Summary: (a) Customs Law – Jurisdiction of Directorate General Intelligence & Investigation (DG I&I) – Authority to Seize Goods ----DG I&I is not empowered to seize goods on the basis of non-application of a valuation ruling or alleged short payment of customs duties, sales tax, or income tax----Jurisdiction of DG I&I is limited to preventing smuggling and detaining goods liable to confiscation under Sections 15 and 16 of the Customs Act, 1969----Misdeclaration related to valuation or intended use does not, by itself, render goods liable to seizure under Section 168 of the Customs Act. Cited Cases: M/s Meerab Enterprises vs. Federation of Pakistan (2021 PTD 1764) Saadat Khan vs. Federation of Pakistan (2014 PTD 1615) Shahzad Ahmed Corporation vs. Federation of Pakistan (2005 PTD 23) (b) Customs Valuation – Application of Valuation Ruling – Section 32 of the Customs Act ----Non-application of a valuation ruling issued under Sections 25 and 25A of the Customs Act does not amount to misdeclaration under Section 32----Valuation rulings are valid for a limited period (90 days), and reliance on outdated rulings for assessing duty and taxes is unlawful----No penal proceedings can be initiated under Section 32(1) solely based on non-application of a valuation ruling. Cited Cases: S.T. Enterprises vs. Federation of Pakistan (PTCL 2009 CL 330) Sadia Jabbar vs. Federation of Pakistan (2018 PTD 1746) Messrs Ayesha Impex vs. Federation of Pakistan (2012 PTD 1) (c) Customs Adjudication – Confiscation of Goods – Requirement of Conviction ----Customs officials, including the Additional Collector (Adjudication), cannot order confiscation of goods under Section 180 read with Section 32(1) of the Customs Act without a prior conviction by a Special Judge under Section 185----Confiscation is a penalty and cannot be imposed through executive action without due process and judicial determination. Cited Cases: Muhammad Yasin vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2012 SC 132) Muhammad Ashraf Tiwana vs. Pakistan (2013 SCMR 1159) (d) Assessment of Sales Tax and Income Tax by Customs Authorities – Lack of Jurisdiction ----Customs authorities are not empowered to assess or recover alleged short levies of sales tax or income tax under Section 179(1) read with Section 32(2) of the Customs Act once goods have been cleared and are out of charge----Such assessments fall exclusively within the domain of the Inland Revenue authorities under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and the Sales Tax Act, 1990. Cited Cases: Gulistan Textile Mills Ltd. vs. Federation of Pakistan (2019 PTD 353) Nestle Pakistan Ltd. vs. Federal Board of Revenue (2023 PTD 527) (e) DG I&I’s Role as an Intelligence Agency – Limited Authority in Post-Clearance Cases ----DG I&I’s functions are limited to intelligence gathering and targeted anti-smuggling operations----It does not have the authority to conduct post-clearance audits or reassessments once customs duties and taxes have been assessed and goods have been released. Cited Cases: Shahzad Ahmed Corporation vs. Federation of Pakistan (2005 PTD 23) Saadat Khan vs. Federation of Pakistan (2014 PTD 1615) Disposition: Petition allowed. The impugned seizure report, recovery notice, and show cause notice were declared void ab initio. The security deposited for the release of goods was ordered to be refunded immediately.

