Summary: Acquittal --- Facts: This case involves a dispute between Syed Sajjad Haider Naqvi and his wife Mst. Ghazala Fatima (Petitioners) against Mst. Sadia Bibi and her father Zareen Shah (Respondents). The conflict arose after Sadia Bibi, Naqvi's ex-wife, and her father allegedly accused Naqvi and Ghazala Fatima of committing Zina (adultery). The accusations were reportedly made during court proceedings in a family suit. Subsequently, Naqvi and Ghazala Fatima filed a complaint under Section 7 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979, accusing Sadia Bibi and her father of false imputation of adultery. --- Issues: 1) Whether the accusations of Zina made by the Respondents during court proceedings amount to Qazf under the Ordinance. ---2) Whether the trial court correctly acquitted the Respondents based on the evidence presented. --3) Whether the statements made by the Respondents were protected under the exceptions of Section 3 of the Qazf Ordinance. ---4) Whether the court can grant special leave to appeal against the acquittal judgment. ---Court's Analysis: Accusation of Zina and Imputation of Qazf: The court carefully examined the evidence, including the statements of the Petitioners and witnesses. The Petitioners claimed that the Respondents had falsely accused them of living together after divorce, which they argued amounted to Zina. However, the Respondents clarified that their statements were based on a divorce deed and were made in good faith, without malicious intent. --- The court noted that PW-1 (Syed Sajjad Haider Naqvi), during his testimony, admitted that Mst. Sadia Bibi had not explicitly accused him and his wife of Zina. The accusations were related to a dispute over a forged divorce deed, and no direct allegations of adultery were made. ---- Protection under Exception of Section 3 of the Ordinance: The court observed that the statements made by the Respondents were based on a divorce deed, which the Petitioners had not challenged before any competent authority. The Respondents' statements were made in the context of a legal dispute and fell within the exception of Section 3 of the Qazf Ordinance, which protects statements made in good faith during court proceedings. ---- Appreciation of Evidence and Acquittal: The trial court had thoroughly examined the evidence and concluded that the Petitioners had failed to establish the essential elements of Qazf. The court emphasized that the offense of Qazf requires clear and unambiguous imputation of Zina, which was not present in this case. Furthermore, the Petitioners themselves had admitted that no direct allegations of Zina were made by the Respondents. --- Scope of Appeal Against Acquittal: The court highlighted that the scope of appeal against an acquittal is limited, and an acquitted accused enjoys the presumption of innocence. The court found that the trial court's judgment was based on a correct appreciation of the evidence, and there were no grounds to interfere with the acquittal. --- Judgment: The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the petition for special leave to appeal, upholding the acquittal of the Respondents. The court concluded that the Petitioners had failed to prove the offense of Qazf beyond a reasonable doubt, and the statements made by the Respondents were protected under the good faith exception in Section 3 of the Qazf Ordinance. --- Outcome: The petition for special leave to appeal was dismissed. The acquittal of Mst. Sadia Bibi and Zareen Shah was upheld.

