Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: The appellant, through his advocate, challenged the acquittal of the respondents by the 1st Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate/MTMC, Kashmore. The case involved offenses under Sections 382 and 215 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), originating from FIR No.54 of 2022, registered at Police Station Buxapur. The trial court acquitted the respondents, prompting the appellant to file this criminal acquittal appeal. ----Issues: 1- Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the respondents despite the presence of sufficient evidence on record. 2- Whether the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and procedural discrepancies warranted the respondents' acquittal. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The trial court acquitted the respondents due to several inconsistencies and procedural discrepancies in the prosecution's case. A significant, unexplained delay of 19 days in lodging the FIR, which cast doubt on the credibility of the prosecution's case. The appellant argued that the trial court's judgment violated the law and that the evidence presented was sufficient to convict the respondents. The appellant contended that the trial court's reasons for acquittal were not based on solid grounds and that the evidence of the complainant was corroborated by witnesses without major contradictions. The High Court reiterated the narrow scope for appeals against acquittals, emphasizing the double presumption of innocence for acquitted individuals. The court noted that interference with an acquittal judgment is rare and only justified if the judgment is perverse, arbitrary, or contains glaring errors of law and fact. In this case, the prosecution failed to provide substantial proof to overcome the presumption of innocence. The High Court found no illegality or irregularity in the trial court's judgment. The court upheld the trial court's decision, stating that the prosecution did not provide sufficient evidence to counter the presumption of innocence enjoyed by the respondents. As a result, the appeal was dismissed. ----Citations/Precedents: State Versus Abdul Khaliq and others (PLD 2011 SC 554): Emphasized the narrow scope for interference in acquittal appeals and the strong presumption of innocence for acquitted individuals. 2019 P Cr.LJ-Note-128 Page-144: Cited by the trial court regarding the impact of unexplained delays in lodging FIRs on the prosecution's credibility. The State v. Muhammad Sharif (1995 SCMR 635) Muhammad Ijaz Ahmad v. Raja Fahim Afzal and 2 others (1998 SCMR 1281)

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: The appellant challenged the judgment dated 05.12.2022, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kashmore, in Sessions Case No.144/2022. The case, originating from FIR No.05/2022, involved charges under Sections 302, 201, 311, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), registered at Police Station Gublo Katcho. The appellant was convicted under Section 201(1) PPC and sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000. ----Issues: 1- Whether the prosecution provided sufficient and reliable evidence to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 2- Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant despite significant contradictions and lack of evidence. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The prosecution's case relied on the testimony of five witnesses, including police officials. The prosecution claimed that the appellant, along with others, strangulated Mst. Azmat Khatoon to death and disposed of her body in the Indus River. The defense highlighted material contradictions in the prosecution's evidence, the absence of eyewitnesses, and the lack of any incriminating articles recovered from the appellant. The defense argued that the case was based on fabricated charges of honor killing. The High Court found several inconsistencies and gaps in the prosecution's case: The incident was not witnessed by the complainant or any other witnesses. None of the deceased's family members or close associates filed the complaint. There was no recovery of the deceased's body or the alleged motorbike loader used in the crime. The investigation officer failed to gather statements from neighbors or co-villagers who could corroborate the prosecution's story. The recovery of the deceased's Dupatta was not subjected to DNA testing, nor was this piece of evidence confronted with the appellant during his statement. Conclusion: The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The inconsistencies and lack of reliable evidence rendered the prosecution's case highly doubtful. The conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted and released. ----Citations/Precedents: Ayub Masih v. State (PLD 2002 SC 1048): Emphasized the principle that the judicial system should err on the side of acquitting a guilty person rather than convicting an innocent one. Naveed Asghar and 2 others v. The State (PLD 2021 SC-600): Reiterated the principle of benefit of the doubt in favor of the accused. Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345): Established that even a single reasonable doubt is sufficient to entitle an accused to an acquittal.

