Summary: (a) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre‑emption Act, 1987 --- S. 13—Talb‑i‑Muwathibat—Production of informer—Mandatory nature— The pre‑emptor testified that he learned of the impugned sale on 25‑07‑2010 from one “Umar” and immediately voiced his intention before two witnesses (PW‑2 & PW‑3). Umar—the sole source of knowledge—was never produced, nor was his absence explained. Supreme Court reiterated that the informer’s examination is foundational: without it, time, place, and mode of knowledge remain uncorroborated, rendering the Talb‑i‑Muwathibat unproved. A three‑month gap between mutation (10‑04‑2010) and alleged knowledge further eroded credibility. Concurrent findings of trial and appellate courts upholding Talb were based on non‑reading of critical evidence and were rightly set aside by the High Court. Cited cases: Abdul Rehman v. Haji Ghazan Khan 2007 SCMR 1491; Subhanuddin v. Pir Ghulam PLD 2015 SC 69. (b) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 --- S. 115—Revisional jurisdiction—Scope to reverse concurrent findings— Where lower courts ignore material defects—misreading, non‑reading, or misconstruction of evidence—High Court may lawfully intervene in revision. Failure to establish statutory pre‑conditions for pre‑emption is a jurisdictional error going to the root of the decree; hence High Court’s interference was proper. (c) Pre‑emption—Promptness and credibility of Talb— Lapse of more than three months between sale mutation and alleged first demand negates the statutory requirement of immediacy; absence of corroboration through the informer renders witnesses’ testimony insufficient. Strict compliance is sine qua non; benefit of doubt goes against pre‑emptor. Disposition: Appeal dismissed; Peshawar High Court judgment dated 21‑10‑2016 upheld; respondent’s suit for pre‑emption finally dismissed.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 --- Arts. 4 & 10-A --- Right to fair trial and due process --- Postgraduate medical trainees --- Termination without inquiry --- Direct invocation of policy clause by disciplinary authority --- Legality Where the Specialized Healthcare and Medical Education Department directly terminated the services of postgraduate trainees without initiating inquiry through the competent Departmental Committee as mandated by Clause 13.3 of the Postgraduate Residency Policy, it was held to be a violation of Articles 4 and 10-A of the Constitution. The Secretary, who also acts as the appellate authority under the policy, could not unilaterally issue termination orders without affording the petitioners the right of appeal. Such action amounted to denial of fair trial and due process, rendering the impugned termination orders unlawful. (b) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 --- Art. 199 --- Writ jurisdiction --- Maintainability --- Disciplinary action taken without inquiry --- Availability of alternative remedy under policy --- Effect Although Clause 13.3 of the relevant policy provides for an appellate mechanism, where the impugned termination orders themselves originate from the appellate authority without observance of inquiry or departmental process, the bar of alternate remedy does not apply. The writ petition was maintainable as the action complained of was taken in breach of the petitioners’ fundamental rights and without lawful authority. (c) Policy on Postgraduate Residency Training --- Cls. 13.3 & 13.4 --- Departmental discipline --- Participation in strike --- Termination of trainees --- Requirement of departmental inquiry --- Sworn affidavits and departmental certification of non-involvement Clause 13.4 prohibits participation in political activity or strike and permits termination for such acts. However, Clause 13.3 provides a mandatory right of appeal against such action through the Departmental Committee. In the present case, petitioners produced sworn affidavits, duty rosters, attendance records, and certifications from Heads of Departments affirming non-involvement in any protest. In the absence of any inquiry or evidentiary process, unilateral termination based on presumption of misconduct was declared unlawful. (d) Medical regulation --- Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC) --- Cancellation of practicing licenses --- Scope of regulatory jurisdiction --- Right to be heard The PMDC, being a regulatory body, is competent to issue notices regarding cancellation of licenses. However, such regulatory action must conform to the principles of natural justice. Petitioners sought time to file a reply and did not press the petition to that extent. The High Court directed the PMDC to consider the petitioners’ explanation and decide the matter through a reasoned, lawful order within four weeks. Cited Cases: ABWA Knowledge Pvt. Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2021 Lahore 436) Mian Ali Asghar v. Government of Punjab (2020 CLC 157; 2021 MLD 370) PLD 2022 SC 72 (affirming ABWA Knowledge Pvt. Ltd.) Disposition: Writ petition allowed in part. Termination orders dated 30.04.2025 and 02.05.2025 set aside for being violative of due process. Petitioners directed to submit reply to PMDC regarding cancellation of licenses; PMDC to decide matter strictly in accordance with law within four weeks of filing

