Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199---Judicial review---Pre-condition---Before an aggrieved person triggers judicial review, the Constitutional Court must, at the proverbial doorsteps of judicial review, satisfy itself that "no adequate remedy is provided by law" to the petitioner. (b) Anti-Dumping Duties Act (XIV of 2015)--- (c) Anti-Dumping Duties Act (XIV of 2015)--- Attock Cement Pakistan Ltd. and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (C.P. No.D-1590/2023); Messrs Tameer Steel Zone through Authorized Representative v. Government of Pakistan through Federal Secretary Finance and others 2021 PTD 1423; Shaheen Merchant v. Federation of Pakistan/National Tariff Commission and others 2021 PTD 2126 and Mian Azam Waheed and 2 others v. The Collector of Customs through Additional Collector of Customs, Karachi, 2023 SCMR 1247 ref. Junaid Ahmed and Syed Kawish Hussain Naqvi for Petitioner. Khaleeq Ahmed and Ms. Wajiha Mehdi, A.A.G for Respondents Nos.1 and 2. Ms. Tania Alam for Respondent No.3. Rais Mahmood Ali for Respondents Nos.4 and 5. Date of hearing: 29th October, 2024.

Summary: Per Amin-ud-Din Khan; Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, Naeem Akhter Afghan and Shahid Bilal Hassan, JJ. agreeing. (a) Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act (XVII of 2023)--- ----Ss. 2(1) & 2A---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 185(3) & 191A(4)---Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 221A(2)---Fixation of cases---Vires of law---Jurisdiction of Benches---Question for determination was with regard to fixation of Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal, challenging vires of section 221A(2) of Customs Act, 1969---Petitions in question were inadvertently fixed before Regular Bench of Supreme Court---Constitutional Committee of Supreme Court withdrew petitions in question and fixed the same before Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court---Validity---Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal in question, under Article 191A(4) of the Constitution, were mistakenly/inadvertently fixed before Regular Bench of Supreme Court and that Bench had assumed jurisdiction without lawful authority---Orders passed by Regular Bench of Supreme Court in Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal in question were non-est---Committees constituted under Article 191A(4) of the Constitution and under section 2(1) of Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 were legal and Constitutional fora to determine as to which Bench of Supreme Court would hear what matters---Exercise of powers and performance of legal and Constitutional functions by both the Committees did not impinge upon judicial functions of any Bench of Supreme Court---Supreme Court directed the office to issue notices to respondents and also to Attorney General for Pakistan and fix the petitions before Constitutional Bench after completing codal formalities. Per Muhammad Ali Mazhar, J. (b) Interpretation of Constitution--- ----Reading down, principle of---Applicability---Court is duty bound to ascertain and elucidate present day meaning of the Constitution through purposive interpretation, rather than applying doctrine of reading down without purpose. (c) Maxim--- ----A verbis legis non est recedendum---Connotation---Legal maxim "a verbis legis non est recedendum" means that there must be no departure from the words of law---When language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, there can be no assumption that the Legislature made a mistake---No word in statute should be treated as a certain surplusage or rendered ineffective or purposeless if Court is to carry out legislative intent fully and completely. Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92; Hamza Rasheed Khan v. Election Appellate Tribunal PLD 2024 SC 1028; M.Q.M. v. Pakistan PLD 2022 SC 439; Khurshid Industries v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2020 SC 641; Sindh Revenue Board v. Civil Aviation Authority 2017 SCMR 1344; LDA v. Imrana Tiwana 2015 SCMR 1739; Province of Sindh v. M.Q.M. PLD 2014 SC 531; Reference by the President of Pakistan PLD 2013 SC 279; Aamer Raza v. Minhaj Ahmad 2012 SCMR 6; Al-Raham Travels v. Ministry of Religious Affairs 2011 SCMR 1621; Arshad Mehmood v. Government of Punjab PLD 2005 SC 193; Pakistan Tobacco Company v. Govt. of N.W.F.P. PLD 2002 SC 460; Elahi Cotton Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1997 SC 582; Government of Balochistan v. Azizullah Memon PLD 1993 SC 341 and Peter W. Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada, (South Asian Edition-2017), Vol-I, 15.9(f) rel. (d) Jurisdiction--- ----Object, purpose and scope---Term jurisdiction in legal parlance refers to authority conferred upon Courts by law and the Constitution to adjudicate matters between parties---Jurisdiction of every Court is delineated and established to ensure adherence to law and issuance of legal orders---Transgressing or exceeding boundaries of its jurisdiction and authority annuls and invalidates judgments and orders. Mian Irfan Bashir v. Deputy Commissioner (D.C.), Lahore PLD 2021 SC 571 rel. (e) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 209(8)---Code of Conduct for Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts---Provision of Article 209(8) of the Constitution implies complete submission to the Constitution and under it to the law. (f) Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act (XVII of 2023)--- ----Ss. 2(1) & 2A---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 185(3) & 191A(4)---Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 221A(2)---Fixation of cases---Vires of law---Jurisdiction of Benches---Question for determination was with regard to fixation of Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal, challenging vires of section 221 A (2) of Customs Act, 1969---Petitions in question were inadvertently fixed before Regular Bench of Supreme Court---Constitutional Committee of Supreme Court withdrew the petition in question and fixed before Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court---Validity---Committee under section 2 of Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 is responsible for handling and fixing cases before Regular Benches of Supreme Court, other than those falling within Article 191A(3) of the Constitution---Committee under section 2A of Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 has been vested with jurisdiction to determine whether a case falls within Article 191A (3) of the Constitution, if it does, it should be heard by Constitutional Bench and if not, it may be referred to the Committee constituted under section 2 of Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 for fixation and disposal by another Bench of Supreme Court---Both Committees are provided for under the provisions of Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023---Second Committee is also protected under Article 191A(4) of the Constitution, a recognition not accorded to the First Committee---Supreme Court directed Registrar of Supreme Court that in order to provide effective administrative and sectoral support, he/she must take all reasonable precautions to prevent mistakes or oversight in case fixation---Supreme Court further directed that concerned branch/officials should be sensitized about the nitty-gritty of Article 191A of the Constitution so that they would not commit any such mistake or misadventure in future---Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court had rightly recalled orders passed by Regular Bench of Supreme Court as the same were without jurisdiction---On recalling such orders, the superstructure built thereon also collapsed and any proceedings taken, orders passed or actions made in pursuance of the orders in question had lost their status and effect. Sabir Shah v. Shad Muhammad Khan PLD 1995 SC 66; Fazlul Quader Chowdhry v. Abdul Haque PLD 1963 SC 486; Marbury v. Madison 5 US 137 [1803]; Secrest v. Galloway Co., 30 N.W. 2d 793, 797, 239 Iowa 168; Rupert Cross & J.W. Harris, Precedent in English Law 149 (4th ed. 1991); Black's Law Dictionary (Ninth Edition); C.C.K. Allen in Law in the Making (Page No. 246); Yousuf Ali v. Muhammad Aslam Zia PLD 1958 SC 104; Justice Qazi Faez Isa and others v. President of Pakistan PLD 2022 SC 119; Executive District Officer (Education), Rawalpindi v. Muhammad Younas 2007 SCMR 1835 and Rehmatullah v. Saleh Khan 2007 SCMR 729 rel. Mirza Nasar Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court, Muhammad Iqbal Raja, Advocate Supreme Court, Muhammad Khalil Dogar, Advocate Supreme Court and K. A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (via video link from Karachi). Mansoor Awan, A.G.P. On Court's Notice. Salahuddin Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court, Shahid Jameel Khan, Advocate Supreme Court, Imran Iqbal Khan, Advocate Supreme Court, Haider Waheed, Advocate Supreme Court, Rashid Anwer, Advocate Supreme Court, Ghulam Hyder Shaikh, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (via video link from Karachi). Date of hearing: 28th January, 2025.