Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Although the prosecution case rests against a single accused, such circumstance by itself, neither relieves the prosecution of its burden to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt nor absolves the Trial Court of its obligation to critically evaluate the evidence produced before it. It is true that in cases involving a solitary accused, substitution is comparatively rare; however, it is equally settled that the burden of proof never shifts and remains squarely upon the prosecution. Even in such situations, the prosecution is under a heightened duty to establish, through unimpeachable evidence that it was the accused alone, who committed the offence and that the chain of evidence conclusively connects him with the crime. ii. For this purpose, it is necessary to take into consideration the social and occupational status of both the complainant and the deceased, and to assess whether, in the normal course of human conduct, they could reasonably be expected to be present at the graveyard at the stated time. iii. Such conduct appears unnatural and improbable, especially keeping in view that both the complainant and the deceased were daily wage earners with routine working schedules and modest means, and were not shown to be engaged in leisure activities of this nature. iv. When the sole justification for the presence of the complainant and the deceased at the graveyard was the alleged activity of feeding partridges, it was incumbent upon the complainant to satisfactorily establish the credibility of such explanation. v. This conduct assumes importance, as it demonstrates that the complainant was fully aware that the deceased had expired at the spot, a fact which was also subsequently confirmed by the medical officer. In such circumstances, the natural and expected course of conduct would have been to take the dead body to the police station for legal formalities, rather than transporting it to the hospital. vi. Once this Court reaches the conclusion, as the circumstances strongly suggest, that the presence of the complainant is doubtful, the entire prosecution case is rendered fragile. vii. Although, at first glance, these discrepancies may appear to be minor in nature, they assume decisive importance in the present case, as the prosecution relies heavily upon the alleged recovery to establish the nexus between the accused and the crime. viii. Moreover, the complainant assumed the burden of establishing his presence at the scene as an eyewitness, which he has failed to discharge.

Summary: Criminal Law appeal against acquittal — Scope of interference — Misreading and non-reading of evidence. Though an order of acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence, the same is not inviolable. Where acquittal is the result of misreading or non-reading of evidence, selective appreciation or misapplication of law, the appellate court is duty-bound to reappraise the evidence and set aside the acquittal to prevent miscarriage of justice. Murder (s.302 PPC) — Ocular account — Solitary witness — Related witness. Conviction may safely be based on the testimony of a single witness, if natural, consistent and confidence-inspiring. Mere relationship of a witness with the deceased is not a valid ground to discard his testimony in the absence of proof of animus or motive for false implication. Evidence — Appreciation — Minor discrepancies. Minor inconsistencies not going to the root of the case are to be ignored and the evidence is to be appreciated as a whole and not in isolated fragments. Medical evidence — Corroboration. Medical evidence is corroborative in nature and where it supports the ocular account and does not rule out the prosecution version, it cannot override direct evidence. Identification — Recognition — Darkness. Where the accused is well known to the witness and the case is one of recognition, plea of darkness or defective light is of no legal consequence. Substitution — False defence — Motive. Substitution of an innocent person in place of a single, well- known accused is a rare phenomenon. A false or inconsistent defence may be considered as an additional circumstance lending support to the prosecution case. Where reliable ocular account duly corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence is available, failure to conclusively establish motive is not fatal. Sentence — s.302 PPC. While determining sentence, aggravating and mitigating circumstances are to be balanced. Brutal use of a deadly firearm causing multiple injuries on vital parts is a strong aggravating circumstance; however, absence of previous conviction and possibility of reformation may justify award of life imprisonment instead of death penalty. Held: Acquittal set aside as being the result of misreading and non-reading of evidence. Prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Respondent convicted under sec. 302(b), PPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life with compensation under s.544-A, Cr.P.C. Benefit of s.382-B, Cr.P.C. allowed.