Summary: (a) Islamic Law – Gifts (Hiba) ---Principles of valid gift---Essential conditions---Scope---Under Islamic law, a valid gift (Hiba) requires (i) a clear and unequivocal declaration by the donor, (ii) acceptance by the donee, and (iii) delivery of possession. In the present case, the donor made a valid oral gift in favor of the donee (his wife), later confirmed through a registered deed. The court observed that when the donor and donee reside together in the gifted property, physical departure by the donor is not mandatory; an overt act indicating the intention to divest control suffices. The principle was affirmed in Abid Hussain v. Muhammad Yousaf [PLD 2022 SC 395] and Riaz Ullah Khan v. Asghar Ali [2004 SCMR 1701]. (b) Property Rights ---Challenge to a gift by legal heirs---Spes successionis (expectation of inheritance)---Scope---The petitioner (legal heir) lacked standing to challenge the validity of the gift made by the deceased donor during his lifetime. As observed in Abrar Ahmed v. Irshad Ahmed [PLD 2014 SC 331], presumptive heirs have no rights over the property until the donor’s death, and acts of the donor during his lifetime bind the heirs. (c) Civil Procedure – Constitutional Jurisdiction ---Scope of constitutional petition---Judicial independence---A constitutional petition challenging the decision of a trial court and seeking inquiry against a judge is unwarranted where alternative legal remedies are available. Constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass the statutory framework or appellate processes. The High Court rightly dismissed the petition, as dissatisfaction with a judicial decision does not justify invoking extraordinary jurisdiction. (d) Judicial Procedure ---Concurrent findings of lower courts---Scope of interference---The courts below unanimously found the gift to be valid based on evidence of the declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession. The Supreme Court reiterated that it does not interfere with concurrent findings unless they are perverse, arbitrary, or capricious, which was not the case here. ------ Disposition: Both petitions dismissed as meritless. Impugned judgment dated 06.04.2021 and impugned order dated 17.08.2023 upheld.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908): ----O. I, R. 10---Proper and necessary party---Liberal exercise of discretion---Petitioner challenged the impleading of respondent No.1 in the suit, contending that the respondent had no claim or interest in the suit property as it was only adjacent to the respondent’s land---Trial Court and High Court, after detailed examination, found respondent No.1 to be a proper and necessary party, as the outcome of the suit could potentially affect the respondent’s rights regarding adjacent property---Held, it is a settled principle of law that courts, while dealing with applications under O. I, R. 10 CPC, should exercise discretion liberally, ensuring effective adjudication and protection of all parties' rights likely to be affected by the proceedings---Petitioner’s claim lacked merit, as proper appreciation of facts revealed respondent’s legitimate interest in the matter. ----Cited Cases: • 2014 SCMR 531 (Syntron Limited v. Huma Ijaz and others) • 2023 SCMR 755 (Province of the Punjab through Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Rawalpindi v. Muhammad Akram and others) • 2011 SCMR 1591 (Muhammad Arif and others v. District & Sessions Judge, Sialkot and others) • 2013 SCMR 602 (Vidur Impex and Traders (Pvt.) Ltd. and others v. Tosh Apartments (Pvt) Ltd. & others) [Supreme Court of India] ----Disposition: Petition dismissed, and leave to appeal refused. Judgment of the High Court upholding the Trial Court’s order was maintained.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Civil Procedure Act (V of 1908)--- ----O. VI, Rr. 14, 15, 17 & O. XXIX, R. 1---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42, 54 & 55---Suit for declaration along with perpetual and mandatory injunction---Amendment in the pleadings---Scope---Improper signing/subscription and verification of written statement---Unauthorized concessional statement by the counsel---Cancellation of allotment of houses owing to non-deposit of remaining sale consideration---Suit instituted by the petitioners was decreed, but the appellate court partially allowed the appeal of the respondents while remanding the matter to the Trial Court for decision afresh after obtaining fresh written statement---Validity---Corporate body / Respondent (which was a public sector organization) was allowed to at least present their proper stance before the Trial Court through duly instituted proceedings and file written statements in accordance with O. VI, Rr. 14 and 15 , C.P.C.---Appeal being continuation of proceedings the appellate stage was a proper stage for allowing curing of defect in the proceedings---Nothing on factual side was removed from written statement, however, only a concessional statement that if the petitioners became willing and ready to deposit amount of taxes, then their suit might be decreed, was sought to be disowned through amendment, which was a concessional statement and not an assertion of fact---Concessional statement was also found to have been made on behalf of a public sector corporation without due authorization---Petitioners failed to make out a case for interference by High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction---Appellate Court had already allowed the application filed by the respondents for amendment in the written statement, which order was maintained by the High Court---Civil Revision was dismissed, in circumstances. SDO/AM Hasht Nagri Sub-Division PESCO, Peshawar and others v. Khawazan Zad PLD 2023 SC 174 rel. Muhammad Akram and another v. Altaf Ahmad PLD 2003 SC 688 and Abaid Ullah Malik v. Additional District Judge, Mianwali and others PLD 2013 SC 239 distinguished. Abdul Samad Khan for Petitioners. Sabah ud Din Khattak for Respondents. Date of hearing: 13th January, 2025.