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Company Law – Section 126, Companies Act, 2017 – Rectification of Register of Members – Maintainability – Prerequisites – Transfer of shares – Disputed agreements – Factual controversy – Summary jurisdiction. Petitioners sought rectification of the register of members under Section 126(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 2017, alleging that respondents had sold their entire shareholding in a private company through various agreements. Petitioners claimed they were entitled to be recorded as shareholders but the company failed to update the register. The Court held that Section 126 is only invokable by a “member,” “shareholder,” or “debenture-holder,” and the petitioners failed to prove any of these statuses. No valid transfer deeds or share certificates were produced, and agreements on record did not fulfill statutory requirements under Sections 74–76 of the Act. Moreover, significant factual controversy regarding ownership of consideration properties and denial of authority by the company to enter into such sale agreements made the matter unsuitable for summary proceedings. (b) Corporate Governance – Share transfer procedure – Section 76, Companies Act, 2017 – Mandatory nature – Requirements of transfer deed and board approval – Applicability. The Court reiterated that under Section 76, a company cannot register transfer of shares unless a proper instrument of transfer, duly stamped and executed by both transferor and transferee, is submitted. No such document was furnished. Petitioners also failed to establish compliance with Section 77 (approval by Board) and Section 126 prerequisites. The mandatory nature of this process was underscored by previous judgments (PLD 1987 Lahore 1; 2015 CLD 1532; 2012 CLD 879). (c) Rectification of Register – Factual disputes – Scope of Company Judge’s jurisdiction – Summary nature – Alternate remedies. The Court emphasized that Section 126 provides a summary remedy and cannot be used to resolve intricate factual disputes involving ownership, fraud, and contract performance. Petitioners were advised to pursue remedies before civil courts and/or SECP. Precedents were cited (PLD 2024 SC 517; 2022 CLD 821; ICA No. 3/2005) affirming that in presence of disputed facts, company jurisdiction is ousted unless supported by unambiguous documentary proof. (d) Company law – Partnership agreement – No effect on shareholding – Distinction between company and its shareholders – SECP records – Evidentiary limitations. Petitioners relied on a partnership agreement and alleged land transfer, but none of these documents proved share transfer in the company. The Court held that partnership deeds do not result in transfer of corporate shares. Reports from SECP and Bahria Town confirmed that the petitioner’s name did not appear in relevant property transfers or shareholder records. Disposition: Petition dismissed. Petitioners held not to be shareholders, members, or debenture-holders. Requirements of Section 126(1)(b) not fulfilled. No rectification ordered.

Summary: Acquittal ----- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----Ss. 302(b), 364, 365 & 34; Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 374 & 544-A Conviction on circumstantial evidence---Legal standard---Principles applicable---Case built entirely on circumstantial evidence---Held, each incriminating circumstance must be established through reliable and clinching evidence and must form an unbroken chain leading only to the conclusion of guilt---In the present case, multiple gaps existed in the chain of evidence---Supreme Court precedent requires that in circumstantial cases, no link should be missing, and guilt must be proven beyond doubt---Prosecution's case based on last seen evidence, recovery, and extra-judicial confession of co-accused was disbelieved---Conviction and sentence of death set aside on benefit of doubt. Cited cases: PLD 2021 SC 600; 2015 SCMR 155; 2017 SCMR 986; 2021 SCMR 736 (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984----Art. 43 Confession of co-accused---Admissibility and evidentiary value---Confession made by co-accused (since acquitted) before private witnesses not relied upon by trial court and not proved during