Summary: (a) Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001---- ----Ss. 5, 16-A, 17(8) & 28---Registration of lease agreement---Commercial tenancy for fifteen years---Eviction petition for rent default---Tenant challenged continuation of eviction proceedings on ground that lease agreement was unregistered and mediation under S.16-A had failed due to landlord’s non-participation---High Court held that where lease period exceeds twelve months, lease agreement is compulsorily registerable and Rent Controller cannot proceed with eviction proceedings until registration/stamping requirements are complied with. (b) Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001---- ----S. 5---Tenancy agreement in writing---Duty of landlord---Post-amendment position---After amendment through Islamabad Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 2021, landlord shall not let out premises except by written tenancy agreement and must present tenancy agreement before Rent Controller within thirty days of signing---Rent Controller is required to enter particulars in register, affix official seal, retain copy and return original to landlord---Statutory scheme places primary obligation upon landlord for presentation/registration of tenancy agreement unless parties have agreed otherwise. (c) Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001---- ----S. 5(4)---Entry of tenancy particulars---Registration under general law not dispensed with---Entry of particulars before Rent Controller does not absolve landlord or tenant from liability to register tenancy agreement under law relating to registration of documents---Where lease is otherwise compulsorily registerable under Registration Act, 1908, mere attestation/entry before Rent Controller or payment of penalty does not cure non-registration. (d) Registration Act (XVI of 1908)---- ----Ss. 17(d) & 49---Lease of immovable property exceeding one year---Compulsory registration---Effect of non-registration---Any lease from year to year, for term exceeding one year, or reserving yearly rent is compulsorily registerable---Unregistered lease cannot operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish right, title or interest in immovable property---Lease agreement for fifteen years was therefore compulsorily registerable and could not be acted upon as creating leasehold rights until registration requirements were satisfied. (e) Stamp Act (II of 1899)---- ----Ss. 29(c), 33, 35 & 38---Lease agreement---Stamp duty---Admissibility in evidence---Instrument not duly stamped cannot be admitted in evidence, acted upon, registered or authenticated unless proper duty and penalty are paid---Court/Rent Controller must determine admissibility when document is tendered---If instrument is insufficiently stamped, it may be admitted upon payment of deficient duty and penalty, but until such compliance, it cannot be acted upon. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Hussain v. Malik Allahyar Khan 2012 CLC 1679 Lahore • Javer Chand and others v. Pukhraj Surana AIR 1961 SC 1655 • Mian Sher Rehman v. Muhammad Sharif Khan PLD 1984 Peshawar 2 • Sirbaland v. Allah Loke 1996 SCMR 575 • M/s ICEPAC Limited through Chief Executive and 6 others v. Asian Leasing Corporation Limited through Attorney and 2 others 2003 CLD 232 • Allah Wasaya v. Irshad Hussain PLD 1986 Lahore 29 • M/s James Construction Company (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Province of Punjab PLD 2002 SC 310 • Pakistan Mobile Communication Limited (Mobilink) and another v. Province of Sindh 2021 CLD 629 Sindh (f) Stamp Act (II of 1899)---- ----S. 29(c)---Who bears stamp duty on lease---Agreement between parties---In absence of agreement to contrary, expense of providing proper stamp in case of lease or agreement to lease is borne by lessee or intended lessee---However, parties may by express agreement allocate cost differently---Where lease agreement fixed responsibility upon lessor to pay taxes and other charges except future utility consumption charges, and IRRO placed presentation obligation on landlord, landlord was liable to get lease registered and bear necessary registration consequences. (g) Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001---- ----S. 28---Penalty for non-compliance---Non-registration of lease---Effect---Rent Controller imposed penalty of Rs.5,000 upon landlord for failure to register lease agreement despite directions---High Court held that penalty under S.28 does not extinguish underlying statutory duty to register and stamp the instrument---Other applicable laws, including Registration Act and Stamp Act, continue to operate and their consequences cannot be excluded merely by payment of penalty. (h) Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001---- ----S. 4---Overriding effect---Registration Act and Stamp Act---Applicability---Although IRRO has overriding effect, it does not exclude operation of Registration Act, 1908 and Stamp Act, 1899 in matters of compulsory registration and stamp duty where lease agreement is for more than twelve months---Rent Controller must apply IRRO harmoniously with Registration Act and Stamp Act. (i) Interpretation of statutes---- ----Prospective and retrospective operation---Amendment to S.5, IRRO, 2001---Lease executed before amendment---Effect---Lease agreement was executed on 19.04.2018 for fifteen years before amendment dated 01.12.2021---High Court held that amendment affecting substantive rights and imposing registration consequences applies prospectively unless legislature expressly or by necessary implication provides retrospective application---For pre-amendment lease, registration/stamp duty consequences apply prospectively from 01.12.2021 for remaining lease period. Cited Cases: • Commissioner Inland Revenue, Lahore v. Millat Tractors Limited Lahore 2024 SCMR 700 • Controller General Accounts v. Abdul Waheed 2023 SCMR 111 • Muhammad Tariq Baddar v. National Bank of Pakistan 2013 SCMR 314 • Commissioner of Income Tax v. Eli Lilly Pakistan 2009 SCMR 1279 • Rajby Industries Karachi v. Federation of Pakistan 2023 SCMR 1407 • Member (Taxes), Board of Revenue v. Qaiser Abbas 2019 SCMR 446 • Zilla