Summary: Appeal against conviction.Held: (1) Substitution of single accused in a murder charge is a rare phenomenon, but to put the rope around the neck of an accused charged singularly, there must be ocular account of unimpeachable character corroborated by circumstantial evidence. (2) The laboratory report confirmed the involvement of single accused.(3) Both the complainant and eyewitness remained consistent that the parties were enjoying warm relationship and that they were on constant visiting terms to the houses of each other.(Appeal was dismissed in the circumstances).

Summary: Once challan is submitted before the trial court, & once the investigation officer had separated the samples from recovered narcotics for chemical analysis, then the trial court has no jurisdiction to allow the request of prosecution for obtaining fresh samples.

Summary: Sections of law; Section 115 CPC(a)Plea of adverse possession cannot be allowed to be raised by a co-sharer who claims acquisition of such a status by way of inheritance.

Summary: The petition, initiated by Abwa Knowledge Village (Private) Limited, challenges the Pakistan Medical Commission Admission Regulations 2020-2021, contending they are ultra vires to the Pakistan Medical Commission Act, 2020. The petitioners also seek clarification of Section 18 of the Act. Mr. Salman Aslam Butt, Sr. ASC, representing the petitioners, argued against the constitutionality of the regulations, citing various cases like "SUO MOTU CASE NO.11 OF 2011" (PLD 2014 Supreme Court 389), "SUO MOTU CASE NO.13 OF 2009" (PLD 2011 Supreme Court 619), among others. He emphasized the lack of constitution of the Pakistan Medical Commission (PMC) and its authority to formulate regulations. Moreover, Mr. Shoaib Rashid, ASC, presented arguments against the regulations' validity, referencing Section 18(3) of the Act and Article 18 of the Constitution. He pointed out that the regulations interfere with private medical colleges' admissions criteria. On the other hand, Barrister Ch. Muhammad Umar, representing the respondents, raised objections to the petition's maintainability. He argued that the petitioner failed to include PMC as a respondent and questioned the petitioners' locus standi. He also cited legal precedents like "MUHAMMAD AKRAM versus Mst. ZAINAB BIBI" (2007 SCMR 1086) to support his position. The Court, in its determination under Article 201 of the Constitution, referred to various precedents to interpret Section 18 of the Act. Notable cases included "President Balochistan High Court Bar Association and others versus Federation of Pakistan and others" (2012 SCMR 1784), emphasizing citizens' obligation to adhere to the Constitution and law. Furthermore, the Court cited "BANK OF PUNJAB and another Versus HARIS STEEL INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. and others" (PLD 2010 Supreme Court 1109) to underscore the importance of not defeating legislative intent through interpretation. In conclusion, the court upholds the validity of the Pakistan Medical Commission Admission Regulations 2020-2021 and dismisses the petitioner's objections, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the law and regulatory standards in the medical profession.

