who are involved in criminal cases with mala fide intention and ulterior motive.

Held, in the context of transition to a new phase of law, particularly where an existing law is repealed, the savings clause is always of pivotal nature, inasmuch as it serves as a bridge to make the transaction smooth.

Purpose of the charge is to tell the accused as precisely and concisely as possible the nature of the offence for which he is charged and the charge-sheet must convey to him with sufficient clarity and certainty as to what material prosecution intends to produce against him at the trial.

Allowing of bail, would not mean the acquittal of accused, but meaning and purpose of bail was handing over the custody of accused to surety, who would take the responsibility of producing accused before the Trial Court as and when accused would be summoned or required by it.

By bringing evidence on particular issue, purpose of evidence of parties is that exact factual position as well as relevancy of connected material be brought to the knowledge of Court to enable it to pass an order

In certain situations Judge has his own knowledge in respect to facts or material which is connected with issue involved in case, e.g. environmental condition, pollution in country, poverty and increase in prices etc.

If knowledge of Court itself is beneficial towards decision of one issue then there is no restriction under law that such knowledge was not to be exercised.

Corpus of litigation would be preserved during pendency of proceedings.