Summary: Acquittal granted---(a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ---- Ss. 353, 224, 186, 225, 427, 147, 148, 149, 337-F(i), 337-H(ii)---Obstruction of public servants, rioting, causing hurt, mischief---Benefit of doubt---Appellants were convicted under multiple sections of the P.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment and fines on allegations of resisting police, aiding the escape of an accused, and attacking law enforcement officers during an attempted arrest---Prosecution failed to prove beyond doubt that the appellants actively participated in the alleged offenses---Material contradictions were found in the statements of prosecution witnesses, particularly regarding the alleged attack on police officers and the nature of injuries sustained---Absence of specific attribution of injuries or damage to any appellant further weakened the case---Court extended benefit of doubt to the appellants and set aside their convictions---Reliance placed on Shamoon alias Shamma v. The State (1995 SCMR 1377) and Tariq Pervaiz v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345). (b) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)--- ---- S. 7---Application of ATA provisions---Scope and intent---Prosecution alleged that the act of attacking police officers created terror in society, thereby falling under the purview of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Court held that for an act to constitute terrorism under ATA, there must be clear intent, purpose, and design to create fear or panic in the public or destabilize the state---No evidence was presented to show that the accused had any premeditated intent to spread terror or that their actions had such an effect---Relying on Ghulam Hussain v. The State (PLD 2020 SC 61), Court concluded that fear or insecurity as a mere byproduct of an alleged offense does not bring a case within the ambit of ATA, 1997---Conviction under ATA set aside. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ---- S. 103---Recovery and search---Non-compliance with mandatory provisions---Prosecution failed to associate independent witnesses with the recovery of weapons and other material evidence, despite the presence of numerous local residents near the crime scene---Only police officials acted as witnesses in all recovery proceedings, raising concerns about transparency and credibility---Court held that mandatory compliance with S. 103, Cr.P.C., is essential to ensure fairness and prevent false implication---Prosecution's failure to comply with this requirement cast further doubt on its case---Reliance placed on The State v. Bashir (PLD 1997 SC 408) and Yameen Kumhar v. The State (PLD 1990 Karachi 275). (d) Criminal trial--- ---- Material contradictions in prosecution evidence---Effect---Complainant stated that the accused fired upon the police, injuring an officer, while the injured officer himself contradicted this by stating that he was hit by a stone---Medical evidence suggested that the injury could have been caused by falling or an accidental impact rather than a direct attack---Further contradictions were found regarding damage to police vehicles, as some witnesses claimed glass was broken while others did not mention it---Court held that such contradictions created serious doubt about the prosecution’s version of events, warranting acquittal of the accused---Reliance placed on Muhammad Akram v. The State (YLR 2020 Note 94). (e) Benefit of doubt--- ---- Rule of prudence---Scope---Court reaffirmed the principle that if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind, the benefit must be given to the accused as a matter of right, not grace---Prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and any failure to do so necessitates acquittal---Where evidence is unreliable, contradictory, or lacking essential elements, conviction cannot be sustained---Reliance placed on Wazir Muhammad v. The State (1992 SCMR 1134) and Muhammad Ilyas v. The State (1997 SCMR 25). ----Disposition: Appeals allowed---Convictions and sentences set aside---Appellants acquitted of all charges under the Pakistan Penal Code and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Appellants ordered to be released unless required in another case. ----Cited Cases: Shamoon alias Shamma v. The State (1995 SCMR 1377) Tariq Pervaiz v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345) Ghulam Hussain v. The State (PLD 2020 SC 61) The State v. Bashir (PLD 1997 SC 408) Yameen Kumhar v. The State (PLD 1990 Karachi 275) Muhammad Akram v. The State (YLR 2020 Note 94) Wazir Muhammad v. The State (1992 SCMR 1134) Muhammad Ilyas v. The State (1997 SCMR 25)