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (Against the judgment/order dated 24.01.2023 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 758 of 2020 and C.S.R. No. 6-T of 2020). (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 186, 353, 109, 148 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Murderous assault on police, acts of terrorism---Re-appraisal of evidence---Ocular account supported by medical evidence---Alleged incident occurred in broad daylight near the Court premises and the matter was reported with reasonable promptness---Present petitioners were identified as the individuals responsible for the gun fires---Four eyewitnesses had provided the ocular account, consisting of two private witnesses and two police personnel---One of the private witnesses was the real brother of the deceased, he was present at the time of the incident while other private witness was a family friend of the complainant and the deceased individuals---Consequently, the presence of said witnesses at the time of the incident could not be questioned in any way---In the same vein, the ocular evidence provided by the eyewitnesses was also consistent with the testimony of police officials---It was not plausible that the complainant would falsely implicate or substitute the petitioners in the murder of his real siblings and allow the real culprits to escape without consequence---Ocular account provided by the said witnesses was fully substantiated by the medical evidence---Ocular account was also supported by the Forensic Science Agency's affirmative report and the recovery of crime weapons from the possession of petitioners---Petitioners' guilt had been established to the hilt by both the Courts below, which had conducted an exhaustive analysis of the evidence on record---Upon its independent evaluation of the evidence, Supreme Court was unable to adopt a stance that differed from the concurrently held view of the Courts below---Prosecution proved its case against the petitioners (accused persons) beyond the shadow of doubt, however, due to mitigating circumstances, death sentence was converted to imprisonment for life---Petitions were converted into appeals and partly allowed. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 186, 353, 109, 148 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Murderous assault on police, acts of terrorism---Re-appraisal of evidence---Case of personal vendetta---Sentence, reduction in---Both parties were deeply embroiled in animosity toward one another---Said animosity resulted in the deaths of numerous innocent individuals, from the petitioners' perspective---Accusing fingers were pointed at the deceased---Prosecution's case was that the petitioners were motivated to commit the crime in question by the co-accused (who had since been acquitted) due to the lack of hope for justice from the Court---Moreover, it appeared that personal animosities and revenge had played a substantial role in the commission of the crime in the instant case---Petitioners' revenge was cultivated in their minds and, ultimately, the instant occurrence occurred---If mitigating circumstances were present, a life imprisonment sentence might be appropriated in lieu of the death penalty---Court had acknowledged that the motivations behind the crime might be influenced by personal vendetta rather than a premeditated intent to murder in situations characterized by enmity---Objectives of justice would be satisfactorily accomplished if accused-petitioners were compensated with a diminished penalty permissible by law---Prosecution proved its case against the petitioners (accused persons) beyond the shadow of doubt, however, due to mitigating circumstances, death sentence was converted to imprisonment for life---Petitions were converted into appeals and partly allowed. Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din v. State 2014 SCMR 1034 rel. Basharatullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Rai Akhtar Hussain, Additional Prosecutor General for the State. Ashiq Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 3rd June, 2025.

Summary: Court conditionally suspended the decree and Office refused to issue certified copy as said condition had not been complied with. Office was directed to issue certified copy; however, as of abundant caution, the Office while issuing certified copy, if so deemed necessary to ensure that the same may not be misinterpreted, can give a note/endorsement on the certified copy of the order that the condition mentioned in the order has not yet been complied with.