Summary: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss.324 & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.265-K---Attempt to commit qatli-amd, common intention---Power of court to acquit accused at any stage---Appreciation ofevidence---Appeal against acquittal---Benefit of doubt---Prosecution case was that theaccused persons attempted to cause injury to the brother of complainant and when thecomplainant tried to rescue him, the accused persons made firing at him, due to which, hereceived a bullet injury---Acquittal order showed that the Trial Court had given the findingson the report of Medical Board, despite the fact that no evidence had been recorded---TrialCourt acquitted the accused on the basis of the report of Medical Board---Medical Certificateissued by Medical Officer in favour of victim was bogus and fabricated one as no injury wascaused by firearm to the victim and it was self-inflicted simple injury---Trial Court, incircumstances, would have examined the doctors in that behalf and then would have turnedits conclusion as to whether the medical opinion issued by the Medical Board was rightlyissued or it was a forged document---Question mark existed on the authenticity of theMedical Board and the Trial Court without considering the authenticity of the Medical Boardacted in a haphazard manner---Medical certificate issued by the Police Surgeon in favour ofcomplainant or subsequent constitution of the Medical Board the authenticity whereof at thatstage could not be ascertained without recording evidence---Trial Court was not to make orexpress adverse remarks and observations relating to the antecedents, credibility andreliability of the medical certificate issued by the Police Surgeon and subsequentlyconstitution of the Medical Board; in that manner, it was found that the appellant had beencondemned unheard---Law favoured the disposal of cases on merits---Both the parties beprovided opportunity to prove their versions by producing evidence---Duty of the court wasnot only to protect innocent but also to punish the guilty---Circumstances established that nofair opportunity was provided to the prosecution to prove its version by producing evidence---Appeal against acquittal was partly allowed and the case was remanded to the Trial Courtaccordingly.The State through Advocate General, Sindh High Court of Karachi v. Raja AbdulRehman 2005 SCMR 1544 rel.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)------Ss. 265-K, 249-A & 417(2)--Jurisdiction u/S. 265-K, Cr.P.C.--Exercise of powers--Appealagainst acquittal--The object of exercise of powers is to prevent abuse of law available tolearned trial Court under sections 265-K and 249-A of Cr.P.C., however, in a case wheresufficient, prima facie, evidence is available, powers may not be exercised as to throttleprocess of justice--The primary consideration to be kept in view would be whethercontinuance of proceedings before could be a futile exercise, wastage of time and abuse ofprocess of Court or not--If on basis of facts admitted and a patent on record no offence can bemade out, then it would amount to abuse of process of law to allow prosecution to continuewith trial--If facts of present case are scrutinized on touchstones of above criteria, then itwould be obvious that there was sufficient oral and documentary evidence, i.e. medicalcertificate and same would be established through evidence, and no fair opportunity wasprovided to prosecution to prove its version by producing evidence. [Para 10 & 11] A & BCriminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)------S. 265-K--Exercise of powers--Jurisdiction u/S. 265-K, Cr.P.C.--Acquittal--On behalf ofaccused/Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and ordering their acquittal at a time when prosecutionevidence was yet to be recorded against accused/respondents--There was no bar of limitationas to trial or stage of proceedings for filing an application for acquittal of accused, butpropriety required that fair opportunity should be provided to prosecution to prove its case byproducing evidence and matters should be decided on merits as envisaged u/S. 245 of Cr.P.C.after providing a proper opportunity to prosecution for producing its evidence and recordingstatements of accused persons u/S. 342 of Cr.P.C. [Para 12] CInquiry into Offences------When law provides a detailed inquiry into offences for which an accused has been sent up fora trial, then ordinarily and normally procedure prescribed by law for deciding fate of criminalcase should be followed unless some extraordinary circumstances are shown to exist toabandon regular course and follow exceptional routes. [Para 13] D2005 SCMR 1544.

Summary: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)-------Ss. 9(5), 10, 9 & 22---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4 & 10A---Procedure of BankingCourt---Service of notices on defendants---Effective service in terms of S. 9(5) of FinancialInstitutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (the Ordinance)---Principles of naturaljustice---Applicability---Suit for recovery was decreed ex parte against defendant---Contention of defendant, inter alia, was that service was not effected on defendant, andtherefore ex parte decree was liable to be set aside---Validity---Provisions with regard toservice on defendant under Ss. 9(5) & 10(2) of the Ordinance were not to be readdisjunctively from rule of natural justice "audi alterm partem", which was to be read intoevery statute, along with Arts. 10A & 4 of the Constitution---In the present case, BankingCourt held service as valid on defendant via publication in two newspapers and summonseswere not served on defendant through any other prescribed modes, which was erroneous andthus ex parte decree was passed without proof of effective service---High Court set aside exparte decree of Banking Court and remanded matter to Banking Court---Appeal was allowed,accordingly.