Summary: (On appeal against the judgment dated 30.11.2020 passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2016). (a) Criminal trial--- ----Exculpatory confession---Effect---Such confession cannot be used against co-accused. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302 (b)---Qatl-i-amd---Re-appraisal of evidence---Recovery from open place---Motive introduced with unexplained delay---Effect---Accused was convicted by Trial Court for committing qatl-i-amd and was sentenced to imprisonment for life---Validity---Recovery of rope on the pointing of accused was made from an open place, under the trees accessible to public and it was not in exclusive possession of accused---Motive was introduced after six days from the occurrence and two days from registration of F.I.R., without any convincing reasons for such delay---Prosecution failed to prove its case against accused beyond shadow of doubt---If there is a single circumstance, which creates doubt in prosecution case then the same is sufficient to acquit the accused---Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused and acquitted him of the charge, as prosecution story was repleted with number of circumstances creating doubt---Appeal was allowed. Ch. Barkat Ali v. Major Karam Elahi Zia and another 1992 SCMR 1047; Sarfraz Khan v. The State 1996 SCMR 188; Asadullah and another v. The State 1999 SCMR 1034; Altaf Hussain v. Fakhar Hussain and another 2008 SCMR 1103; Liaquat Ali v. The State 2008 SCMR 95; Pathan v. The State 2015 SCMR 315 and Zafar v. The State and others 2018 SCMR 326 ref. Anis Muhammad Shahzad, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Ms. Chand Bibi, DPG Islamabad with Imran Munir SI for Respondent. Nemo for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 13th January, 2025.

Summary: (Against the order dated 27.10.2023 passed by Peshawar High Court in Writ Petition No. 4357-P of 2017). West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)--- ----S.13---Ejectment of tenant--- Relationship of landlord and tenant---Proof---Utility bills---Scope---Petitioner/tenant was aggrieved of eviction order passed by Lower Appellate Court, which was maintained by High Court---Petitioner/tenant claimed to be owner of demised premises and had relied upon utility bills in his name---Validity---Utility bills in the name of any person only denote possession of property but they do not prove ownership of the same---When tenant disputes ownership of landlord, the only recourse available with him is to file a civil suit---High Court and Lower Appellate Court had correctly decided the issue of ownership---Supreme Court declined to interfere in orders passed by Lower Appellate Court and High Court, as there was no illegality or irregularity---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Tassaduq Hussain v. Muneer Fatima 2014 SCMR 1744 and Ahmad Ali alias Ali Ahmad v. Nasar-ud-Din PLD 2009 SC 453 rel. Tariq Aziz, Advocate-on-Record/Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 13th January, 2025.

