Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 337F(v), 148 & 149---Attempt to qatl-e-amd, ghayr-jaifah hashimah and rioting armed with deadly weapons---Pre-arrest bail, refusal of---False implication---Proof---Ocular account supported by medical evidence---Accused was alleged to have caused fire arm injury to injured prosecution witness---Material available on record connected accused with commission of offence---Person of accused was required for the purpose of further investigation and lead for recovery---False implication was not spurred out from the record---Concession of pre-arrest bail was an extra ordinary relief, which was meant only for innocent persons, where intended arrest of accused was found to be actuated with malafide on the part of complainant or police---There was no malice or ulterior motive on the part of complainant / police to falsely implicate present accused, who was not entitled to the extra ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail---Pre-arrest bail petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Gulshan Ali Solangi and others v. The State through P.G. Sindh 2020 SCMR 249 and Ahtisham Ali v. The State 2023 SCMR 975 rel. Muhammad Ikram Shaukat for Petitioner. Rana Muhammad Imran Anjum, Deputy Prosecutor General with Zaheer, SI for the State. Qazi Misbah-ul-Hassan for the Complainant. Order Muhammad Amjad Rafiq, J .--- Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR bearing No.552 dated 27.09.2024 registered under sections 324/148/149-P.P.C. at Police Station Niddokay, District Narowal. 2. Heard. Record perused. 3. Petitioner was nominated in the FIR under the allegation that he caused injury with pistol at left ankle of Arshad Ali, injured/father of the complainant. Injured underwent medico-legal examination within 02 hours of the occurrence wherein the doctor has observed two injuries i.e. injury No.01 an oval shaped lacerated wound 0.3x 0.2cm with inverted margin at medial side of left ankle and injury No.02 a lacerated oval shaped wound with everted margin 1x0.8cm at anterior of left ankle and the doctor has also observed duration of injuries as two hours which is in consonance with the prosecution story. Both the injuries were declared attracting an offence under section 337F(v) P.P.C.. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner raised plea of alibi but his defence perspective has not been thrashed, therefore, he has filed an application before District Police Officer for first change of investigation which is still pending. So far material available on record connects the petitioner with the commission of offence, therefore, his person is required for the purpose of further investigation and lead for the recovery. False implication is not spurred out from the record. The concession of pre-arrest bail is an extra ordinary relief, which is meant only for innocent persons where the intended arrest of an accused is found to be actuated with mala fide on part of the complainant or the police. I have not seen any malice or ulterior motive on part of the complainant/police to falsely implicate the petitioner, therefore, he is not entitled to the extra-ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail as claimed for. Reliance is placed on cases reported as "Gulshan Ali Solangi and others v. The State through P.G. Sindh" (2020 SCMR 249). In this respect, reliance is further placed in case reported as "Ahtisham Ali v. The State" (2023 SCMR 975), it has been held that:- "It is well settled exposition of law that the grant of pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief which may be granted in extraordinary situations to protect the liberty of innocent persons in cases lodged with, mala fide intention to harass the person with ulterior motives. By all means, while applying for pre-arrest bail, the petitioner has to satisfy, the Court with regard to the basic conditions quantified under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 ("Cr.P.C") vis-a-vis the existence of reasonable grounds to confide that he is not guilty of the offence alleged against him and the case is one of further inquiry." 4. In view of the above, the instant petition stands dismissed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is hereby recalled. MH/M-18/L Petition dismissed.

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 26.04.2017 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in ITR No. 13 of 2015). Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)--- ----S.161---Income Tax Rules, 2022, R. 43---Withholding tax, non-deduction of---Show cause notice---Fishing inquiry, principle of---Applicability---Appellant/taxpayer was aggrieved of show cause notice issued by authorities to initiate proceedings for not deducting withholding tax---Validity---If a taxpayer fails to collect or deduct tax from payments made during a tax year, such inaction is deemed as a default under section 161 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Point that sets into motion the machinery of section 161 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 to determine tax liability is the failure to either collect tax or deduct it---Show-cause notice highlighted discrepancies in valuation of imports and specified categories under which tax was applicable---This indicated that there was careful consideration of any failures to deduct tax, along with an assessment of underlying bases and amounts involved, therefore, the notice was not simply a fishing expedition---Supreme Court declined to interfere in the judgment passed by High Court as demand created against appellant/taxpayer was well-founded---Appeal was dismissed. Commissioner Inland Revenue Zone-I, LTU v. MCB Bank Limited 2021 SCMR 1325 and Messrs. Bilz (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Multan and another 2002 PTD 1 = PLD 2002 SC 353 ref. Ch. Mumtaz ul Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant (via video link from Branch Registry Lahore). Ahmad Pervaiz, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (via video link from Branch Registry Lahore). Date of hearing: 14th January, 2025.

