Summary: (a) Criminal Trial – Ocular Testimony – Chance Witness – Unreliable Testimony – Article 129, QSO 1984 Where the sole eyewitness was a relative of the deceased, termed a “chance witness,” and failed to convincingly establish presence at the scene, his testimony was held unreliable. His inconsistent narrative, lack of corroboration from mosque attendees, absence of supporting physical evidence, and admitted lack of motive weakened the prosecution's case. The court reiterated that the conduct of the witness was contrary to natural human behavior and thus inadmissible as reliable testimony. – Relied on: Muhammad Ali v. The State (2015 SCMR 137); Zulifqar Ali v. The State (2021 SCMR 1373); Pathan v. The State (2015 SCMR 315) (b) Criminal Law – Qatl-i-Amd – Evidence of Motive – Burden to Prove – Weak Prosecution Narrative Prosecution alleged motive of previous enmity, but failed to produce independent evidence or witnesses to prove the same. It was held that motive is only corroborative in nature and cannot by itself sustain conviction, especially where the primary ocular evidence is doubtful. – Relied on: Muhammad Javed v. The State (2016 SCMR 2021) (c) Criminal Procedure – Inquest Report – Non-mention of Eyewitnesses – Delay in FIR and Postmortem Neither of the eyewitnesses were named in the inquest report or FIR application; FIR was delayed by 1.5 hours without explanation, and postmortem was conducted after 10 hours of the alleged occurrence. These facts indicated post-event deliberations and fabrication, thus rendering the prosecution case doubtful. – Relied on: Abdul Jabbar alias Jabbari v. The State (2017 SCMR 1155); Mian Sohail Ahmed v. The State (2019 SCMR 956) (d) Criminal Law – Recovery of Weapon and Motorcycle – Section 103 Cr.P.C. – Non-compliance – No Independent Witnesses Recoveries of the alleged murder weapon (Toka) and motorcycle used in the crime were not supported by independent witnesses. Prosecution failed to link recovered items to accused due to lack of DNA, fingerprint evidence, or specific descriptions from eyewitnesses. The recovery was deemed inadmissible. – Relied on: Muhammad Ismail v. The State (2017 SCMR 898) (e) Criminal Law – Confession under Custody – Article 40, QSO – Inadmissible Self-incriminatory Statements Pointing out of places already known to police or not leading to discovery of any new fact renders such statements inadmissible under Article 40 of QSO. Memos of such statements were rejected as inadmissible. – Relied on: Fazal Subhan v. The State (2019 SCMR 1027); Hayatullah v. The State (2018 SCMR 2092) (f) Criminal Law – Benefit of Doubt – Standard of Proof – Single Circumstance Sufficient The Court held that even a single circumstance raising doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, not concession. In this case, multiple inconsistencies and gaps in the prosecution’s case created reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal. – Relied on: Muhammad Mansha v. The State (2018 SCMR 772); Najaf Ali Shah v. The State (2021 SCMR 736) Disposition Murder Reference No. 73 of 2023: Answered in Negative, Death Sentence Not Confirmed.

