Summary: It is well settled that rules framed under statutory authority have the force of law and any executive instructions in contradiction thereto are without legal effect. The executive must abide by and obey the command of the Legislature. PLD 2012 SC 132. It is equally well-established principle of service jurisprudence that the executive branch has no inherent power to make appointments outside the legal framework provided under the Constitution, the Act, and the Rules. Section 4 of the Act and the 2009 Rules explicitly prescribe the method and conditions of appointment. It is further observed that the appellant cannot claim a vested right to appointment based on any alleged mistake in the advertisement. In 2021 SCMR 1017 it has been categorically held that an advertisement error does not override statutory provisions or confer an enforceable right to appointment. By now it is well settled that mere participation in a selection process does not confer a vested right to appointment unless the candidate fulfills all eligibility criteria prescribed by law and rules. The doctrine of legitimate expectation does not apply where the statutory provisions or eligibility conditions are not satisfied. 2005 SCMR 534.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: It is well settled that rules framed under statutory authority have the force of law and any executive instructions in contradiction thereto are without legal effect. The executive must abide by and obey the command of the Legislature. PLD 2012 SC 132. It is equally well-established principle of service jurisprudence that the executive branch has no inherent power to make appointments outside the legal framework provided under the Constitution, the Act, and the Rules. Section 4 of the Act and the 2009 Rules explicitly prescribe the method and conditions of appointment. It is further observed that the appellant cannot claim a vested right to appointment based on any alleged mistake in the advertisement. In 2021 SCMR 1017 it has been categorically held that an advertisement error does not override statutory provisions or confer an enforceable right to appointment. By now it is well settled that mere participation in a selection process does not confer a vested right to appointment unless the candidate fulfills all eligibility criteria prescribed by law and rules. The doctrine of legitimate expectation does not apply where the statutory provisions or eligibility conditions are not satisfied. 2005 SCMR 534. 725Murder Reference 2561321.204-

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 13.10.2023 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar passed in W.P. No.6921-P of 2019). (a) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Judicial review---Scope---High Court, while exercising its powers of judicial review with respect to orders passed by Courts or Tribunals, should not substitute its own findings for those of such Courts or Tribunals. Nawaza v. The Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner PLD 1970 SC 39 rel. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Writ of certiorari---Scope---Where High Court quashes a decision, it has discretion either to take judicial notice and rectify a jurisdictional error in the order or to remand the matter to the Court, Tribunal or the authority concerned with a direction to reconsider it and to reach a decision in accordance with the judgment given by High Court, while deciding a writ of certiorari. Chief Constable of North Wales Police v. Evans [1982] 3 All ER 141 rel. (c) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ----S. 5, Sched.---Family dispute---Maintenance---Quantum---Judicial review---Substituting findings of facts---Respondent/ex-wife filed suit for recovery of maintenance and gold jewellery etc. against appellant/ex-husband---Family Court decreed the suit in favour of respondent/ex-wife to recover gold jewellery and fixed maintenance allowance at Rs.3000/- per month---Lower Appellate Court modified judgment and decree and did not find respondent/ex-wife entitled to recover gold jewellery---High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction enhanced quantum of maintenance allowance to Rs. 10,000/- per month and also found her entitled to recover gold jewellery---Validity---High Court referred to testimony of 14 witnesses in holding that respondent/ex-wife was kept in her parents' house without maintenance, and that this would entitle her to a higher quantum of maintenance than that granted to her by the Courts below---High Court was well within its rights to have partially set-aside judgment and decree of Lower Appellate Court but should have remanded the matter to Lower Appellate Court for a decision in the light of observations of High Court---Supreme Court set aside finding of High Court whereby it substituted its findings with those of Lower Appellate Court---Supreme Court maintained decision of High Court to issue a writ of certiorari with respect to judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court and remanded the matter to Lower Appellate Court to decide the appeal (on the question whether respondent/ex-wife was entitled to recovery of 04 tolas of gold ornaments and a higher quantum of maintenance) in the light of observations made by High Court---Appeal was allowed. Abdul Ahad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Zia ur Rehman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1 (via video link, Peshawar). Date of hearing: 17th February, 2025.

Summary: (Against judgment dated 04.06.2024 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Circuit Court, Mirpurkhas in Cr. Appeal No. D-45 of 2024). Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----S. 9 (c)---Recovery of narcotic substance---Un-broken chain of custody---Proof---Accused was convicted for recovery of 1400 grams of charas from his possession and was sentenced to imprisonment for ten years---Validity---Prosecution failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt---Chain of custody remained unverified, and prosecution did not conclusively establish safe transmission of recovered contraband---Contradictions in handling of case property and failure to produce key witnesses responsible for its movement further weakened the prosecution's case---Where any link in chain of evidence remains doubtful, the benefit thereof must accrue to accused---Prosecution was under a bounded duty to establish each stage of recovery, storage, and transmission of case property with unimpeachable certainty, and its failure to do so had rendered the conviction unsustainable---Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence imposed on accused by two Courts below and he was acquitted of the charge---Appeal was allowed. Zahir Shah v. The State 2019 SCMR 2004; Sarfraz Ahmed v. The State 2024 SCMR 1571; Muhammad Hazir v. The State 2023 SCMR 986 and Javed Iqbal v. The State 2023 SCMR 139 rel. Muhammad Jamil, Muhammad Shabbir Rajput, Advocates Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Siraj Ali Khan, APG for the State. Date of hearing: 17th February, 2025.