trial---Held, confession of co-accused cannot be considered as evidence against another accused unless proved and can at most be treated as circumstantial evidence---Confession unproved and thus inadmissible against appellant. Cited case: Khalid Javed v. The State 2003 SCMR 1419 (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984----Art. 40 Recovery during police custody---Admissibility of information leading to discovery---Pre-knowledge of fact---Held, recovery of pistol, motorcycle, and cash under Article 40 was inadmissible as the location of the crime and identity of the accused were already known to police---No new fact discovered through accused’s information---No corroborative value. Cited case: Hayatullah v. The State 2018 SCMR 2092 (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----S. 103 Illegal recovery---Violation of mandatory procedure---Recovery of articles without associating independent witnesses of locality---Held, recoveries made in violation of S. 103 Cr.P.C. are inadmissible---Evidence obtained in breach of statutory provisions is hit by exclusionary rule---Recovery from appellant disregarded. Cited case: Muhammad Ismail v. The State 2017 SCMR 898 (e) Evidence---Last seen theory---Principles and application Last seen together---Gap in time and space between last seen and recovery of dead body---Witnesses’ credibility---Held, prosecution failed to establish proximity in time and space between deceased and appellant---Testimonies of last seen witnesses found unreliable due to contradictions, improvements, and lack of corroboration from CCTV or other sources---Last seen evidence held weak and insufficient to support conviction. Cited cases: PLD 2018 SC 813; 2019 SCMR 1220; 2012 SCMR 419; 2018 SCMR 772; 2019 SCMR 631 (f) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984----Art. 151 Impeaching credibility---Material improvements and contradictions by prosecution witnesses---Witnesses confronted with previous statements under S. 161 Cr.P.C.---Held, witnesses made substantial improvements amounting to dishonesty, thus impeaching their own credit---Evidence disbelieved for lacking truthfulness and reliability. (g) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984----Medical evidence Scope and limitations---Held, medical evidence confirms nature and cause of death but cannot identify assailant---Cannot serve as corroborative evidence in circumstantial case---Insufficient to sustain conviction when other evidence is disbelieved. Cited cases: PLD 2021 SC 600; 2017 SCMR 986 (h) Criminal trial---Benefit of doubt---Right of accused Held, benefit of doubt arises not as concession but as a right---Even a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal---Prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt---Conviction and sentence set aside accordingly. Cited cases: Muhammad Mansha v. The State 2018 SCMR 772; Najaf Ali Shah v. The State 2021 SCMR 736; Imran alias Dully v. The State 2015 SCMR 155; Fiaz Ahmad v. The State 2017 SCMR 2026 Disposition: Criminal Appeal No. 447-J of 2023 allowed; conviction and sentence of appellant set aside. Murder Reference No. 18 of 2023 answered in the negative; death sentence not confirmed. Appellant acquitted by extending benefit of doubt.

Summary: (a) Appreciation of Evidence – Ocular Testimony – Related Witnesses – Reliability The prosecution’s case primarily rested on the eyewitness accounts of Muhammad Rawaid (PW-7) and injured witness Muhammad Arslan (PW-6), both close relatives of the deceased. The Court held that mere relationship is not a ground to discard testimony if the witnesses are otherwise trustworthy. Their presence at the scene was found to be natural and plausible, being Eid day and the incident occurring just outside the deceased’s home. The Court found their evidence consistent, natural, and forthright. Held: Eyewitnesses passed the test of credibility and their evidence was corroborated by medical and forensic evidence. Relied upon: Ijaz Ahmad v. The State (2009 SCMR 99); Ghulam Murtaza v. The State (2021 SCMR 149) (b) Prompt FIR – Exclusion of Deliberation The FIR was promptly registered within two hours of the incident, with no material delay in reporting. The complainant provided a detailed, spontaneous statement (Exh.PK) at the hospital, which was reduced into the FIR (Exh.PK/1) without signs of deliberation or fabrication. Held: Promptitude in lodging FIR lent further credence to the prosecution version. Relied upon: Muhammad