Summary: (a) Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015 ----Ss. 20, 23, 36, 37, 39 & 70 Final determination—Validity of anti-dumping proceedings—Initiation of investigation based on application filed during interregnum between lapse of repealed Ordinance and enactment of new law—Challenge to jurisdiction of National Tariff Commission (NTC) in initiating and completing anti-dumping investigation without a valid application under S. 20 of the Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015—Petitioner alleged entire proceedings, including provisional and final determinations, were void ab initio, coram non judice and in violation of natural justice—Plea taken that Ordinance had lapsed on 26.06.2015, Act enacted on 08.09.2015, and during this legislative vacuum, application dated 29.06.2015 lacked lawful basis—Held, Resolution of National Assembly dated 30.07.2015 validly extended the Ordinance retrospectively, ensuring continuity of law and protecting proceedings—Majlis-e-Shoora competent to enact law with retrospective effect under Article 89(2)(a)(ii) of the Constitution—NTC's proceedings found lawful and valid—Delay in provisional determination beyond 180 days held directory, not fatal, in absence of statutory consequence—Petitioner also had alternate statutory remedy under S. 70 by filing appeal before Anti-Dumping Appellate Tribunal—Petition dismissed. Cited Cases: • Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation v. Muhammad Azeem Katper, 2002 SCMR 1023 • Commissioner of Income Tax v. Eastern Federal Union Insurance Co., PLD 1982 SC 247 • Hassan v. Fancy Foundation, PLD 1975 SC 1 • Federation of Pakistan v. M. Nawaz Khokhar, PLD 2000 SC 26 • Lahore Development Authority v. Imrana Tiwana, 2015 SCMR 1739 • Ghulam Hassan v. Jamshaid Ali, 2001 SCMR 1001 (b) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 18 & 89 Legislative power—Retrospective legislation—Scope—Challenge to anti-dumping framework based on alleged gap between ordinance and enactment—Held, Constitution permits Parliament to legislate retrospectively, except where expressly prohibited—Article 89 provides that Ordinance laid before Parliament shall be deemed to be a Bill and, once enacted, may provide continuity of law—Article 264 ensures consequences of repeal do not affect validity of prior acts done—Petitioner’s claim of legislative vacuum rejected as being contrary to constitutional scheme—Fundamental rights under Art. 18 (freedom of trade) not absolute and subject to lawful regulation in public interest, including international treaty compliance—No violation found.

Summary: The case revolves around the admission of Respondent No.10 (Muhammad Faizan) to a reserved backward area seat for Upper Tanawal in a medical college. Initially Respondent No.10 had applied for admission from District Torghar for the 2023-2024 session but was categorized as "OUT"" and failed to secure a seat. For the 2024-2025 session Respondent No.10 reappeared in the MDCAT exam and successfully qualified on 22.09.2024.A Location Certificate issued by the competent authority confirmed that Respondent No.10 had completed his entire education from institutions located in District Mansehra thus qualifying him as an ""IN"" candidate for Upper Tanawal. Before this on 07.08.2024 the Deputy Commissioner of Torghar had issued an Abandonment Certificate formally disassociating Respondent No.10 from Torghar. Respondent No.10 then filed a declaration on 21.08.2024 and subsequently his Domicile Certificate for Mansehra was issued on 25.09.2024. His mother also submitted a declaration on 02.10.2024 with her Domicile Certificate issued on 12.11.2024.The court clarified that the MDCAT registration and the actual admission process are distinct stages. The requirements for MDCAT registration only included educational documents and identity documents while domicile verification was required at the final admission stage with the final submission deadline being 08.01.2025. Respondent No.10 fulfilled all necessary requirements before this date making his admission legally valid.On the issue of Respondent No.10 improvement examination taken in Torghar the court held that this did not affect his status as his original educational and residential record consistently established his link with District Mansehra (Tehsil Darband). Supporting documents including his parents' Nikah Nama CNIC and property ownership documents further confirmed that Respondent No.10 and his family had been long-time residents of Mansehra.Finally the court addressed the maintainability of the constitutional petition noting that the petitioner had alternate remedies available under the KMU Admission Committee’s appeals process and the PM&DC complaint mechanism. Citing Palwasha Sherani’s case (2024 MLD 623) the court reiterated that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked when alternate adequate remedies exist."

Summary: S. 417(2) Cr.PC 1898. S.9(a) 11 14 KP Wildlife & Biodiversity (Protection Preservation Conservation and Management Act 2015. (i) Appeal u/s 417(2) Cr PC against the order of acquittal in a complaint case is incompetent. (ii) Appeal was dismissed being incompetent as well as barred by 125 days.

