Summary: Issues:Whether the prosecution established safe transmission of the narcotic substance to the office of the Chemical Examiner.Whether the narcotic character of the contraband was adequately proven.---Judgment:The Supreme Court noted the prosecution's failure to prove safe transmission of the contraband to the Chemical Examiner's office.The court observed that Rahib Din (PW-2), who was supposed to prove the transmission, did not testify regarding the transmission of the entire cache to the Chemical Examiner.Due to the absence of proof of safe transmission and the established narcotic character of the substance, the court found it conjectural to hold the appellant responsible for possession.----Decision:The Supreme Court allowed Criminal Appeal No.630 of 2019.The impugned judgment by the High Court of Sindh was set aside.Gulzar was acquitted of the charge.The court's short order also noted that Gulzar had been ordered to be released unless required for detention under other charges.---Notable Points:The case highlights the importance of establishing the chain of custody and the narcotic character of substances in drug-related offenses.The judgment underscores the principle that convictions cannot be based on conjectures or assumptions but must be grounded in solid evidence and legal procedures.

Summary: Background:Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 6786 of 2020 and Civil Petition No. 3173 of 2020 arise from a judgment dated 27.10.2020 passed by the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 53310 of 2020. Syed Iqbal Hussain Shah Gillani, the petitioner, challenged the decision of the Executive Committee of the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) disqualifying him from contesting the Supreme Court Bar Association Pakistan (SCBAP) elections.---Issues:Whether the Lahore High Court's judgment dismissing the petitioner's constitutional petition is maintainable.Whether the Executive Committee of the Pakistan Bar Council acted lawfully in disqualifying the petitioner from contesting the SCBAP elections.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The petitioner challenged the decision of the Executive Committee before the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petition as non-maintainable. The petitioner argued that the decision violated his fundamental rights and sought enforcement through constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199(I)(c) of the Constitution.The Supreme Court examined whether a constitutional petition against the Pakistan Bar Council is maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution. It held that the Pakistan Bar Council, being an autonomous body, does not perform public functions connected with the affairs of the Federation, Provinces, or Local Authorities, as required by Article 199.The Court also rejected the argument that the SCBAP's rules should be enforced through constitutional petition, emphasizing that the SCBAP is a non-statutory body, and its rules do not have statutory backing.The Court referred to a previous order emphasizing that violations of the SCBAP Rules are not amenable to writ jurisdiction.The Court dismissed the petitioner's argument of ignorance of law and upheld the Lahore High Court's decision, holding that the constitutional petition was not maintainable.---Citations/Precedents:Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973Pakistan Bar Association v. Nadeem Ahmed Sindhu (2019)Mirza Muhammad Nazakat Baig v. Federation of Pakistan (2020)

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 302(b) & 459-Qatl-i-amd, hurt caused, whilst committing lurking house-trespass or house-breaking-Reappraisal of evidence-Accused was the only person nominated in the FIR by the complainant, and he had been attributed the role of effective firing at the deceased-Eye-witness of the case was an inmate of the house, where the occurrence took place, therefore her presence at the spot was natural and could not be doubted-Evidence of said eye-witness found corroboration from the contents of the FIR and the site plan, which was prepared on her pointation, wherefrom the crime empties and blood-stained clothes were recovered by the investigating officer-Said eye-witness was subjected to lengthy cross-examination but nothing detrimental to the case of the prosecution was found in her statement-Medical evidence also supported the prosecution version-Besides the crime empties, the weapon of offence was recovered from the possession of the accused, and the forensic report in regard to the weapon was positive-Appeal was dismissed and conviction and sentences passed against the accused were maintained. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -S. 302(b)-Qatl-i-amd-Related witness, evidence of-Scope-Mere relationship of a witness with the victim would not discard his/her evidence if it was otherwise confidence inspiring and trustworthy. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 302(b) & 459-Qatl-i-amd, hurt caused, whilst committing lurking house-trespass or house-breaking-Reappraisal of evidence-Sentence, quantum of-Mitigating circumstances-Motive for the occurrence was not established from the record-Question as to what happened prior to the scene of occurrence or what prompted the accused to take away the life of the deceased were circumstances which had rightly been considered by the Courts below as mitigating circumstances and thus, the accused was rightly sentenced to imprisonment for life instead of death-Appeal was dismissed. Complainant in person along with Bedar (father of deceased).

Summary: Civil Revision, against order dated 08 -11 -2016

Summary: Acquittal granted----Appeal against conviction is not maintainable if the convict deposits the amount of daman immediately and secures his release as sentence stands executed----In this application under Section 561-A Cr.P.C., the petitioner challenges the validity of an dismissing a criminal revision petition against the order. The latter directed the petitioner to repay the Daman (compensation) of Rs.90,000 received as an injured witness in accordance with the judgment. The court, in its analysis, highlighted the legal provisions regarding the payment of Daman, the period for payment, and the limitations on challenging convictions after seeking relief under Section 337-Y PPC. The court relies on legal precedents, including the case "Dr. Waqar Hussain Vs. The State" (2000 SCMR 735), "Government of Punjab, Lahore Vs. Abid Hussain and others" (PLD 2007 Supreme Court 315), "Mst. Ubaida versus Makhdoom Abrar Ahmad and 2 others" (1986 P Cr. L J 539), "Sakhawat Ali versus The State" (1999 P Cr. L J 450), "Faiz Muhammad versus A. Rauf and others" (1999 P Cr. L J 864), "The State versus Muhammad Umar alias Chotoo" (2003 P Cr. L J 216), and "Attaullah versus Abdur Razaq and another" (P L D 2002 Supreme Court 534). The court concluded that the appeal filed by respondent No.5 was incompetent, as the punishment was not postponed under Section 382-A Cr.P.C. In exercising inherent powers under Section 561-A Cr.P.C, the court sets aside the orders dated 23.08.2011 (acquittal), 17.10.2011 (directing repayment of Daman), and 24.11.2011 (dismissing the revision petition).

