Summary: Acquittal granted ---- (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (CNSA) ----S. 9(c)—Possession of narcotics—Burden of proof—Chain of custody—Failure to establish safe transmission—Effect. The prosecution alleged that the accused was apprehended in possession of 1,400 grams of charas—Trial court convicted the accused under Section 9(c) of CNSA, sentencing him to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment—High Court upheld the conviction—Supreme Court held that in narcotics cases, an uninterrupted chain of custody from the time of recovery to forensic analysis is essential to sustain conviction—Failure to prove the safe custody and secure transmission of the contraband renders the chemical examiner’s report unreliable—Discrepancies in prosecution witnesses’ statements regarding the handling of case property created serious doubt about the integrity of the evidence—Held, that the prosecution must establish that the recovered substance remained untampered at every stage—Any break in the chain of custody vitiates the reliability of forensic evidence—Conviction set aside. ----- Cited Cases: Zahir Shah v. The State (2019 SCMR 2004) Sarfraz Ahmed v. The State (2024 SCMR 1571) ----- (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 ----Art. 129(g)—Presumption of adverse inference—Failure to establish movement of case property—Effect. The prosecution failed to produce clear evidence regarding the transfer of the recovered substance from seizure to forensic examination—Conflicting testimonies from police officials regarding who handled the case property created doubt as to whether it remained in an untampered condition—Held, where the prosecution fails to provide a continuous and verifiable chain of custody, an adverse inference is drawn against it under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984—Conviction cannot be sustained in the absence of reliable forensic proof. ----- Cited Cases: Muhammad Hazir v. The State (2023 SCMR 986) Javed Iqbal v. The State (2023 SCMR 139) ----- (c) Criminal Law—Benefit of Doubt ----Principles of criminal justice—Prosecution’s duty to prove case beyond reasonable doubt—Discrepancies in evidence—Effect. The prosecution’s case contained material contradictions regarding the number, size, and physical characteristics of the seized contraband—The chemical report conflicted with witness testimonies regarding the composition of the recovered narcotics—Held, when material discrepancies arise between forensic evidence and prosecution witness accounts, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused—Prosecution’s failure to establish the chain of custody and discrepancies in evidence warranted acquittal—Conviction set aside. ----- Cited Cases: Muhammad Hazir v. The State (2023 SCMR 986) Javed Iqbal v. The State (2023 SCMR 139) ----- (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 342—Accused’s right to fair trial—Failure to disprove defense plea—Effect. The accused denied all allegations in his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C., asserting false implication—The prosecution failed to rebut this defense by producing unimpeachable evidence—Held, in criminal trials, the prosecution bears the entire burden of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt—Mere recovery without establishing safe custody and transmission does not justify conviction—Failure to rebut the defense’s claims entitles the accused to acquittal. ----- Disposition: Criminal Petition converted into appeal and allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Accused acquitted of all charges. Accused to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

Summary: (a) Service Law – Appointment of Patwari – Tehsil-Specific Recruitment – Applicability of Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 2009 Under the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 2009, recruitment for the post of Patwari is Tehsil-specific, and only residents of the concerned Tehsil are eligible for appointment. Held, executive instructions issued by the Board of Revenue Punjab (dated 23.02.2021), which purportedly allowed district-wide recruitment, cannot override statutory rules framed under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. Executive instructions do not have the force of law when they contradict statutory provisions – Cited case: Muhammad Yasin v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2012 SC 132). (b) Service Law – Recruitment Process – Advertisement Error – No Enforceable Right An erroneous job advertisement does not confer a vested right to appointment if it contradicts statutory rules governing recruitment. Held, the advertisement error in specifying district-wide eligibility cannot override the 2009 Rules, which restrict recruitment to Tehsil residents. Public authorities cannot be bound by an erroneous advertisement if it contradicts legal provisions – Cited case: Punjab Public Service Commission v. Husnain Abbas (2021 SCMR 1017). (c) Service Law – Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation – No Right Without Fulfilling Eligibility Conditions The doctrine of legitimate expectation does not apply where a candidate fails to meet the prescribed eligibility conditions under the law. Mere participation in the recruitment process does not create a vested right to appointment unless the candidate fulfills all statutory requirements. Held, eligibility conditions must be met before participation in selection, and failure to do so renders any claim for appointment non-sustainable – Cited case: Secretary Finance v. Ghulam Safdar (2005 SCMR 534). (d) Service