Summary: 423 Cr.P.CWhen the trial is conducted by anti-terrorism court, but on appeal it is found that punishment awarded to accused under Anti-terrorism Act is not maintainable then the Court have powers to maintain his conviction for the offence under ordinary penal provision by setting aside his conviction under Anti-terrorism Act without remanding the case for hearing to Court of ordinary Criminal Jurisdiction.

Summary: Creation of new Districts and Tehsils is an administrative function and decision which can not be question through a writ petition.

Summary: (a) When unexplained delay is coupled with circumstances indicating taking of preliminary investigations in a criminal case, it is normally taken as fatal to the case of prosecution.

Summary: (a) Confession recorded by a Judicial Magistrate, who is not conversant with the language of the accused, cannot be relied upon for awarding capital punishment to the accused.(b) Guideline for recording confession.

Summary: Acquittal granted----In this case, the appellant argued that his trial in absentia violated constitutional rights under Article 9 and Article 10-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Relying on the precedent set by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan, specifically in the case of Abdul Sattar Molla v. Crown (PLD 1953 FC 145), the appellant asserted that trials in absentia have been declared illegal. Additionally, the appellant challenged the legality of his conviction, contending that the reliance on the statement of a process-server, recorded under section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, is improper and not admissible as evidence. The appellant further argued that the trial court deviated from established procedures, violating both the Constitution and the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. While section 17(c) of the Ordinance grants the Accountability Court the authority to dispense with the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant insisted that such dispensation must be accompanied by recorded reasons and adherence to principles of natural justice. Regarding the time-barred appeal, the appellant contends that the judgment being void ab initio justified ignoring the limitation period. Citing Muhammad Shafi v. Mushtaq Ahmed (1996 SCMR 856), the appellant asserted that if an order is void, the bar of limitation can be disregarded. In the final verdict, the court, aligning with the appellant's arguments, sets aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant from the charges under Section 31-A of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999.

Summary: Muhammad Yousaf challenges the adoption date of a federal notification by the Provincial Government, specifically contesting the extension of the leave preparatory to retirement period. The appellant argued that the Provincial Government should have implemented the federal notification from the same date as the Federal Government, rather than the adopted date. The primary focus of the case revolved around the concept of Provincial Autonomy post the Eighteenth Amendment, examining the province's discretion in adopting federal policies within its legislative competence. The judgment underscored the exclusive legislative authority granted to provinces, emphasizing their autonomy and freedom from external control. The court asserted that the Provincial Government has the discretionary power to adopt federal policies and is not obligated to synchronize implementation with the Federal Government. Importantly, the judgment relies on the precedent set in "SHAFAATULLAH QURESHI Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN" (PLD 2001 SC 142) to support the argument that the Ombudsman's orders do not convert an authority into a court, and the functions of the Ombudsman are of a recommendatory nature. The appellant's arguments, including reliance on the Ombudsman's orders, were dismissed.

Summary: This constitutional petition challenged the order by the Special Judge (Rent), Lahore, rejecting the Petitioners' application for leave to defend the ejectment petition filed by Respondent No.1. The Petitioners argued that both lower courts lacked jurisdiction to address the matter as the ejectment petition did not establish a landlord-tenant relationship under Sections 15 & 19 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009. They claim that the Special Judge (Rent) accepted the ejectment petition without granting them leave to contest, despite filing an application under Section 22 of the Act disclosing grounds for evidence. The Respondent Bank, asserted ownership of the property, claiming it was originally owned by the National Bank of Lahore and later transferred to them. They argued that the tenancy is oral, has expired, and that the Petitioners are obligated to vacate the property. The Petitioners relied on previous legal decisions, including "FAZAL RAZIZ Versus Haji SHER ZAMAN and 2 others" (2016 MLD 121) and "AMIN and others Versus Hafiz GHULAM MUHAMMAD and others" (PLD 2006 SC 549). The Respondent Bank refuted the Petitioners' arguments, citing a series of past legal proceedings and emphasizing the finality of a previous Supreme Court judgment favoring them. The court, after a thorough analysis, dismissed the petition.

Summary: During the proceedings, Article 247 of the Constitution was omitted through a constitutional amendment, causing changes in the legal regime governing the area formerly known as FATA/PATA. This amendment was challenged in various cases. However, the court decided that the omission of Article 247 did not affect the legality of the proceedings under the Regulation No. 1 of 2009 applicable in FATA/PATA areas. The court clarified that the repeal or omission of an Act under the Constitution would not affect any ongoing proceedings, legal remedies, or rights accrued under the repealed law.As a result, the court set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remanded the matters back to the High Court for further consideration in accordance with the prevailing legal regime under the Constitution and the Regulation of 2009. The court further disposed of all listed applications in the case.