Summary: 1. A chance witness is a one who should normally be where and when he professes to have been then he is declared to be a highly interested witness and as such his evidence needs strong corroboration which in the instant case is missing. 2. In order to maintain conviction of a convict on a capital charge like the one in hand on the basis of testimony of chance witnesses the Court had to see and required corroboration while relying on such evidence. 3. For bringing home the charge the foremost duty of the prosecution is to establish the presence of the eyewitnesses and without establishing their presence their evidence would be of no help to its case. 4. If any party withholds the best piece of evidence then it can fairly be presumed that the party had some sinister motive behind it and the presumption under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order can fairly be drawn to it. 5. For giving a benefit to the accused it is not essential that there should be many grounds rather a single doubt if appealable to the prudent mind is sufficient for acquittal of an accused person.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908): ----O. VII, R. 11---Rejection of plaint---Cause of action---Locus standi---Validity. Petitioner filed suits for declaration claiming ownership of inherited properties based on a Will executed by his father. Respondents contested the Will, leading to applications under O. VII, R. 11, CPC, for rejection of plaints. The Trial Court rejected the plaints, and the Appellate Court upheld the decision, prompting the petitioner to file a revision petition. The Court held that a bequest in favor of an heir under Islamic law is not valid unless consented to by all other heirs after the testator’s death, especially if the Will is unregistered. Since respondents had contested the Will and no post-death consent was obtained, the suit was not maintainable. Furthermore, the petitioner had previously admitted co-ownership in a partition suit, without disclosing the Will, which rendered his subsequent claims an afterthought and devoid of cause of action. The rejection of the plaint under O. VII, R. 11, CPC, was found to be justified. ----Cited Cases: Zakirullah Khan v. Faizullah (1999 SCMR 971) Sikandar Hayat Khan v. Mst. Khatoon (2017 CLC 664) Abid Ali v. Muhammad Tahir (2021 CLC 1788) Zakia Begum v. Nasir-ul-Islam Khan (2022 YLR 2015) (b) Muhammadan Law---Bequest to an Heir---Consent of Other Heirs: ----Validity of Will under Islamic law---Consent of heirs---Extent of testamentary powers---Scope. A Muslim testator may bequeath property only up to 1/3rd of his estate, and any additional bequest to an heir is valid only if all other heirs consent to it after the testator’s death. In this case, as the Will lacked posthumous consent from all heirs, it was legally invalid. (c) Registration Act, 1908 (XVI of 1908): ----Ss. 17, 18, 42---Registration of Will---Mandatory or Optional---Scope. The Court held that a Will does not require compulsory registration under S. 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. Registration is optional per S. 18 of the Act. The lower court’s finding that registration of the Will was mandatory was legally incorrect and misconceived. ----Cited Cases: Mst. Batool v. Akbar (1986 CLC 372) V. Prabhakara v. Basavaraj K. (LL 2021 SC 556) Gurdial Singh v. Prithi Singh (2023 PHHC 147979) S. Sarvothaman v. The Sub-Registrar (AIR 2019 MADRAS 125) (d) Civil Procedure---Concurrent Findings---Revisional Jurisdiction: ----Scope of High Court’s revisional powers---Interference in concurrent findings---Limitations. Where both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have rendered concurrent findings based on proper appreciation of material evidence, such findings do not warrant interference at the revisional stage unless shown to be perverse, illegal, or suffering from jurisdictional defects. In the present case, the petitioner failed to establish any legal infirmity in the decisions of the lower courts. ----Cited Cases: Muhammad Sarwar v. Hashmal Khan (PLD 2022 SC 13) Mst. Zarsheda v. Nobat Khan (PLD 2022 SC 21) Salamat Ali v. Muhammad Din (PLJ 2023 SC 8) ----Disposition: Revision petitions dismissed in limine as being devoid of merit. No order as to costs.