Summary: Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Arts. 185(3) & 191A [as inserted by 26th Constitutional Amendment]---Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 221A (2)---Regular Bench of Supreme Court---Jurisdiction---Interpretation of Constitutional provision---Authorities contended that regular bench of Supreme Court could not hear the matter in question as it involved a challenge to Constitutionality of law namely section 221A (2) of Customs Act, 1989---Authorities referred to provisions of Article 191A of the Constitution, which was added to the Constitution through the 26th Constitutional Amendment---Respondents contended that Article 191A of the Constitution, was constitutionally invalid as it had infringed upon the salient features of the Constitution, including independence of judiciary and separation of powers among three organs of the State---Validity---Supreme Court found that it would be necessary to first decide upon the objection raised and reply thereto before proceeding further in the matter at hand---Supreme Court granted time to parties to prepare their arguments and assist Supreme Court on such points---Petition was adjourned. Sabir Shah v. Shad Muhammad Khan PLD 1995 SC 66; Fazlul Quader Chowdhry v. Abdul Haque PLD 1963 SC 486 and Marbury v. Madison 5 US 137 [1803] ref. Mirza Nasar Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court (through video-link), M. Nadeem Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court, Raja M. Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Salah-ud-Din, Advocate Supreme Court, Haider Waheed, Advocate Supreme Court, Imran Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court, Ghulam Haider Sh, Advocate Supreme Court, Hussain Ali Amani, Advocate Supreme Court (through video-link), Afzal Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and Pervaiz Akhtar Tahir, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents. Date of hearing: 13th January, 2025. ORDER At the very outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the present regular bench of the Court cannot hear these cases, as they involve a challenge to the constitutionality of a law, namely, subsection (2) of Section 221-A of the Customs Act, 1969. When asked why this bench cannot hear these cases, the learned counsel referred to the provisions of Article 191A, which was added to the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan through the 26th Constitutional Amendment. In response to the petitioners' objection regarding the lack of jurisdiction of the present bench of the Court, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that Article 191A, the basis of the objection regarding jurisdiction, is constitutionally invalid as it infringes upon the salient features of the Constitution, including the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers among the three organs of the State. He further submitted that a constitutionally invalid amendment cannot oust the constitutionally valid conferment of jurisdiction on the regular benches of the Court. 2. When asked how the present bench of the Court can decide upon the constitutional validity of the newly added Article 191A, the learned counsel for the respondents took the position that since the objection raised and the basis thereof pertain to the jurisdiction of the present bench, it must be decided by it. In support of his stance, he referred to Sabir Shah v. Shad Muhammad Khan (PLD 1995 SC 66), Fazlul Quader Chowdhry v. Abdul Haque (PLD 1963 SC 486) and Marbury v. Madison (5 US 137 [ 1803]) and sought time to further assist the Court on this point. 3. Given the objection raised and the reply thereto, we find that it would be necessary to first decide upon the same before proceeding further in the matter at hand. Therefore, the learned counsel for the parties are granted time to prepare their arguments and assist the Court on the said points. The hearing for arguments on those points is adjourned to 16.01.2025. MH/F-2/SC Order accordingly.

Summary: (On appeal against the judgment dated 27.02.2015 passed by Peshawar High Court, Bannu Bench in C. R. No. 90-B of 2009). Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss.42 & 54---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss. 19, 20 & First Sched., Art. 148---Suit for declaration, injunction and redemption of mortgage---Limita tion---Mortgage rights, purchase of---Effect---Petitioner / defendant purchased mortgage rights of suit property which was owned by respondents / plaintiffs---Held, that possession of petitioner / defendant over mortgaged property acted as an acknowledgement under Section 20(2) of Limitation Act, 1908 and period of fresh limitation had started running afresh---Purchase of mortgage rights from mortgagee also acted as acknowledgement under Section 19 of Limitation Act, 1908---Purchase of mortgage rights by petitioner / defendant had given a fresh start of limitation to respondent / plaintiff---Suit for redemption filed by respondents / plaintiffs was covered by both provisions of law i.e. Sections 19 and 20(2) of Limitation Act, 1908 and was well within the time and had rightly been so held by Courts below---Mortgagee was in possession and because of purchase of mortgage, fresh cause of action and fresh start of limitation had accrued to respondent / plaintiff---Petitioner / defendant purchased mortgagee rights which would confirm the fact that his right under prescription was not mature even till the cut-off date---Respondent / defendant could ask for redemption of his property from the charge of mortgage---Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed against petitioner / defendant---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Nawaz Ali Khan and another v. Nawabzada and others PLD 2003 SC 425; Maqbool Ahmad v. Governm, ent of Pakistan 1991 SCMR 2063; Abdul Haq v. Ali Akbar and others 1999 SCMR 2531; Nawaz Ali Khan and another v. Nawabzada and others PLD 2003 SC 425; Durrani and 35 others v. Hamidullah Khan and 15 others 2007 SCMR 480; Muhammad Hussain and others v. Wahid Bakhs through Legal Heirs 2004 SCMR 1137 and Bilawar Khan v. Amir Sabar Rahman and others PLD 2013 Pesh. 38 ref. Shah Faisal, Advocate Supreme Court and Haji Muhammad Zahir Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Salahuddin, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents. Date of hearing: 13th January, 2025.