Law – No Estoppel Against Statute – Participation in Process Does Not Cure Ineligibility No estoppel can be pleaded against statutory provisions. Held, an ineligible candidate cannot claim appointment rights merely because they were erroneously allowed to participate in the recruitment process. Past appointments made in violation of rules do not create a precedent for further illegality – Cited case: Suo Motu Action regarding eligibility of Chairman & Members of Sindh Public Service Commission (2017 SCMR 637). (e) Public Employment – Strict Compliance with Law – Violation of Article 25 of the Constitution Public employment is a matter of public trust, requiring strict compliance with constitutional and statutory rules. Held, any appointment deviating from statutory requirements violates the fundamental rights of other eligible candidates under Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. Appointments made in contravention of service rules cannot be upheld as they undermine principles of merit, transparency, and fairness. Disposition: Intra-Court Appeal dismissed – Impugned judgment upheld – Appointment claim rejected as contrary to law – Erroneous advertisement did not create enforceable rights – No order as to costs.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ---- Ss. 302(b), 342, 340(2) ---- Conviction for multiple murders ---- Duty of prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ---- Appellant was convicted by the Trial Court under S. 302(b) PPC for the murder of three individuals and sentenced to death on three counts, with compensation to the legal heirs of each deceased ---- The conviction and sentence were upheld by the Lahore High Court ---- Appellant’s plea of innocence and non-examination under S. 340(2) Cr.P.C. did not mitigate the weight of prosecution evidence ---- Held, prosecution successfully established the appellant’s guilt through direct evidence, including eyewitness testimony and motive, thereby justifying the conviction. (b) Right to Appeal ---- ---- Jail appeal ---- Condonation of delay ---- Duty of Jail Authorities to facilitate appeal ---- Appellant filed a delayed jail petition challenging his conviction and sentence ---- Under Rule 90 of the Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1894, it was the duty of the Superintendent Jail to inform the appellant of his right to appeal and facilitate timely filing ---- No evidence on record showed that the appellant was informed of his right or that he had expressed any waiver of appeal ---- Supreme Court, relying on precedents Muhammad Bakhsh alias Muhammadi v. The State (1985 SCMR 72) and Muhammad Nawaz v. The State (PLD 2002 SC 287), condoned the delay in filing the appeal, recognizing that the appellant, being in death cell, was unaware of legal technicalities. (c) Administration of Justice ---- ---- Fair trial ---- Safe administration of criminal justice ---- Leave to appeal granted to examine the entire evidence in the interest of justice ---- The Supreme Court emphasized that technicalities should not impede the right to a fair trial, particularly in cases involving capital punishment ---- Appellant’s conviction and sentence were reviewed to ensure due process and compliance with procedural safeguards. ----Disposition: Delay in filing appeal condoned. Appeal admitted for hearing to examine the entire evidence in light of the principles of safe administration of criminal justice.

Summary: (a) Limitation Act, 1908 (IX of 1908): ----Ss. 5, 14---Condonation of delay---Appeal filed before the wrong forum---Good faith and due diligence---Scope. Petitioners challenged an arbitration award, but their appeal was filed before the wrong forum. The appellate court dismissed the appeal as time-barred, and the High Court upheld this decision. The petitioners sought condonation of delay under S. 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, arguing that they pursued the appeal in good faith. The Supreme Court held that condonation under S. 14 requires proof of due diligence and good faith, which were absent in this case. Petitioners failed to justify the delay of nearly two years and did not provide a reasonable explanation. The Court emphasized that government departments are treated like ordinary litigants and cannot claim special treatment regarding limitation laws. Ignorance, negligence, or mistake do not excuse non-compliance with statutory time limits. ----Cited Cases: Messrs SKB-SNK Joint Venture Contractors v. WAPDA (2022 SCMR 1615) East Pakistan v. Abdul Hamid Darfi (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 v. Mst. Yasmeen (PLD 2001 SC 355) (b) Arbitration Act, 1940 (X of 1940): ----S. 14(2)---Arbitration award---Objections dismissed by trial court---Confirmation of award as rule of court---Finality of arbitral proceedings---Scope. Respondents filed an application under S. 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and the matter was referred to arbitrators. The award was made a rule of the court, and objections raised by the petitioners were dismissed. The appellate court and the High Court affirmed the award, rejecting the appeal as time-barred. The Supreme Court upheld the finality of arbitration awards, emphasizing that once an award is confirmed by a trial court and upheld on appeal, further challenges must strictly comply with procedural limitations. (c) Civil Courts Jurisdiction---Pecuniary Limits---Determination of Appellate Forum: ----West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 (W.P. Ordinance II of 1962), S. 18---Jurisdictional value for appeals---Forum determination---Scope. The High Court correctly transferred the appeal to the District Judge as the claim amount was below Rs. 50 million, falling under the pecuniary jurisdiction of civil courts under S. 18 of the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962. The Supreme Court held that there was no ambiguity in the law regarding forum determination, and filing an appeal before the wrong forum due to negligence does not warrant condonation of delay. ----Cited Cases: Ghulam Ali v. Akbar alias Akoor (PLD 1991 SC 957) Abdul Ghani v. Mst. Mussarat Rehana (1985 CLC 2529) (d) Legal Principle---Law of Limitation and Judicial Precedents: ----Statute of repose---Equity does not override limitation laws---Duty of litigants to act diligently. