Summary: (a) Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 — Natural Gas Regulatory Authority (Licensing) Rules, 2002 ----R. 15(2) (Decisions of the Authority); R. 10(9) (Re-opening of hearings) Licensing—Mandatory decision period—OGRA’s failure to decide application within statutory period—Effect—Petitioner’s application (20-12-2017) for license to compress, store and sell flare gas remained undecided despite OGRA’s “final determination” (15-04-2022) directing submission of specified documents, which the parties submitted on 10-05-2022—Under R. 15(2), the Authority shall decide an application within six months of filing; any extension is confined to causes beyond control, at most one month, and reasons must be recorded—OGRA neither concluded proceedings within the prescribed aggregate period nor recorded reasons for extension—Action held contrary to mandatory rule and beyond lawful authority. Cited cases: Secretary, Ministry of Finance v. Muhammad Anwar 2025 SCMR 153; Nadir Khan v. Qadir Hussain 2024 SCMR 770; Tri-Star Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Trisa Burstenfabrik AG Triegen 2023 SCMR 1502. (b) Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 — Natural Gas Regulatory Authority (Licensing) Rules, 2002 ----R. 10(9) Re-opening of concluded hearing—Prerequisites—OGRA fixed a further public hearing on 28-02-2023 after closing evidence and rendering a final decision—No good cause was shown nor reasons recorded as required by R. 10(9)—Such re-opening, absent a reasoned order on motion and good cause, is impermissible. (c) OGRA Ordinance, 2002 ----S. 12(2) (High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction over regulated activity decisions) Maintainability—Scope of judicial review—Where no other adequate remedy exists, High Court may direct the Authority to refrain from unlawful action or to perform its legal duty—Given OGRA’s procedural lapses under the Ordinance/Rules, recourse under S. 12(2) was competent; Court’s review confined to testing procedural legality and timeliness, not merits of licensing. Cited cases: Messrs Mehran Oils (Pvt.) Ltd. v. OGRA, PLD 2021 Sindh 67. (d) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 ----Arts. 4, 5 & 18 Fundamental rights—Regulatory delay and arbitrary inaction—OGRA’s inordinate and unreasoned delay in deciding the license application infringed the petitioner’s rights to be dealt with in accordance with law (Arts. 4 & 5) and to enter upon and conduct a lawful business (Art. 18). (e) Practice and procedure Multiplicity of proceedings—Costs—Petitioner’s resort to multiple suits at different fora for injunctive relief deprecated; costs of Rs. 100,000/- imposed. (f) Flare gas—Regulatory context (observation) OGRA’s license dated 23-07-2024 to GAP pertained to industrial usage from the same field; not a license for CNG use—Safety and policy requirements to be considered by OGRA while deciding petitioner’s application. (g) Disposition — Writ petition disposed of. OGRA directed to decide the petitioner’s 20-12-2017 licensing application strictly in accordance with law within one month; OGRA restrained from taking adverse action against the petitioner until decision; costs of Rs. 100,000/- imposed on the petitioner.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) - ----S. 11 (res judicata)- Res judicata—Inapplicability—Earlier suit for specific performance (based on agreement dated 21.09.2009) was dismissed for non-prosecution and did not finally decide parties’ rights—Subsequent suit sought declaration, rescission/cancellation and injunctive relief on events arising later, namely dishonour of cheque, alleged breach and fraud—Such subsequent facts generated a fresh and independent cause of action not directly and substantially in issue earlier—Mandatory conditions for res judicata (identity of issues, final decision on merits, same parties/privies, competence of court) not cumulatively satisfied—Trial Court’s reliance on S. 11 CPC held misconceived. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) - ----O. II, R. 2 - Bar against splitting claims—Scope—Rule does not apply where later claim stems from a distinct cause of action that did not exist or had not matured when the earlier suit was filed—Dishonour of cheque and alleged fraudulent conduct occurred after withdrawal/dismissal of the earlier proceedings and are separable in time and substance—O. II, R. 2 CPC held inapplicable. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) - ----O. VII, R. 11 - Rejection of plaint—When improper—Where the grounds invoked for rejection (res judicata/O. II, R. 2) are not made out on the face of the plaint, rejection under O. VII, R. 11 CPC is unwarranted—Impugned order rejecting the plaint set aside; suit restored for trial on merits. (d) Limitation—Appeal filed before wrong forum; actus curiae - Filing before an incorrect forum in good faith—Time spent before a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction—Effect—Appellant initially filed appeal before the Additional District Judge bona fide; matter remained pending ~nine months before being returned for want of pecuniary jurisdiction—Appellant acted promptly thereafter—Applying the principle actus curiae neminem gravabit, strict limitation should not prejudice a litigant for delay attributable to court process—Appeal treated as within time. (e) Disposition and directions - Appeal allowed—Impugned order and decree dated 03.11.2017 set aside—Suit deemed pending before the Trial Court—Trial Court directed to decide the suit expeditiously, within four months of receipt of this judgment, in accordance with law and under intimation to the High Court.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) - ----O. XXXVII, R. 2 - Summary suits—Leave to appear and defend—Rejection of leave application on limitation—Validity—Summons in summary suits must be served along with a copy of the plaint in prescribed Form 4 of Appendix-B—Service upon appellant’s younger brother without annexing copy of plaint held defective—Limitation under Art.159 of the Limitation Act, 1908 does not commence until proper service is effected—Dismissal of leave application as time-barred declared legally unsustainable. Cited cases: Abdul Karim v. Nazir Ahmed PLD 1998 Lahore 163; Muhammad Ali Khalid v. Muhammad Talha 2024 CLC 1184 (Lahore). (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) - ----Forms 2 & 4 of Appendix-B - Service of summons—Mandatory form and contents—Summons not issued in prescribed format renders service invalid—Failure of Court to ensure compliance with mandatory procedure vitiates subsequent proceedings—Principle reaffirmed that when law prescribes a mode, it must be strictly followed. Cited case: Abdul Ghaffoor v. Ghulam Qadir 1989 MLD 3954 (Lahore). (c) Limitation Act (IX of 1908) - ----Art. 159 - Commencement of limitation period—Where summons not properly served, limitation to file application for leave to appear and defend begins from actual appearance of defendant before Court—Application filed within that period held within time. (d) Administration of justice - Fair trial—Failure to serve plaint with summons and decree passed ex parte constitutes violation of principles of justice and fair play—Ex parte decree based on defective service set aside. (e) Disposition - Appeal allowed—Impugned order dated 03.09.2024 and ex parte judgment and decree dated 07.11.2024 set aside—Case remanded to Trial Court to decide application for leave to appear and defend strictly on merits and proceed with suit in accordance with law.

Summary: (a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) - ----Ss. 405 & 406 - Criminal breach of trust—Essential ingredients—Entrustment and dishonest misappropriation must coexist—Appellant admitted a business partnership with respondent No.3 and execution of an agreement dated 16.06.2021 acknowledging Rs.700,000/- payable after rendition of accounts—No allegation or evidence of entrustment of money in a fiduciary capacity—Relationship purely contractual and commercial—Ingredients of criminal breach of trust not made out. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) - ----S. 249-A - Acquittal at any stage—Scope—Trial Court competent to acquit an accused at any stage, even without a formal application, if it is satisfied that the charge is groundless and there is no probability of conviction—Trial Court provided opportunity to both parties and rightly exercised jurisdiction to prevent unnecessary prolongation of proceedings—Held, order of acquittal validly passed. Cited cases: Ammad Yosaf v. The State and another PLD 2024 SC 273; Chairman Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan & another v. Mumtaz Khan PLD 2010 SC 665. (c) Civil and criminal liability - Nature of dispute—Business partnership and subsequent failure to pay contractual amount arising from agreement between parties—Dispute held civil in nature amounting to breach of contract, not breach of trust—Proper remedy lies before Civil Court rather than in criminal prosecution. (d) Disposition - Appeal dismissed—Order dated 23.12.2024 passed by the Trial Court upheld—Acquittal of respondents No.2 & 3 under section 249-A, Cr.P.C maintained.