Summary: (a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ---- Art. 113---Specific performance of contract---Time limitation---Effect of delay---Petitioner sought specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 07.05.1991 but filed suit on 08.07.2009, after a delay of 18 years---Court held that under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1908, a suit for specific performance must be filed within three years from the date fixed for performance or, if no date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused---Since the suit was filed well beyond the prescribed period, it was barred by limitation---Court reaffirmed that limitation is not a mere technicality but a substantive defense that accrues in favor of the opposite party upon expiration of the statutory period---Reliance placed on Haji Abdul Karim v. Florida Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. (PLD 2012 SC 247) and Atta Muhammad v. Maula Bakhsh (2007 SCMR 1446). (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ---- S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction---Scope---Findings of fact recorded by lower courts---Revisional jurisdiction under S. 115, C.P.C., is confined to cases where findings suffer from misreading, non-reading, or perverse appreciation of evidence---Concurrent findings of fact by the trial and appellate courts, based on proper evaluation of evidence, cannot be disturbed merely because an alternative view is possible---Court held that both courts below had correctly applied the law of limitation and assessed the evidence in true perspective, warranting no interference in revisional jurisdiction---Reliance placed on Muhammad Farid Khan v. Muhammad Ibrahim (2017 SCMR 679) and Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain (2014 SCMR 1469). (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ---- O. VII, R. 11---Rejection of plaint---Barred by limitation---Effect---Court reaffirmed that where a suit is barred by limitation, the plaint must be rejected without proceeding to trial or framing issues---Limitation is a matter of public policy, and courts are obligated to dismiss time-barred claims even if no objection is raised by the opposite party---In the present case, the agreement to sell was allegedly executed even before the seller had acquired ownership of the property, further invalidating the claim for specific performance---Reliance placed on Hakim Muhammad Buta v. Habib Ahmed (PLD 1985 SC 153). (d) Law of limitation--- ---- Public policy and mandatory application---Court emphasized that the law of limitation is not a procedural technicality but a fundamental legal principle designed to ensure certainty in legal claims---Limitation periods promote orderly administration of justice and prevent frivolous, delayed claims that could disrupt settled legal relationships---Even if a party does not raise a limitation defense, courts must consider it independently at any stage of proceedings---Reliance placed on Asad Ali v. The Bank of Punjab (PLD 2020 SC 736) and Dr. Muhammad Javaid Shafi v. Syed Rashid Arshad (PLD 2015 SC 212). ----Disposition: Revision dismissed---Findings of trial and appellate courts affirmed---Suit barred by limitation, and no case for interference in revisional jurisdiction made out. ----Cited Cases: Haji Abdul Karim v. Florida Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. (PLD 2012 SC 247) Atta Muhammad v. Maula Bakhsh (2007 SCMR 1446) Muhammad Farid Khan v. Muhammad Ibrahim (2017 SCMR 679) Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain (2014 SCMR 1469) Hakim Muhammad Buta v. Habib Ahmed (PLD 1985 SC 153) Asad Ali v. The Bank of Punjab (PLD 2020 SC 736) Dr. Muhammad Javaid Shafi v. Syed Rashid Arshad (PLD 2015 SC 212)

Summary: Against order dated 09.10.2023 of the Special Court (Official Secrets Act) in FIR No. 6/2023 dated 15.08.2023 U/s 5,9 Official Secret Act r/w 34 PPC 1860 P.S. FIA CTW, Islamabad

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Petitioner files this case against returning officer's decision to accept nomination papers of two candidates for election of National Council of Homeopathic

Summary: Ultra Vires Declaration: The Court declared that clause (d) of subsection (1) of Section 2 of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 (in both of its sub-clauses (i) and (ii)) and subsection (4) of Section 59 of the same Act are ultra vires the Constitution and of no legal effect. This means that these provisions were found to be in violation of the Constitution and, therefore, were deemed legally invalid.Civilian Trials: The Court ruled that the trials of civilians and accused persons, specifically around 103 individuals mentioned in the list provided by the Attorney General, and others similarly situated regarding the events of 9th and 10th May 2023, should be conducted by Criminal Courts of competent jurisdiction established under ordinary and special laws. This decision underscores the fundamental principle that civilians should be tried in civilian courts, not military tribunals.No Legal Effect of Military Proceedings: The Court explicitly stated that any actions or proceedings under the Pakistan Army Act, including trials by Court Martial, in respect of the aforementioned persons are and would be of no legal effect. This means that military proceedings or trials under the Army Act against civilians or accused individuals in this context were rendered legally null and void.Partial Dissent: One member of the Bench, Mr. Justice Yahya Afridi, reserved judgment as to one part of the declaration but joined the other members of the Bench regarding the other aspects. This indicates that there may have been some differences in opinion among the judges on certain elements of the case.In summary, the Supreme Court's legal analysis in this judgment focused on the constitutionality of specific provisions within the Pakistan Army Act, the rights of civilians to be tried in civilian courts, and the legal consequences of military proceedings against civilians in the specified context. The judgment sets a legal precedent for the treatment of civilians in legal matters related to the armed forces in Pakistan.

