Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) --- S. 514 --- Surety bond --- Liability of surety upon failure of accused to appear --- Discharge of surety --- Discretion of Court to reduce forfeited amount --- Appellant stood surety for the accused in two criminal appeals arising out of the same acquittal judgment. The appeals remained pending for ten years before the High Court and were ultimately dismissed, confirming the acquittal. The High Court, however, ordered the appellant to deposit Rs. 100,000/- in both appeals despite him being surety for a single accused. The Supreme Court of AJ&K observed that although the liability of a surety ordinarily arises upon the failure of the accused to appear, the long pendency of the appeals and the confirmation of acquittal justified a lenient approach. The Court, therefore, exercised its discretion to reduce the total surety liability to Rs. 100,000/-, directing the appellant to deposit the amount within one month. Failing compliance, the law would take its own course. ---Disposition: Appeal disposed of. Surety amount reduced to Rs. 100,000/- total, payable within one month.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Arts. 199, 247(7) & Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2018 Jurisdiction of High Court over matters arising under Frontier Crimes Regulations (FCR)—Scope—Petitioner was convicted by Additional District Magistrate/APA, Central Kurram under Regulation 11/40 of the FCR and Section 121-A, P.P.C. based on recommendations of a JIT and council of elders—He failed to avail statutory appellate and revisional remedies under the FCR and belatedly filed a writ petition under Art. 199 of the Constitution—Held, Article 247(7) barred High Court jurisdiction over matters relating to Tribal Areas at the relevant time—Mere subsequent repeal of Art. 247 by the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2018 could not be given retrospective effect to reopen proceedings already concluded—Judgment rendered prior to repeal of Article 247 attained finality and could not be disturbed—Petition was held to be not maintainable. (b) Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901: ----Regulations 11 & 40—Council of Elders—Sentencing without exhaustion of remedies—Petitioner did not file appeal before Commissioner or revision before FATA Tribunal—Held, failure to avail specific and adequate remedies under the FCR precludes recourse to constitutional jurisdiction—Petitioner’s conviction attained finality due to lapse of time and procedural inaction. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----Ss. 408 & 5 (Limitation Act, 1908)—Delay in appeal—Right of appeal is statutory—Petitioner filed Criminal Appeal under S. 408, Cr.P.C. based on permission allegedly granted by High Court in another case—Appeal dismissed as barred by time—No application for condonation of delay or plausible explanation provided—Held, High Court had no authority to grant such permission contrary to statutory framework—Right of appeal not available in absence of express statutory provision—Exercise of jurisdiction by High Court without lawful basis would be coram non judice—Appeal rightly dismissed. (d) Constitutional Law—Delay and Laches: ----Petitioner approached constitutional forum after more than 1.5 years of conviction without explanation—Held, law aids the vigilant, not the indolent—Delay and failure to pursue timely legal remedies disentitle petitioner to relief under writ jurisdiction. ----Cited Cases: • Mian Muhammad Yousaf v. LDA PLD 2001 SC 393 • Syed Match Company Ltd. v. Authority under Payment of Wages Act 2003 SCMR 1493 • Mian Azam Waheed v. Collector of Customs 2023 SCMR 1247 • Jameel Qadir v. Government of Balochistan 2023 SCMR 1919 • Muhammad Safeer v. Muhammad Azam PLD 2024 SC 838 ----Disposition: Petition dismissed—Leave to appeal refused.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974 –– Art. 44 –– Extradition of fugitive offender –– Challenge to arrest and transfer from AJK to Pakistan –– Extradition of Fugitive Offenders Acts of 1984 and 1995 –– Constitutionality and procedure. Petitioners sought protection against arrest and transfer to Pakistan under FIR No. 196/2024 registered under Ss. 406 & 506 PPC in District Layyah, alleging the FIR was false and that the Extradition of Fugitive Offenders Acts, 1984 and 1995 were unconstitutional––Held, both Acts lay down a clear legal procedure requiring a warrant from Pakistani authorities and coordination through the AJK police and District Magistrate––Authorities had complied with the statutory requirements and obtained all necessary permissions––No procedural illegality found––Apprehensions of mala fide intent were baseless and unsupported by record or evidence. Disposition: Petition dismissed in limine. (b) Extradition law –– Ss. 3 to 6, Extradition of Fugitive Offenders Acts, 1984 & 1995 –– Constitutionality –– Reciprocal mechanism –– Fundamental rights –– Legislative wisdom. Petitioners challenged Ss. 3–6 of the AJK Council Extradition Acts as violative of fundamental rights and lacking reciprocity––Held, constitutional protection of movement is not absolute and is subject to lawful restrictions––The lack of identical reciprocal provisions for arrest of Pakistani citizens accused of crimes in AJK does not render the law unconstitutional––Cited precedent Hasan Raza v. Azad Govt. of AJK and Lt. Col. Sanaullah Raja v. Muhammad Shafi upholding validity of the Ordinance––Legislative enactments carry a presumption of constitutionality unless convincingly rebutted––Mere apprehensions or disagreement with policy are insufficient to strike down law––Mala fide cannot be attributed to the legislature without strong material. (c) Criminal Procedure –– FIR in Pakistan –– Arrest of accused residing in AJK –– Due process –– Requirement of judicial sanction. FIR No. 196/2024 