Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Documents not duly proved during trial of the case and thus not subjected to cross-examination by the accused and furthermore, even not put to the accused at the time of recording of statement under Section: 342 Cr.P.C., neither can be received during final arguments of the case nor can be relied upon/used by the trial court for convicting the accused.

Summary: 1) Aisha Steel Mills Vs. Federation (2011 PTD 569) distinguished. (2) The Scope of purposive Interpretation of a statute and cannons of construction viz an exemption clause. (3) Expert decisions made by specialized bodies cannot be interfered as a normal course as the Courts cannot delve into the questions of intricate technicalities. (4) The parameters of exemptions/benefits under the Special Economic Zones Act, 2012.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Tax: petitioner is aggrieved that 5-year limitation for audit of 2019 lapsed with 2024 ending but still it has now been selected for audit under section 177 --- (a) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001----Ss.177(1) & 214-A---Audit---Condonation of limitation---Federal Board of Revenue possessed general statutory authority under S.214-A to extend time for an act or thing required under Ordinance, including completion of audit proceedings under S.177---Such power was independent and overriding in nature but was neither unfettered nor automatic---Extension had to be granted within a reasonable period, upon due application of mind and for legally sustainable reasons. Cited Cases: • Collector of Sales Tax, Gujranwala and others v. Super Asia Mohammad Din and others 2017 SCMR 1427 • WAK Limited and others v. Collector Central Excise and Sales Tax 2025 PTD 1179 • Huawei Technologies Pakistan Limited v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLJ 2026 Islamabad 51 (b) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001----Ss.177(1) & 214-A---Second proviso to S.177(1)---Six-year audit limitation---Extension---Authority under S.214-A could not be exercised as a routine device to reverse statutory limitation merely because audit remained incomplete---Where Legislature had already afforded six years for calling taxpayer’s records, justification for any further extension had to be exceptionally strong, specific and demonstrable---Longer original statutory period required correspondingly stronger reasons for condonation. (c) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001----S.214-A---Discretionary power---Standards of exercise---Condonation power had to be exercised reasonably, justly and fairly---Reasonableness required demonstrable application of mind and rational nexus between material and conclusion; justice required scrutiny of causes of departmental delay and whether they were beyond official control; fairness required procedural opportunity to affected taxpayer where extension prejudicially affected accrued statutory protection---Failure on any of these standards rendered condonation without lawful authority. (d) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001----S.214-A---Condonation order---Requirement of reasons---Order merely stated that competent authority had taken cognizance of facts and extended limitation by six months without identifying those facts, exceptional circumstances or reasons---Generic recital did not constitute meaningful exercise of discretion---Extension of limitation could not be sustained where order was mechanical, opaque and unsupported by recorded justification. Cited Cases: • Commissioner of Inland Revenue v. Messrs Allah Din Steel and Rolling Mills and others 2018 SCMR 1328 • Additional Collector of Customs, Faisalabad v. Messrs Fatima Enterprises, Multan and another 2025 SCMR 1929 • Federal Board of Revenue v. Abdul Ghani 2021 SCMR 1154 (e) General Clauses Act, 1897----S.24-A---Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, S.214-A---Speaking order---Statutory discretion affecting limitation and taxpayer’s rights had to be exercised fairly, reasonably, justly and through a reasoned order---Reasons enabled affected person to understand basis of decision, facilitated judicial review and operated as safeguard against arbitrariness---Condonation order devoid of reasons violated S.24-A and could not be treated as lawful. (f) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001----Ss.177 & 214-A---Audit delay attributable to Department---Effect---Audit initiated in 2022 remained dormant for approximately nineteen months after taxpayer had replied to penalty notice and no further effective step was taken---Claims of reorganization of field formations and frequent transfers were unsupported by notifications or other documentary material---No external, unavoidable or litigation-related impediment was established---Administrative lethargy and omissions of audit officers could not furnish lawful basis for extension. (g) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001----Ss.175, 177 & 214-A---Duty of tax administration---Revenue officers entrusted with protection of public revenue were required to act diligently, vigilantly and within statutory timelines---Availability of wide investigative powers heightened rather than diminished obligation to proceed efficiently---Condonation could not be used to reward departmental inaction, cure avoidable inefficiency or transfer consequences of official default to taxpayer. Cited Case: • Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-IV, Lahore v. Messrs Panther Sports and Rubber Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. and others 2022 SCMR 1135 (h) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001----S.214-A---Natural justice---Audi alteram partem---Extension of expired or expiring limitation adversely affected taxpayer’s statutory protection and