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that limitation laws must be strictly adhered to, and litigants must act with due diligence. The principle of repose ensures that litigation is brought to a final conclusion within prescribed time limits. ----Cited Cases: Akhtar Nasir Ahmed v. Province of Punjab (PLD 2024 SC 1268) Khushi Muhammad v. Mst. Fazal Bibi (PLD 2016 SC 872) Kiramat Khan v. IG, Frontier Corps (2023 SCMR 866) Imtiaz Ali v. Atta Muhammad (PLD 2008 SC 462) ----Disposition: Petition dismissed, as no reasonable justification for condonation of delay was presented. Leave to appeal refused.

Summary: Acquittal granted ---- (a) Criminal Trial—Presumption of Innocence—Burden of Proof ---- Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10-A ---- An accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt through legally admissible, confidence-inspiring, and reliable evidence. Any weakness in the defense does not benefit the prosecution. Failure to establish the case beyond doubt entitles the accused to acquittal. (Rel. 2009 SCMR 230, 2024 SCMR 1579, PLD 1993 SC 251) (b) Ocular Testimony—Unreliable and Interested Witnesses ---- Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 17 & 129 ---- The prosecution relied on eyewitnesses who were close relatives of the deceased, rendering their testimony interested and requiring corroboration. Contradictions in their statements regarding the exact location of the incident, the movement of the deceased, and the presence of the accused weakened their credibility. The unnatural conduct of witnesses in failing to prevent the attack further cast doubt on their version of events. (Rel. 2020 SCMR 319, 2024 SCMR 1579) (c) Nighttime Incident—Failure to Establish Proper Identification ---- Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 129 ---- The occurrence took place at night, yet the FIR did not mention any source of light at the crime scene. In such circumstances, the possibility of mistaken identity of the accused cannot be ruled out. The absence of independent evidence confirming identification further weakened the prosecution’s case. (Rel. 2017 SCMR 596, 2017 SCMR 1572, 2019 SCMR 1170) (d) Motive—Failure to Prove—Effect ---- Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 129 ---- The prosecution alleged an exchange of hot words between the complainant and the accused as the motive for the murder. However, no independent witnesses were produced to establish this motive. The investigating officer also admitted that no witnesses were examined in support of the motive. Since motive is a supporting factor, its absence significantly weakened the prosecution's case. (Rel. 2017 SCMR 596, 2017 SCMR 1572, 2019 SCMR 1170) (e) Recovery of Weapon—Violation of Section 103 Cr.P.C.—Negative Forensic Report ---- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103 ---- The alleged recovery of a 12-bore repeater gun was made in the absence of independent witnesses and in violation of Section 103 Cr.P.C. Moreover, the forensic report did not link the weapon to the crime, rendering the recovery inconsequential. (Rel. 2017 SCMR 898, 2024 SCMR 1741) (f) Medical Evidence—Corroborative Value—Failure to Link Accused ---- Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 129 ---- Medical evidence can corroborate the manner and weapon used in the crime, but it cannot identify the accused. In this case, the prosecution failed to produce reliable eyewitness testimony linking the accused to the crime. Thus, the medical evidence alone was insufficient to establish guilt. (Rel. PLD 1993 SC 251, PLD 1976 SC 695, 2024 SCMR 1741) (g) Unnatural Conduct of the Accused—Doubtful Prosecution Story ---- Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 129 ---- The prosecution alleged that the accused had a dispute with the complainant (PW-8) but targeted the complainant's father instead. The accused did not even threaten the complainant, raising serious doubts about the real motive behind the incident. The unnatural conduct of the accused, in sparing the person he allegedly had a dispute with, suggested that the prosecution story was fabricated. (Rel. 2017 SCMR 596, 2017 SCMR 1572, 2019 SCMR 1170) (h) Benefit of Doubt—Legal Requirement for Acquittal ---- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 265-K ---- If even a single reasonable doubt arises in the prosecution’s case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal. In this case, multiple serious discrepancies were found in the ocular testimony, motive, recovery, forensic evidence, and medical evidence, all of which created reasonable doubt about the prosecution's version. (Rel. 2009 SCMR 230, 2024 SCMR 1579, 2024 SCMR 1741) Disposition: Appeal allowed. Conviction and death sentence of Muhammad Amjad set aside. He was acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released unless required in another case. Murder Reference answered in the negative—death sentence not confirmed. Complainant’s appeal against the acquittal of Muhammad Usman dismissed for lack of merit.