involved allegations of criminal breach of trust and threats––Warrants were issued by District Magistrate concerned; Home Department of AJK issued appropriate permissions––Petitioners had gone into hiding and sought relief without participating in the investigation––Held, when due legal process is followed, accused cannot escape lawful custody by invoking constitutional jurisdiction––Constitutional petition cannot be used as a shield for fugitives of law. (d) Constitutional petition –– Maintainability –– Burden of proof –– Allegations of mala fide –– Challenge to vires of statute. Petitioners failed to discharge the burden to establish mala fide or unconstitutionality of the impugned statutory provisions––No specific violation of fundamental rights shown––Mere assertion of mala fide without factual basis is not sufficient––In absence of any illegality or arbitrariness, law must be presumed intra vires––Petition failed to make out a prima facie case and was rightly dismissed summarily. ---- Disposition: Writ petition dismissed in limine. Petitioners failed to establish any illegality in arrest or vires of the AJK Council Extradition of Fugitive Offenders Acts, 1984 and 1995.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019: ----S. 9(d)—Possession of narcotics—Failure to establish safe custody and chain of transmission—Effect—Accused was apprehended with 16,215 grams of opium recovered from a secret cavity in his motorcar—Convicted under S. 9(d), KP CNSA, 2019 and sentenced to life imprisonment—Held, prosecution failed to prove uninterrupted and secure chain of custody of seized narcotics from the place of recovery to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL)—Material contradictions found in statements of prosecution witnesses regarding transmission of case property, with some key witnesses making no mention of its handling or dispatch—Mad-Muharrir allegedly responsible for transportation of narcotics to police station was not produced in court—Inconsistencies in police records, witness testimonies, and extract of register No.19 further compromised the prosecution case—Report of the chemical examiner thus became unsafe and unreliable—Prosecution must establish an unbroken and indisputable chain of custody to sustain conviction under narcotic laws—Failure to do so entitles the accused to benefit of doubt—Conviction and sentence set aside—Accused acquitted. (b) Criminal Jurisprudence: ----Benefit of doubt—Principle—In prosecutions under stringent statutes such as CNSA, burden lies heavily on the prosecution to demonstrate that the recovered substance was not tampered with at any stage—Where gaps or contradictions exist in chain of custody, benefit must necessarily go to the accused—Held, sanctity of the chain of evidence is foundational for reliability of chemical examiner’s report—Any break in the link, omission in documentation, or ambiguity in transmission procedures undermines evidentiary value—Conviction in such circumstances would amount to miscarriage of justice. ----Cited Cases: • Javed Iqbal v. The State 2023 SCMR 139 • Qaiser Khan v. The State 2021 SCMR 363 • Mst. Sakina Ramzan v. The State 2021 SCMR 451 • Zubair Khan v. The State 2021 SCMR 492 • Asif Ali v. The State 2024 SCMR 1408 ----Disposition: Appeal allowed—Conviction and sentence set aside—Accused acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Summary: (a) Criminal trial—Benefit of doubt—Voice recognition evidence—Scope: ----Accused persons were convicted of kidnapping for ransom and murder of a minor—Conviction primarily based on complainant's alleged recognition of petitioner’s voice during ransom call—Held, voice identification by lay persons without expert analysis or corroborative evidence is inherently unreliable—Courts must be cautious in accepting such identification, especially where capital punishment or life imprisonment is involved—In absence of forensic validation, poor audio quality, or other corroboration (e.g., call logs, recordings, expert opinion), voice recognition is insufficient to sustain conviction—Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt—Accused entitled to benefit of doubt. (b) Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997: ----Ss. 7(a) & 7(e)—Kidnapping for ransom and murder—Retracted judicial confession—Admissibility and evidentiary weight—Conviction of petitioner Naeem was partly based on a retracted confession—Held, confession made during police custody but not before magistrate carries limited evidentiary value—Where such confession is not corroborated by medical or forensic evidence, it cannot form sole basis for conviction—Recovery of body from alleged location was not a new discovery and was already known to police—Absence of recovery or discovery of any legally incriminating evidence further weakened prosecution’s case. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 382-B—Denial of benefit—Petitioners were initially denied benefit of S. 382-B Cr.P.C. despite reduced sentence from death to life imprisonment—Held, where doubt exists in prosecution's case and conviction itself is not sustainable, question of benefit under S. 382-B becomes redundant—Acquittal ordered on ground of failure to prove charge beyond reasonable doubt. (d) Criminal jurisprudence—Capital punishment—Standard of proof: ----Where prosecution case is based on suspicion, uncorroborated voice recognition, and retracted confession unsupported by recovery or medical evidence—Held, conviction in a capital offence must rest on evidence that is unequivocal and conclusive—Any lapse in evidentiary chain or doubt, however small, must be resolved in favour of the accused—Courts must guard against miscarriage of justice in awarding severe punishments. ----Disposition: Appeal allowed—Convictions and sentences set aside—Accused acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending