Summary: Acquittal granted ----(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 363––Kidnapping––Benefit of doubt––Unexplained delay in lodging FIR––Effect––Delay held to be deliberate and after due consultation. Occurrence allegedly took place on 04.05.2010, yet FIR was lodged on 07.05.2010, with a three-day unexplained delay despite the police station being only 3 km away––Held, delay in reporting was not reasonably explained and appears to be result of deliberation––Reliance placed on Muhammad Jahangir v. The State (2024 SCMR 1741)––Such delay casts serious doubt on prosecution’s version––Conviction based on doubtful evidence held unsustainable. (b) Criminal trial––False implication––Implicating large number of accused without assigning specific role––Adverse inference––Evidentiary value. Complainant implicated sixteen accused, but no specific role was assigned to any of them––Only Zahid Hussain was convicted while rest were acquitted or discharged––Complainant himself admitted during cross-examination that he could not name the person who abducted his son––Such sweeping allegations without particulars held to be inherently unreliable––Conviction cannot be sustained where involvement of accused is vague and uncorroborated. (c) Criminal trial––Investigation––Non-production of key witness––Effect of withholding best available evidence––Presumption under Art. 129(g), QSO 1984. Prosecution relied on alleged statement of Mst. Bushra Bibi implicating the appellant but failed to produce her as a witness or record her statement under S. 161 Cr.P.C––Held, non-production of best available witness raises presumption that her testimony would have been unfavourable to prosecution––Drawing of adverse inference under Art. 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, justified––Reliance placed on Muhammad Rafique v. The State PLJ 2011 SC 191. (d) Criminal trial––Extra-judicial confession––Nature––Evidentiary value––Requirement of corroboration. Alleged extra-judicial confession made by the appellant was uncorroborated––Held, extra-judicial confessions are inherently weak type of evidence and ordinarily fabricated where independent evidence is lacking––No conviction can be safely based solely on such weak evidence––Failure to establish chain of circumstantial evidence renders prosecution case doubtful. (e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 382-B––Benefit of doubt––Missing child––Emotional factor––Court to decide on evidence not sentiment. While Court noted the emotional impact of the minor’s continued disappearance, it reiterated that judicial verdicts must rest on legally admissible evidence, not on emotion or sympathy––Benefit of doubt must be given where prosecution evidence is riddled with inconsistencies and lacks credible corroboration––Appellant acquitted. ---- Disposition: Criminal Appeal No. 43770 of 2019 allowed; conviction and sentence of Zahid Hussain set aside; appellant acquitted. Criminal Appeal No. 53561 of 2019 (against acquittal of co-accused) dismissed as infructuous.

Summary: Whether the learned Assistant District Public Prosecutor was legally competent to file an application for summoning the petitioners in absence of a statutory complaint filed by a designated Inspector under Section 30 of the Drugs Act, 1976. Whether the learned Drug Court could assume jurisdiction to entertain such an application, bypassing the statutory mechanism laid down in Sections 19 and 30 of the Drugs Act, 1976, and the Punjab Drug Rules, 2007. Whether the impugned proceedings and order offend the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Articles 4 and 10A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

Summary: Imposition of fine by the Hearing Committee is an exercise of the power extended to the Commission and such the act or decision falls within the scope of Section 28 of the Punjab Healthcare Commission Act, 2010 -

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Whether the learned Assistant District Public Prosecutor was legally competent to file an application for summoning the petitioners in absence of a statutory complaint filed by a designated Inspector under Section

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Under the mandate of Order VII Rule 11, a plaint can be rejected only if it does not disclose a cause of action. The concepts of disclosing a cause of action and having a cause of action are distinct. A plaint may be rejected when it fails to disclose any cause of action, whereas the question of having a cause of action necessarily involves an inference that can only be drawn after recording evidence . (b) The absence of a cause of action in fact is different from a plaint that discloses no cause of action on its face. Whether the plaintiff actually has a cause of action is a matter that can only be determined on the basis of evidence. Rejection under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C., is permissible only when the plaint fails to disclose a cause of action.

Summary: Section 24 & 25 of KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA PRE-EMPTION ACT 1987. • The Pre-emption Act, 1987 prescribes two distinct timelines. Under Section 24(1), deposit of one-third of the pre-emption amount is mandatory and non-compliance entails dismissal of the suit. However, the present controversy pertains to Section 25 of the Act, which, as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is directory in nature. There is nothing on record to suggest that the pre-emptor was informed of the exact amount payable under the decree at the time of pronouncement of judgment. The specific amount of Rs. 25,80,446.35 became known to the decree-holder only upon receipt of the attested copies on 09.12.2019, pursuant to application No. 8282 dated 31.10.2019. In the case of Rahamdal Khan v. Ihsan Ullah & others (2022 CLC 2106), after considering various precedents including 2013 MLD 360, 1999 SCMR 342, 1991 SCMR 2149, 1986 SCMR 849, PLD 2006 SC 140, and 2005 SCMR 1664, this Court held that trial courts ordinarily do not issue a short written order at the time of pronouncement that specifies the exact preemption amount and related directions. Consequently, the Registrar of this Court was directed to circulate a copy of the said judgment among the District Judges for further dissemination to Civil Judges of the province. • While the decree was announced on 31.10.2019, attested copies were provided only on 09.12.2019. In the absence of a written short order specifying the amount and conditions, the pre-emptor could not reasonably be expected to comply with the direction prior to receiving the attested copies. Learned counsel for the petitioner rightly contended that no short order was issued by the trial court. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the trial court appropriately allowed the application for extension. Though section 25 of the Act does provide the period of 30 days but without any penal consequence for deposit of the remaining amount and has consistently been held to be directory by the Superior Courts.

Summary: The Court allowed writ petitions filed by landowners in Swat, setting aside the impugned orders that dismissed their objections to the land acquisition for the Swat Expressway Phase-II project. The court ruled that the petitioner`s objections cannot be dismissed solely on the grounds of limitation, as they were not served with notices under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court emphasized the importance of fair compensation, citing Article 24 of the Constitution, which mandates that no property shall be compulsorily acquired or taken possession of save for a public purpose and with compensation. The court noted that other landowner`s objections were entertained and sent to the Referee Judge for decision on merit, and therefore, the petitioner`s objections should also be considered similarly to avoid conflicting decisions and promote consistency and fairness. The court`s decision enables the petitioners to have their objections considered and decided on merit. If the compensation amount is enhanced in pending references, the petitioners will also be entitled to the same enhanced compensation. The petitioners will have the opportunity to participate in the process of computing due compensation, ensuring their rights are protected under Article 10-A of the Constitution.