Summary: Bail granted---Background: The appellant sought post-arrest bail in Crime No.01/2021 registered at Police Station Tagar for offences under Sections 302, 120-B, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The FIR, lodged by the complainant on 31.01.2021, alleged that the complainant’s son, Abdul Wahid, was murdered by the appellant and others due to a matrimonial dispute. The incident occurred on 28.01.2021 when the complainant's son was attacked and strangulated by the accused. The bail application was previously denied by the III-Additional Sessions Judge, Naushehro Feroze on 08.09.2021. ----Issues: 1- Whether the appellant was falsely implicated due to a matrimonial enmity. 2- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR affects the credibility of the prosecution’s case. 3- Whether the evidence provided justifies the denial of bail to the appellant. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The appellant’s counsel argued that the appellant was falsely implicated due to matrimonial enmity, emphasizing that no specific role was attributed to the appellant, and all prosecution witnesses were related to each other. The court found that the appellant was named in the FIR with a collective role in the strangulation of the deceased, corroborated by medical evidence. The counsel argued that there was an unexplained delay of three days in lodging the FIR, which should cast doubt on the prosecution’s case. The prosecution and complainant’s counsel argued that the delay was justified due to the circumstances following the incident. The court accepted the explanation provided for the delay in lodging the FIR. The court noted that the appellant was implicated in the FIR and that the role attributed to him was corroborated by medical evidence. The medical report indicated that the cause of death was asphyxia due to manual strangulation and a fracture of the cervical vertebrae. The court held that the appellant shared a common intention with the other co-accused in committing the murder, thus making the case fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. ----Legal Precedents: The prosecution's argument was supported by the case of Munawar v. The State (1981 SCMR 1092), emphasizing that bail in serious crimes should be granted cautiously. The defense cited several cases arguing for bail in instances of doubt or weak prosecution cases: Jamsher Mazari v. The State (2009 YLR 387) Ghulam Hyder v. The State (2021 SCMR 1802) Kouro and another v. The State (2004 YLR 2434) Juma Khan alias Sajid and another v. The State (2014 YLR 1019) Muhammad Arif v. The State and others (2013 MLD 70)

Summary: Bail denied---Background: The applicants sought pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 06/2022, registered at Police Station RD-109, District Kashmore @ Kandhkot. They were accused of offenses under sections 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-D, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The initial bail application was rejected by the 1st Additional Session Judge, Kandhkot, on 02.09.2022. ----Issues: 1- Whether the applicants are entitled to pre-arrest bail despite being named in the FIR with specific allegations. 2- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the relationship of the witnesses to the complainant affect the credibility of the prosecution's case. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court carefully reviewed the material on record and found the applicants, along with their co-accused, to have caused pistol shot injuries to the complainant and witnesses, which were classified as "Jurh-e-Jaifah" under section 337-D PPC, a non-bailable offense with a punishment of up to ten years. The medical evidence corroborated the ocular testimony of the witnesses, despite a one-day delay in lodging the FIR, which was plausibly explained by the complainant. The relationship between the complainant and the witnesses was not sufficient to discredit their testimony, as they appeared to be natural witnesses to the incident. The applicants failed to provide substantial evidence of false implication due to political rivalry. The court referred to the precedent set in Sheqab Muhammad v. The State and Others (2020 SCMR-1486), where the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the ocular account corroborated by medical evidence and the lack of an independent public witness do not favor the accused at the bail stage. The court emphasized that the intent or knowledge required under section 324 PPC is manifested once the victim is targeted, irrespective of whether the injury is on a vital or non-vital part of the body. Consequently, the court concluded that the applicants had not made out a case for pre-arrest bail. The bail application was dismissed. ----Citations/Precedents: Sheqab Muhammad v. The State and Others (2020 SCMR-1486) The Supreme Court held that contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, absence of public witnesses, and injuries on non-vital parts do not justify bail at the pre-arrest stage. The intent or knowledge under section 324 PPC is established when the victim is targeted, regardless of injury location.

