ESD rescues 211,354 victims in May
These emergencies includes 140,645 medical emergencies, 39,978 road traffic crashes, 5,526 falls/ slip, 4,746 crime incidents, 4,131 fire incidents, 4,003 delivery cases, 2,389 Occupational Injuries, 1,336 Animal Rescue, 1,038 electric shock, 331 burn cases, 140 drowning incidents, 96 structural collapses and 6,001 miscellaneous operations in Punjab.
Expressing serious concern over 39,978 road traffic crashes, 4,131 fire emergencies and 140 drowning emergencies during the May 2025, the Secretary, Emergency Services Department (ESD) Punjab Dr Rizwan Naseer urged all citizens to ensure safety precaution while visiting water recreational sites during Eid vacations.
He emphasized the importance of strictly following all safety measures, especially when engaging in swimming or other water activities. He specifically advised people not to enter the water or boat without wearing life jackets and overloading boats to avoid capsizing.
As per data, 436 people died in 39,978 Road Traffic Crashes in Punjab during the last month. Out of these traffic crashes, the majority of traffic accidents 7,384 occurred in Lahore in which 38 people died.
Similarly, 2,671 RTCs in Faisalabad, 2,527 RTCs in Multan, 2,139 in Gujranwala, 1,491 in Sheikhupura and 1,290 in Bahawalpur while the remaining 22,466 road traffic crashes took place in other districts of Punjab.
Similarly, the majority of fire incidents took place in major districts i.e., 602 incidents in Lahore, 300 in Faisalabad, 206 in Gujranwala, 187 in Sialkot, 184 in Sheikhupura and 174 in Rawalpindi.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
5 days ago
- Business Recorder
LHC explains how a govt servant absent from duty can be sacked
LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has held that a government servant who remains absent from his duty for less than one year cannot be removed from service without cogent reasons. The court said Section 4 of Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act (PEEDA) manifests that where absence from duty is for more than one year and same is proved, the authority has no option but to impose penalty of compulsory retirement or removal or dismissal from service. However, where absence from duty is less than one year, the authority under Section 4 of PEECA has discretion to impose penalty of compulsory retirement or removal or dismissal from service supported by cogent justification, in accordance with principles of proportionality, structured discretion and administrative fairness, the court added. The court passed this order on a petition of a government employee, Abusar Ghaffary, who was working as computer operator with the Punjab Emergency Services Department. The court allowed the petition and reinstating the petitioner into service and set aside impugned order and observed that no reasons are recorded to impose major penalty of removal from service against the petitioner. The court; however, held that the petitioner will not be entitled for back benefits as per the law. The petitioner's counsel submitted that under Section 7 (f) (ii) of PEEDA, where charge of absence of duty is less than one year, major penalty including removal or dismissal from service cannot be imposed. Admittedly, the regular inquiry against the petitioner was dispensed with under Section 5 (1) of the PEEDA and petitioner was removed from service under Section 4 (1) (b) (v) of PEEDA for being absent from duty for 63 days, the court observed. Where the regular inquiry is dispensed with, the procedure prescribed under section 7 of PEEDA is to be followed, the court added. The court also observed that the respondent keeping in view the principles of proportionality has not exercised discretion in structured manner. No doubt, in the impugned order, the petitioner's previous service record and penalties have been referred to; however, the said record was neither confronted to the petitioner nor petitioner was charge sheeted in show-cause notice on account of poor previous service record, the court added. The court said, when petitioner was already penalised previously, his current removal from service order on the basis of said previous penalties will amount to double jeopardy. The court; however, observed that the petitioner's reinstatement shall be subject to a fresh determination by the competent authority regarding the imposing of penalty against the petitioner, which must commensurate with the gravity of misconduct and after giving cogent reasons. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
6 days ago
- Business Recorder
Tax fraud via bank account to land holder in jail
ISLAMABAD: The person, whose bank account has been used to commit tax fraud, would be considered as 'abettor' and would be subjected to prosecution including punishment/ imprisonment. Thus, the person operating business bank account to facilitate tax fraud would be considered as 'abettor'. The amended Finance Bill (2025-26) has revised the definition of 'abettor'. Key amendments made to Finance Bill: Tax fraud arrests only post-inquiry According to the amended Bill, the 'abettor' means a person who intentionally abets or connives in tax fraud as defined in clause (37) of section 2 or in the commission of any offence warranting prosecution under Sales Tax Act, and includes a person who, prepares, or causes to be prepared with or without authorization of the registered person, invoices for false claim of input tax adjustment. The 'abettor' also included a person who allows use of bank account held or operated by him for abetting tax fraud or other offence warranting prosecution under this Act or unauthorisedly or illegally maintains or operates business bank account in other registered person's name, amended Finance Bill 2025-26 added. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
7 days ago
- Business Recorder
PTI's Gohar, Omar, other leaders acquitted in two cases
ISLAMABAD: A local court has acquitted Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leaders, including party chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan and Opposition Leader in the National Assembly Omar Ayub Khan, citing insufficient evidence and vague allegations in the two cases filed against them. Judicial Magistrate Shahzad Khan issued a detailed judgment regarding the acquittal of PTI leaders, Aamir Mughal, Ali Bukhari, Shoaib Shaheen, Malik Rafique, and others from two cases registered under sections, 159, 188, 186,353 under PPC and another case under Sections 506II,290,341, 188,159,353,186 under PPC at Karachi Company police station, stating that the prosecution failed to present 'cogent, strong, and hard evidence' necessary for conviction. The court dismissed the charges, calling the continuation of the trial a 'sheer waste of court['s] time.' The judgment highlighted that it is evident that the case against the petitioners and other accused individuals is fraught with serious legal and factual deficiencies. The allegations are vague and lack specificity, the prosecution has failed to establish individual roles or a common objective, and no incriminating evidence has been recovered from the accused persons/petitioners, it says. It says these shortcomings collectively weaken the prosecution's case and raise significant doubts about the validity of the charges. 'Without further evidence or clarification, the case appears to be built on shaky foundations, and the accused cannot be held liable for the alleged offenses based on the current record', it says, adding that as such, the charges against the petitioners and other accused individuals may well be dismissed for lack of merit. It says that the record reflects that general allegations are levelled in the first information report (FIR) and no specific role has been attributed to the present accused persons/petitioners. The record further shows that accused persons/petitioners, along with approximately 150 people, made a procession in which they made slogans against the state and also violated the lawful order of the authority; resultantly a case was registered, it says. The judgment says a critical issue is that the allegations are entirely general, targeting a large group of around 150 individuals without attributing any specific role, act, or overt criminal intent to the accused petitioners. This violates a fundamental principle of criminal law that accusations must be clear, specific, and individually attributable to sustain a prosecution, it says. It says that shockingly, despite the alleged involvement of 150 people, only two witnesses were cited in the challan, and there is no CCTV footage, NADRA facial recognition data, or other forensic evidence to connect the petitioners to the offence. Additionally, the absence of modern investigative techniques (CCTV, biometric verification) violates the right to a fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution, it says. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