exposed it to continued audit proceedings---Taxpayer was entitled to notice and meaningful opportunity to demonstrate compliance, contest allegations of non-cooperation and point out departmental delay---Condonation granted without hearing violated natural justice and was procedurally unfair. Cited Cases: • Aftab Shahban Mirani v. President of Pakistan 1998 SCMR 1863 • New Jubilee Insurance v. National Bank of Pakistan PLD 1999 SC 1126 • Rahim Shah v. Chief Election Commissioner PLD 1973 SC 24 • Raziuddin v. Chairman, Pakistan Airlines Corporation PLD 1992 SC 531 • Hazara (Hill Tract) Improvement Trust v. Mst. Qaisra Elahi 2005 SCMR 678 (i) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001----S.177(1)---Second proviso---Audit limitation---Effect of unlawful condonation---Once extension under S.214-A was declared unlawful, audit for Tax Year 2019 stood lapsed upon expiry of six-year period on 31.12.2024---Subsequent proceedings expressly taken in continuation of such audit lacked lawful foundation. (j) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001----Ss.176 & 177---Notice to obtain information and audit---Distinct fields---Section 177 was a specific audit provision empowering Commissioner to call for records for formal examination of taxpayer’s affairs and was expressly subject to six-year limitation---Section 176 was a broader information-gathering provision enabling Commissioner to obtain information or evidence from any person for tax administration purposes---Both provisions could coexist independently, but S.176 could not be used as a surrogate for a time-barred audit. Cited Cases: • Federal Board of Revenue v. Chenone Stores Ltd. 2018 PTD 208 • Shabnam Ashraf, Proprietor of Preparatory School, Islamabad v. Director HQ I & I-IR and others 2020 PTD 1917 (k) Statutory interpretation---General and special provisions---Circumvention of limitation---A general statutory power could not be invoked to defeat or bypass a specific limitation deliberately imposed upon a more particular power operating in same field---Permitting S.176 to obtain records expressly for continuation of an audit barred under S.177 would render six-year limitation meaningless and offend legislative design. (l) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001----Ss.176(1) & 177(1)---Notice expressly issued in connection with audit---Tax Year 2019---Notice dated 10.02.2025 sought information in continuation of audit and was issued under S.176 read with S.177---Its real purpose was not an independent information-gathering exercise but continuation of time-barred audit by another route---Notice therefore constituted impermissible circumvention of S.177 limitation and was void. (m) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001----Ss.174(3), 176(1) & 108(4)---Record-maintenance period---Information notice after six years---Although S.176 contained no express limitation, it could not be construed as exposing taxpayer indefinitely to demands for records---Where notice required production of records taxpayer was legally obliged to preserve only for six years under S.174(3), statutory provisions had to be read harmoniously---After expiry of record-retention period, taxpayer could not be compelled to produce such records. (n) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001----S.174(3)---Taxpayer’s statutory protection---Ordinance was structured around time-bound provisions to ensure certainty, transparency, efficiency and smart tax governance---Obligation to retain records for six years simultaneously protected taxpayer from demands beyond that period, except where proceedings had lawfully remained pending---Department had to initiate record-based proceedings within statutory timeframe. Cited Case: • Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-IV, Lahore v. Messrs Panther Sports and Rubber Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. and others 2022 SCMR 1135 (o) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001----Ss.174(3), 176 & 214-A---Absence of limitation in information-gathering provision---Effect---Silence of S.176 regarding time did not make power temporally unlimited---Where exercise depended upon records no longer legally required to be maintained, six-year protection under S.174(3) controlled enforceability of notice---Section 214-A could not be invoked to deprive taxpayer of protection arising from expiry of record-retention obligation. (p) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001----Ss.176(1) & 108(4)---Independent information notice---Tax Year 2019---Notice dated 07.02.2025, though not facially tied to S.177 audit, required production of taxpayer’s records after expiry of six-year retention period---Notice was ineffective and unenforceable to extent it demanded records which taxpayer was no longer statutorily bound to retain. (q) Taxation---Past and closed transaction---Expiry of statutory limitation---Where six-year period had expired and no valid extension existed, taxpayer acquired statutory protection against further audit-based requisition of records---Revenue could not revive such exposure through an unreasoned condonation or by invoking a general information power for same substantive purpose. Disposition---Writ petition allowed---Condonation letter dated 16.01.2025 issued under S.214-A declared void and without lawful authority---Audit proceedings for Tax Year 2019 treated as having lapsed on 31.12.2024---Notices dated 07.02.2025 and 10.02.2025 issued under S.176 declared void---Respondents restrained from seeking further information pertaining to Tax Year 2019 pursuant to impugned condonation or notices. M/s Zhongxing Telecom Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan and others, Writ Petition No.930 of 2025, Islamabad High Court, heard on 23.02.2026 and announced on 14.05.2026, approved for reporting.

