Summary: Bail denied---Background:The case involves a criminal petition (No. 527 of 2020) brought before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging an order dated 28.4.2020 passed by the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta in Crl. B. A.T. No.40/2020. The petitioner, Noor Bakhsh, sought admission to post-arrest bail in a case where he allegedly shot Abdul Qayyum on 29.9.2013, resulting in Qayyum's death six years later.---Issues:Whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail.Whether the petitioner's prolonged absence from law disentitles him from the usual concessions extended to offenders.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The petitioner had been evading law enforcement for over six years before finally being arrested on 3.2.2020. His extended absence from the legal process disentitled him from the usual concessions granted to offenders seeking bail.The court found that the grounds presented by the petitioner, including those raised in the crime report, witness statements, and medical evidence, did not constitute sufficient reason to grant bail under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Additionally, the petitioner's subsequent petition to the High Court lacked fresh grounds, warranting its rejection.The court declined to interfere with the decision of the High Court, as there was no basis for doing so. Therefore, the petition for bail was dismissed, and leave was declined.---Citations/Precedents:Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, Section 324 (substituted with section 316 after the injured's death)Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, Section 497

Summary: Bail denied---Background:The petitioner, Matti Ullah, a Frontier Constabulary personnel, was convicted by a Special Court (CNS) at Peshawar for possession of cannabis weighing 7200 grams, under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence through its judgment dated 11.12.2018, prompting the petitioner to challenge it through the current petition.---Issues:Whether the petitioner's conviction based on the recovery of cannabis can be overturned due to discrepancies in witness statements and forensic report deficiencies.Whether the absence of public witnesses diminishes the credibility of prosecution evidence.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The prosecution's case relied on the statements of Muhammad Ayub, SI (PW-2), and Abdul Hannan (PW-3), officers of the Anti Narcotic Force. They testified to confronting the petitioner based on a tip-off and seizing the contraband along with a motorbike. Their testimonies remained consistent under cross-examination, lacking any significant discrepancies. The court deemed their testimony credible, emphasizing the presumption of validity attached to official acts and declarations.Regarding the forensic report, the court found it compliant with relevant protocols and sufficiently establishing the narcotic character of the seized contraband.The petitioner's claim of being substituted as a scapegoat lacked merit, considering his status as a Frontier Constabulary official and the substantial nature of the seized contraband. The court rejected the notion of officials hounding the petitioner without motive in a crowded urban setting.After a thorough examination of the evidence and independent analysis, the court concluded that the petitioner's guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and leave was declined.

Summary: Background:The Commissioner Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad, and another appellant challenged a judgment dated 03.03.2017 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, in Appeal No.377 of 2014.The respondent, Allah Bakhsh, a Patwari Halqa, was found guilty of transferring government land to private parties, causing significant loss to the government exchequer.The Tribunal converted the penalty of dismissal imposed on the respondent into forfeiture of two years? approved service, considering it harsh.---Issues:Whether the Tribunal's decision to reduce the penalty imposed on the respondent was valid.Whether the respondent's misconduct warranted dismissal from service.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Court noted that the respondent admitted to transferring government land to private parties, causing substantial loss to the government exchequer.The Court criticized the Tribunal for taking a lenient view of the respondent's misconduct and reducing the penalty without valid reasoning.It emphasized that government servants involved in fraud or embezzlement of government property must face severe penalties to deter repetition of such offenses.The argument that no loss was ultimately caused to the government or was recovered did not mitigate the seriousness of the respondent's misconduct.Once misconduct is established, the quantum of punishment is at the discretion of the department, unless it is found to be perverse or disproportionate.The Tribunal's order was found to be self-contradictory, excessive, and devoid of reasoning. Therefore, the Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and restored the order of dismissal against the respondent.