Summary: Court conditionally suspended the decree and Office refused to issue certified copy as said condition had not been complied with. Office was directed to issue certified copy; however, as of abundant caution, the Office while issuing certified copy, if so deemed necessary to ensure that the same may not be misinterpreted, can give a note/endorsement on the certified copy of the order that the condition mentioned in the order has not yet been complied with. 400Writ Petition- Criminal Proceedings- Direction to Subordinate Court 14839-24 STATE VS SCJ ETC Mr. Justice Tanveer Ahmad Sheikh 04- 06- 2025 2025 LHC 4418

Summary: (a) Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974--- ----R. 5(1)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Service matter---Appointment / recruitment---High Court, jurisdiction of---Authorities were aggrieved of directions issued by High Court to adjust respondents / candidates against posts in question---Plea raised by authorities was that in the matter of appointments, there were disputed questions of facts which could not be decided by High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction---Validity---When a controversy regarding appoint or recruitment process is triggered, High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction cannot record evidence and cannot be involved deeply in factual controversy, which cannot be thrashed out without leading evidence by parties---Available record and comments filed by concerned department can be vetted and scanned in order to arrive at a just conclusion on whether the matter can be adjudicated upon based on available and admitted documents without dilating upon factual controversy--- Supreme Court remanded the matter to High Court for deciding it afresh on merits, after providing ample opportunity of hearing to parties and set aside order passed by High Court---Appeal was allowed. Special Secretary-II (Law and Order), Home and Tribal Affairs Department, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar v. Fayyaz Dawar 2023 SCMR 1442; 2023 SCP 199 and Dr. Sher Afgan Khan Niazi v. Ali S. Habib and others 2011 SCMR 1813 rel. (b) Words and phrases--- ----'Mutatis mutandis'---Connotation---Expression mutatis mutandis generally applies for making certain adjustments of features in a new situation of framework, as a shortcut (an alternate route that is shorter than the one usually taken) in order to avoid reiterating or retelling the same provisions with minor variations---Expression mutatis mutandis applies from one case to another with required alterations or modifications within the different set of circumstances of cases to avoid repetition by signifying that primary criterions have to apply with certain vicissitudes. Black's Law Dictionary (Revised 4th Edition, 1968; West Publishing Co.); Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law (1st Edition, 1959; Sweet and Maxwell); Oxford Dictionary of Law (5th Edition, 2003; Oxford University Press); Bouvier's Law Dictionary (3rd Revision, 1914; Boston); Oxford English Dictionary (3rd Edition, 2003; Oxford University Press); Cambridge English Dictionary (Cambridge University Press); Collins English Dictionary (via Dictionary.com, 2012 Edition); Muhammad Sharif v. The State PLD 1999 SC 1063; Vasudev Anant Kulkarni v. Executive Engineer 1995 ACJ 97; Ashok Service Centre v. State of Orissa 1983 2 SCR 363 and R. v. Gauthier [1977] 1 SCR 441 rel. For Petitioners: Jawad Dero, Advocate General, Sindh, Sibtain Mehmood, Additional Advocate General, Ms. Lubna Pervez, Advocate-on-Record, Ghulam Ali Brahmani, Secretary SGA&CD. For Respondents: Mirza Sarfaraz Ahmed, Mehfooz Ahmed Awan, Rukhsar Ahmed Junejo, Manzoor Hussain Larik, Advocates Supreme Court, Sajid Ali Channa, Badaruddin Memon, Syed Tanveer Abbas Shah, Abdul Naeem Pirzada, M. Yaseen Khaskheli, Advocates High Court, Mrs. Abida Parveen Channar, Abdul Sattar Khan and Abdul Qadir Khan, Advocates-on-Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 5th June, 2025.

Summary: (Against judgment dated 16.05.2024 of the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad passed in Crl. Appeal No. 148 of 2022 and Crl. Appeal No. 170 of 2022, Crl. Revision No. 29 of 2022 and M. R. No. 02 of 2022). (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 398---Qatl-i-amd, attempting to commit robbery or dacoity, when the offender is armed with a deadly weapon---Reappraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Improvements made by witnesses---Petitioners were charged for committing murder of the deceased while attempting to commit robbery---In his FIR as well as supplementary statement complainant did not nominate the two accused who had entered the shop and had committed the offence---However in his supplementary statement he suspected convict "Ch", being an ex-employee of shop, as an accomplice who was sitting on the motorcycle outside the shop upon which both the accused had fled---Admittedly, Branch Manager was not an eye-witness of the occurrence as he was not present in the shop at the time of the occurrence---However, complainant and a Manager were the witnesses of the occurrence---Both the petitioners were not previously known to eyewitnesses and they both were also not aware of their names---Record transpired that eyewitnesses nominated both the petitioners in their statements at the trial with explanation that names of both the petitioners came to their knowledge during investigation---Record revealed that due to implication of convict "Ch" as a suspect by complainant in his supplementary statement, the convict "Ch" as well as the petitioners were arrested by Investigating Officer on next day of the occurrence under Section 54 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) as