Summary: (1) Bail cannot be withheld as punishment. (2) Accused is presumed to be innocent unless found guilty. (3) The prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and this principle applies at all stages including the pre-trial stage and even at the time of deciding bail ----- The background of the case involves an FIR (First Information Report) filed on 11.12.2022, accusing unknown persons of the murder of Pardul Khan. Later, on 15.12.2022, the complainant implicated the petitioner, alleging a quarrel between the deceased and the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested, and during the investigation, two co-accused, Inzar Gul and Ali Bahadar, were also implicated.The petitioner's counsel argued that there were no reasonable grounds to connect the petitioner to the crime, emphasizing the absence of specific allegations in the FIR, lack of recovery from the petitioner, and the release of other co-accused on bail.The Additional Advocate General for KPK argued that the petitioner was found guilty during the investigation, pointing to the recovery of a pistol linked to the petitioner's brothers and a CCTV image showing the petitioner on a motorbike. However, the court observed that the petitioner's name was not mentioned in the original FIR, and there were no eyewitnesses to the crime.The court, after considering the arguments, concluded that further inquiry was needed to establish the petitioner's guilt. It emphasized the importance of a tentative assessment of the evidence, highlighting that a confession made before the police might not be admissible.On 23.10.2023, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner, subject to the furnishing of a surety bond.

Summary: Facts:Several appeals, collectively designated as CM Appeal Nos. 80, 108, 117, 124, 130, 131 & 145 of 2023, were filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The office initially raised objections regarding the maintainability of the petitions filed by the Appellants. It was noted that according to the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, such appeals are to be assigned to Honourable Judges of the Court in Chambers for appropriate orders. However, the office mistakenly fixed these CM Appeals directly before the Court. Consequently, the appeals were returned to the office for proper handling in accordance with the applicable rules.---Issues:--Whether the petitions were properly presented before the Court according to the Supreme Court Rules, 1980.--Whether the objections regarding the maintainability of the petitions are valid.---Decision:After considering the arguments presented, the Court issued a short order on October 23, 2023. The order declared specific clauses of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 as ultra vires to the Constitution and void. Furthermore, it determined that trials of civilians and accused persons relating to events on May 9th and 10th, 2023, would be conducted by Criminal Courts of competent jurisdiction, rendering any proceedings under the Army Act ineffective.--- Conclusion:In summary, the Supreme Court's decision in CM Appeal Nos. 80, 108, 117, 124, 130, 131 & 145 of 2023 underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules and upholding constitutional principles in legal proceedings.

Summary: Background: The case involves the recruitment of Constables in the Police Department following advertisement No. 160N/10/2020. The respondents, who were eligible candidates, applied and were placed on the merit list for positions in District Muzaffarabad. They claimed that 78 positions were available, but only 53 were advertised and filled, leaving vacancies due to non-joining of selected candidates. The respondents filed a writ petition seeking appointments to the remaining positions. The High Court accepted the writ petition and directed the department to appoint the respondents to the vacant positions. ----Issues: 1- Whether the High Court erred in directing appointments from a waiting list not recognized by law. 2- Whether the Police Rules, 1934, and the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act, 1976, support the concept of a waiting list for appointments. 3- Whether the High Court's decision to fill positions not advertised or those that became vacant post-selection was legally justified. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Applicability of Waiting List: The Supreme Court held that neither the Police Rules, 1934, nor the Civil Servants Act, 1976, provide for a waiting list. Appointments must follow the prescribed legal procedures, and positions not advertised cannot be filled from a waiting list. High Court’s Directive: The High Court's directive to appoint respondents from a waiting list was found to be erroneous. The principle is that appointments can only be made to positions explicitly advertised. Procedural Compliance: The Supreme Court emphasized that all vacant positions must be advertised transparently and filled based on the prescribed selection criteria. The practice of including provisos allowing for flexible increases or decreases in advertised positions was criticized and deemed to lack legal backing. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, ruling that the appointments must adhere strictly to advertised positions and legal procedures. Consequently, the respondents' writ petition was dismissed. ----Citations/Precedents: Al-Khair Trust of Pakistan and another vs. Prof. G.J. Preshan Khattak and others (2002 SCR 476) AJK Government, through its Chief Secretary and others vs. Sardar Muhammad Rafique Khan (PLJ 1993 SC(AJK) 39) Muhammad Younis Tahir (2012 SCR 213) M. Munir Raja vs. Chairman AJ&K Council & others (2018 SCR 48) Muhammad Idrees v. Collector of Customs and others (PLD 2002 Karachi 60) Naseem Abbas Shah and another vs. Imran Shaffi and others (2014 SCR 1022) Tabassum Ashraf vs. Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government and others (2020 SCR 127)

Summary: Summary pending