Summary: (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997----S. 36---Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001----R. 6 (unamended)---Criminal Procedure Code----S. 510---Forensic report of Government Analyst---Mention of "full protocols"---Whether mandatory or directory---Conflict of judgments resolved by larger Bench---In the first category of cases (Ikram Ullah, Imam Bakhsh, Khair-ul-Bashar and Qaiser Javed Khan) it had been held that mentioning of full protocols in the report was mandatory and non-mentioning vitiated its evidentiary value; in the second category (Gul Alam, Shazia Bibi, Shafa Ullah Khan and Liaquat Ali) a contrary view had been taken---S. 36 of the Act of 1997 required a signed report in quadruplicate in the prescribed form, admissible as evidence of the facts stated therein without formal proof and, unless rebutted, conclusive; S. 510, Cr.P.C. likewise did not impose any condition of mentioning full protocol---Unamended R. 6, however, required that the result together with full protocols of the test applied shall be signed---Held, that rules were subordinate legislation and could not create rights or liabilities, impose new conditions, override the parent Act, or render any provision of the Act ineffective or redundant; an Act being primary statute held superior legal authority and must prevail---Condition of mentioning full protocols imposed by unamended R. 6 was not a condition under S. 36; treating it as mandatory would recognise subordinate legislation as exceeding the parent Act and making S. 36 practically redundant---Omission to mention full protocol in the report could not take away the power of the Court to consider the report as admissible evidence of the facts stated therein, without formal proof, unless rebutted. (b) Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001----R. 6 (unamended)---Expression "shall"---Mandatory or directory---Distinction between observing protocols during analysis and mentioning them in the report---Held, that the expression "shall" was to be interpreted according to context and purpose; if non-compliance expressly led to penalty, serious prejudice or defeated the law's purpose, it was mandatory; when the provision provided a guideline or mechanism, the desired purpose was still achieved despite non-compliance, or no penal consequences were attached, it was directory---Condition in unamended R. 6 was a direction to the Government Analyst to provide full protocols as a procedural guideline rather than a substantive legal requirement---Fact that full protocols were observed during test and analysis could still be proved through other evidence or testimony of the Analyst---Unamended R. 6 provided no consequences for non-mentioning of full protocols---Omission was a mere procedural defect, curable and rectifiable, an irregularity not an illegality, which did not vitiate evidentiary value of the report nor defeat the object of the Act of 1997---There was a clear distinction between observing protocols during test and analysis, and mentioning the protocol in the final report; without observing full protocol the opinion would have no evidentiary value, but the object of mentioning protocols was to place the procedure on record because the Analyst was exempted from appearing as a witness---Court, exercising power under S. 36 of the Act and the proviso to S. 510, Cr.P.C., may, if necessary in the interest of justice, summon and examine the Analyst along with record---Expression "shall" in unamended R. 6 was directory---Unamended R. 6 applied to all cases/FIRs registered prior to the amendment of R. 6 in 2021. (c) Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001----R. 6 (as amended on 2nd June, 2021 vide S.R.O. No.1340(I)/2021)---What constitutes sufficient compliance with the protocols requirement---Explanation-II---Amended Form-II---Held, that the 2021 amendment was introduced to bring R. 6 in line with S. 36 of the Act of 1997, the proposition of this Court, and internationally recognised practice---Explanation-II expressly delineated what amounted to "full and sufficient compliance" with supply of "full protocols of the tests or analysis applied"---For confirmatory techniques, mere mention of the names of tests conducted in respect of each substance constituted sufficient