Summary: (a) Ehtesab Bureau—Appointment of Chairman; constitutional and institutional safeguards ----Azad Jammu & Kashmir Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001 (EBA), S. 6 (as amended 2020); Public Offices—Independence and integrity of anti-corruption institutions—Interpretation of eligibility, suitability and appointment procedure. Resignation of the impugned appointee rendered appeal infructuous, yet Supreme Court examined principles for future appointments to preserve institutional integrity of Ehtesab Bureau—Held, Ehtesab Bureau performs pivotal role in eradicating corruption and ensuring accountability; its Chairman is the cornerstone of the Bureau’s functional and moral authority—Position demands unimpeachable integrity, impartiality, competence, and independence—Integrity is not an accessory but an intrinsic element of qualification—Possession of technical eligibility (e.g., being qualified as Judge or senior civil servant) alone is insufficient without proven honesty and character—Appointment process under current S.6 vests discretion solely in the executive, lacking transparency and bipartisan consultation, hence prone to politicization and conflict of interest—Recommended legislative reforms to align selection process with standards under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, ensuring bipartisan consultation (Prime Minister and Leader of Opposition), independent parliamentary committee oversight, fixed tenure, and secure removal procedure through judicial inquiry—Government directed not to make further appointments of Chairman Ehtesab Bureau until suitable amendments are enacted. (b) Administrative law—Integrity as part of qualification; scope of suitability ----Principles of good governance—Eligibility versus suitability—Integrity, honesty, character, merit, and efficiency deemed integral to qualification for high public offices; mere possession of formal criteria not sufficient—Relied on: Mrs. Shaheen Ashai v. Muhammad Anwar Chaudhary (2014 SCR 1169); Syed Mumtaz Hussain Naqvi v. Raja Muhammad Farooq Haider Khan (2014 SCR 43); Muhammad Yasin v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2012 SC 132); Tariq Aziz-ud-Din (2010 SCMR 1301); Centre for PIL v. Union of India (AIR 2011 SC 1267)—Courts emphasized that institutions enforcing accountability or regulating merit must be led by persons of unquestionable integrity; suitability evaluation must extend beyond academic or technical fitness to moral and ethical probity. (c) Comparative framework—Pakistan NAB model and AJ&K Ehtesab Bureau ----S.6 of EBA contrasted with S.6 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999— NAB appointment procedure entails consultation between Leader of the House and Leader of the Opposition and, failing consensus, reference to a bipartisan parliamentary committee ensuring transparency and balance—EBA confers unilateral discretion on Prime Minister’s advice to President—Supreme Court observed that concentration of appointment power in one political executive defeats the very object of accountability and raises issues of conflict of interest—Recommended replication of NAB’s consultative and bipartisan safeguards in AJ&K framework. (d) Perks and privileges—Equivalence to Judge High Court; impermissibility ----Administrative practice; 2016 SCR 206 followed. Grant of pay and privileges equivalent to a High Court Judge to Chairman Ehtesab Bureau held contrary to the spirit of the Constitution—Such parity permissible only for constitutional/judicial offices performing identical functions—Government may devise appropriate package but must refrain from labeling it “perks and privileges equal to Judge High Court.” (e) Public accountability and reform directives ----Governance and institutional independence—Court noted public perception of misuse of Bureau for political ends; urged Government to reform law to ensure apolitical appointments, security of tenure, transparent selection, and rationalization of law-officer cadre to reduce fiscal burden—Cited Azad Govt v. Sardar Muhammad Mukhtar Khan (2016 SCR 206) and Ehtesab Bureau v. Abid Hussain (2015 SCR 408). Disposition: Appeal disposed of in view of respondent’s resignation; observations issued in public interest. Government directed not to appoint any new Chairman Ehtesab Bureau until suitable statutory amendments ensuring transparent, merit-based, and bipartisan process are enacted. Perks and privileges equal to Judge High Court declared impermissible. No order as to costs.