Summary: Acquittal ---- Facts: The case originated from a robbery and murder incident on August 29, 2001, where Rashid Khan, the driver of a Datsun pick-up, was shot dead during an attempted robbery. Manzar Ullah, the conductor of the vehicle, lodged the FIR. Several suspects, including Asghar, Mst. Bakht Pari, Khan Zamir, and Sartaj, were later arrested and tried for offenses under Section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. After a trial, they were acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge cum Judge Special Court Mardan. --- Appeals: Criminal Appeal No. 27-P of 2004: Filed by Manzar Ullah against the acquittal of Asghar, Mst. Bakht Pari, and Khan Zamir. Criminal Appeal No. 32-P of 2004: Filed by The State against the same respondents. Criminal Appeal No. 40-P of 2007: Filed by Manzar Ullah against the acquittal of Sartaj. --- Issues: 1) Whether the trial court correctly acquitted the respondents based on the evidence presented. ---2) Whether the judicial confessional statements and identification parade were sufficient to convict the respondents. ---3) Whether the appeals could be heard in the absence of the respondents, who were untraceable for several years. ----- Court's Analysis: Absence of Respondents: The court decided to hear the appeals despite the absence of the respondents, citing the Apex Court's ruling in Hayat Bakhsh and others v. The State (PLD 1981 SC 265) and Nazar Hussain v. The State (1985 SCMR 614), which held that appeals could be determined in the absence of absconding or deceased respondents. The court noted that respondents Ziarat Gul and Shamsur Rehman had died, and their appeals were abated. --- Ocular Testimony and Identification Parade: The court found contradictions in the testimony of Manzar Ullah (PW-11), who identified some of the accused in an identification parade. However, his testimony was inconsistent with the FIR, where no descriptions of the culprits were provided. The identification parade was also flawed, as the individuals identified did not match the original description of the culprits. Judicial Confessional Statements: The court observed that the confessions of Asghar, Mst. Bakht Pari, and Ziarat Gul were delayed and failed to comply with proper legal formalities. The confessions were also contradictory, and the court concluded that they were not reliable enough to convict the respondents. --- Recovery of Kalashnikov and FSL Report: Although a Kalashnikov was recovered and matched to the crime scene, the court found this evidence insufficient to convict the respondents. The confessional statement attributed the firing to Sartaj, not Ziarat Gul, which weakened the link between the recovery of the weapon and the accused. Scope of Appeal Against Acquittal: The court reiterated that appeals against acquittal require strong grounds for interference. The trial court had carefully considered the evidence and found it insufficient for conviction, and the appellate court found no reason to overturn these judgments. ---- Judgment: The Federal Shariat Court dismissed all three appeals, upholding the acquittals of the respondents. The court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the judgments of the trial court did not suffer from any legal infirmity. ---- Outcome: Criminal Appeal No. 27-P of 2004, Criminal Appeal No. 32-P of 2004, and Criminal Appeal No. 40-P of 2007 were dismissed. The acquittals of Asghar, Mst. Bakht Pari, Khan Zamir, and Sartaj were upheld.

Summary: Background: The case involves a criminal appeal filed by the State against two individuals. The appeal was filed after a delay of 66 days beyond the permissible time limit. The delay was attributed to the time consumed in obtaining departmental sanctions necessary for preferring the appeal. The Assistant Advocate-General argued that the delay was not intentional and was due to procedural requirements. ----Issues: 1- Whether the delay in filing the appeal was justified and should be condoned. 2- Whether the appeal, which was barred by time, can be entertained given the reasons for the delay. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Federal Shariat Court reviewed the request for condonation of delay and found that the reasons provided were insufficient. The court emphasized that the explanation for the delay lacked detailed information to establish that the delay was due to circumstances beyond control rather than negligence. The court reaffirmed that the law applies equally to the government as it does to ordinary litigants, and a detailed explanation for each day of delay is required. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and the criminal appeal was also dismissed as it was barred by time. ----Citations/Precedents: ABDUL GHANI v GHULAM SARWAR (P.L.D. 1977 S.C. 102) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v Rais PIR AHMAD KHAN (1981 SCMR 37) MUHAMMAD BASHIR and another v PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector of District Gujrat and others (2003 SCMR 83) CHAIRMAN / SECRETARY, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN ISLAMABAD and others v. MUHAMMAD SHARIF JAVAID WARS (P.L.D. 2003 S.C. 6) SHEIKH MUHAMMAD SALEEM v FAIZ AHMED (P.L.D. 2003 S.C. 628) MUHAMMAD ISLAM v. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ISLAMABAD and others (2011 SCMR 8)