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 06.03.2024 passed by Peshawar High Court, D.I.Khan Bench in R.F.A.No. 53-D of 2020 with C.M. No. 31-D of 2020). Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881)--- ----S. 4---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 17(2)(a)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVII, Rr. 1 & 2---Suit for recovery of money---Promissory note, non-attestation of---Evasive denial---Concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below---Suit filed by respondent/plaintiff was decreed by both the Courts below in his favour and against the petitioner/defendant---Validity---Promissory note, under section 4 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is required to contain four essential ingredients: (i) an unconditional undertaking to pay; (ii) the sum should be the sum of money and certain; (iii) the payment should be to or to the order of a person who is certain, or to the bearer of the instrument; and (iv) the maker should sign it---If an instrument fulfills such four conditions, it is called a promissory note---Requirement of attestation of a document provided under Article 17 (2)(a) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 does not apply to promissory note---Petitioner/defendant took a vague stance and evasively denied allegations so made by the respondent/plaintiff as to his claim against petitioner/defendant---Such denial without any substantive proof could not be considered and approved---Trial Court and High Court minutely appreciated and evaluated pleadings of parties and had assessed evidence on the principle of preponderance---Both the Court below reached to a just conclusion that petitioner/defendant failed to successfully overturn the stand taken by respondent/plaintiff against him---Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below in favor of respondent/plaintiff---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused. Sheikh Muhammad Shakeel v. Sheikh Hafiz Muhammad Aslam 2014 SCMR 1562 and Muhammad Ashraf v. Abdul Ghafoor and 4 others 1999 SCMR 2633 rel. Aftab Alam Yasir, Advocate Supreme Court and Sheikh Mehmood Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Burhan Latif Khaisori, Advocate Supreme Court for legal heirs Respondent. Date of hearing: 17th February, 2025.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5---Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978, Rr. 90 & 91---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Non-filing of appeal---Condonation of delay---Jail authorities, responsibility of---Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to death on three counts and no Jail Appeal was filed by him despite being in jail for more than thirteen years before filing of appeal before Supreme Court---Validity---Superintendent of Jail should have obtained and forwarded appeal as he was under obligation to facilitate petitioner/convict in filing of appeal within the period of limitation as prescribed under Rule 91 of Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978---Technicalities should not hamper Court of justice---Powers regarding condonation under section 5 of Limitation Act, 1908 should be liberally exercised to ensure administration of justice in its true spirit---Supreme Court condoned the delay of more than thirteen years caused in filing of Jail Appeal against death sentence on three counts---Application was allowed. Muhammad Bakhsh alias Muhammadi v. The State 1985 SCMR 72; Muhammad Nawaz v. The State PLD 2002 SC 287 and Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. The State PLD 2009 SC 814 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S.302 (b)---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Triple murder---Death sentence on three counts---Principle of expectancy of life---Motive not proved---Plea of substitution---Accused was convicted and sentenced to death on three counts for committing triple murder---Plea raised by accused was that it was a blind murder---Validity---Both the eye-witnesses had plausibly explained their presence with deceased at the spot at the time of occurrence---Presence of complainant with three deceased out of whom one was his brother and remaining two were his wife and daughter respectively, was quite natural and appealable---In villages such close relatives do associate and accompany each other to market/bazaar for purchase of household articles---Substitution of real culprits, especially in cases where eye-witnesses lost their kith and kins before their own eyes was a rare phenomenon---Once motive is set up by prosecution, but thereafter fails to prove the same, then prosecution must suffer the consequences and not the defense---Supreme Court declined to interfere in conviction of accused recorded by two Courts below under section 302(b), P.P.C. but converted death sentence into imprisonment for life on three counts as prosecution failed to prove motive and there were minor discrepancies in evidence coupled with long incarceration of accused, since his arrest including his period in death cell---Appeal was dismissed. Allah Ditta v. The State PLD 2002 SC 52; Muhammad Iqbal v. The State PLD 2001 SC 222; Asfandiyar v. The State and others 2021 SCMR 2009; Muhammad Abbas and another v. The State 2023 SCMR 487; Azhar Hussain and another v. The State and others 2022 SCMR 1907; Shamsher Ahmad and