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) - ----S. 265-K - Acquittal at any stage—Scope—Court may acquit an accused at any stage if there is no probability of conviction—Trial Court accepted respondents’ applications u/s 265-K, Cr.P.C and acquitted them on the ground that the available record showed no likelihood of conviction—Held, order was in accordance with law; power under S.265-K can be exercised even before framing of charge where prosecution evidence is insufficient. (b) Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 - ----S. 4(2-c) - Misuse of official authority—Investment of ETPB funds—Prosecution alleged that ETPB officials unlawfully invested Rs.986 million in a private real estate project without approval from the Federal Government—However, approval for investment was given collectively by the ETPB Board comprising twenty-one members—Prosecution selectively charged only a few members, although all had equal participation—Held, selective prosecution was arbitrary and inconsistent; when decision was joint and unanimous, either all members are equally liable or none. (c) Criminal trial - Parity of treatment—Co-accused acquitted on identical facts—Co-accused Aamir Khan Wazir and Waseem Aslam Butt, having identical roles and allegations, were earlier acquitted u/s 265-K, Cr.P.C—Their acquittal attained finality as no appeal was filed by the State—Respondents, being similarly placed, were entitled to same treatment—Acquittal of respondents upheld on ground of parity. (d) Criminal justice - Delay in trial—Effect—FIR registered in 2016; no charge framed after nearly nine years—Prosecution’s inaction and delay held unjustified and violative of the right to fair and expeditious trial—Such prolonged uncertainty justified the Trial Court’s conclusion that continued proceedings would serve no purpose. (e) Appeal by the State - Maintainability—State’s contention that Trial Court erred in not allowing prosecution to produce evidence and in acquitting accused before charge held misconceived—Order of acquittal passed after due appreciation of record and within statutory powers under S.265-K, Cr.P.C. (f) Disposition - Appeal dismissed—Impugned order dated 08.03.2024 upheld—Respondents’ acquittal maintained.

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) - ----S. 12 - Specific performance—Deposit of balance sale consideration—Mandatory requirement—Respondent/plaintiff failed to deposit the remaining sale consideration within time fixed by Trial Court vide order dated 17.03.2021 and did not seek extension—Such omission contravened binding precedents—Readiness and willingness to perform contract must be demonstrated by timely deposit—Failure to do so disentitles plaintiff to discretionary relief of specific performance. Cited cases: Hamood Mehmood v. Mst. Shabana Ishaque and others 2017 SCMR 2022; Messrs Kuwait National Real Estate Company (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Messrs Educational Excellence Ltd. 2020 SCMR 171; Abdul Ali v. Additional District Judge, Gojra and others 2024 SCMR 1862. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) - ----O. VII, R. 11 - Rejection of plaint—Scope—Non-deposit of sale consideration despite court’s explicit directions renders plaint defective for want of compliance with mandatory condition precedent to maintainability—Trial Court’s refusal to reject plaint held erroneous and contrary to law—Suit rightly liable to dismissal. (c) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 - ----Art. 199 - Constitutional jurisdiction—Exercise thereof—High Court may interfere under Art.199 when subordinate court’s order suffers from misreading, non-reading of record, or defiance of binding precedent under Art.189—Trial Court’s order allowing further opportunity to deposit sale price contrary to settled law set aside. (d) Judicial discipline - Binding precedent—Effect of non-compliance—Trial Court’s reasoning permitting subsequent deposit after long lapse held inconsistent with settled Supreme Court law—Subordinate courts are bound by rulings of the apex court under Art.189 of the Constitution; deviation constitutes jurisdictional error. (e) Disposition - Writ petition allowed—Impugned order dated 06.02.2023 set aside—Suit for specific performance filed by respondent/plaintiff dismissed for failure to deposit balance sale consideration within prescribed period.