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Acquittal ---- (a) Criminal Trial – Ocular Testimony – Chance Witnesses – Failure to Prove Presence Where eyewitnesses were relatives of the deceased and termed as "chance witnesses", it was incumbent upon them to justify their presence at the place of occurrence with credible and consistent evidence. Their claim of being present to collect a receipt and playing cards in a contractor's office was unsubstantiated and unsupported by the shop owner or physical evidence. Contradictions in distances and unexplained absences of supporting witnesses (e.g., Shahzad alias Shadi, Ch. Naeem) further eroded credibility. Held, that the failure of prosecution witnesses to establish their lawful presence at the crime scene rendered their evidence unreliable. [PLD 2015 SC 77; 2015 SCMR 137; 2014 SCMR 1698 followed] (b) Delay in Post-Mortem – Effect Although the incident occurred at 11:00 p.m., the post-mortem was conducted at 5:00 a.m. the next morning. Despite the short distance to the hospital, the unexplained delay in transporting the body and submitting police papers suggested post-occurrence deliberation and fabrication of the prosecution's version. [PLD 2019 SC 64; 2017 SCMR 1155; 2019 SCMR 956 relied upon] (c) Recovery Evidence – Non-Association of Independent Witnesses – Section 103 Cr.P.C. The recovery of weapons and car from the accused lacked corroboration by independent witnesses, in violation of Section 103 Cr.P.C. Prosecution relied only on related witnesses (complainant and another). Such recoveries, made in procedural irregularity, were held inadmissible and devoid of evidentiary value. [2017 SCMR 898 cited] (d) Forensic Chain of Custody – Break in Link – Unexplained Contradictions Contradictory statements regarding whether crime scene evidence (empty shells) was sent to PFSA Lahore or its Gujranwala Collection Center rendered the forensic evidence unreliable. The safe custody and secure transmission of such material was not established. [SCMR 1068 relied upon] (e) Motive – Failure to Substantiate – Lack of Independent Support The alleged motive of illicit relations between the deceased and a co-accused's daughter was vague and unsupported. Prosecution witnesses could not even name the woman involved, nor was any confrontation or credible evidence placed on record. [2016 SCMR 2021 followed] (f) Acquittal – Appeal Against – Standard of Interference Appeal against acquittal of co-accused was dismissed as the trial court’s findings were supported by plausible reasoning. No perversity, misreading, or gross miscarriage of justice was demonstrated. [PLD 1985 SC 11; 2015 SCMR 1142 applied] (g) Benefit of Doubt – Principle Reiterated Once ocular account is disbelieved and supporting evidence (recovery, motive, forensic) is discredited, conviction cannot be sustained. Even a single reasonable doubt entitles accused to acquittal as a matter of right, not concession. [2018 SCMR 772; 2021 SCMR 736 followed] Disposition: Criminal Appeal No. 840-J/2023 allowed. Convictions and death sentences of Tahir Mahmood alias Tahiri and Tasaddaq Hussain set aside. Accused acquitted by extending benefit of doubt. Murder Reference No. 46/2023 answered in negative; death sentences not confirmed. Criminal Appeal No. 640/2023 (filed by complainant against acquittal of co-accused) dismissed.