suspects as the FIR was against unknown accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 398---Qatl-i-amd, attempting to commit robbery or dacoity, when the offender is armed with a deadly weapon---Reappraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions in the statements of witnesses---Petitioners were charged for committing murder of the deceased while attempting to commit robbery---Occurrence was of 28.12.2020 at 10:20 pm---According to the statement of Investigating Officer, on the next day of occurrence, he recovered two empties of .30 pistol from the place of occurrence i.e. shop and he also took into possession a mobile phone with a SIM from the counter of shop, which belonged to the petitioner---Call Data Record (CDR) revealed of telephonic contacts between the petitioner and the convict "Ch"---Surprisingly, witnesses had not mentioned in their statements recorded at the trial about the recovery of the mobile phone of the petitioner from the counter of the shop on 29.12.2020 by Investigating Officer---In contradiction to the statement of Investigating Officer about recovery of the said cell phone from the counter of the shop on 29.12.2020, according to the statement of eyewitness, the said phone was recovered by Investigating Officer in his presence on 28.12.2020---Foisting the recovery of cell phone by Investigating Officer from the counter of the shop on the next day of the occurrence after arrest of the convict "Ch" and the petitioners to create incriminating evidence against them could not be ruled out of consideration---According to Investigating Officer two crime empties were recovered on 29.12.2020 from the shop wherein the occurrence had taken place---Complainant and a witness had not mentioned about recovery of two crime empties by Investigating Officer from the shop on 29.12.2020---While contradicting the statement of Investigating Officer, witness stated that the said crime empties were recovered by Investigating Officer on the same day i.e. 28.12.2020---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove the charge against the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 398---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 22---Qatl-i-amd, attempting to commit robbery or dacoity, when the offender is armed with a deadly weapon---Reappraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Test identification parade---Infirmities---Petitioners were charged for committing murder of the deceased while attempting to commit robbery---Complainant and eyewitness were witnesses of the identification parade of the petitioners and convict "Ch" which was conducted on 08.1.2021 in the premises of Central Jail, under the supervision of Assistant Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Magistrate---Record transpired that identification parade of the petitioners and the convict "Ch" was not conducted by Sub-Divisional Magistrate in accordance with law---During identification parade proceedings objections were raised by the petitioners and the convict that prior to the identification parade, their photographs were taken in the police station but the said objection was not dealt with/attended by Sub-Divisional Magistrate---Identification parade proceedings of petitioners and the convict had been brought on record by the prosecution, according to which, the petitioners and the convict were identified by the witnesses and they were assigned numbers as witness No. 1, witness No. 2, witness No. 3 and witness No. 4 respectively by Sub-Divisional Magistrate---In the identification parade proceedings of petitioner, three witnesses i.e. Nos. 1, 3 and 4 were mentioned thereon but there was no mention in his identification parade proceedings about witness No.2; whereas in the identification parade proceedings of other petitioner and the convict, names of all four witnesses had been mentioned with their correct serial numbers---During the identification parade proceedings, Sub-Divisional Magistrate had recorded statements of four witnesses of the identification parade in narrative form---Identification parade report revealed that the witnesses had simply identified the petitioners and the convict without any reference to their description and without assigning the role allegedly played by each of them in the occurrence---In the circumstances, the identification parade of the petitioners by the witnesses without stating the role allegedly played by them in the occurrence was not inline with Article 22 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, hence it was of no evidentiary value and could not be relied upon for conviction of the petitioners---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Mehboob Hassan v. Akhtar Islam and others 2024 SCMR 757; Abdul Hayee v. State 2025 SCMR 281 and Abdul Qadeer v. The State 2024 SCMR 1146 rel. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 398---Qatl-i-amd, attempting to commit robbery or dacoity, when the offender is armed with a deadly weapon---Reappraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---CCTV footage---Faces of culprits not visible---Petitioners were charged for committing murder of the deceased while attempting to commit robbery---CCTV footage of the shop with regard to the occurrence, procured during investigation and recorded in USB, duly played at the trial and relied upon by the trial Court for conviction of the petitioners, was also played in the High Court---CCTV footage was of no avail to the prosecution and it could not be made a basis for conviction of the petitioners as in the CCTV footage, the faces of the culprits were not visible and it was showing only the back of the culprit who had a scuffle with the