Summary: The issue revolved around the calculation of liquidated damages on late settlement of insurance claims under the Insurance Ordinance (XXXII of 2000). The court, presided by Justice Muhammad Ameer Bhatti, emphasizes the method of computation of liquidated damages, ruling against compounding them from one month to the next. Precedents, including Messrs State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan v. Mst. Anwar Gulzar (2012 CLD 1014), are cited, advocating the calculation of base rates separately for each monthly rest. The judgment underscored that the compounding method was not allowed, and claimants cannot demand settlement of liquidated damages on such terms. The court dismissed the notion that the Supreme Court set aside the relevant judgment, upholding its validity. Despite setting aside the order directing the return of the amount already consumed by the respondent, the court directs the recalculation of the remaining unpaid period based on its established principles. In conclusion, the appeal was accepted, and the matter is remanded for the recalculated determination of liquidated damages, adhering to the court's established legal principles.

Summary: (conviction maintained)--Four masked gunmen entered the shop and robbed prize bonds worth two million rupees. During the robbery, the assailants fired shots, resulting in the deaths of 2 individuals, while two witnesses were injured. The appellant contested the charges and denied his involvement, claiming that the identities of the assailants were uncertain as they were wearing masks. After considering the arguments and examining the evidence, the Supreme Court upheld the convictions but altered the penalty of death to imprisonment for life on each count. The court acknowledged that the witnesses were closely related to the victims, and the identification of the appellant as one of the assailants was supported by the elimination of the other nominated assailants in a police encounter. The court also noted that although the prosecution failed to produce medical certificates for the injured witnesses, their presence at the crime scene was deemed plausible. The court concluded that the improvements in the witnesses' statements did not undermine their overall credibility, and the appellant's conviction and sentences, except for the conviction under section 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, were upheld. The conviction under section 7(a) was set aside based on a previous ruling of the court. The remaining convictions, including the imposition of compensation and fines, were maintained.

Summary: Background:Criminal Appeal No. 518 of 2010 arises from an order dated 26.01.2009 by the Islamabad High Court in Criminal Original No. 73 of 2008, titled Securities & Exchange Commission of Pakistan Vs. Nadeem H. Shaikh & 32 others.The order directed proceedings against two respondents under section 282-K of the Companies Ordinance, 1984.---Issues:Failure of the appellant to provide addresses of respondents despite repeated directions from the Court.Persistence of appellant's non-compliance despite multiple opportunities granted by the Court.Discrepancy between the positions taken by appellant's counsel and the Advocate-on-Record regarding provision of requisite information.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Despite numerous opportunities, the appellant failed to provide the addresses of respondents, hindering the progression of the case.The Court had cautioned against dismissal of the appeal if the appellant failed to comply with providing the addresses.Appellant's counsel claimed to have provided the necessary information to the Advocate-on-Record, but the latter's plea for substitute service contradicted this claim.The Court emphasized the importance of timely compliance and efficient use of judicial resources.The delay caused by the appellant was deemed unacceptable, and the Court decided to dismiss the appeal.

Summary: Background:Criminal Appeal No. 125 of 2020 arises from a judgment dated 8.11.2016 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Circuit Court, Larkana in Cr. Appeal No. D-3/2015.The appellant, Mst. Sughran, was convicted along with co-accused Mst. Sughra for possession of cannabis.---Issues:Request for reduction of appellant's sentence and fine.Consideration of appellant's role as a hapless carrier of the contraband.Evaluation of factors such as the period served, the death of a co-convict, and the purpose of the criminal justice system.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Despite highlighting investigative flaws, appellant's counsel does not contest her conviction but seeks a reduction in sentence to the period already served, along with a modification of the fine.The appellant was caught with a cache of cannabis in a public vehicle. Her co-accused, Mst. Sughra, has since passed away.Appellant has already served a considerable portion of her sentence, and her status as a hapless carrier has not been seriously challenged.The purpose of the criminal justice system is rehabilitation, not vengeance. Considering the circumstances, including the time served and the death of a co-convict, the Court finds grounds to reduce appellant's sentence to the period already undergone.The fine is also reduced, with the appellant given the option to pay Rs. 30,000 or undergo three months of simple imprisonment in case of default.With these modifications, the appeal is partly allowed.

Summary: Conviction upheld---Background:Jail Petition No. 348 of 2019 is filed against the judgment dated 18.04.2019 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 866 of 2017.The petitioner, Ibrar Ullah, was intercepted by the police at a post in Rawat Police Station, shortly after alighting from a public vehicle from Peshawar on 10.10.2016.He was found in possession of 3500 grams of contraband, identified as cannabis, and was subsequently convicted under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.---Issues:Assertion of false implication and lack of evidence.Discrepant statements of witnesses and absence of witness support.Challenge regarding the forensic report's validity.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Court finds it difficult to believe the claim of false implication, considering the petitioner's presence at the spot of arrest and the substantial amount of contraband found on him.Absence of public witnesses does not diminish the credibility of official witnesses, who provided consistent details regarding the arrest and recovery.Criticism of the forensic report lacks merit as its contents were acknowledged by the defense during the trial.Attempts to introduce a defense witness during the trial were deemed unreliable and failed to override the positive evidence against the petitioner.The conclusions drawn by the lower courts were found to be in accordance with legal principles and safe administration of criminal justice.The petition is dismissed, and leave is declined.