Summary: Acquittal granted ----- (a) Criminal Law – Burden of Proof – Benefit of Doubt---Criminal jurisprudence—Prosecution’s duty to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt—Appellant convicted for terrorism-related offenses, including murder, under Sections 120-B, 302, 324, 435, and 436 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860—Trial Court and High Court convicted and sentenced appellant to death—Prosecution’s case hinged on circumstantial and testimonial evidence—Held, prosecution failed to establish guilt through unimpeachable, trustworthy, and confidence-inspiring evidence—Where a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to acquittal as of right, not as a matter of concession—Reliance placed on Ayub Masih v. The State (PLD 2002 SC 1948), Muhammad Nawaz v. The State (2024 SCMR 1731), Khial Muhammad v. The State (2024 SCMR 1490), Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345).(b) Terrorism Offenses – Unproven Terrorist Affiliation---Anti-Terrorism laws—Prosecution’s failure to establish appellant’s affiliation with a terrorist group—No evidence presented to prove that appellant was a member of a proscribed organization or had a terrorist motive—Explosives allegedly recovered from a location in Akora Khattak were not conclusively linked to appellant—Held, mere allegations of terrorism without substantive evidence are insufficient for conviction—Reliance placed on Muhammad Zaman v. The State (2014 SCMR 749).(c) Forensic Evidence – Unreliable Explosive Analysis---Evidentiary standards—Explosive analysis and forensic examination—Whether District Civil Defence report on explosive materials was reliable—Prosecution failed to send the alleged suicide jacket and grenades for analysis to a recognized forensic laboratory—No evidence on record to establish that District Civil Defence, Rawalpindi, had the expertise or facilities to conclusively examine explosives—Held, forensic evidence must be conducted by a legally recognized forensic institution to be admissible—Reliance placed on Abdul Qadeer v. The State (2024 SCMR 1146).(d) Contradictions in Prosecution’s Case – Witness Testimony---Inconsistencies in the prosecution's narrative—Appellant allegedly apprehended at the crime scene wearing a live suicide jacket and holding a hand grenade—Prosecution witnesses failed to explain how the jacket was removed and defused in the absence of trained personnel—No documentary proof provided to confirm that prosecution witnesses were on duty at the crime scene—Testimonies of key witnesses were contradictory regarding the crime report's registration, timing, and sequence of events—Held, inconsistencies in testimony raise serious doubts regarding the veracity of the prosecution’s claims—Reliance placed on Muhammad Nawaz v. The State (2024 SCMR 1731).(e) Failure to Establish Appellant’s Role in Terror Attack---Circumstantial evidence—Appellant allegedly apprehended after two suicide bombers detonated explosives, killing 69 people—Prosecution failed to prove that appellant attempted to detonate explosives or posed an imminent threat—Crime scene dynamics suggested that immediate apprehension of an individual wearing an explosive vest, without sustaining injuries, was improbable—Held, mere presence at the crime scene does not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt—Reliance placed on Khial Muhammad v. The State (2024 SCMR 1490).Disposition:Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 2021 allowed – Conviction set aside.Death sentence not confirmed – Appellant acquitted of all charges.Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Benefit of doubt extended to appellant as of right.

Summary: (a) Income Tax—Withholding Tax & Default Under Section 161: ----Income Tax Ordinance, 2000, Ss. 161, 205, 153(7), 158 & Rule 43 of the Income Tax Rules, 2022 Withholding tax obligations—Failure to deduct tax—Legal consequences—Taxpayer, categorized as a “prescribed person” under section 153(7) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2000, was required to deduct withholding tax when making payments—Tax authorities initiated proceedings under sections 161 and 205 on the ground that tax was not deducted on various expenditures—Held, taxpayer is obligated to fully disclose all payments made throughout the tax year in statements electronically filed under section 161—Failure to deduct tax amounts to a default unless justified under an exemption certificate or a legal provision—Notice issued by tax authorities was valid as it specified suppliers, transactions, and discrepancies—Reliance placed on Commissioner Inland Revenue v. MCB Bank (2021 SCMR 1325) and Messrs. Bilz (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Multan (2002 PTD 1 = PLD 2002 SC 353). (b) Burden of Proof—Duty of the Taxpayer in Withholding Tax Cases: ----In cases of alleged withholding tax default, once tax authorities establish that payments were made on which tax deduction was mandatory, the burden shifts to the taxpayer to prove compliance—Taxpayer must provide a detailed explanation for non-deduction, supported by legally valid reasons—Failure to justify the omission results in default under section 161—Tribunal erred in requiring tax authorities to specify each recipient—Reliance placed on MCB Bank case (2021 SCMR 1325). (c) Validity of Notice Under Section 161—Objective Standards: ----Tax authorities must have objective reasons or credible information before issuing a notice under section 161—A fishing inquiry is impermissible—However, in the present case, the notice provided specific details of transactions, discrepancies, and applicable tax categories, meeting the threshold for objectivity—Only after this threshold is met can the burden shift to the taxpayer—Reliance placed on MCB Bank case (2021 SCMR 1325). ----Disposition: Appeal dismissed—Tribunal’s decision set aside—Taxpayer held in default for failing to deduct withholding tax—Demand created by tax authorities upheld.