Summary: Background: HRDO Services (SMC-Private) Limited, represented by its Chairman, filed a Constitutional Petition seeking a directive for departmental action against respondent No. 8, who was alleged to be receiving double salaries from two different departments: Karachi Water and Sewerage Board and Sindh Technical and Vocational Training Authority. The petitioner claimed this caused a loss to the public exchequer. ----Issues: 1- Whether the petition is maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan for conducting an inquiry and other ancillary proceedings against the respondents. 2- Whether the court can address the factual controversies raised by the petitioner regarding the alleged double salaries. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court questioned the maintainability of the petition, particularly concerning the conduct of inquiries under Article 199 of the Constitution. The petitioner's counsel argued that respondent No. 8 was illegally holding positions in two different departments and had ignored previous applications pointing out these illegalities, thus compelling the petitioner to approach the court. Upon review, the court found that the allegations made by the petitioner involved factual controversies, which are not within the scope of Article 199 of the Constitution. The court noted that such matters require evidence and cannot be resolved in a Constitutional Petition. The principle was already established in the case of Muhammad Ashraf and others vs. United Bank Limited and others (2015 SCMR 911), where the Supreme Court held that factual disputes requiring evidence are not suitable for resolution under Article 199. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine, meaning it was rejected at the preliminary stage without a full hearing on the merits. The court indicated that the petitioner could seek an appropriate remedy through the proper legal channels. ----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Ashraf and others vs. United Bank Limited and others (2015 SCMR 911) The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that factual controversies requiring evidence do not fall within the purview of Article 199 of the Constitution and should not be addressed through Constitutional Petitions.

Summary: Background: Capt. Muhammad Ali Khan filed a Constitutional Petition (CP No.D-6291 of 2021) challenging the validity of a Warning Letter dated 07.10.2021 issued by the Director (HRM) of Port Qasim Authority. The letter warned the petitioner to be careful in the future and to refrain from unprofessional behavior, failing which strict disciplinary action would be initiated under the Civil Servant (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 2020. The warning was based on findings from a fact-finding inquiry regarding an incident of alleged unprofessional and threatening behavior by the petitioner. ----Issues: 1- Whether the petition is maintainable against a Warning Letter that does not constitute a punishment under Service Jurisprudence. 2- Whether the Warning Letter issued without a proper departmental inquiry violates principles of natural justice. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court examined the maintainability of the petition and the merits of the Warning Letter. The petitioner argued that the warning was issued in violation of the law and principles of natural justice, as there was no personal hearing, opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, or proper departmental inquiry. The respondents contended that the warning was a lenient measure, non-recordable, and would not affect the petitioner's career. The court found that the Warning Letter did not constitute a punishment under the Civil Servant (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 2020. A warning is not listed as a penalty in Rule 4 of these rules. The court also noted that the fact-finding inquiry was conducted without recording evidence on oath or allowing cross-examination of witnesses, violating principles of natural justice. Referencing previous decisions, the court concluded that the Warning Letter was not sustainable under the law and should be ignored by the respondents. However, the respondents were allowed to take disciplinary action against the petitioner for any future misconduct, subject to a proper inquiry. ----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Ashraf and others vs. United Bank Limited and others (2015 SCMR 911) The Supreme Court held that factual controversies requiring evidence do not fall within the purview of Article 199 of the Constitution. Jan Muhammad Vs. General Manager, Karachi Telecommunication Region, Karachi and another (1993 SCMR 1440) Established that actions violating principles of natural justice are not sustainable under the law. Auditor General of Pakistan & others vs. Muhammad Ali & others (2006 SCMR 60) Supported the principle that disciplinary actions must comply with the rules of natural justice.