deceased---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 398---Qatl-i-amd, attempting to commit robbery or dacoity, when the offender is armed with a deadly weapon---Reappraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of crime weapon on the disclosure of petitioners-accused---Lack of independent corroboration---Petitioners were charged for committing murder of the deceased while attempting to commit robbery---According to the prosecution, on 17.1.2021, on the disclosure and pointation of petitioner .30 bore pistol with four live cartridges were recovered in presence of two Police Constables/recovery witnesses from a cattle shed---As per prosecution version, from the same cattle shed, a .30 bore pistol with five live cartridges were recovered on 20.1.2021 on the disclosure and pointation of other petitioner---No disclosure memos of the petitioners were prepared in that regard by the Investigating Officer---No independent witnesses of the locality/workers of the cattle shed as well as owner of the cattle shed were associated to attest the alleged recoveries nor they had been produced at the trial to lend independent corroboration to the alleged recoveries of pistols and live cartridges on the pointation of the petitioners---Such fact weakened the prosecution case and led to possibility of foisting the recovery of weapons by the Investigating Officer to lend corroboration to the prosecution version---Pistol allegedly recovered on the pointation of petitioner on 17.01.2021 was sent to the Forensic Science Agency on 22.01.2021 with two crime empties already lying therein---Record also revealed of break in chain of custody of the weapon---Positive report of Forensic Science Agency was issued on 08.02.2021---Though positive report of a firearm expert was a valid piece of corroborative evidence but its weight was heavily dependent on the reliability of the weapon recovery---If the recovery of weapon was found to be doubtful, fabricated or otherwise unreliable, the report of firearm expert, even if positive, could be disregarded by the Court as it failed to connect the weapon genuinely to the accused or the crime in a credible manner---Since recovery of crime weapon was disbelieved due to lack of independent corroboration, the positive report of the firearm expert lost its evidentiary value in connecting the petitioner to the crime--- Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Hameed uz Zaman, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Ghulam Sarwar Nihung, Prosecutor General Islamabad along with Asif Khan, Inspector and Ashfaq, S.I. for the State. M. Faisal and Hamad (brothers of the deceased) for the deceased. Date of hearing: 5th June, 2025.

Summary: Cr.P.L.As. Nos. 48-K to 51-K of 2025, decided on 5th June, 2025. (Against the order dated 18.02.2025 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in Cr. Revision Application Nos. 35 to 38 of 2025). Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)--- ----S. 14(2)---Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court---Judicial Strictures---Expunction of remarks---Principle---Appellant was a judicial officer who was aggrieved of remarks against him, passed by Division Bench of High Court in the judgment in question---Validity---Petitioner only sought expunction of stricture, which had nothing to do with merits of the decision of High Court---High Court was required to evaluate whether the passage complained of was reprehensible; its preservation on record would cause disparagement to the credit of petitioner; and its expunction would not affect the judgment or order on merits---Before passing any stricture on demeanour and career of petitioner, Division Bench of High Court should have given him an opportunity to submit his comments/report---No such opportunity was provided to him by Divisional Bench of High Court before passing order in the Court---Even in the case of some lapses found to be surfacing on part of the judicial officer, the order or report could be sent to Chief Justice for taking action on administrative side through the Confidential Branch---Supreme Court set aside the remarks/directions made in relevant paragraph of order in question which were essentially structured on oral motion of Acting Prosecutor General; were unjustified, and made without probing into the issue and without calling for comments from the Presiding Officer or without even affording him a right of audience---Appeal was disposed of. Braj Kishore Thakur v. Union of India and others (1997) 4 SCC 65; (2001) 3 SCC 54; Miss Nusrat Yasmin v. Registrar, Peshawar High Court, Peshawar and others PLD 2019 SC 719; Aijaz Ahmed Tunio v. The State PLD 2021 SC 752; Hasnain Raza and another v. Lahore High Court, Lahore and others PLD 2022 SC 7; Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice Islamabad v. Muhammad Hamid Mughal PLD 2024 SC 515; 2023 SCP 293 and Justice Khurshid Anwar Bhinder and others v. Federation of Pakistan and another PLD 2010 SC 483 ref. Syed Ghulam Shabbir Shah, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Irtafa-ur-Rehman, Advocate High Court for Petitioner. Muntazir Mehdi, Acting Prosecutor General and Siraj Ali Chandio, Additional Prosecutor General for the State. Saleem Akhtar Buriro, Additional Prosecutor General/Advocate-on-Record for the State. Zulfiqar Ali, Public Prosecutor for the State. Danish Qureshi, SHO, AVCC for the State. Muhammad Ali, Inspector for the State. Sibtain Mehmood, Additional Advocate General on Court's Call. Zain-ul-Abideen, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant. Mrs. Abida Parveen Channar, Advocate-on-Record assisted by Mustafa Mamdani, Iftikhar Shah, Jahanzaib Aftab and Umair Usman, Advocates for the Complainant. Nemo for the Accused. Date of hearing: 5th June, 2025.