Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Prosecutor's discretion to stop or drop proceedings through optional case review report does little to curb criminal litigation

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: In view of clear mandate of Sub-Section (5) of Section 10 of the Act, 1964, while dissolving the marriage on the basis of khula, the Family Court was obliged to direct the petitioner to surrender up to twenty five percent of her prompt dower to the respondent irrespective of the non-consummation of marriage.

Summary: Petitioners are father and sisters of a deceased government employee. They are aggrieved that they are not being allowed to retain the government accommodation allowed to the deceased and now post demise their entitlement

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----S. 497(2)---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(1) & 6(c)---Punjab Arms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015, S. 13(2)(a)---Post-arrest bail---Further inquiry---Heinousness of offence not a solitary ground to withhold bail---Petitioners Bait Ullah, Shah Hussain and Faisal ur Rehman sought post-arrest bail in FIR No.860/2025 registered on 23.09.2025 at Police Station Malakwal, District Mandi Bahauddin, involving alleged recoveries of 1,100 grams of methamphetamine (ICE) from each, and a 30-bore pistol from Faisal ur Rehman---Lahore High Court declined bail vide consolidated order dated 24.03.2026 in Crl. Misc. No.16023-B/2026---Held, that while the quantity recovered fell within statutory boundaries that invite stringent penalties, heinousness of an offence alone cannot serve as a solitary ground to withhold concession of bail if the overall evidentiary profile of the prosecution points toward the necessity of a further probe---Prosecution case suffered from several foundational and evidentiary vulnerabilities bringing the matter within the statutory definition of further inquiry. (b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)---Conscious knowledge---Constructive possession---Joint presence and separate recoveries---Held, that the question of individual travel contexts, joint presence, and attribution of separate recoveries required deeper judicial evaluation at trial---As held by this Court in Gul Manan, mere presence of an individual at the scene or inside a shared environment where contraband is recovered does not automatically translate to conscious knowledge or constructive possession---Whether each petitioner possessed exclusive, conscious knowledge of the distinct packets of methamphetamine (ICE) could only be safely determined by the Trial Court after recording and evaluating evidence. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----S. 497(2)---Recovery in public place---Absence of independent public witnesses and contemporaneous visual documentation---Recovery of weapon---Date of arrest---Entire recovery process was structurally compromised by complete absence of independent public witnesses, despite the raid taking place in an accessible public venue, compounded by absence of videography or photography at the spot---Where recovery of psychotropic substances is effected without such contemporaneous visual documentation to support the prosecution narrative, the true role of the accused is obscured, turning the case into an exploratory assessment (Abdul Mateen Mehboob v. The State, 2026 SCMR 135)---Recovery of a 30-bore pistol from petitioner Faisal ur Rehman stood unsupported by any independent corroboration---Non-association of private witnesses from the locality to attest to recovery of a weapon of offence in a public setting casts a serious shadow of doubt (Muhammad Nasir Butt v. The State, 2025 SCMR 662)---Record further showed a S. 491, Cr.P.C., petition by the petitioners' relative, Attam Khan; following the Court's order the bailiff visited the police station on 22.09.2025 but the petitioners were not found, and on the next day, 23.09.2025, they were arrested by Police Station Mandi Bahauddin---Whether they had been arrested on 17.09.2025 by Police Station Khutiala Sheikha was a matter of further inquiry, which could only be conclusively made by the Trial Court---Cumulative gaps decisively shifted the case into the category of further inquiry under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----S. 497---Bail in cases of further inquiry---Rule---Presumption of innocence---In cases of further inquiry, concession of bail is to be extended as a rule (Tariq Bashir v. The State, PLD 1995 SC 34)---Underpinning that principle is the constitutional sacredness of human liberty and the golden rule of presumption of innocence, which dictates that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty---Where a case presents reasonable grounds for further inquiry into the guilt of an accused, grant of bail becomes a matter of right rather than grace---Rationale of setting the law into motion in criminal cases is to ensure that the accused faces trial, and not to mete out advance punishment or let them rot behind bars pre-trial---State had failed to demonstrate that the petitioners were previous convicts, habitual offenders, or that there was any apprehension of abscondence or tampering with prosecution evidence if released---Observations were tentative and would not influence the trial. Cited Cases: • Gul Manan v. The State • Abdul Mateen Mehboob v. The State 2026 SCMR 135 • Muhammad Nasir Butt v. The State 2025 SCMR 662 • Tariq Bashir and another v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34 Disposition: Criminal petitions converted into appeals and allowed; petitioners/appellants granted post-arrest bail subject to furnishing surety bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000/- each with personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court; accused, if not required in any other case, to be released/set at liberty forthwith. (Crl.P. Nos.852, 855 and 859 of 2026, Supreme Court of Pakistan, reasons of short order dated 08.06.2026, by Irfan Saadat Khan, J.; Not Approved for Reporting)