another v. The State and others 2022 SCMR 1931; Aman Ullah v. The State 2023 SCMR 723; Imran Mehmood v. The State 2023 SCMR 795; Amir Muhammad Khan v. The State 2023 SCMR 566; Taiamal Hussain Shah v. The State and another 2022 SCMR 1567; Liaqat Ali and another v. The State and others 2021 SCMR 780; Najaf Ali Shah v. The State 2021 SCMR 736; Khalid Mehmood and others v. The State and others 2021 SCMR 810; Ansar Ahmad Khan Barki's case 1993 SCMR 1660 and Falak Sher's case 1999 SCMR 2432 rel. (c) Criminal trial--- ----Evidence---Ocular evidence and medical evidence---Preference---Where ocular evidence is found trustworthy and confidence inspiring, the same is given preference over medical evidence---Ocular account alone is sufficient to sustain conviction of an accused. Muhammad Iqbal v. The State 1996 SCMR 908; Naeem Akhtar v. The State PLD 2003 SC 396; Faisal Mehmood v. The State 2010 SCMR 1025 and Muhammad Ilyas v. The State 2011 SCMR 460 rel. Rizwan Ejaz, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Azhar Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court for Complainant. Irfan Zia, APG for the State. Date of hearing: 17th February, 2025.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5---Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978, Rr. 90 & 91---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Non-filing of appeal---Condonation of delay---Jail authorities, responsibility of---Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to death on three counts and no Jail Appeal was filed by him despite being in jail for more than thirteen years before filing of appeal before Supreme Court---Validity---Superintendent of Jail should have obtained and forwarded appeal as he was under obligation to facilitate petitioner/convict in filing of appeal within the period of limitation as prescribed under Rule 91 of Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978---Technicalities should not hamper Court of justice---Powers regarding condonation under section 5 of Limitation Act, 1908 should be liberally exercised to ensure administration of justice in its true spirit---Supreme Court condoned the delay of more than thirteen years caused in filing of Jail Appeal against death sentence on three counts---Application was allowed. Muhammad Bakhsh alias Muhammadi v. The State 1985 SCMR 72; Muhammad Nawaz v. The State PLD 2002 SC 287 and Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. The State PLD 2009 SC 814 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S.302 (b)---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Triple murder---Death sentence on three counts---Principle of expectancy of life---Motive not proved---Plea of substitution---Accused was convicted and sentenced to death on three counts for committing triple murder---Plea raised by accused was that it was a blind murder---Validity---Both the eye-witnesses had plausibly explained their presence with deceased at the spot at the time of occurrence---Presence of complainant with three deceased out of whom one was his brother and remaining two were his wife and daughter respectively, was quite natural and appealable---In villages such close relatives do associate and accompany each other to market/bazaar for purchase of household articles---Substitution of real culprits, especially in cases where eye-witnesses lost their kith and kins before their own eyes was a rare phenomenon---Once motive is set up by prosecution, but thereafter fails to prove the same, then prosecution must suffer the consequences and not the defense---Supreme Court declined to interfere in conviction of accused recorded by two Courts below under section 302(b), P.P.C. but converted death sentence into imprisonment for life on three counts as prosecution failed to prove motive and there were minor discrepancies in evidence coupled with long incarceration of accused, since his arrest including his period in death cell---Appeal was dismissed. Allah Ditta v. The State PLD 2002 SC 52; Muhammad Iqbal v. The State PLD 2001 SC 222; Asfandiyar v. The State and others 2021 SCMR 2009; Muhammad Abbas and another v. The State 2023 SCMR 487; Azhar Hussain and another v. The State and others 2022 SCMR 1907; Shamsher Ahmad and another v. The State and others 2022 SCMR 1931; Aman Ullah v. The State 2023 SCMR 723; Imran Mehmood v. The State 2023 SCMR 795; Amir Muhammad Khan v. The State 2023 SCMR 566; Taiamal Hussain Shah v. The State and another 2022 SCMR 1567; Liaqat Ali and another v. The State and others 2021 SCMR 780; Najaf Ali Shah v. The State 2021 SCMR 736; Khalid Mehmood and others v. The State and others 2021 SCMR 810; Ansar Ahmad Khan Barki's case 1993 SCMR 1660 and Falak Sher's case 1999 SCMR 2432 rel. (c) Criminal trial--- ----Evidence---Ocular evidence and medical evidence---Preference---Where ocular evidence is found trustworthy and confidence inspiring, the same is given preference over medical evidence---Ocular account alone is sufficient to sustain conviction of an accused. Muhammad Iqbal v. The State 1996 SCMR 908; Naeem Akhtar v. The State PLD 2003 SC 396; Faisal Mehmood v. The State 2010 SCMR 1025 and Muhammad Ilyas v. The State 2011 SCMR 460 rel. Rizwan Ejaz, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Azhar Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court for Complainant. Irfan Zia, APG for the State. Date of hearing: 17th February, 2025.