Summary: (a) National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 - ----S. 32 - Appeal against acquittal—Competence—Statutory right of appeal under S.32 vested exclusively in the Prosecutor General NAB or a person duly authorized by the Chairman NAB—Deputy Prosecutor General, not being an authorized person, had no locus standi to file the appeal—Appeal filed without authorization held incompetent and liable to dismissal. Cited cases: Syed Masroor Shah and others v. The State PLD 2005 SC 173; The State through Chairman, NAB v. Fazal Ahmed Jat and others 2014 P Cr.L.J 758. (b) National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 - ----S. 32(a)-(c) - Procedural mandate—Mandatory nature—Language of S.32 expressly restricts the right to appeal to the Prosecutor General NAB or authorized delegate—Provision is jurisdictional and must be strictly complied with—Non-observance cannot be cured by subsequent authorization and renders the appeal void ab initio. (c) Appellate jurisdiction under NAB Ordinance - Nature and scope—NAB appeals constitute a special statutory remedy distinct from ordinary criminal appeals—Must be exercised within the confines of the statute—Filing of appeal without authorization undermines the statutory scheme and judicial discipline—Procedural propriety is integral to maintaining accountability process integrity. (d) Locus standi - Absence of authorization—Effect—Filing of appeal without proper delegation by competent authority goes to the root of maintainability—Such procedural defect is fatal and cannot be condoned on equitable or discretionary grounds. (e) Disposition - Appeal dismissed as not maintainable—Filed without authorization under S.32 of the NAB Ordinance—Dismissal without prejudice to filing of a competent appeal in accordance with law.

Summary: (a) Education Law --- Universities’ academic autonomy --- Ph.D. degree requirements --- Appellants were enrolled Ph.D. students at National University of Modern Languages (NUML) whose admissions were canceled due to failure to submit a research article published in an HEC-recognized ‘Y’ category journal within the prescribed period—Held: Submission of such publication was a mandatory and non-negotiable prerequisite under NUML’s Regulations for Examinations, 2001 (Rules 5.2 and 5.3) and Higher Education Commission criteria—Completion and defense of thesis within the time limit could not cure non-compliance with the publication requirement—University’s action was lawful and justified. (b) Judicial review --- Interference in academic matters --- Limits of jurisdiction --- Courts must exercise restraint in internal affairs, academic policies, and administrative decisions of universities unless there is clear violation of fundamental rights or statutory provisions—Held: Courts lack technical expertise to regulate educational policy or assessment criteria—Doctrine of judicial non-interference reaffirmed in Khyber Medical University v. Aimal Khan, PLD 2022 SC 92, where Supreme Court underscored that institutional autonomy and academic freedom must be protected to preserve the integrity and self-governance of universities. (c) Academic standards --- Enforcement and institutional discretion --- Requirement of research publication in approved journal --- The condition for submission of an article in HEC-approved journal was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable but designed to uphold academic quality and uniform standards—Held: Universities are entitled to prescribe and enforce academic requirements, and students must strictly comply therewith—Reliance placed on University of Punjab v. Muhammad Iqbal, PLD 2012 SC 123; Allama Iqbal Open University v. Muhammad Aslam, 2017 SCMR 1234; and Quaid-e-Azam University v. Dr. Khalid Mehmood, 2018 SCMR 567. (d) Administrative discretion --- Judicial review --- Scope and restraint --- Policy decisions of universities, taken after due process and consistent with statutory regulations, cannot be substituted by judicial opinion—Courts’ role confined to examining legality, not wisdom, of academic decisions—Held: No violation of law or mala fide found; cancellation of appellants’ admissions was within lawful authority and supported by precedents. (e) Academic discipline --- Principle of compliance --- Failure to fulfill publication requirement despite successful thesis defense amounted to non-compliance with essential degree conditions—Held: University rightly refused to confer degree and appellate interference would compromise academic discipline and standards. Cited Cases: • Khyber Medical University v. Aimal Khan, PLD 2022 SC 92 • University of Punjab v. Muhammad Iqbal, PLD 2012 SC 123 • Allama Iqbal Open University v. Muhammad Aslam, 2017 SCMR 1234 • Quaid-e-Azam University v. Dr. Khalid Mehmood, 2018 SCMR 567 Disposition --- Both appeals dismissed; cancellation of admissions upheld; universities’ autonomy and academic standards reaffirmed.