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908): ----O. XXXVII, Rr. 1 & 2---Requirement of specific denial---Burden of proof---Failure of defendant to provide substantive evidence---Effect. Plaintiff/respondent instituted a suit under Order XXXVII, Rules 1 & 2, C.P.C. for the recovery of Rs.1,962,000/- on the basis of a promissory note. Petitioner/defendant sought leave to defend under Rule 3(1), which was granted, leading to the framing of issues and trial proceedings. Trial Court, after evaluating oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit in favor of the respondent for Rs.1,892,000/- along with court fees, while declining counsel fees and miscellaneous expenses. The petitioner’s appeal before the High Court was dismissed. Supreme Court held that pleadings alone do not constitute evidence and must be proved by cogent evidence, including oral testimony subject to cross-examination and supporting documentary proof. Petitioner took a contradictory stance by first denying friendly relations with the respondent and later asserting a joint business venture, thereby weakening his defense. The Court emphasized that an evasive or vague denial does not constitute an effective rebuttal as per Rules 3, 4, and 5 of Order VIII, C.P.C., which mandate specific denial of factual allegations. Petitioner failed to overturn the respondent’s claim, and his inconsistent stance corroborated the plaintiff’s position. Courts below had rightly appreciated the evidence and preponderance of probability in favor of the respondent. ----Cited Cases: Sheikh Muhammad Shakeel v. Sheikh Hafiz Muhammad Aslam (2014 SCMR 1562) Muhammad Ashraf v. Abdul Ghafoor (1999 SCMR 2633) (b) Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881): ----S. 4---Promissory note---Essential ingredients---Requirement of attestation under Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Non-applicability. Under Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a promissory note must contain: (i) an unconditional undertaking to pay, (ii) a definite sum of money, (iii) payment to a certain person or bearer, and (iv) signature of the maker. If these conditions are met, attestation under Article 17(2)(a) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 is not required. In the present case, the promissory note produced by the respondent was substantiated through testimony of the petition writer (P.W.1) and corroborated by marginal witnesses, whose statements remained unshaken during cross-examination. The petitioner’s contradictory stance further reinforced the authenticity of the promissory note. (c) Administration of Justice: ----Appreciation of evidence---Preponderance of probability---Summary suit procedure---High Court and Trial Court’s concurrent findings---Interference by Supreme Court---Scope. Supreme Court observed that both the Trial Court and High Court had meticulously examined the pleadings and assessed evidence in line with the principle of preponderance of probability. The findings were well-reasoned and based on substantive evidence, leaving no room for intervention. The petitioner failed to establish grounds for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution. Supreme Court, finding no legal infirmity in the concurrent decisions, dismissed the petition. ----Disposition: Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 410---Appeal against conviction---Juvenile offender tried by Special Court under the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021, instead of Juvenile Court---Effect---Appellant was convicted under Ss. 376(iii) & 377-B, P.P.C. by the Gender-Based Violence (GBV) Court, Islamabad, and sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine---Appellant contended that he was a juvenile at the time of the offense and should have been tried under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018---Held, that the trial of a juvenile offender must be conducted by a court designated under the Juvenile Act, not by a GBV Court unless specifically designated as a Juvenile Court under the law---The Juvenile Justice System prioritizes rehabilitation over punishment, aligning with constitutional and international principles for juvenile protection, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)---The trial conducted by the Special Court was declared coram non judice (without jurisdiction) and thus void---Appeal partially allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; matter remanded to the Juvenile Court for fresh proceedings, including potential disposal through diversion under S.9 of the Juvenile Act. (b) Juvenile Justice System Act (XXII of 2018)---- ----Ss. 4, 9 & 23---Juvenile Justice System---Principle of rehabilitation and diversion---Juvenile Court’s role as parens patriae---Trial court must prioritize the reformation, reintegration, and protection of the juvenile offender rather than imposing punitive measures---Diversion under S. 9 of the Juvenile Act allows cases of juveniles to be resolved outside formal judicial proceedings, avoiding the stigma of conviction and focusing on reintegration through restitution, community service, or rehabilitation programs---Statement of the victim’s father (PW-1) recorded in trial, wherein he forgave the accused in the name of Allah, should have been considered for potential diversion under the Juvenile Act---Matter remanded for reconsideration by the Juvenile Justice Committee. (c) Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021---- ----S. 3(3) & Sch. II---Jurisdiction of Special Courts under the Anti-Rape Act vis-à-vis Juvenile Justice System---Where both the Juvenile Act and Anti-Rape Act apply, the legislative intent and overriding provisions must be analyzed---Held, that due to the "deeming clause" in S. 3(3) of the Anti-Rape Act, a Juvenile Court is deemed to be a Special Court under the Act, allowing it to try juvenile offenders for offenses listed in Schedule II, including S. 377-B, P.P.C.