Summary: Arbitration Act (X of 1940)--- ----Ss. 14 & 17---West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance (II of 1962), S.18---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss. 5 & 14---Condonation of delay-- -Wrong appellate forum---Petitioner/authorities were aggrieved of award being made rule of the Court, and preferred appeal before High Court but the same was dismissed for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction---Lower Appellate Court and High Court declined to condone the delay caused due to filing of appeal before High Court---Validity---Delay of time in filing of appeal, application or suit may be condoned but subject to plausible and reasonable explanation---One who seeks condonation of delay has to explain each and every day's delay---Petitioner/authorities could not put-forward reasonable and plausible justification/explanation for filing appeal after about two years of passing of judgment and decree by Trial Court---Earlier appeal filed before High Court was not a reasonable justification---Petitioner/ authorities could not claim to be treated in any manner differently from an ordinary litigant---Time consumed in pursuing appeal in wrong forum could not be condoned under section 5 of Limitation Act, 1908---Time spent in pursuing proceedings before wrong appellate forum could not be excluded for the purposes of filing of an appeal---If appeal was barred by time, provisions of section 5 of Limitation Act, 1908, could only be invoked, that too, by showing sufficient cause---Forum of appeal was regulated by jurisdictional value in plaint---In presence of section 18 of West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 there could be no doubt or complication to determine forum of appeal-- -Provisions of sections 5 and 14 of Limitation Act, 1908 would come into play only if delay appeared to be condonable because of the petitioners/authorities prosecuting their case with due diligence---Supreme Court declined to interfere in the judgment passed by High Court---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Messrs SKB-SNK Joint Venture Contractors through Regional Director v. Water and Power Development Authority and others 2022 SCMR 1615; East Pakistan v. Abdul Hamid Darfi and others 1970 SCMR 558; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rais Pir Ahmad Khan 1981 SCMR 37; Federation of Pakistan v. Niaz Ahmad 1997 SCMR 959; Mst. Khadija Begum and 2 others v. Mst. Yasmeen and 4 others PLD 2001 SC 355; Dr. Syed Sibtain Raza Naqvi v. Hydrocarbon Development and others 2012 SCMR 377; Ghulam Ali v. Akbar alias Akoor and another PLD 1991 SC 957; Abdul Ghani v. Mst. Mussarat Rehana 1985 CLC 2529; Government of Pakistan v. Rafi Associates Limited 1985 CLC 2234; Abdul Ghani v. Ghulam Sarwar PLD 1977 SC 102; Syed Haji Abdul Wahid and another v. Syed Sirajuddin 1998 SCMR 2296; Raja Karamatullah and 3 others v. Sardar Muhammad Aslam Sukhera 1999 SCMR 1892; Akhtar Nasir Ahmed v. Province of Punjab through District Collector Gujrat and others PLD 2024 SC 1268; Khushi Muhammad through L.Rs. and others v. Mst. Fazal Bibi and others PLD 2016 SC 872; Chief Executive Officer NPGCL, Genco-III, TPS, Muzaffargarrah v. Khalid Umar Tariq Imran and others 2024 SCMR 518; Regional Police Officer, Dera Ghazi Khan Region and others v. Riaz Hussain Bukhari 2024 SCMR 1021; Kiramat Khan v. IG, Frontier Corp and others 2023 SCMR 866 and Imtiaz Ali v. Atta Muhammad and another PLD 2008 SC 462 rel. Shah Faisal Ilyas, A.A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 17th February, 2025.

Summary: Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978--- ----O. XIII, R. 3(1-A)---Appeal before Supreme Court, filing of---Lists of the legal heirs of the parties with memo of appeal/petition for leave to appeal not submitted---Effect---Appeal, competency of---It was an admitted position that the lists of the legal heirs annexed with the (present) memo of PLA/appeal were not the lists of the legal heirs of the plaintiffs and defendants, filed before the Trial Court---Under Sub-rule (1-A) of R. 3 of O. XIII of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978, filing of lists of the legal heirs of the plaintiffs and the defendants filed before the Trial Court, were mandatory to be annexed with the memo of PLA/appeal of the said statutory provision---It was enjoined upon the (present) appellants to annex the lists of legal representatives of the plaintiffs and the defendants, and if the same were not filed in the Trial Court, then the certification of the Trial Court in said regard should necessarily be brought on the record, which had also not been done---Thus, present appeal had been filed incompetently, therefore, there was no need to dilate upon the merits and demerits of the case as the same would be a futile exercise---Appeal, having been filed incompetently, was dismissed. Syed Nazir Hussain Shah Kazmi, Advocate for Appellants. Abdul Waheed Arif, Advocate for Respondents. Date of hearing: 15th February, 2025.