compliance---Identification and mentioning of the respective names of the internationally recognised tests described in clauses (i) to (vii) of Explanation-II to amended R. 6 amounted to full and sufficient compliance---Original signed report shall be treated as primary evidence as provided by Explanation-I---Amended Form-II required the Government Analyst to affirm that requisite protocols had been duly observed, with liability to prosecution for an intentionally false statement---S. 36(2) presumed the report to be correct unless rebutted; sub-rule (2) of amended R. 6 gave an aggrieved person a chance to rebut, and the Court may call the Analyst or permit evidence in contravention of the report---Scheme of the amended rule favoured reliability, accountability and verifiability without insisting upon unnecessary formalism in reporting. (d) Precedent---Larger Bench---Resolution of conflict---Retrospective effect---Held, that the common judgment dealt with divergent views of the first and second categories of cases and would have no retrospective effect---Court would not dilate upon merits of the pending appeals and petitions, which were to be fixed for hearing as per the roster at the earliest. Cited Cases: • Ikram Ullah and others v. The State 2015 SCMR 1002 • The State v. Imam Bakhsh and others 2018 SCMR 2039 • Khair-ul-Bashar v. The State 2019 SCMR 930 • Qaiser Javed Khan v. The State PLD 2020 SC 57 • Gul Alam v. The State 2011 SCMR 624 • Shazia Bibi v. The State 2020 SCMR 460 • Shafa Ullah Khan v. The State and another 2021 SCMR 2005 • Liaquat Ali and Shad Muhammad v. The State 2022 SCMR 1097 • Messrs Mehraj Flour Mills and others v. Provincial Government and others 2001 SCMR 1806 • PLD 2010 SC 759 Disposition: By majority of four to one (Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan, J. dissenting), declared that the requirement to mention "full protocols" in the report under unamended R. 6 is directory, and that identification and mentioning of the respective names of the internationally recognised tests described in clauses (i) to (vii) of Explanation-II to amended R. 6 amounts to full and sufficient compliance; judgment shall have no retrospective effect; merits of the pending criminal appeals and petitions not decided, office directed to fix them for hearing as per the roster at the earliest. (Criminal Appeals Nos.43, 359-L, 360-L of 2020, 232 & 233 of 2022, Criminal Petitions Nos.140-K of 2018, 1137 of 2021, 593-L of 2017, 939-L, 940-L/23, JPs Nos.711/19 & 564/23 and Crl. M.A. No.1334/24, Supreme Court of Pakistan, heard 17.02.2026; Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan, Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Salahuddin Panhwar and Ishtiaq Ibrahim, JJ. Approved for reporting.)

Summary: (a) Penal Code----S. 364-A---Kidnapping of a minor and murder---Circumstantial evidence---Chain of circumstances---Recovery of dead body---Forensic evidence---DNA and fingerprints---Petitioners Aftab Zafar, Hamza Jahangir and Muhammad Yasir were convicted and sentenced to death by the Trial Court, which acquitted co-accused Asad Mumtaz; High Court maintained the convictions, death sentences and the acquittal---Five-year-old Umar Rathore went missing on 21.12.2019 at about 04:00 p.m.; complainant father initially nominated no one, and named the petitioners in a supplementary statement on 23.12.2019---On 24.12.2019 Aftab Zafar was produced by his father; during personal search of Muhammad Yasir a key and a mobile phone were recovered; Yasir led the police to a rented ground-floor portion and, using the recovered key, facilitated recovery of the dead body of the minor from a wooden almirah, with face, hands and legs wrapped in tape---Held, that the complainant was not an eyewitness and the case rested entirely upon circumstantial evidence---Conviction could safely be recorded on circumstantial evidence provided each incriminating circumstance was proved independently through reliable evidence and all circumstances formed a complete and unbroken chain leaving no hypothesis consistent with innocence; if any link was missing or capable of an interpretation favourable to the accused, the benefit must go to him, but where the chain was complete, coherent and confidence-inspiring, such evidence was as potent as direct evidence---Initial report without nomination