Summary: Conviction maintained ---- (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 ----Ss. 9(c), 29—Burden of proof in narcotics offences—Once prosecution establishes safe recovery, chain of custody, and positive FSL report, the statutory presumption under S.29 arises; the accused must rebut it with credible material—Mere denial under S.342, Cr.P.C. is insufficient—Conviction sustained where 2,000 grams charas recovered, witnesses consistent, and no enmity shown. (b) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 & CNSA ----S.103, Cr.P.C. & S.25, CNSA—Joining private witnesses—Section 103, Cr.P.C. stands excluded in CNS cases; official witnesses are competent and their evidence cannot be discarded merely for being police officials—Reluctance of public to join recovery is judicially noticed—Zafar v. State, 2008 SCMR 1254, followed. (c) Evidence—Chain of custody & FSL report ----Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) reports (Exh. P/5-D, P/5-E)—Samples received within prescribed period; seals intact; carrier official (PW-4) named in reports—Complete test protocol recorded; substance confirmed as “Hashish Pukhta”—No suggestion of tampering—Chain found unbroken. (d) Appreciation of evidence ----Consistency of prosecution witnesses (PW-1 seizing officer; PW-2 marginal; PW-3 Moharrar; PW-4 carrier; PW-5 IO)—Material particulars (arrest, place, quantity, sealing) cohered under cross-examination—No material contradictions or animus established—Mode and manner of recovery proved. (e) Sentencing ----S.9(c), CNSA—Quantum—Two years’ R.I. with Rs.10,000 fine (and S.382-B Cr.P.C. benefit) held commensurate to offence in the circumstances—No ground for reduction/substitution. (f) Disposition— Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence under S.9(c) CNSA maintained; benefit of S.382-B Cr.P.C. already extended.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Appreciation of evidenceNarcotics case principles laid down.

Summary: When a law is altered during pendency of an action, the right of the parties are decided according to the law as it existed when the action was begin and not the law that existed at the date of judgment or order. This is however subject to the exceptions that the new law shall apply, if it is a mare rule procedure or it has been applied retrospectively to the pending proceedings though in all cases, the intent of legislature is paramount.

Summary: Theory of "Just desert"; Prosecutor to propose punishment.

Summary: Limitation--dismissed--A belated appeal was filed, delayed by 183 days due to a Covid-19 lockdown. An application was submitted to excuse the delay, referring to a circular excluding pandemic-related time. Despite this, the appeal was still time-barred. As no respondent attendance occurred, the Court proceeded to review the case's merits to ensure fairness.The appellant claimed a gift of lands from their deceased father, documented in gift/tamleek mutation No. 5341, dated 4 June 1983. Respondent Nos. 1 to 6, who are the appellant's sisters, contested the gift through a suit. The trial court granted the suit, but the appellate court accepted an appeal due to its belated filing. This appellate judgment was later overturned by the High Court for undisclosed reasons.Reviewing the mutation, the appellant's acceptance of the gift was absent. Evidence revealed the gift was made on the same day the father passed away, raising suspicions. As the appellant couldn't prove the gift's legitimacy, and its timing was dubious, the Court considered it unreliable. Islamic inheritance laws stipulate co-ownership among legal heirs upon death, making the sisters' suit valid. The High Court's decision to uphold the suit was appropriate, and both lower court judgments were sound.The appeal was deemed baseless, both in terms of merits and being time-barred. The appellant was instructed to bear the costs. The Court expressed dismay at the appellant's manipulation to retain possession, depriving the sisters of their rightful Islamic shares. It was noted that possession remained with the appellant, leading to execution proceedings. This compelled the Court to direct the District Collector, Charsadda, to enforce the Trial Court's decision, endorsing legal heirs' names and allocating their Islamic shares within three months.

Summary: In the legal analysis, it was stressed that three sisters, including one who had passed away, had initially sold their shares in the property to the appellant. Testimonies from family members supported the sale, but the challenging party, despite being alive, did not testify in person. Instead, her husband testified on her behalf as her attorney. The Court scrutinized this aspect, emphasizing that the challenging party's failure to testify and provide reasons for not doing so weakened her claim that she had not sold the land.Furthermore, the Court evaluated the legal principle that withholding the best evidence can lead to adverse presumptions, as outlined in Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. The attorney for the challenging party's admission that the sale was due to financial need was deemed credible evidence. The Court also noted that the challenging party's husband, who was also her attorney, held a prominent local position, making it implausible that he was unaware of the sale.The Court invoked legal provisions, referring to the Evidence Act, 1872, specifically section 68, which mandates the presence of an attesting witness for document execution proof. Notably, the proviso to this section was highlighted, stating that an attesting witness need not be called if the execution is specifically denied. As the challenging party did not specifically deny the sale's execution, this proviso was applicable.Conclusively, the Court found that the sale was established through evidence, including the admission made by the challenging party's attorney. It criticized the High Court's decision to overturn the lower court's judgment based on the lack of established sale. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment and dismissing the challenging party's suit.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Service Matter, Regularization.

Summary: For the reasons recorded in order ofeven date passed in S7.P. No.1880-2009,instant petition was also dismissed.