---However, the converse is not true; a GBV Court not designated as a Juvenile Court cannot try a juvenile offender---Conviction by an unauthorized forum vitiates the entire proceedings, requiring remand to the competent Juvenile Court. (d) International Law---- ----United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (Beijing Rules)----Pakistan’s obligations as a signatory to CRC mandate that juvenile offenders be treated with dignity, ensuring rehabilitation and reintegration into society rather than punitive measures---Principles of restorative justice, diversion, and protection of juvenile identity must be upheld in all proceedings---Juvenile justice system aims to prevent recidivism by fostering a corrective and child-centric approach. ----Cited Cases: Syed Mushahid Shah v. Federal Investment Agency (2017 SCMR 1218) Mehran v. Ubaid Ullah (PLD 2024 SC 843) Khawar Kayani v. The State (PLD 2022 SC 551) Malik Mahmood Ahmad Khan v. Malik Moazam Mahmood (CPLA 2250-L/2016, 2024 SC) Dr. Abdul Nabi v. Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Quetta (2023 SCMR 1267) ----Disposition: Conviction and sentence set aside.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (On appeal against the judgment dated 12.04.2016 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Criminal Appeal No. 723-P of 2015). Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)--- ----S. 7(ff)---Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), S. 5---Explosive substance, recovery of---Re-appraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Safe custody and transportation of case property---Explosive substance was alleged to have been recovered from accused who was riding a motor cycle which was being driven by co-accused---Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to imprisonment for fourteen years, whereas the co-accused was acquitted---Validity---Prosecution failed to prove that accused was owner of the motor cycle used in the occurrence, which was being driven by co-accused---Investigating officer handed over parcels of case property to Moharrar but Moharrar of Maal Khana of police station did not appear in witness box---Safe custody and transportation of parcels of explosive substance etc. was not proved during trial---Single circumstance, which creates doubt in prosecution case is sufficient to acquit accused---Case against accused was repleted with number of circumstances which had created serious doubts in prosecution story---Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court and acquitted him of the charge by extending benefit of doubt---Appeal was allowed. Arshad Hussain Yousafzai, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Syed Kosar Ali Shah, Additional Advocate General Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for the State. Date of hearing: 14th February, 2025.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 561-A & 173---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 392, 397 & 34---Robbery, robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, common intention---Quashing of FIR proceedings---Pursuant to the registration of FIR, investigation followed and in due course the police submitted a report under S.173, Cr.P.C against four accused including the present petitioner---Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and accepted the challan---Petitioner sought quashing of order passed by the Judicial Magistrate on the grounds that the impugned order was illegal, unlawful, improper, incorrect and based on evasive findings and without application of conscious judicial mind--- Validity---Admittedly, the respondent No.2 was an Advocate by profession---Per claim of the applicant, he was Assistant Engineer in K-Electric---On the fateful day applicant along with his team was on official duty assigned to prevent theft of electricity when he received information that K-Electric cable was dumped in an open plot so while calling police on helpline he reached the pointed plot and was busy in capturing photographs from his mobile phone---Some persons including the respondent No.2 came there, beat the applicant and forcibly took him to a Dera where too he was subjected to torture and then was handed over to police---Record was suggestive of the fact that after registration of the case, the Investigating Officer produced the applicant in Court where per claim of the applicant, respondent No.2/ complainant along with other Advocates was already present, and they beat the applicant in police custody within Court premises---Record further reflected that applicant obtained protective bail from the High Court and along with his counsel went to the Court of Judicial Magistrate for submission of certain documents where respondent No.2/ complainant with the help of his companion lawyers again mishandled the applicant and his counsel, who saved his life by taking shelter in the chamber of the Judicial Magistrate---Such incident was reported to Police Station, Sessions Judge, as well as Registrar of the High Court---During investigation, the Investigating Officer confirmed that the applicant was on official duty and he called police through its helpine---Medical Certificate also suggested that applicant was beaten and maltreated---Based on such material, the previous Investigating Officer prepared his report and recommended disposal of case under "B" class, but instead of accepting such report, the high-ups of police ordered transfer of investigation perhaps due to influence of complainant and thereafter the second Investigating Officer submitted challan and cognizance was taken by Court---Certain aspects regarding basic/constituting elements of offence or version of the applicant collected during already conducted investigation could not be taken into consideration either by the second Investigating Officer or by the Judicial Magistrate while accepting the report under S.173, Cr.P.C., wherein an Advocate was complainant, which raised significant implications for the legal profession---One version put-forth by the applicant and the other taken by the complainant, if seen in juxtaposition, then the version of the applicant, in the background of previous investigation, seemed to be true whereas the plea taken by the complainant seemed to be based on mala fide intention and prima facie reflected ulterior motives and did not appeal to reason---Bare perusal of the impugned order, revealed that the same had been passed in haste without application of conscious judicial mind, overlooking peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, which could not be sustained in the eyes of law---Application was allowed, impugned order was set-aside and proceedings emanating from the FIR were quashed. Mehmood Akhtar Qureshi for Applicant. Sarfraz Ahmed Metlo and Zia-ur-Rehman Tanoli along with Respondent No. 2. Ms. Seema Zaidi, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh for the State. Date of hearing: 10th February, 2025. Order Shamsuddin Abbasi, J .--- The facts as reflected from the record are that Respondent No.2 Muhammad Nizar son of Aziz ur Rehman lodged FIR No.543 of 2024 at Police Station Ittehad Town, District Keamari, Karachi, for offences punishable under Sections 392, 397 and 34, P.P.C against applicant and three others stating therein that on 19.10.2024 four persons, duly armed with pistol, after breaking open the door of his house, forcibly entered the premises and by show of force on the pointation of pistol robbed Rs.200,000/- and went outside. Per complainant, they raised commotion, which attracted Mohallah people, who caught hold one person at spot, who disclosed his name as Malik Saghir whereas the others made their escape good on motorcycle. 2. Pursuant to the registration of FIR, the investigation was followed and in due course the police submitted a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against four accused including the applicant present on bail, Muhammad Shahzad in custody and two absconders. The learned Judicial Magistrate-VI, Karachi (West) took cognizance of the offence and accepted the challan vide order dated 19.11.2024, which is reproduced below:- "Challan accepted as offence under section 397 Cr.P.C. is exclusively triable by Hon'ble Court of Sessions. Let the R and P be sent to concerned court after completion of legal formalities. Issue NBW for absconded accused. Issue P.O. for accused in custody. Issue summon to accused Malik Sagheer". 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicant has preferred this Crl. Misc. Application. 4. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the impugned order is illegal, unlawful, improper, incorrect and based on evasive findings and without application of conscious judicial mind. It is next submitted that the learned Magistrate while accepting the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. has failed to thoroughly examine the findings of the previous Investigating Officer, who in the first instance released the applicant under Section 497(ii), Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that the applicant is serving as Assistant Engineer in K-Electric and on the day of incident he along with his team was on field duty in connection with theft of electricity and disconnection of illegal hooks in the area of Ittehad Town, Block-A when he received information that K-Electric cable is dumped in an open bounded plot and on instructions of Line Manager made a call to police on 15 and reached the pointed place and while he was waiting for police, the respondent No.2 along with his accomplices came there, snatched his mobile phone as well as office card and also gave him beating and thereafter took him to a Dera, where he was subjected to severe beatings and then handed over his custody to police and showing his influence lodged FIR fabricating a false story. Per learned counsel, the complainant, who is an Advocate by profession, in order to save his skin from theft of K-Electric cable, has involved the applicant levelking false allegation and the learned Magistrate without considering the report of the previous investigating officer and peculiar facts and circumstances of the case unlawfully took cognizance of the offence. Lastly it was submitted that the learned Magistrate did not consider the material produced in investigation report and accepted the challan without assigning valid and cogent reasons, hence the impugned order same is liable to be set-aside. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2, on the other hand, has refuted the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that the applicant along with his companions has forcibly entered his house, armed with pistols, and committed robbery of Rs.200,000/- and was apprehended at spot whereas his companions managed to escape. It is next submitted that the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on the basis of material collected during investigation and such findings are just and proper, hence calls for no interference. 