Summary: Conviction maintained ---- (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 --- S. 9(c) (read with S. 15) --- Narcotics recovered from vehicle trunk/digi on the appellant’s own pointation—Forty packets of opium (48 kg) and fourteen packets of charas (16.8 kg) seized; parcels sealed with seal “NV”; recovery memo prepared; articles produced in evidence—Chemical Examiner’s report confirmed the seized substance as “narcotic drug”—Conviction under S. 9(c) sustained. (b) Criminal evidence --- Chain of custody / safe custody / safe transmission --- Prosecution established uninterrupted chain: receipt and entry in Register No.19 by Moharrar Malkhana; intact sealed sample parcels; road certificate; timely deposition at NIH, Islamabad; and production of case property and vehicle in court—No break, tampering, or substitution shown—Compliance with parameters emphasized in State v. Imran Bakhsh, 2018 SCMR 2039—Forensic report thus retained full evidentiary value. (c) Narcotics --- Representative sampling --- Investigating Officer separated 10 grams from each packet (40 opium samples + 14 charas samples) and sealed the remainder separately—Procedure conformed to the rule of “representative sampling” set in Ameer Zaib v. State, PLD 2012 SC 380—Objections as to sampling rejected. (d) Possession --- Conscious possession and control of vehicle --- Appellant was driving and exclusively controlling the vehicle (Article P-7); contraband recovered from its trunk on his pointation—Doctrine of “conscious possession” applied; presumption of knowledge arose and was not rebutted—Reliance placed on Ismail v. State, 2010 SCMR 27. (e) Criminal trial --- Defence plea / S. 342 & S. 340(2), Cr.P.C. --- Mere denial in statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C. without entering the witness box under S. 340(2), Cr.P.C. or producing defence evidence—Held: such bare denial could not displace consistent, corroborated prosecution evidence. (f) Appreciation of evidence --- Benefit of doubt --- Prosecution witnesses (including IO and recovery witnesses) remained consistent; recovery memo, Malkhana record, road certificate, video-recorded proceedings converted to CD, and FSL report furnished interlocking corroboration—No mala fide, enmity, or material contradiction proved—Benefit of doubt not attracted. (g) Sentence --- Life imprisonment with fine of Rs.100,000/- (and six months’ SI in default) maintained; benefit of S. 382-B, Cr.P.C. correctly extended. Cited Cases: • Ameer Zaib v. State, PLD 2012 SC 380 • State v. Imran Bakhsh, 2018 SCMR 2039 • Ismail v. State, 2010 SCMR 27 Disposition --- Jail appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence under S. 9(c), CNSA, 1997 upheld.

Summary: Acquittal ---- Offence U/s 376/380/411 PPC ---- (a) Criminal law—Circumstantial evidence—Benefit of doubt—Appreciation of evidence—Failure to produce material witnesses—Held, conviction and death sentence based on weak and contradictory circumstantial evidence not sustainable—Prosecution withheld primary witnesses, namely the deceased’s mother, sister and neighbour, who first discovered the scene—Adverse inference drawn under Art.129(g), Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984—Recovery of handkerchief allegedly containing forensic traces found unreliable as court witness disowned the recovery—Medical evidence inconsistent with alleged mode of death by strangulation—Chain of circumstances incomplete, contradictory and failing to unerringly point to guilt—Benefit of doubt extended; conviction and sentences set aside; appellants acquitted. Cited: Muhammad Nasir Butt v. State (2025 SCMR 662); Fayyaz Ahmed v. State (2017 SCMR 2026). (b) Criminal procedure—Duty to prove beyond reasonable doubt—Prosecution required to present unimpeachable, consistent and complete chain of circumstances—Where direct evidence absent, each link must be firmly established and all circumstances must point exclusively to guilt—When key link missing or contradicted, entire chain breaks—Conviction cannot stand. (c) Evidence—Withholding of material witnesses—Adverse presumption under Art.129(g), Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984—Failure of prosecution to examine eye-witnesses or first discoverers of occurrence constitutes fatal omission. (d) Medical jurisprudence—Post-mortem opinion—Inconsistencies between alleged cause of death (strangulation) and physical signs on body render opinion doubtful—When medical evidence contradicts ocular or circumstantial narrative, benefit of doubt must go to accused. (e) Sentencing—Capital punishment—Requirement of unimpeachable proof—Where evidence shaky or circumstantial chain incomplete, imposition of death sentence unsafe and contrary to settled law. (g) Disposition — Appeals allowed; conviction and death sentences set aside; appellants Syed Hammad Naqvi, Shah Sawar and Muhammad Khursheed acquitted of charges under Ss. 376, 411, 302, 380 & 34 PPC and ordered to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case; murder reference answered in negative.