Summary: Anti-Corruption Establishment cannot investigate the officers of Cooperative Societies (a) National Accountability (Amendment) Acts, 2022, 2023 – Transfer of NAB Cases – Jurisdiction of Registrar, Cooperative Societies: The National Accountability (Amendment) Acts, 2022 and 2023, read with the Supreme Court's judgment in Petition No. 2/23 (dated 06.09.2024), empowered the NAB Court to determine the appropriate forum for transferring cases falling outside its jurisdiction. In the present case, the NAB Court, through its order dated 09.10.2024, referred the matter to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Lahore, instead of the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Court. The Registrar, however, transferred the case to the Anti-Corruption Establishment, which was contrary to the NAB Court’s direction and beyond his legal authority. (b) Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 – Inquiry and Penalty Mechanism under Sections 43, 44, 44A-E – Powers of the Registrar: Under Sections 43 and 44 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 (CSA 1925), the Registrar is empowered to conduct inquiries into cooperative societies' affairs, inspect records, and take measures including seizure of assets, freezing of bank accounts, and restraining property transactions. Furthermore, Section 61 authorizes the Registrar or a duly authorized person to impose penalties for offences under the Act, with fines ranging from one million rupees (for individuals) to ten million rupees (for societies), except where specific punishments are prescribed. (c) Penal Offences under Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 – Exclusive Jurisdiction of Magistrate First Class: The offences under CSA 1925, including fraudulent or corrupt practices by a society’s member (Section 60(e)), are subject to penalties imposed by the Registrar and do not require prosecution in court. However, offences under Section 60(i) (failure to provide information) and Section 62A (contravention of orders under Section 44C or 44E) are punishable with imprisonment and fines. Under Section 63, cognizance of these offences can only be taken on a written complaint by the Registrar before a competent court. In the absence of a special court provision in CSA 1925, Section 29 of Cr.P.C., 1898 applies, directing that such cases fall within the jurisdiction of a Magistrate First Class. (d) Jurisdiction of Anti-Corruption Establishment – Applicability of West Pakistan Anti-Corruption: Ordinance, 1961 & Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1958 The Anti-Corruption Establishment (ACE), Punjab, established under the West Pakistan Anti-Corruption Establishment Ordinance, 1961, investigates offences listed in its Schedule, which primarily concern government employees in the pay of the government. Officers of cooperative societies, although deemed public servants under Section 65B of CSA 1925, are not subject to ACE jurisdiction for offences under CSA 1925. Prosecution for such offences is governed by CSA 1925 itself. (e) Distinction between ‘Penalty’ and ‘Punishment’ – Role of Special Judge under Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1958: A clear distinction exists between ‘penalty,’ which is imposed administratively by the Registrar under CSA 1925, and ‘punishment,’ which requires judicial prosecution. The Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1958 governs the trial of government employees and scheduled offences before the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, but offences under CSA 1925 are not part of this schedule. Therefore, ACE lacked jurisdiction to investigate the case at hand. (f) High Court’s Decision – Nullification of Reference to Anti-Corruption Establishment: The Lahore High Court held that the Registrar had no authority to refer the matter to the Anti-Corruption Establishment, as it contradicted the NAB Court’s directive. Since CSA 1925 provides a distinct statutory mechanism for handling cooperative society-related offences, the impugned reference was set aside. The Registrar was directed to comply with the NAB Court’s order by proceeding under CSA 1925’s provisions, either by imposing penalties or filing a complaint before the Magistrate. ----Disposition: Writ Petition Partly Allowed. Reference to Anti-Corruption Establishment set aside. Registrar directed to proceed in accordance with NAB Court’s order under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan— ----Arts. 9, 14, 25 & 38(d)—Fundamental rights—Right to medical treatment—Advocates’ entitlement to free medical treatment in government hospitals—Scope—Petitioner, a practicing Advocate, sought directions for the provision of free medical treatment to lawyers enrolled with the Punjab Bar Council and practicing in Punjab—Claimed violation of fundamental rights under Articles 9 (right to life), 14 (dignity of man), 25 (equality before law), and 38(d) (state's responsibility to provide basic necessities including medical relief)—Government of Punjab had already issued Notification No. SO(H&D)7-1/2018-(MISC), dated 21.05.2018, ensuring free medical treatment to practicing Advocates and their dependents upon