Waris v. The State (2008 SCMR 784); Shaheen Ijaz v. The State (2021 SCMR 500) (c) Medical Evidence – Corroboration with Ocular Account Dr. Sahibzada Aziz Noor (PW-2) conducted the post-mortem and observed multiple firearm injuries on the deceased's vital parts. Dr. Shaheer Ashfaq (PW-5) confirmed firearm injury on the injured witness Muhammad Arslan. Both medical opinions supported the eyewitnesses’ version, including distance of firing and nature of injuries. Held: Medical evidence fully corroborated the ocular testimony. Relied upon: Khadim Hussain v. The State (PLD 2010 SC 669); Khadija Siddiqui v. Shah Hussain (PLD 2019 SC 261) (d) Motive – Failure to Prove – Mitigating Circumstance Prosecution alleged prior enmity as motive but failed to substantiate it with convincing evidence. The Court noted the absence of details or independent corroboration of motive. Held: Non-proof of motive was treated as a mitigating circumstance in sentencing. Relied upon: Mst. Nazia Anwar v. The State (2018 SCMR 911); Ahmad Nawaz v. The State (2011 SCMR 593) (e) Recovery – Non-compliance with Section 103 Cr.P.C. – Exclusionary Rule Recovery of pistols from both accused was not witnessed by any respectable inhabitant of the locality, violating Section 103 Cr.P.C. Held: Recovery proceedings were unreliable and excluded from consideration. Relied upon: Muhammad Ismail v. The State (2017 SCMR 898) (f) Conviction – Sentence Alteration – Benefit of Mitigation Muhammad Rafi was convicted under Section 302(b) PPC for Qatl-i-Amd and initially awarded the death penalty. Considering the non-proof of motive and unreliable recovery, the Court converted the death sentence to imprisonment for life. Held: Sentence of death altered to life imprisonment. Relied upon: Mir Muhammad v. The State (2009 SCMR 1188); Nawab Ali v. The State (2019 SCMR 2009) (g) Co-accused – Attempt to Murder – Sentence Modified Muhammad Shafique was convicted under Section 324 PPC and sentenced to five years RI. Given the nature of injury, his role, and time already served, the Court reduced his sentence to the period already undergone. Daman of Rs.30,000/- under Section 337-F(iii) PPC was upheld. Held: Sentence under Section 324 PPC reduced to time served; Daman maintained. Disposition: Murder Reference No. 49 of 2022: Answered in negative; death sentence not confirmed. Criminal Appeal No. 576 of 2022 (Muhammad Rafi): Dismissed with modification in sentence to life imprisonment. Criminal Appeal No. 518 of 2022 (Muhammad Shafique): Dismissed with modification; sentence reduced to time already undergone. Daman to be paid within six months or serve simple imprisonment.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 22-A & 22-B, 156(3) & 200---Registration of FIR---Jurisdiction of Justice of Peace---Civil dispute---Alternate remedies---Scope. The petitioner sought a writ against the order of the Justice of Peace, who dismissed his petition under Ss. 22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C. for the registration of an FIR regarding alleged fraud and criminal breach of trust by his brothers over a shop. The petitioner contended that his application disclosed a cognizable offense and that pendency of civil litigation did not bar criminal proceedings. The High Court held that when police refuse to register an FIR, the aggrieved party has multiple remedies, including approaching the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, a Magistrate under S. 156(3), Cr.P.C., or filing a direct complaint under S. 200, Cr.P.C. The petitioner had only availed the first remedy and failed to pursue the others before invoking writ jurisdiction, which was not warranted in the presence of adequate alternate remedies. The Court further held that the dispute between the parties was civil in nature, as multiple sale agreements existed between them and ongoing civil litigation was pending. It was reiterated that a direction for FIR cannot be issued where the dispute is essentially civil. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed with liberty for the petitioner to avail alternate remedies under the law. Cited Cases: • Syed Qamber Ali Shah v. Province of Sindh (2024 SCMR 1123) • Haji Sardar Khalid Saleem v. Muhammad Ashraf and others (2006 SCMR 1192) • Iftikhar Hussain and others v. The State (2004 SCMR 1185) • Arsalan Raza v. Justice of Peace and others (2024 P Cr. L J 351 Lahore) • Jamal Khan v. Secretary Home Department (2021 SCMR 468)