Summary: Background: An appeal was filed by the State through the Advocate General Punjab challenging the acquittal of the respondent from charges under Section 10 read with Section 18 of the Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The original judgment, which resulted in the respondent's acquittal, was delivered on 23.12.1993 by the Special Court for Speedy Trials in Multan Camp at Lahore. The appeal was initially filed on 16.01.1996 and was transferred to this Court on jurisdictional grounds. It was admitted on 10.02.1999, and the proceedings have been prolonged due to various issues including the respondent's absence and procedural delays. ----Issues: 1- Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the respondent despite the evidence presented. 2- Whether the appeal against acquittal filed by the Advocate General Punjab is maintainable, considering the legal standing of the Advocate General in filing such appeals. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Court reviewed the evidence and arguments presented. It found significant contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, including discrepancies between ocular testimony and medical evidence, and lapses in procedural aspects such as delays in evidence handling. The Court noted that the prosecution had failed to establish the charge of attempted Zina or to convincingly link the accused to the crime scene. Given these shortcomings, the trial court's acquittal was deemed justified as it had correctly extended the benefit of doubt to the accused. Additionally, the appeal was deemed incompetent as it was filed by the Advocate General, who is not considered a Public Prosecutor under Section 417(1) Cr.P.C for the purpose of filing appeals against acquittals. ----Citations/Precedents: 1995 SCMR 1345 (Tariq Pervez Vs. The State) 1997 SCMR 25 (Muhammad Ilyas Vs. The State) 2008 SCMR 1221 (Ghulam Qadir Vs. State) PLD 2010 SC 632 2002 SCMR 261 PLJ 2002 SC 293 2013 P.Cr.LJ 374 2011 P.Cr.L.J. 856 (FSC) PLD 1994 SC 31 2010 SCMR 1592 2017 SCMR 633 The State through Advocate General Sindh Vs. Hanif Ahmed & others (1994 SCMR 749) Mst. Aziz Fatima through Advocate General and others Vs. The State (1997 P.Cr.L.J 618) The appeal was dismissed on the grounds of both non-maintainability and lack of merit.

Summary: Acquittal granted---Background: The case involves the alleged abduction of a young woman for the purpose of forcible marriage. The complainant, who was the guardian of the victim, reported that several men abducted the woman from her residence. Following the abduction, the victim was allegedly held captive for forty days, during which it was claimed that one of the accused committed zina (illicit intercourse) with her. The trial court acquitted the accused, leading the complainant to appeal the decision, seeking their conviction. ----Issues: 1- Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. 2- Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused despite the prosecution's evidence. 3- Whether the procedural shortcomings, such as the lack of cross-examination during the recording of the victim’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., affected the integrity of the trial. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Federal Shariat Court upheld the trial court’s decision to acquit the accused. The court found that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient and unreliable, with significant inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses, particularly the victim's. The court noted that the victim's statement, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., was inadmissible due to the absence of cross-examination. The court emphasized the importance of fair trial procedures and held that the prosecution failed to establish the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. As a result, the acquittal was maintained, and the appeal was dismissed. ----Citations/Precedents: PLD 1981 SC 265 - "Hayat Bakhsh and others v. The State" 1985 SCMR 614 - "Nazar Hussain v. The State" 2015 SCMR 1002 - "Ikramullah and others v. The State" PLD 2006 SC 465 - "Mohammad Ashraf v. The State" PLD 2011 SC 544 - "Abdul Khalique and another v. The State"