showed bona fides of the complainant---Medical evidence confirmed that the mouth of the deceased was stuffed with cloth and secured with tape---Landlady Naheed Bibi (PW-5), an independent witness with no animus, deposed that she had rented the lower portion to Aftab Zafar on 26.11.2019 at a monthly rent of Rs.12,000/-, that Muhammad Yasir approached her on 22.12.2019 to charge a mobile phone, and that police recovered the dead body from the premises on 24.12.2019---PFSA report matched DNA from cigarette butts with Muhammad Yasir and Hamza Jahangir; NFSA report matched fingerprints from glass items with Hamza Jahangir, Aftab Zafar and Muhammad Yasir---No DNA profile or fingerprint of acquitted co-accused Asad Mumtaz was detected---Independent shopkeepers connected purchase of tape, eatables and related items with the petitioners---Recovery of the dead body at the pointation of Muhammad Yasir, exclusive possession of the premises through the landlady, and forensic confirmation of presence formed an unbroken chain, one end touching the dead body and the other fastening upon the petitioners---Conviction under S. 364-A, P.P.C. was based on proper appreciation of evidence, the recovery of the deceased child reasonably establishing that the minor was unlawfully abducted from parental custody and subsequently done to death---No interference with the conclusion of guilt. (b) Penal Code----S. 364-A---Capital sentence---Residual doubt---Mitigating circumstance---Benefit of doubt as to sentence---Rarest of rare---Although some aspects of the prosecution evidence created doubt, it was not of a magnitude so as to warrant acquittal, but could be taken into consideration in the matter of sentence---Principle of benefit of doubt was not confined to the question of guilt alone but extended to the question of sentence as well, particularly in capital cases where the choice lay between death and life imprisonment---Where the prosecution case suffered from absence of a definite motive, unexplained inconsistencies, or circumstances generating uncertainty regarding the true genesis of the occurrence, such factors, though insufficient to discredit the conviction, assumed importance as mitigating considerations warranting judicial caution in awarding capital punishment---Concept of residual doubt, lying between reasonable doubt and absolute certainty, called for heightened judicial circumspection at the stage of sentencing---Capital punishment was to be awarded only in the rarest of rare cases and where no alternative was reasonably available---Though guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt, the evidence was not entirely free from infirmities generating residual doubt, which operated within the sentencing domain as a weighty mitigating circumstance in view of the irreversible nature of death---Ends of justice would be adequately served by awarding a lesser sentence rather than the extreme penalty of death. (c) Criminal petition for leave to appeal against acquittal---Circumstantial evidence---Absence of forensic trace---Findings of acquittal of respondent-accused Asad Mumtaz were based on proper appreciation of evidence, including that no DNA profile or fingerprint impression of his was detected on any recovered article---No exception could be taken---Leave to appeal refused. Cited Cases: • Mst. Bevi v. Ghulam Shabbir 1980 SCMR 859 • Mawaz Khan v. Ghulam Shabbir NLR 1995 Cr. 17 • Mir Muhammad alias Miro v. The State 2009 SCMR 1188 • Falak Sher v. The State NLR 2000 Cr. 188 Disposition: Jail Petition No.136 of 2025 and Criminal Petitions Nos.575 and 679 of 2025 converted into appeals and partly allowed; convictions of Aftab Zafar, Hamza Jahangir and Muhammad Yasir maintained, but death sentences commuted to imprisonment for life; each to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased under S. 544-A, Cr.P.C., and in default to undergo 6 months' S.I.; substantive sentences under both offences to run concurrently; benefit of S. 382-B, Cr.P.C. extended. Criminal Petition No.756 of 2025 dismissed; leave refused; acquittal of Asad Mumtaz maintained. (J.P. No.136 of 2025 and Crl.P.L.As. Nos.575, 679 & 756 of 2025, Supreme Court of Pakistan, heard 02.03.2026; Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Salahuddin Panhwar and Ishtiaq Ibrahim, JJ. Approved for reporting.)