presentation of a Punjab Bar Council membership card—The Court held that healthcare access for lawyers was a fundamental right and directed strict compliance with the notification across District Headquarters (DHQs), Tehsil Headquarters (THQs), and Rural Health Centers (RHCs)—Advocates on the Panel of Advocates of Government departments to receive medical benefits at par with BPS-17 and BPS-18 officers—Petition disposed of with directions for enforcement of the notification. ----Cited Cases: • Muhammad Ahmad Pansota v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2020 Lahore 229) • Suo Motu Case No. 13 of 2009 (PLD 2011 SC 619) • Haroon Farooq v. Government of Punjab (2023 CLC 1) (b) Lawyers Welfare and Protection Act, 2023— ----S. 11—Provision of health facilities—Legal status of Advocates—Scope—Court held that Advocates are officers of the Court and integral to the administration of justice—Lawyers Welfare and Protection Act, 2023, guarantees healthcare benefits to Advocates, their spouses, and dependent children at par with gazetted government officers—Government bound to issue notifications ensuring enforcement of the Act—Court reinforced that healthcare entitlements for Advocates were not discretionary but a legal obligation under the 2023 Act and constitutional guarantees. (c) Administrative law—Doctrine of Sovereignty— ----Government notifications—Binding effect—Doctrine of Sovereignty mandates compliance with state-issued policies—Once a notification is issued, all subordinate institutions are legally bound to enforce it—Government institutions, including hospitals, must ensure compliance with Notification No. SO(H&D)7-1/2018-(MISC)—Reliance placed on Mst. Fatima Faryad v. Government of Punjab (2020 CLC 836) and Dewan Salman Fibber Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (2015 PTD 2304), affirming that official commitments must be honored in letter and spirit—Held, failure to implement the notification would amount to dereliction of duty by government authorities. ----Disposition: Petition disposed of with directions—All government hospitals bound to implement Notification No. SO(H&D)7-1/2018-(MISC) ensuring free medical treatment for Advocates and their dependents.

Summary: (a) Family Courts Act, 1964 ----Ss. 9(6) & 10(5)----Ex parte decree----Withdrawal of application for setting aside ex parte decree----Effect----Scope----Petitioner filed an application under S. 9(6) of the Family Courts Act, 1964 for setting aside an ex parte decree but subsequently withdrew the same, thereby acquiescing to the decree and waiving his right to further challenge it----Filing of a subsequent application for recalling the withdrawal order on the ground that no such instructions were given to counsel was dismissed, as the petitioner’s counsel was duly engaged under O. III, R. 1, C.P.C., 1908, and his acts were binding upon the petitioner----High Court and Supreme Court held that an engaged counsel has the authority to make statements, compromise, or withdraw suits, unless explicitly restricted in the Wakalatnama----Principle of estoppel applied against the petitioner, barring him from retracting the withdrawal. Cited Cases: • Fateh Khan v. Manzoor PLD 1993 Lahore 76 • Noor Muhammad v. Muhammad Siddique 1994 SCMR 1248 • Hassan Akhtar v. Azhar Hameed PLD 2010 SC 657 • Afzal v. Abdul Ghani 2005 SCMR 946 (b) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ----O. III, R. 1----Authority of counsel----Binding nature of counsel's statements and actions----Scope----A party is bound by the actions and statements of its engaged counsel unless the Wakalatnama explicitly restricts such authority----Withdrawal of an application by counsel was valid and binding upon the petitioner, as engagement under O. III, R. 1, C.P.C. functions as a delegated power akin to a principal-agent relationship----Supreme Court reiterated that a duly appointed counsel’s decision to withdraw, compromise, or take any procedural steps is enforceable against the client, barring any specific limitations placed in the power of attorney. Cited Cases: • Fateh Khan v. Manzoor PLD 1993 Lahore 76 • Noor Muhammad v. Muhammad Siddique 1994 SCMR 1248 • Hassan Akhtar v. Azhar Hameed PLD 2010 SC 657 (c) Estoppel----Waiver of rights----Principle of finality of litigation----Scope ----Petitioner’s attempt to recall the withdrawal of his application for setting aside the ex parte decree was barred by the principle of estoppel----Having withdrawn the application once, petitioner could not later claim he had no intention of doing so, as such an act constituted waiver of the right to challenge the decree----Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, affirming that subsequent attempts to retract procedural decisions taken by counsel could not be entertained. (d) Appeal----Appellate Court’s review of trial court’s findings----Concurrence with judgment----Scope ----Appellate Court reviewed and upheld the trial court’s decree as being in accordance with pleadings, evidence, and law----Supreme Court found no illegality or jurisdictional error in the decisions of the lower courts----Petition dismissed, leave to appeal refused. Disposition: Petition dismissed. Leave to appeal refused.