Summary: (a) Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015 – S. 70(13), S. 18, S. 39, S. 58: —Scope of appellate jurisdiction—Standard of review in anti-dumping cases—Finality of factual determinations by Commission and Appellate Tribunal The appellants, importers of Duplex Board, challenged the final determination of the National Tariff Commission (NTC) imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports from China, Indonesia, and South Korea. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding: Limited Scope of Review: Appeals under S. 70(13) are akin to second appeals under S. 100 CPC and are limited to questions of law. The Court cannot reappraise evidence or disturb concurrent factual findings. Finality of Commission's Determination: The Commission’s factual conclusions regarding dumping, injury, and causation were reached through a detailed investigation, satisfying the procedural requirements of the Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015. Timeliness of Final Determination: The Commission issued its final determination within the prescribed period under S. 39 and S. 58 of the Act. Held, appeal dismissed; concurrent findings of the Commission and Appellate Tribunal upheld. (b) Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015 – S. 18(1), (2), (3): —Causal link between dumping and injury—Non-attribution analysis—Rejection of alternative explanations for injury The appellants argued that factors such as gas shortages, power outages, and production inefficiencies, rather than dumping, caused injury to the domestic industry. The High Court rejected this contention, holding: Attribution and Non-Attribution Analysis: Under S. 18, the Commission conducted a proper examination of causal factors. Market Conditions Considered: The Commission determined that there was no contraction in demand, no significant technological changes, and no other trade restrictions affecting domestic sales. Reliance on WTO Jurisprudence: The Commission’s approach was consistent with international anti-dumping standards, including the WTO’s interpretation in European Union – Anti-Dumping Measures on Biodiesel from Argentina (WT/DS 473/R). Held, injury to domestic industry was properly linked to dumped imports; alternative explanations for injury rejected. (c) Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015 – S. 2(d) (Definition of "Domestic Industry"): —Status of complainant as a domestic industry—Effect of related-party imports on eligibility to file complaint The appellants contended that Century Paper & Board Mills, the complainant in the anti-dumping case, was related to an importer (Merit Packaging) and thus did not qualify as a "domestic industry." The High Court rejected this argument, holding: Insignificant Import Volume: Merit Packaging’s imports amounted to only 0.5% of total imports, which did not affect Century Paper’s standing as a domestic producer. Lack of Controlling Relationship: Mere common directorship between Century Paper and Merit Packaging did not establish control, as both companies operated independently. Commission’s Proper Application of Law: The Commission correctly applied the Explanation to S. 2(d) and found that Century Paper remained a legitimate domestic producer eligible to file an anti-dumping complaint. Held, complainant’s status as a domestic industry upheld; related-party import argument rejected. (d) Procedural Validity of Anti-Dumping Investigation – S. 20, S. 24, S. 27, S. 29, S. 37, S. 39: —Sufficiency of evidence for initiation of investigation—Timely conclusion of proceedings—Compliance with statutory requirements The appellants argued that the Commission failed to meet procedural requirements for initiating and concluding the investigation. The Court held: Proper Initiation of Investigation: The application by Century Paper met the threshold under S. 20 and S. 24, with sufficient industry support. Timely Preliminary and Final Determinations: The Commission complied with S. 29 by concluding the investigation within 18 months and issuing determinations within the statutory timeframes. Adequate Notice and Public Participation: The investigation process provided notice to all stakeholders and allowed them to participate, in line with S. 27, S. 37, and S. 39. Held, procedural compliance established; no legal basis to invalidate anti-dumping duties. ----Disposition: Appeal dismissed. Anti-dumping duties upheld. The findings of the National Tariff Commission and Appellate Tribunal affirmed.