6. The learned Additional Prosecutor General has supported the impugned order and submitted that the impugned order is based on fair evaluation of record and no illegality, infirmity of material irregularity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant and prayed for dismissal of the instant revision application. 7. Heard arguments of respective parties and perused the entire material available on record with their able assistance. 8. Admittedly, the respondent No.2, is an Advocate by professions. Per claim of the applicant, he is Assistant Engineer in K-Electric and on the fateful day he along with his team was on official duty assigned to prevent theft of electricity when he received information that K-Electric cable is dumped in an open plot so while calling police on 15 he reached the pointed plot and was busy in capturing photographs from his mobile phone when some persons including the respondent No.2 came there, gave beatings and forcibly took him to a Dera where too he was subjected to torture and then was handed over to police. The record is suggestive of the fact that after registration of the case, the investigation was entrusted to ASI Naeem Abbas, who produced the applicant in Court where per claim of the applicant, respondent No.2/complainant along with other Advocates was already present, they have beaten the applicant in police custody within Court premises. Record further reflects that applicant Malik Saghir obtained protective bail from this Court and along with his counsel went to the Court of learned Magistrate for submission of certain documents where respondent No.2/ complainant with the help of his companion lawyers again mishandled the applicant and his counsel, who save his life by taking shelter in the chamber of the learned Magistrate and such an incident was reported to P.S. City Court, Sessions Judge, Karachi (West) as well as Registrar of this Court. I am also cognizant of the fact that during investigation, the I.O. confirmed that the applicant was on official duty and he called police through 15. Medical Certificate available on record also suggests that he was beaten and maltreated. Based on such material, the previous Investigating Officer prepared his report and recommended disposal of case under "B" class, but instead of accepting such report, the high-ups of police ordered transfer of investigation perhaps due to influence of respondent No.2 /complainant and thereafter the second Investigating Officer submitted challan and cognizance was taken by Court. 9. It is a well settled that purpose of "investigation" is to dig out the truth regarding the crime/ occurrence and put up the same before Court of competent jurisdiction. It is the duty of the Investigating Officer to collect entire relevant material of the occurrence irrespective of the fact that such material favours prosecution or accused. He is also under obligation to collect the evidence honestly, justly and fairly for bringing the truth on record not only to build up the case of complainant with evidence enabling the Court to record conviction but also enabling Court for reaching to a just and fair decision. In the case in hand, the first Investigating Officer after thorough investigation found the applicant innocent and submitted relevant report before his high ups seeking approval for disposal of case in "B" class, but the same was declined and fresh investigation was ordered and pursuant to that order the investigation was entrusted to SIO Nasir Khan, who after recording further statement of complainant and witnesses submitted a charge sheet against the applicant and others, which was accepted by the learned Magistrate through impugned order dated 19.11.2024. It is, however, felt that certain aspects regarding basic/ constituting elements of offence or version of the applicant collected during already conducted investigation could not be taken into consideration either by the second Investigating Officer or by the learned Magistrate while accepting the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C., wherein an Advocate is complainant, which raises significant implications for the legal profession. A Division Bench of this Court in an unreported judgment dated 07.11.2024, passed in C.P. No.D-2230 of 2024, took serious note of Advocates coming forward as complainant and observed as under:- "Pursuant to that order, AIGP Legal has submitted a report showing therein the chart of FIRs lodged by advocates from 01st January 2024 to 31st October 2024. Being relevant, the same is reproduced herewith:- "REPORT OF FIRs LODGED BY THE ADVOCATES / LAWYERS AGAINST (A) THEIR CLIENTS (B) THIRD PERSONS (C) POLICE OFFICIALS FROM 01.01.2024 TO 31.10.2024 S.No District Against Their Clients Against Third Persons Against Police Officials Total 1 CIA - - - - 2 CTD - - - - 3 East 3 73 1 77 4 Malir 3 106 2 111 5 Korangi 2 31 1 34 6 West - 8 1 9 7 Central 1 14 - 15 8 South - 32 - 32 9 City 5 185 4 194 10 Keamari - - - - 11 Hyderabad - 26 1 27 12 Dadu - 1 2 3 13 Thatta - 6 - 6 14 Badin - 2 - 2 15 Jamshoro - 9 - 9 16 Matiari - - - - 17 T.A. Yar - 1 - 1 18 T.M. Khan - 6 - 6 19 Sujawal - - - - 20 Sukkur - 6 - 6 21 Ghotki - 17 1 18 22 Khairpur - 20 - 20 23 Larkana - 9 - 9 24 Kamber - 9 - 9 25 Shikarpur - - - - 26 Jacobabad - 2 - 2 27 Kashmore - - - - 28 Mirpurkhas - - 1 1 29 UmerKot - 2 - 2 30 Tharparkar - - - - 31 SBA - 10 - 10 32 Sanghar - 6 - 6 33 Naushero Feroz - - - - Total 14 581 14 609 3. Upon examining the above-referenced details, it becomes