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: The case stems from an FIR filed on March 20, 2014, concerning the murder of Sharif Khan, a taxi driver. The appellant, Kaleem Ullah, was accused of involvement in the murder and robbery of Sharif Khan's car. The trial court convicted Kaleem Ullah under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, sentencing him to life imprisonment and imposing a fine. The appellant challenged the trial court's decision, arguing that the evidence was insufficient, and the conviction was based on procedural and factual errors. ----Issues: 1- Whether the appeal should be heard by the Federal Shariat Court or the Peshawar High Court, given that the conviction was under the Penal Code and not the Hudood Ordinance. 2- Whether the judicial confession of the appellant was voluntary, truthful, and admissible as evidence. 3- Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution, including the statement of Muhammad Amin, CDR data, recovery of the stolen vehicle, and other pieces of evidence, were sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court determined that it had jurisdiction over the case, as the conviction was linked to the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, despite being ultimately punished under the Penal Code. The court relied on precedent cases where the Federal Shariat Court was deemed the appropriate forum for such appeals. The court found that the judicial confession of the appellant was not voluntary and was procedurally flawed. The confession was not recorded with the necessary precautions, including sufficient time for reflection and proper warnings. Additionally, the confession was not corroborated by other credible evidence, making it inadmissible and unreliable. The court found that the circumstantial evidence was inadequate and did not establish a coherent and unbroken chain linking the appellant to the crime. Key issues included: Statement of Muhammad Amin: This statement was not produced in court and was not subject to cross-examination, rendering it inadmissible. CDR Data: The CDR data was not authenticated or corroborated by independent evidence, making it unreliable. Recovery of the Vehicle: The recovery of the stolen car was unconnected to the appellant, and the circumstances of its discovery in a graveyard were unexplained. Medical Evidence: The post-mortem report did not provide any direct link to the appellant. Given these findings, the court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence presented was found to be insufficient, unreliable, and flawed. The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges. The court ordered that the appellant be released immediately, unless required in another case. ----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Abbas and another v. The State (1984 SCMR 129) - Establishing the jurisdiction of the Federal Shariat Court in cases linked to the Hudood Ordinance, even when the conviction is under the Penal Code. Hashim Qasim and another v. The State (2017 SCMR 986) - Discussing the standards for judicial confessions and the reliance on circumstantial evidence. Kashif Ali v. The Judge ATC and others (PLD 2016 SC 951) - Regarding the credibility of supplementary statements made after the arrest of an accused.

Summary: Background: This case involved two appellants who were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge (Hudood), Sukkur, concerning a robbery incident that took place on September 9, 2009. The appellants were charged under Section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, including Sections 392, 324, 337-F(i), 337-F(iii), and 337-L-2. They were convicted and sentenced accordingly. The appellants initially filed appeals in the High Court of Sindh, but the appeals were later transferred to the Federal Shariat Court since the case involved the Hudood Ordinance. The appellants argued that there were discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence and that they were not properly charged under Section 324 PPC. ----Issues: 1- Whether the appellants' conviction under Section 324 PPC was valid, given that they were not properly charged or questioned about this offense during the trial. 2- Whether the discrepancies and contradictions in the prosecution's evidence undermined the validity of the appellants' convictions. 3- Whether the fines and daman imposed on the appellants should be remitted considering the time already served. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Conviction under Section 324 PPC: The court held that the conviction under Section 324 PPC was invalid. The trial court failed to include this charge in the formal charge sheet, and the appellants were not questioned about this offense during their statements under Section 342 Cr.P.C. This omission was a significant legal defect that could not be cured, leading the court to set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 324 PPC. --Prosecution’s Evidence: The court found that the prosecution's evidence was unreliable due to contradictions and discrepancies. Key witnesses did not support the prosecution's case, and their testimonies were not challenged by declaring them hostile. Additionally, despite claims of a significant exchange of gunfire, no injuries were reported, and no empty shells were recovered, casting doubt on the prosecution's narrative. --Sentence Remission: Considering that the appellants had already served over five years of their sentences and were the sole breadwinners for their families, the court decided to remit the fines and daman. The appellants were ordered to be released immediately, provided they were not required in any other case. ----Citations/Precedents: Tariq Pervez Vs. The State (1995 SCMR 1345) Muhammad Ilyas Vs. The State (1997 SCMR 25) Ghulam Qadir Vs. The State (2008 SCMR 1221) Mehmood Raza Vs. The State & 3 others (2006 P.Cr.L.J 149) Muhammad Shah Vs. The State (2010 SCMR 1009) Sheral alias Sher Muhammad Vs. The State (1999 SCMR 697) Qaddan and others Vs. The State (2017 SCMR 148) Abdul Razzaq Vs. The State (2002 SCMR 1239)

Summary: Acquittal granted---Background: The case involves a reference sent by the Anti-Terrorism Court No.1, Rawalpindi, seeking confirmation of the sentence of amputation of the right hand and left foot under Section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VI of 1979. The convict, Muhammad Arif, was accused of attacking a police contingent aboard a train, freeing a prisoner, and fleeing with an official SMG rifle. The trial court had convicted Arif and sentenced him to amputation, among other punishments. However, Arif, after having his sentence suspended, fled Pakistan and settled in France. ----Issues: 1- Whether the reference for the confirmation of the Hadd sentence can be decided in the absence of the convict. 2- Whether the mandatory requirements for the application of Section 17(3) of the Ordinance, such as Tazkiya Al-Shuhood (credibility of witnesses) and proof of Nisab (minimum value of stolen property), were met. 3- Whether the prosecution’s evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction under Section 17(3) of the Ordinance. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Proceeding in Absence of Convict: The court ruled that the reference could be decided in the absence of the convict, relying on precedents from the Supreme Court that allow the disposal of references under similar circumstances. --Tazkiya Al-Shuhood: The court found that the trial court failed to conduct Tazkiya Al-Shuhood, a mandatory requirement for the imposition of Hadd, which involves verifying the credibility of witnesses. This failure alone was sufficient to quash the Hadd sentence. --Proof of Nisab: The court noted that the prosecution did not provide any evidence regarding the value of the SMG rifle and other items allegedly stolen, which is essential to establish that the value met the Nisab threshold required for Hadd punishment. --Inconsistencies in Prosecution’s Evidence: The court identified several inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, including conflicting accounts of the convict's arrest, contradictions in witness testimonies, and the lack of evidence corroborating key details of the crime. These discrepancies cast doubt on the prosecution's case, leading the court to conclude that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction under Section 17(3) or any other relevant section. The court refused to confirm the sentence of amputation and acquitted the convict under Section 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code, read with Section 17(5) of the Ordinance. Citations/Precedents: Gul Hassan and Another v. The State (PLD 1969 Supreme Court 89) Hayat Bakhsh and Others v. The State (PLD 1981 Supreme Court 265) Inayat Ullah v. The State (PLD 2007 SC 237) Amjad Pervez v. The State (2004 YLR 1592) Ghulam Ali v. The State (PLD 1986 SC 741) Abdus Salam v. The State (2002 SCMR 338) Muhammad Ismail and Others v. The State (2017 SCMR 898) Ghulam Ali v. The State (PLD 1986 SC 741) Ziaul Rehman v. The State (2000 SCMR 528) The court quashed the Hadd sentence and acquitted the convict, Muhammad Arif.

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: The case involves an appeal against the acquittal of several respondents by the trial court in a criminal case involving the murder of a government official during an armed robbery. The incident occurred at night when the victim was being driven home after attending a meeting. The attackers, who were initially unidentified, intercepted the vehicle and opened fire, resulting in the death of the victim. The trial court initially convicted the respondents, but upon appeal, the case was remanded for reconsideration, and the trial court eventually acquitted the respondents. The appellants, related to the deceased, challenged this acquittal in the Federal Shariat Court. ----Issues: 1- Whether the appeal could be decided in the absence of the respondents who had been declared absconders and could not be served notice despite repeated attempts. 2- Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to overturn the trial court's acquittal of the respondents. 3- Whether the identification parade and other identification evidence were credible and reliable in proving the respondents' involvement in the crime. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Decision in Absence of Respondents: The court held that the appeal could be decided in the absence of the respondents, citing precedents that allow the court to proceed with appeals when respondents are absconders and attempts to procure their attendance have been unsuccessful. --Re-Appraisal of Evidence: The court re-examined the evidence, emphasizing the principle that appellate courts should only overturn acquittals if the trial court's judgment was found to be unreasonable, speculative, or based on no evidence. --Identification Evidence: The court found significant flaws in the identification process, noting that the identification parade was conducted jointly for all accused, and there was no initial description of the attackers in the FIR. The identification in the moonlight was deemed unreliable, and the non-appearance of the supervising magistrate who conducted the identification parade further weakened the prosecution's case. --Hostile Witness: The court discussed the evidence provided by a hostile witness who initially supported the prosecution but later refused to identify the respondents in court. The court found that this witness's prior statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. could not be relied upon due to inconsistencies and lack of corroboration from other evidence. --Medical Evidence: While the medical evidence confirmed that the complainant and the deceased were injured by firearms, it did not directly link the respondents to the crime, thereby failing to corroborate the prosecution's case. The court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court’s acquittal was found to be neither perverse nor arbitrary, and as such, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the acquittal of the respondents. -----Citations/Precedents: PLD 1981 SC 265 - "Hayat Bakhsh and others v. The State" 1995 SCMR 276 - "Bashir alias Bashira and another v. The State and others" 2017 SCMR 960 - "Khalil v. The State" 1996 SCMR 678 - "The State v. Abdul Ghaffar" PLJ 2004 SC 290 - "Sarfraz Gul v. State" PLD 2002 SC 792 - "Mukhtar Ahmed v. The State" 2014 PCr.L.J. 374 (Federal Shariat Court) - "Nadeem and others v. The State and others" 2012 SCMR 419 - "Muhammad Ashraf v. The State"

Summary: Background: This case involves two appellants who were charged and convicted under Section 21-L of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for absconding and avoiding legal process after being initially acquitted of other serious charges, including murder and robbery. The trial court, while acquitting them on various charges, convicted them for absconding without properly framing a charge under Section 21-L. The appellants challenged this conviction, arguing that they were not given an opportunity to defend themselves properly due to the omission of the specific charge in the trial. ----Issues: 1- Whether the omission to frame a charge under Section 21-L of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, is fatal to the prosecution’s case. 2- Whether the evidence of abscondence provided by the prosecution was sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 21-L of the Act. 3- Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellants under Section 21-L without proper consideration of the evidence and the legal requirements. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Omission to Frame Charge: The court held that the omission to frame a charge under Section 21-L was a significant procedural error that violated the appellants' right to a fair trial. The charge is the foundation of a criminal trial, and without it, the appellants were not adequately informed of the accusations against them, leading to a miscarriage of justice. --Insufficiency of Evidence: The evidence presented by the prosecution regarding the appellants' abscondence was found to be insufficient. The court noted that the houses of the appellants were burnt, and there was no evidence that they were intentionally avoiding arrest. The mere fact that the warrants were affixed to non-existent houses did not prove intentional concealment or abscondence. --Error in Conviction: The court found that the trial court failed to properly assess whether the evidence met the legal standard required to convict under Section 21-L. Additionally, the failure to put the evidence of abscondence to one of the appellants under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure rendered the conviction unsustainable. The appeals were accepted, and the convictions under Section 21-L were quashed. The court ordered the release of the appellants if they were not required in any other case. ----Citations/Precedents: PLD 2006 SC 153 - "M. Younus Habib v. The State" 2010 SCMR 755 - "Arbab Khan v. The State" 2015 PCr.L.J. 1561 - "Khan Zado alias Ketoo Sab Zoi v. The State" 2010 SCMR 1009 - "Muhammad Shah v. The State" 2017 SCMR 148 - "Qaddan and others v. The State" PLD 2001 SC 568 - "Asif Ali Zardari and another v. The State" 2005 PCr.L.J. 1889 - "Noor Muhammad Khatti and others v. The State" 2011 PCr.L.J. 2 - "Sohail Zia Butt v. The State" 2015 PCr.L.J. 1787 - "Mian Qurban Ali v. The State through Director-General, NAB"