Summary: (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)----Ss. 9(1)3(c) & 9(1)5(c)---Recovery of charas and opium---Contradictions in testimonies of recovery witnesses---Petitioner was convicted for recovery of two packets of charas weighing 01 kilogram each (total 02 kilograms) and one packet of opium weighing 01 kilogram, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for nine years under each offence with fines of Rs.80,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively, sentences to run concurrently, with benefit of S. 382-B, Cr.P.C.; High Court maintained the conviction and sentences---Constable Muhammad Imran (PW-1), Seizing Officer Adnan Iqbal, S.I. (PW-4) and Lady Constable Mumtaz Bibi (PW-5), a marginal witness to the recovery memo, claimed to be eyewitnesses---Held, that PW-1 deposed that after recovery some proceedings were conducted at the corner of the road in a standing position and some while sitting on a chair procured from a nearby shop, whereas PW-4 stated that all proceedings were conducted while sitting on a folding chair and table available in the official vehicle, that he did not open the entire packets of opium, and that three or four private persons declined to join but left without identifying themselves---PW-5, while partially supporting use of a folding chair and table, stated that narcotics were weighed on an electric scale placed on the bonnet of the official vehicle, an aspect not mentioned by the Seizing Officer; that the entire packets of opium and charas were opened; and that no private persons were asked to join the proceedings---Such contradictions were material, striking at the root of the prosecution case, rendering the alleged recovery and spot proceedings highly doubtful and unsafe to rely upon without independent corroboration. (b) Police Rules, 1934----Rr. 22.48 & 22.49---Roznamcha/daily diary---Departure of raiding party---Non-production---Adverse inference---Maxim communis observantia non est recedendum---Seizing Officer admitted that he had recorded his departure in the Roznamcha but the daily diary entry was not brought on record; the departure was incorporated through the Moharrir, yet the name of the accused was not mentioned therein---Prosecution case was of prior information regarding trafficking by the petitioner and constitution of a raiding party---Held, that it was incumbent upon the Seizing Officer to reflect in the daily diary not only the factum of departure but also its purpose, including the name of the petitioner whose identity had allegedly been disclosed through prior information---Non-production of the daily diary, the primary and best evidence of departure, without plausible justification, warranted drawing of an adverse inference that the raiding party had not proceeded to the place of occurrence in the manner alleged and that the entire proceedings might have been conducted within the precincts of the Police Station---Whenever a police official left the Police Station, the factum of departure along with its purpose must be duly recorded in the Roznamcha---Where the law prescribed a particular mode for doing an act, the same must be performed in that manner alone, and any deviation rendered the prosecution case doubtful. (c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)----Ss. 9(1)3(c) & 9(1)5(c)---Safe chain of custody and transmission of samples---Sine qua non for conviction---Road certificate---Register No.19---Seizing Officer deposed that he handed over samples and case property to Maqbool Ahmad Moharrir/Head Constable (PW-2), who on 11.11.2022 entrusted sealed parcels to Constable Muhammad Ashfaq (PW-3) along with road certificate, docket, Form-I and copy of FIR for transmission to NIH, Islamabad---PW-3 admitted that the road certificate did not bear signatures of the Seizing Officer/Investigating Officer, nor his own signatures at all---Seizing Officer admitted that he had not appended copies of Register No.19, wherein complete particulars of case property are required to be entered, nor relevant extracts of the daily diary---Held, that such documents constituted the best evidence to establish safe custody and unbroken chain of transmission---Any break or missing link in the chain of custody was fatal to the prosecution case---Failure to prove safe transmission of samples to the Laboratory entitled the petitioner to the benefit of doubt. (d) Criminal trial---Benefit of doubt---Even a single circumstance creating doubt in a prudent mind regarding guilt entitled the accused to the benefit of such doubt as a matter of right and not of grace---Courts below, while overlooking material discrepancies and inherent infirmities, fell into serious error of law in recording conviction. Cited Cases: • Irshad Khan v. The State 2026 SCMR 87 Disposition: Petition converted into appeal and allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; Wajahat Bibi acquitted of the charge and directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. (Criminal Petition No.2073 of 2025, Supreme Court of Pakistan, heard 09.04.2026; Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Salahuddin Panhwar and Ishtiaq Ibrahim, JJ. Not approved for reporting.)