Summary: Background: The petitioner applied for the position of Police Constable and successfully passed the recruitment process, placing at S.No.151 on the merit list. However, during the recruitment process, it was discovered that the petitioner was involved in FIR No.34/2017, registered at P.S Ahmedpur for offenses under sections 302, 324, 337H(2), 147, 148, 149 PPC, and section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Consequently, the Recruitment Board rejected his name based on the involvement in the FIR. The petitioner, therefore, filed a Constitutional Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, seeking issuance of an appointment order. -----Issues: 1- Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s name from the recruitment process based on his involvement in an FIR is lawful. 2- Whether the petitioner, having been found innocent in the investigation, retains his legal right to the position of Police Constable. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court examined the facts presented and the comments filed by the respondents. It was found that although the petitioner was nominated in the FIR, the Investigating Officer found him innocent during the investigation, and his name was placed in column No.2 of the challan submitted to the court. The concerned court accepted this report, and the petitioner was not joined at trial. The court reasoned that mere nomination in an FIR is not equivalent to involvement in a criminal case. The investigation and the collection of incriminating material are essential to establish involvement. The court referenced the doctrine of locus poenitentiae, which allows a party to withdraw from a course of action before it reaches a decisive stage, but once a right is vested, it cannot be revoked arbitrarily. -----Citations/Precedents: Inspector General of Police, Quetta and another v. Fida Muhammad and others (2022 SCMR 1583) The Supreme Court held that once a right is legally vested, it should be recognized and enforced, and such rights cannot be revoked arbitrarily without evidence of wrongdoing.

Summary: Sentence reduction---Background: The appellant was found in possession of 6 K.Gs of Charas and, after due trial, was convicted under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years with a fine of twelve thousand rupees, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and fifteen days. The appellant was given the benefit of Section 382-B of the Criminal Procedure Code. The judgment was delivered by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge (MCTC)/Special Judge for CNS, Larkana, on 18.05.2021. The appellant challenged this judgment by filing a criminal jail appeal. ----Issues: Whether the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant should be reduced considering his circumstances. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The appellant's counsel stated that he would not press the appeal on merits if the conviction and sentence were reduced to the period already undergone. This proposition was conceded by the Additional Prosecutor General for the State. Upon hearing the arguments and reviewing the record, the court found that the appellant was in possession of 6 K.Gs of Charas, as proven by the testimonies of ASI Ayaz Hussain, Mashir Niaz Ali, and Investigation Officer SIP Khadim Hussain, along with a positive report from the Chemical Examiner. The trial court rightly established the appellant's guilt beyond a shadow of doubt. However, considering the appellant's age (32 years), lack of previous criminal record, and his role as the sole breadwinner for his family, the court decided to modify the sentence. The appellant showed genuine repentance by not pressing the appeal on merits and had already undergone 2 years and 6 days of the substantive sentence, with an additional remission of 4 years, 1 month, and 15 days. The court modified the conviction and sentence to the period already undergone, including imprisonment for the failure to pay the fine. The criminal jail appeal was disposed of with the modification that the appellant's conviction and sentence were reduced to the period already undergone, taking into account the time served and the remission earned.

Summary: Background: The petitioners sought special permission for a fourth attempt at the Revenue Qualifying Examination after failing three times. Their initial Miscellaneous Application No.6560/2021 was dismissed on 16.12.2021 by the High Court of Sindh, stating that they had already availed their three attempts. The petitioners filed a review application (CMA No. 5944/2022) challenging this decision, arguing that they were entitled to a fourth attempt based on an undertaking by the Board of Revenue and Section E of Standing Order No.11. ----Issues: 1- Whether the review application (CMA No. 5944/2022) is maintainable. 2- Whether the petitioners are entitled to a fourth attempt at the Revenue Qualifying Examination under Section E of Standing Order No.11. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court considered the maintainability of the review application. The petitioners’ counsel argued that the Board of Revenue had previously provided an undertaking to follow Section E of Standing Order No.11, which allows for a fourth attempt under specific conditions. The counsel contended that this undertaking was breached and that the petitioners had been discriminated against compared to similarly placed employees who had been granted special permission. Upon reviewing the record and the arguments, the court noted that the initial order simply disposed of the petition based on the statements of the Assistant Secretary, Board of Revenue, and the Additional Controller, Sindh Public Service Commission (SPSC). The court acknowledged that the Government of Sindh had amended Rule XII(I) Section-E of Standing Order No.11 to allow a fourth attempt in certain cases. The court directed that if the petitioners' case falls within the amended provisions of Standing Order No.11, Section E, the Sindh Public Service Commission should review their eligibility. If the law permits, the petitioners should be allowed to appear for the Revenue Qualifying Examination as a special case.

Summary: Pending