Summary: Criminal Administration of Justice------In criminal administration of justice, trial Judge seized of a criminal case should know about all attendingcircumstances of offences so that to reach a just conclusion regarding roles of each individual vis-a-vis hisinnocence and motive behind offences--The trial Court while awarding punishment has also to considermitigating circumstances, and this is possible only when versions of both sides are before Court, and for thispurpose, necessary documents of cross case are also exhibited for reaching just conclusion. [Para 9] APLD 1981 SCJ 522.Counter cases------It is settled practice that counter case are tried side by side by same Court till their conclusion and judgments arepronounced simultaneously. [Para 9] BPLD 1981 SC 522.Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)------Ss. 435 & 439 & 337-A(i) & 337-F(i)--Criminal revision--Petitioner was sentenced--He attacked with sticks oncomplainant and his daughter, both of them were received injuries--Trial Court without conducting a trial in caseFIR u/Ss. 324, 34, PPC, Police Station, Gowalmandi, in a haphazard manner dealt with trial of petitioner andrecorded their conviction and sentence, which exercise undertaken by trial Court is against general practice incases of counter versions--True that Code of Criminal Procedure is silent with regard to procedure to be adoptedin trial of counter cases, arising out of same incident and it has not been laid down anywhere in Code of CriminalProcedure as an absolute rule that all charges and counter-charges must be tried by same Court, however, it is asalutary practice that when two criminal cases relate to same incident, they are to be tried and disposed of bysame Court by pronouncing judgments on same day--The two different versions of same incident, resulting intwo criminal cases, are compendiously called and counter case? or ?cross cases?--Fair procedure which shouldhave been adopted was that trial Court should have conducted a trial in both cases side by side--The practicalreasons for adopting such procedure is nothing but to staves off danger of an accused being convicted before hiswhole case is before court; to deter conflicting judgment being delivered upon similar facts and in reality, caseand counter case are to all intends and purposes different or conflicting versions of one incident and

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-L(2) & 34---Shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah, damiyah,causing hurt and common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Prosecution case was thatthe accused armed with sticks attacked upon the complainant and his daughter and both ofthem received injuries---Record showed that the challan of case was submitted before theJudicial Magistrate, who tried the case and accused petitioners were convicted---Cross casewas submitted before the Sessions Court which was tried and accused were acquitted---Complainant of said cross case filed acquittal appeal, which was partly allowed and case wasremanded to the Trial Court---Trial in both the cases should have been conducted side byside by the Trial Court, as in such like cases, the prime question was the determination ofaggressor and aggressed upon---Such a question could not be determined without analysis ofthe evidence of both the cases---Trial Court without conducting a trial in case under Ss. 324& 34, P.P.C., had dealt with the trial of the petitioners in a haphazard manner and recordedtheir conviction and sentence, which exercise undertaken by the Trial Court was against thegeneral practice in cases of counter versions---True that the Code of Criminal Procedure,1898 was silent with regard to procedure to be adopted in the trial of counter cases, arisingout of the same incident and it had not been laid down anywhere in the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1898 as an absolute rule that all charges and counter-charges must be tried by thesame court, however, it was a salutary practice that two criminal cases relating to the sameincident were to be tried and disposed of by the same court by pronouncing judgments on thesame day---Practical reasons for adopting such procedure was nothing but to staves off thedanger of an accused being convicted before his whole case was before the court---To deterconflicting judgments being delivered upon similar facts and in reality, the case and thecounter case were to all intend and purposes different or conflicting versions of one incidentand finally to determine the question as to who was the aggressor and who was aggressedupon---Petition was partly accepted, in circumstances and by setting aside the impugnedjudgments and the case was remanded to the Additional Sessions Judge for decision afresh.(b) Criminal trial-------Cross-versions---Scope---Counter cases would be tried side by side by the same court till their conclusion and judgments are to be pronounced simultaneously. [p. 1593] BAbdul Rehman Bajwa v. Sultan and 9 others PLD 1981 SC 522 rel.

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.