Summary: Background:Mst. Brikhna, the petitioner, filed a suit for declaration against her brothers and other defendants to claim her Sharai share in the legacy left by her father.The trial court decreed the suit in favor of Mst. Brikhna, but the appellate court set aside the judgment.Mst. Brikhna filed a civil revision before the Peshawar High Court, which was dismissed.Dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court, Mst. Brikhna filed a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court.---Issues:Whether Mst. Brikhna is entitled to her Sharai share in the legacy left by her father.Whether the judgments of the lower courts were erroneous.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court allowed the application for impleading the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner and corrected the petitioner's name in the records.Mst. Brikhna claimed her share in the legacy based on the operation of law and not on the basis of any mutation. The Court held that mutation is not a document of title but merely maintains fiscal records.The Court found that the judgment of the High Court, which relied on the case of Grana v. Sahib Kamala Bibi, was not applicable to the present case as there was no question of acquiescence.It was established that Mst. Brikhna was entitled to her Sharai share in her father's legacy. The Court overturned the judgments of the lower courts and restored the judgment and decree of the trial court.The Court emphasized the importance of upholding Sharia and the law of inheritance, especially in cases where women's rights to inheritance are often neglected.The petition was converted into an appeal and allowed with costs.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (e) Criminal trial------Witness---Minor discrepancies in the statement of witnesses---Scope---Minordiscrepancies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses in respect of exact timing of post murder ancillary proceedings and omissions, improvement could not be termed as dishonestwithout establishing animosity of the witnesses against the accused.---(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302, 324, 147, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting, riotingarmed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence,reduction in---Prosecution case was that the accused along with co-accused while armed withpistol, knives and churries, assaulted on complainant party, due to which four persons wereinjured and the cousin of complainant succumbed to injuries---Ocular account of the incidenthad been furnished by five witnesses including three injured---Defence had not disputed thevenue of occurrence and presence of deceased and ocular witnesses---Evidence of eyewitnesses proved that the accused fired on deceased due to which he succumbed to theinjuries---Defence had not denied the occurrence---Eye witnesses were natural witnesses,they were as good as any other independent witnesses---Defence had failed to bring onrecord any ill-will or grudge qua the witnesses---Record reflected that the statements ofinjured witnesses were in line with the statement of complainant---Complainant admitted thatthere was no enmity with the accused---Evidence showed that the occurrence had taken placesuddenly when the accused party had blocked the road where the injured and deceasedreached at the place of occurrence---Complainant party insisted for opening of the way, thusscuffle took place---Accused fired on the deceased due to which he succumbed to theinjuries---Both the parties were known to each other, therefore, there was nomisidentification of the accused---All the eye witnesses were unison that the accused hadfired upon the deceased---Record showed that the accused made single fire on the deceased,occurrence took place suddenly and the prosecution had not alleged any motive forcommission of the crime---Circumstances in which the occurrence took place would lead toan inference that due to something the occurrence was suddenly happened, thus it was not acase of death penalty---High Court, in circumstances, altered the conviction and sentence ofthe accused from death to imprisonment for life---Appeal was disposed of accordingly

Summary: Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)-------S. 32---Articles connected with narcotics---Non-appearance of owner of vehicle beforeSpecial Court---Effect---Appellant assailed order passed by Judge Special Court (CNS)whereby vehicle carrying narcotic was confiscated in favour of the State---Appellant pleadedthat he was unaware about pendency of the case, therefore, he had not appeared before theTrial Court but vehicle was kept in detention during the trial for a period of one year---Impugned judgment revealed that the narcotic was recovered from the secret cavities of thevehicle---Documents produced by appellant were mere photocopies which could not beconsidered at appellate stage, when neither any judicial enquiry was conducted nor the samewere proved through evidence---Appellant was advised to avail the remedies available to himunder the provisions of relevant law before the Trial Court---Appeal was dismissed, incircumstances.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-L(2), 427, 147, 148 & 149---Shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifahmudihah, causing hurt, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, rioting,rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appeal against acquittal---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Prosecution case was that the accused andunknown co-accused while armed with deadly weapon assaulted on complainant party, dueto which, the companion of complainant sustained injuries---Record transpired that injuredwitness stated in his statement before the Trial Court that his both hands were fractured dueto beating but on the other hand medical certificate produced by Medical Officer was silentto that effect---Complainant stated in his report that he received deep injuries due to beatingbut on the other hand Medical Officer admitted during cross examination that she did notfind any injury on the body of complainant---Victim/injured had not challenged the acquittalof accused persons as the appeal had been filed by the complainant, who had not receivedany injury in the incident as provided under S.417(2-A), Cr.P.C.---Report of the complainantrevealed that victim had received injuries, which showed that the victim was not minor ratherhe was having sense and was alive---Complainant, who was not an injured, could not file theappeal---Injured alone was competent to file appeal being an aggrieved person---Injuredperson being the aggrieved was neither insane nor minor, did not come forward to challengethe judgment impugned---Appeal filed by the complainant was incompetent, in circumstances---Trial Court had considered all the material present on record properly and arrived to theconclusion which was based on proper appreciation of the facts and law, thus did not needinterference by High Court---Appeal against acquittal was dismissed in limine.Mir Gul's case 1999 PCr.LJ 1507 and Jallan v. Muhammad Riaz PLD 2003 SC 644rel.(b) Appeal against acquittal-------Double presumption of innocence---Interference---Acquittal carried with it doublepresumption of innocence---Such order could only be reversed when found blatantlyperverse, resting upon fringes of impossibility and resulting into miscarriage of justice---Order of acquittal could not be set aside merely on the possibility of a contra view.