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan----Art. 188---Supreme Court Rules, 1980----O. XXVI, R. 1---Criminal review---Scope---Patent error of law apparent on the face of the record---Manifest miscarriage of justice---Petitioner, convicted under S. 409, P.P.C. and S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, sought review of the order of the Supreme Court in Criminal Petition No.490 of 2019 whereby leave to appeal had been declined by a majority of two to one---Petitioner had been released after serving out his sentence, but the Court, at his request, decided the review on merit instead of treating it as infructuous---Held, that a review petition is not an appeal in disguise, nor does it permit a rehearing on the merits---Review jurisdiction may nevertheless be invoked where the impugned judgment suffers from a patent error of law apparent on the face of the record, material evidence has been overlooked, an important legal proposition has escaped consideration, or the judgment results in manifest injustice---Majority opinion omitted to consider several fundamental legal issues, including absence of proof of entrustment (the sine qua non of S. 409, P.P.C.), the legal effect of a defective examination under S. 342, Cr.P.C., the consequences of the petitioner's acquittal under Ss. 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C. which had attained finality, whether the essential ingredients of S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 stood established, and reconciliation of the petitioner's conviction with the acquittal of his co-accused on the same allegations and substantially the same body of evidence---These were substantial questions of law and apparent errors discernible from the face of the record, bringing the case within the limited ambit of review---Court found itself in agreement with the reasoning contained in the minority opinion. (b) Penal Code----S. 409---Criminal breach of trust by public servant---Entrustment---Sine qua non---Petitioner and co-accused were implicated in Crime No.17 dated 02.08.2010, Police Station ACE, Sargodha, on the allegation that they had fraudulently withdrawn the complainant's salary for March 2008 to November 2008 from the government treasury; a sum of Rs.80,645 was subsequently deposited back---Trial Court acquitted both accused of charges under Ss. 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C., but convicted them under S. 409, P.P.C. and S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, sentencing each to rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.100,000 on each count, sentences to run concurrently, with benefit of S. 382-B, Cr.P.C.---High Court dismissed the petitioner's appeal and maintained conviction, while allowing the co-accused's appeal and acquitting him on the benefit of doubt---Held, that to sustain a conviction under S. 409, P.P.C., the prosecution must establish, beyond reasonable doubt, entrustment of property or dominion over the property, followed by dishonest misappropriation, conversion, disposal or use in violation of law---Entrustment constitutes the very foundation of the offence, and in its absence the charge cannot be sustained---Prosecution never alleged, much less proved, that the salary amount had been entrusted to the petitioner or had otherwise come into his lawful custody or dominion---Its case was confined to fraudulent withdrawal from the treasury and subsequent redeposit---Both accused having been acquitted of cheating, forgery and use of forged documents, and that acquittal never having been challenged by the State, a substantial question arose whether the same factual matrix, without more, could sustain conviction under S. 409, P.P.C.---In the absence of proof of the foundational requirement of entrustment, the conviction was legally vulnerable. (c) Criminal trial---Acquittal of co-accused---Parity and consistency---Joint enterprise---Same witnesses and documentary evidence---Held, that acquittal of a co-accused does not, by itself, entitle another accused to the same relief---However, where the prosecution alleges a joint enterprise, the evidence against both accused is inseparable, no distinct or independent role is attributed to either, and the prosecution relies upon the same witnesses and documentary evidence, the principles of consistency and parity assume considerable importance---Once one of the principal participants is acquitted on the ground that the prosecution's evidence is unreliable, conviction of the remaining accused can ordinarily be sustained only if there exists independent and compelling evidence establishing his guilt. (d) Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947)----S. 5(2)---Criminal misconduct---Distinct offence---Proof of statutory ingredients---Held, that S. 5(2) creates a distinct and independent offence requiring proof of the statutory ingredients constituting criminal misconduct---Mere fact that an accused is a public servant does not, by itself, attract criminal liability---Neither the Trial Court nor the High Court identified the evidence establishing such misconduct or separately examined whether the prosecution had proved the constituent elements of the offence---Conviction under S. 5(2) suffered from non-reading and misreading of the evidence. (e) Criminal trial---Documentary evidence---Disputed signatures---Forensic examination---Prosecution relied upon challan (Exh. P-4) on the premise that it bore the petitioner's purported signatures and official stamp---Investigating officer candidly admitted that he had merely presumed that the amount had been deposited by the petitioner, while the disputed signatures were never referred to a forensic expert---Held, that a criminal conviction cannot rest upon conjecture, presumption or assumptions---Where authorship of disputed signatures constitutes the very foundation of the prosecution's case, failure to subject them to forensic examination creates a serious evidentiary lacuna, incapable of being cured, and substantially diminishes the probative value of the documentary evidence. (f) Criminal trial---Missing links---Fraudulent withdrawal of government funds---Prosecution failed to establish in whose favour the treasury token was issued, who presented the relevant documents before the treasury, who actually withdrew the amount, and who ultimately received it, and the complainant failed to explain how he came to know of the alleged withdrawal---Held, that such omissions are not mere discrepancies but strike at the very root of the prosecution's case---Where the allegation is fraudulent withdrawal of government funds, the prosecution is required to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances; failure to prove any of these essential links ordinarily entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt. (g) Criminal Procedure Code----S. 342---Examination of accused---Incriminating material not put to accused---Held, that every material piece of incriminating evidence intended to be relied upon against an accused must be specifically put to him during examination under S. 342, Cr.P.C., failing which such material cannot ordinarily be used to sustain a conviction---No question was put to the petitioner regarding the alleged withdrawal of salary, issuance of the treasury token, or subsequent redeposit, nor were the documents collected during investigation confronted to him---Such omissions deprived the petitioner of an effective opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances and offended the requirements of a fair trial---Any conviction founded upon material not put to the accused is legally unsustainable. Disposition: Criminal review petition allowed; judgments of the Courts below convicting and sentencing the petitioner set aside; petitioner acquitted of the charges by extending the benefit of doubt. (Crl. Review Petition No.122 of 2019 in Crl. Petition No.490 of 2019, Dr. Waqar Hameed v. The State and another, Supreme Court of Pakistan, Islamabad, 08th June, 2026, Shakeel Ahmad, J. (Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan and Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, JJ. on the Bench); Approved for reporting)