Summary: (a) West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957: ----S. 8---Review jurisdiction---Correction of revenue record---Error apparent on face of record---Scope. The Auqaf Department challenged the order of the Board of Revenue, Punjab, which canceled mutation No. 2088 and restored mutation No. 1098 in favor of private respondents. Petitioner argued that the review petition was time-barred and beyond the scope of review jurisdiction under Section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957. Supreme Court held that review jurisdiction extends to correcting mistakes or errors apparent on the face of the record. In this case, the Board of Revenue identified a clear inconsistency in the revenue record concerning land allotted to the respondents, justifying intervention under review jurisdiction. Since the review was filed within the prescribed limitation period, the objection regarding time-bar was without merit. ----Cited Provision: West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957, Section 8 (b) Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979: ----S. 21---Jurisdiction of civil and revenue courts---Correction of revenue entries---Applicability of Waqf property notification. The Auqaf Department contended that the entire land measuring 387 Kanals and 17 Marlas was declared Waqf property under a notification dated 29.11.1968, barring the jurisdiction of civil and revenue courts under Section 21 of the Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979. Supreme Court observed that the land had been reduced to 261 Kanals and 6 Marlas after the Additional Settlement Commissioner’s order dated 14.01.1972, which declared 126 Kanals and 11 Marlas as excess land reverting to the Central Government. Respondents were lawfully allotted 99 Kanals and 11 Marlas out of this excess land through an unchallenged order dated 14.07.1981, and their mutation (No. 1098) was wrongly canceled in 1988. Since the dispute pertained to correcting the revenue record concerning this excess land and not the Waqf property itself, the bar under Section 21 of the Waqf Ordinance was inapplicable. (c) Doctrine of Res Judicata: ----Finality of previous litigation---Scope of earlier Supreme Court decision---Non-applicability to new claims. Petitioners argued that the issue had been conclusively settled by the Supreme Court, and the respondents' claim was barred by res judicata under order dated 28.04.1999 passed in W.P. No. 5724 of 1992. Supreme Court held that the prior litigation pertained to the exchange and gift mutations (Nos. 451 and 454), which were unrelated to mutation No. 1098 concerning the respondents' allotted land. The court emphasized that a matter not previously adjudicated cannot be considered res judicata. The claim for restoring mutation No. 1098 was distinct and had never been decided on merits in prior proceedings. ----Cited Case: W.P. No. 5724 of 1992 (Decision dated 28.04.1999) (Distinguished) (d) Land Settlement and Revenue Law: ----Correction of revenue entries---Legal effect of unchallenged orders---Finality of allotment. The land measuring 126 Kanals and 11 Marlas was declared excess and reverted to the Central Government, out of which 99 Kanals and 11 Marlas were lawfully allotted to the respondents in 1981. This allotment was never challenged and attained finality. The Supreme Court held that the Auqaf Department’s failure to correct its notification from 387 Kanals and 17 Marlas to 261 Kanals and 6 Marlas created administrative confusion, leading to erroneous cancellation of mutation No. 1098 in 1988. The correction of this error by the Board of Revenue was justified. ----Disposition: Writ Petition dismissed. Board of Revenue’s order upheld, restoring mutation No. 1098 in favor of respondents.

Summary: Filing of forged bail bonds does not invite registration of FIR, but initiation of proceedigns u/ss 195/476 Cr.P.C.

Summary: Points discussed in this judgment: 1. Competency of the suit during the pendency of the previous. 2. Section 26, Section 12 and Order II rules 2 of CPC

Summary: It is a settled principle of law that ex-parte proceedings can be set-aside only within the prescribed limitation period, except in cases where lack of proper service is conclusively established. In the present case, the petitioner filed an application for setting aside ex-parte proceedings after 12 years, which is far beyond the limitation period prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1908. According to Section 22A of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, civil servants are generally immune from personal liability for actions performed in good faith while exercising their official duties. The constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 cannot be invoked as a substitute for ordinary legal remedies, particularly where a petitioner has failed to pursue the available legal options within the prescribed statutory timeframe.