evident that advocates have lodged a total of 609 FIRs, comprising 14 FIRs against their own clients, 14 against police officials, and an overwhelming 581 against third parties. Annexure "B" outlines the current procedural status of these cases; particularly, in a majority of instances, police reports have been filed under "A" and "C" Class categories, while investigations in others FIRs remained pending. This extensive volume of FIRs raises significant concerns, especially given that even members of the legal profession are among the complainants, citing threats of dire consequences, incidents of theft, and cheque dishonor as grounds for registration. A substantial portion of these FIRs involve allegations under Sections 506-B and 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code. This substantial influx of FIRs suggests a troubling scenario showing smoke on the screen, indicating either a failure of the state to safeguard the legal community or a potential misuse of their professional privileges by these individuals. 4. It is imperative to take immediate steps to address the proliferation of motivated FIRs that are tainted with malice against innocent individuals, while ensuring that genuine FIRs against actual offenders are not hindered. Failure to do so may result in a situation where it becomes too late to rectify the injustices, leading to irreparable harm and a complete breakdown of the rule of law. 5. In light of the foregoing circumstances, this Court is cognizant of the fact that the present matter bears significant implications for the legal profession, particularly concerning the regulation of professional conduct and ethics, which fall within the domain of the Bar Council. Therefore, this matter is hereby referred to the Executive Committee of the Sindh Bar Council with directives to scrutinize the ethical dimensions outlined in the Code of Conduct, specifically regarding the registration of FIRs by advocates against their own clients under various sections of law. The Committee is tasked with investigating any misuse of professional privileges by lawyers throughout the Sindh region, with particular attention to occurrences in Karachi, to uphold the dignity and integrity of the legal fraternity. Should the Committee identify any instances of malicious or unwarranted FIRs filed against innocent individuals, it is further instructed to initiate appropriate disciplinary actions through the relevant disciplinary committee. This measure aims to safeguard ethical standards and prevent any conduct that may undermine the honor of the legal profession. 6. Additionally, the Inspector General of Police (I.G.P.) Sindh is directed to ensure the maintenance of law and order, guaranteeing equal treatment for all citizens regardless of profession, caste, creed, or community. The I.G.P. Sindh shall further ensure that police officers uphold the decorum of the police force while providing safety and security to all citizens within their jurisdiction, including the Courts. Moreover, the I.G.P. Sindh shall ensure that any FIRs lodged with malicious intent against innocent individuals are thoroughly investigated, while also safeguarding the registration and progression of legitimate FIRs against actual offenders. 7. In view of the reasons stated above, the present petition is hereby disposed of in accordance with these directives. Office shall send copy of this order to Vice Chairman and Secretary of Sindh Bar Council for compliance". 10. The version one put-forth by the applicant and others taken by the respondent No.2 /complainant, if seen in juxtaposition, then the version of the applicant, in the background of previous investigation, seems to be true whereas the plea taken by the respondent No.2/ complainant seems to be based on mala fide intention and prima facie reflects ulterior motives and does not appeal to reasons. 11. A bare perusal of the order, impugned herein, reveals that the same has been passed in haste without application of conscious judicial mind, overlooking peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, referred herein above, which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. There is no denial of the fact that the applicant is an officer of K-Electric and has entered the premises of the complainant in discharge of his duties; besides it has come on record that while entering the open gated premises, he did inform the police on 15. An incident of such a nature cannot be allowed to go uncheck merely the complainant is practicing Advocate and can manhandled an officer of K-Electric, who is responsible to take care of theft being a public servant. In the mentioned circumstances, the impugned order is set-aside and proceedings emanating from FIR No.543 of 2024 registered at P.S. Ittehad Town, District Keamari, Karachi, for offences under Sections 392, 397 and 34, P.P.C are quashed. 12. Before parting with this order, it need to state that the Investigating Agency to prosecute those against whom the applicant and his team has suffered after collecting requisite material during investigation, which shall be supervised by SSP (Investigation) concerned. It is, however, open to the applicant to approach the Sindh Bar Council with a complaint, if he is so desired. The Council on receipt of the complaint shall hold enquiry according to Bar Council Act /Rules and record findings. 13. This Crl. Misc. Application No.1227 of 2024 stands allowed in the foregoing terms. 14. Office to communicate a copy of this order to Secretary Sindh Bar Council and Inspector General of Police (Sindh) for information and compliance JK/S-19/Sindh Application allowed.