Summary: (a) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)-------Ss. 11-F(2), 11-F(5) & 11-F(6)---Membership, support and meetings relating to aproscribed organization, collection of money for proscribed organization---Appreciation ofevidence---Prosecution case was that accused was working for proscribed organization andcollecting chanda/donation for the said organization---Accused pleaded guilty and confessedhis guilt---Record revealed that accused was intimated about the charge and its consequencesand show cause notice was also given to him under S.243, Cr.P.C. but accused remainedconsistent with his statement---Trial Court after fulfilling codal formalities recorded hisconfessional statement---Once a person, involved in a criminal case, wanted to plead guiltyto the charge levelled against him and placed himself at the mercy of the court, he became afriend of the court and the court always took lenient view in respect of his sentence---TrialCourt had rightly taken a lenient view in respect of the sentences recorded against theaccused, which were neither illegal nor contrary to the punishments provided under therelevant law---Even otherwise, by virtue of the provisions of S.412, Cr.P.C. accused, whopleaded guilty to the charge, had no right of appeal against his conviction but he couldmaintain an appeal only to the extent of the legality of the sentence passed against him by theTrial Court---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.(b) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)-------Ss. 11-F(2), 11-F(5), 11-F(6)& 25---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5---Membership,support and meetings relating to a proscribed organization, collection of money forproscribed organization---Appeal---Condonation of delay---Scope---Appeal was time barredby five months and seven days as it was required to be filed within a period of fifteen daysfrom the date of impugned order as per S.25 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Said Act wasa special statute and it overrode the general law---Accused had also filed an applicationunder S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, for condoning the delay---Section 5 of Limitation Act,1908, would be applicable subject to provision 29 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 whichprovided that if time was provided under any statute for filing appeals etc, which wasdifferent from the time mentioned in the Schedule attached to the Limitation Act, 1908, thenS.5 of Limitation Act, 1908 would not be applicable unless it was made applicable by thestatute under which the appeal was filed---No provision in the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997authorized the court to invoke the provisions of S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1908---Timeprovided under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for filing the appeal was different from thetime provided in the Schedule attached to the Limitation Act, 1908, for filing such appeal---Section 5, Limitation Act, 1908 would not be applicable in the present case, hence the delaycould not be condoned by invoking S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1908---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

Summary: Background:The case involves a challenge to a judgment by the High Court of Sindh, which ordered the trial of a criminal case to be conducted by the Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) instead of an ordinary criminal court. The dispute arose from an incident allegedly stemming from a tribal rivalry.---Issues:Whether the High Court had the jurisdiction to set aside the ATC's order before the framing of charges.Whether the offense reported in the case constituted "terrorism" under the Anti-Terrorism Act.Whether the ATC had the authority to transfer the case to an ordinary criminal court.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The High Court's inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) allowed it to entertain challenges to orders made by a trial court, even before the framing of charges. (Shahnaz Begum v. The Hon'ble Judges of Sindh, Citation: 2015 SCMR 1)The offense reported in the case did not constitute "terrorism" under the Anti-Terrorism Act, as it arose from a private dispute over tribal leadership and did not meet the criteria outlined in section 6 of the Act. (Ghulam Hussain v. The State, Citation: 2018 SCMR 1121)The ATC had the authority to transfer the case to an ordinary criminal court under section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, provided it had taken cognizance of the case and determined that the offenses did not fall within its jurisdiction. (Hidayatullah v. The State, Citation: PLD 2019 SC 123)Outcome: The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the ATC's order to transfer the case to an ordinary criminal court.---Citations/Precedents:Shahnaz Begum v. The Hon'ble Judges of Sindh, 2015 SCMR 1Ghulam Hussain v. The State, 2018 SCMR 1121Hidayatullah v. The State, PLD 2019 SC 123