Summary: (a) Criminal trial-------Acquittal---Whether it is on the basis of a declaration by a court on the conclusion of thetrial that someone is not guilty of the charge or at any stage under S.249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C.or on the basis of compromise under S.345, Cr.P.C. it was acquittal.Manzoor Hussain Jatoi v. State 1997 PCr.LJ 500 and Muhammad Islam v.Government of N.W.F.P., 1998 SCMR 1993 rel.(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S.517---Order for disposal of property regarding which offence committed---Accused wasbooked in a criminal case registered under S.324, P.P.C., he was tried and after accepting anapplication under S.345(2), Cr.P.C., was acquitted, however the case property, pistol, wasordered to be confiscated in favour of State and the licence to be cancelled---Validity---Nodistinction could be drawn between an acquittal on the basis of compromise incompoundable offences or an acquittal by way of benefit of doubt, consequences in each casewould be the same---In the context of the provisions of S.345(6), Cr.P.C., the effect of anacquittal recorded by a court on the basis of a successful and complete compounding of acompoundable offence shall include all the benefits and fruits of a lawful acquittal---In caseof acquittal, the accused became entitled to all the reliefs consequent upon to his acquittalincluding the release of his property seized by the police during the investigation of the case---Since the accused was acquitted of the charge in view of the compromise effected betweenthe parties, as such, accused was entitled to get the case property---Appeal was allowed bysetting aside the impugned order and case property was ordered to be delivered to theaccused after due verification of the licence by the issuing authority.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Appealagainst acquittal---Delay of about one and half hours in lodging the FIR---Effect---Accusedwere charged for committing murder of brother of the complainant by firing---Recordtranspired that FIR was lodged with a delay of one and a half hours without any explanation---Fact remained that the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station wasonly four kilometres---Said unexplained delay was fatal for the prosecution case, incircumstances. [p. 1291] A(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss.302 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Appealagainst acquittal---Benefit of doubt---Accused were charged for committing murder ofbrother of the complainant by firing---Motive behind the occurrence was that a few days ago,hot words exchanged between the deceased and father of the accused persons---Prosecutionin order to prove its case produced complainant, who was brother of the deceased and cousinof the deceased as eyewitnesses---Said witnesses stated that they identified the accusedpersons in the light of the electricity bulb---During cross-examination said witnesses statedthat the accused made firing upon the deceased from a close range of 5/6 steps and they werealso present with the deceased---Witnesses also alleged that all the accused made firing uponthe deceased for two or three minutes---Mode and manner of the occurrence were shroudedin mystery and if the accused were to kill the deceased then why they left the witnesses aliveas they had ample opportunity to do away with them---Witnesses were within the firingrange of the accused that too when accused were allegedly armed with pistols andKalashnikovs, which were automatic weapons---So escaping unhurt of the witnesses did notappeal to the prudent mind despite the fact that the distance between the deceased, thewitnesses and the accused were given as 5/6 steps, from such a short distance how thewitnesses remained safe---Prosecution had failed to point out any defect in the impugnedjudgment passed by the Trial Court---Appeal being devoid of merits was accordinglydismissed. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Appealagainst acquittal---Benefit of doubt---Night time occurrence---Source of light---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of brother of the complainant by firing---In thepresent case, the witnesses stated in their statements that they identified the accused in thelight of electricity bulb, however, the site plan revealed that no light bulb was shown in thesame---No light bulb was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer during theinvestigation---Identification of the accused was doubtful, in circumstances.Sardar Bibi v. Munir Ahmed and others 2017 SCMR 344; Rashid Khan v. The State2017 SCMR 564 and Gulfam and another v. The State 2017 SCMR 1189 rel.(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss.302 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Appealagainst acquittal---Benefit of doubt---Non-justification for the presence of witnesses at theplace of occurrence---Chance witnesses---Scope---Accused were charged for committingmurder of brother of the complainant by firing---Record showed that the alleged occurrencetook place at the house of the deceased, however, the eyewitnesses were not residents of thelocality/place of occurrence---Said witnesses, when appeared before the court, explained thatthey were factually not residing at the place of occurrence, but they stayed with the deceasedovernight---Both the witnesses were chance witnesses, in circumstances---Said witnesses hadclaimed that they came to see the deceased but did not tell why and more importantly did notgive any reasons for staying overnight---In the absence of some confidence-inspiringexplanation regarding their presence at the crime scene, the chance witnesses and theirtestimony could simply be termed as suspect evidence---Circumstances established that theprosecution had failed to point out any defect in the impugned judgment passed by the TrialCourt---Appeal being devoid of merits was accordingly dismissed.Mst. Sughra Begum and another v. Qaiser Pervez and others 2015 SCMR 1442 rel.