Extra username and password are expected for this resource. See Username and password webpage for details

ninety three . Const. P. 642/2023 (D.B.) Fatima Noor V/S Dow University of Health Science and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi Coming to your main case, Additionally it is a very well-proven proposition of law that when an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court is concerned with determining whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power, and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules nor proof of a fact or evidence from the Stricto-Sensu, utilize to disciplinary proceedings. When the authority accepts that evidence and summary get support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, however, that is topic to the procedure provided under the relevant rules instead of otherwise, with the reason that the Court in its power of judicial review does not work as appellate authority to re-recognize the evidence and to reach at its independent findings within the evidence.

This Court may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in the way inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the method of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the summary or finding is for instance no reasonable person would have ever arrived at, the Court may well interfere with the conclusion or maybe the finding and mold the relief to make it ideal into the facts of each and every case. In service jurisprudence, the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where the appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to re-respect the evidence or perhaps the nature of punishment. balance of probabilities case law Over the aforesaid proposition, we have been fortified through the decision in the Supreme Court while in the case of Ghulam Murtaza Shaikh v. Chief Minister Sindh (2024 SCMR 1757). Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Writer) Source: Order: Downloads 252 Order Date: 24-JAN-25 Approved for Reporting WhatsApp

This unfortunate ambiguity results inside the law regarding murder and manslaughter to generally be repugnant with Each and every other.

The Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) is an extensive piece of legislation that defines various criminal offenses and prescribes corresponding punishments for all those found guilty.

Reasonable grounds are offered within the record to attach the petitioner with the commission in the alleged offence. While punishment from the alleged offence does not drop within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. but realized Deputy Prosecutor General apprises that another case of similar nature arising away from FIR No. 1250/2024 dated ten.05.2024 registered under Section 489-File, PPC at Police Station Haji Pura, District Sialkot is within the credit of your petitioner as accused, therefore, case in the petitioner falls in the exception where bail cannot be granted even inside the cases not falling within the ambit of prohibition contained in Section 497, Cr.P.C. In this regard, guidance is sought from the case of “Muhammad Imran versus The State and others” (PLD 2021 Supreme Court 903); relevant portion in the same is hereby reproduced:

Following the decision, NESPAK, as directed, conducted an assessment on the grid project and submitted that ample mitigation measures were in place to render any opportunity adverse impacts negligible. Based on this, the grid station was permitted to generally be built.

In fact, this provision nullifies the difference between manslaughter and murder. Section 318 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 defines Qatl-i-khata (manslaughter) as “Whoever, without intention to cause the death of or cause harm to your person causes death of this sort of person, possibly by mistake of act or by mistake of fact is claimed to commit qatl-i-khata.”

P.C. Liability of petitioners to the stated offences would be determined through the uncovered trial Court after sifting the evidentiary value with the material developed before the same. Till then, case of

I)       The above referred case FIR, for your murder of deceased namely Muhammad Sajjad, was registered over the complaint of Muhammad Sharif son of Ghulam Farid that's father of the petitioner and According to Tale of FIR, the petitioner is undoubtedly an eyewkness of your incidence.

کیا ایف آئی آر درخواست گزار کی رپورٹ پر درج کی گئی تھی اور اگر ہاں تو کیا اسے اس کے خلاف ثبوت کے طور پر استعمال کیا جا سکتا ہے؟

3. Rule of Regulation: The court reiterated the importance of upholding the rule of law and making sure that all institutions function within their constitutional mandates.

In order to preserve a uniform enforcement in the laws, the legal system adheres to the doctrine of stare decisis

The necessary analysis (called ratio decidendi), then constitutes a precedent binding on other courts; further analyses not strictly necessary for the determination on the current case are called obiter dicta, which constitute persuasive authority but are not technically binding. By contrast, decisions in civil legislation jurisdictions are generally shorter, referring only to statutes.[4]