(e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Appealagainst acquittal---Benefit of doubt---Medical and ocular evidence---Conflictions---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of brother of the complainant by firing---Record showed that the medical evidence was in conflict with the ocular evidence and theseat of injuries hardly explained that they were caused by using firearms, i.e. Kalashnikovand pistols---Medical Officer who examined the deceased appeared before the court andstated that he noticed thirteen injuries on the dead body of the deceased---Said witnessfurther stated that all the injuries sustained by the deceased were pallet injuries---Injurieswere one cm in diameter and such injuries could be caused due to .12 bore shotgun---On theother hand, when eyewitnesses appeared before the court, they stated that the accusedpersons were equipped with Kalashnikov and pistols and they made firing upon thedeceased---None of the witnesses stated that any of the accused was armed with .12 bore shotgun---Investigating Officer recovered eight bullet empties of Kalashnikov and ninebullets empties of .30 bore T.T pistol from the place of occurrence---No empties of a .12bore shotgun were taken into possession by the investigating Officer from the place ofoccurrence---Said shortcomings led to anomaly between medical and ocular evidence, whichcould legitimately be resolved in favour of the defence---Circumstances established that theprosecution had failed to point out any defect in the impugned judgment passed by the TrialCourt---Appeal being devoid of merits was accordingly dismissed.Abdul Jabbar and another 2019 SCMR 129 rel.(f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss.302 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Appealagainst acquittal---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapons on the pointation of accused---Reliance---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of brother of thecomplainant by firing Record showed that the accused was arrested and during theinvestigation, he disclosed about the commission of the offence and 30 bore pistol wasrecovered from his possession from the bushes in the jungle---One T.T pistol was recoveredon the pointation of the co-accused from his house---Both the pistols and crime empties weresent to Firearm Expert who gave a positive report which was not possible in circumstances---According to medical witness, the deceased received injuries by means of a .12 bore shotgun,whereas Investigating Officer took bullet empties of Kalashnikovs and T.T pistols from thecrime scene and sent the alleged crime weapons recovered from the accused along withbullet empties of Kalashnikov and pistol to Forensic Science Laboratory who gave a positivereport in that regard---No empties of the shotgun were recovered from the place ofoccurrence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to point out anydefect in the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court---Appeal being devoid of meritswas accordingly dismissed.(g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss.302 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Appealagainst acquittal---Benefit of doubt---Delay of about three months in sending the weapon andcrime empties for analysis---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder ofbrother of the complainant by firing---Record showed that the Investigating Officer securedthe empties on the day of occurrence from the place of incident, however, the accused werearrested after 22 days when the pistol was recovered---Said pistol was sent to the FirearmsExpert along with the bullet empties together after three months' delay for analysis withoutany reason as to where the recovered material was kept and in whose custody---Sending of afirearm along with empty shell lost its evidentiary value, as such could not be considered ascorroborative evidence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to pointout any defect in the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court---Appeal being devoid ofmerits was accordingly dismissed.Haroon Shafique v. The State 2018 SCMR 2118 rel.(h) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss.302 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Appealagainst acquittal---Benefit of doubt---Motive was not proved---Scope---Accused werecharged for committing murder of brother of the complainant by firing---In the present case,the complainant forwarded the motive that few days from the occurrence a quarrel took placebetween the father of the accused and the deceased, due to which the accused committedmurder of the deceased, however, no FIR whatsoever had been produced about the allegedquarrel between the father of the accused and the deceased---Throughout the investigation,nothing was brought on record to prove the motive---Circumstances established that theprosecution had failed to point out any defect in the impugned judgment passed by the TrialCourt---Appeal being devoid of merits was accordingly dismissed.(i) Criminal trial-------Motive---Scope---Motive was always a double-edged weapon which cut both ways.Muhammad Ashraf alias Acchu v. The State 2019 SCMR 652 rel.(j) Appeal against acquittal-------Double presumption of innocence---Interference---Acquittal carried with it doublepresumption of innocence---Acquittal order could only be reversed when found blatantlyperverse, resting upon fringes of impossibility and resulting in miscarriage of justice---Acquittal order could not be set-aside merely on the possibility of a contra view.