Council, Jhelum v. Pakistan Tobacco Company PLD 2016 SC 398 (j) Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001---- ----Ss. 5 & 17---Eviction proceedings---Unregistered lease agreement---Duty of Rent Controller---Where landlord and tenant acknowledge tenancy relationship, lease period and other terms, but lease instrument is unregistered though compulsorily registerable, Rent Controller shall stay proceedings and direct the party responsible under agreement or law to get instrument registered---Eviction proceedings should not proceed until lease agreement is duly registered/stamped. (k) Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001---- ----Ss. 5, 17(8) & 28---Failure to register lease despite direction---Consequences---If party responsible for registration fails to comply, Rent Controller may impose penalty under S.28, refer document to relevant office for calculation of lease charges/fee/duty, and where tenant is depositing rent under S.17(8), direct payment of registration cost from deposited rent, deductible from rent due. (l) Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001---- ----Rent Controller---Power to proceed where landlord refuses registration---If landlord fails to proceed with registration despite direction, Controller may continue proceedings at landlord’s cost after receiving rent, cause instrument to be registered even without presence of landlord or tenant, and pass final judgment after extending due rights to parties---Effect of final judgment shall commence subject to registration of lease. (m) Stamp Act (II of 1899)---- ----S. 33---Impounding of instrument---Unregistered/unstamped lease tendered before Rent Controller---If lease agreement is tendered and is not duly stamped/registered, Rent Controller must first require registration and payment of duty in terms of law---If party fails despite opportunity, Rent Controller shall impound instrument under S.33 and proceed under law, including action under S.38, Stamp Act. (n) Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001---- ----Lease exceeding eleven/twelve months---Guiding principles---High Court laid down principles that commercial leases exceeding twelve months must be registered; registration cost shall be borne by party fixed in agreement; if no responsibility is fixed, landlord must register and bear charges; Rent Controller must stay proceedings until registration; non-compliance may result in penalty, impounding, payment from rent deposit, or registration through process of law. (o) Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001---- ----S. 16-A---Mediation---Non-participation by landlord---Effect---Tenant contended that mediation under S.16-A was mandatory and landlord’s refusal to participate rendered eviction petition non-proceedable---Although mediation report showed landlord did not participate, High Court’s operative relief focused on compulsory registration/stamping of lease agreement and stayed eviction proceedings until registration; failure of mediation did not result in dismissal of eviction petition. (p) Rent proceedings---- ----Fifteen-year commercial lease---Rent default eviction petition---Lease admitted but unregistered---Relief---High Court allowed tenant’s writ petition and directed landlord/respondent No.3 to get lease agreement registered---Rent Controller directed not to proceed with eviction proceedings under S.17, IRRO until instrument is registered; alternatively, Rent Controller may impound instrument and proceed for registration/stamp duty payment through lawful mechanism. Disposition: W.P. No.3697 of 2025 was allowed; respondent No.3/landlord was directed to get lease agreement registered; Rent Controller was restrained from proceeding with eviction proceedings under S.17, IRRO, 2001 until registration of instrument. In the alternative, Rent Controller was directed to impound instrument under S.33, Stamp Act, 1899, refer it for registration, recover duty/charges from landlord or deposited rent where necessary, and thereafter decide eviction application in accordance with law within two months.

Summary: Punjab Police Rules, 1934—R. 12.16 & Appendix 12.16—Punjab Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2022—Constitution of Pakistan, 1973—Arts. 4, 9 & 25—Recruitment in Punjab Police—Medical fitness—Visual acuity—Appointment as Constable—Disabled quota—Candidate suffering from impaired vision—The petitioner applied on open merit for appointment as a Constable in the Punjab Police but was declared medically unfit by the competent medical authorities because his visual acuity in one eye did not meet the prescribed standard under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. The Federal Constitutional Court held that medical fitness is an essential and mandatory qualification for enrolment in the police force and assumes greater significance in a disciplined law-enforcement agency, where the nature of duties requires strict physical and medical standards. Rule 12.16 expressly mandates that every recruit must, before enrolment, be medically examined and certified physically fit for service, and Appendix 12.16 specifically requires that each eye independently meet the prescribed visual standard. Since the petitioner’s vision in one eye was recorded as “CF @ 1M,” which fell below the set criterion, he failed to satisfy the mandatory threshold of medical fitness and was, therefore, ineligible for appointment as Constable. The Court held that these provisions admit of no discretion and a candidate who does not meet the prescribed visual standard cannot claim appointment to the post. Service law—Comparison with serving officials on desk duties—No parity with candidate lacking threshold eligibility—The petitioner argued that similarly placed serving police officials with physical limitations were performing office duties and, therefore, he too should be appointed either as Constable or adjusted against some suitable post. The Court rejected the contention and held that such serving officials were not comparable to the petitioner because they had entered service after being declared medically fit and were later assigned administrative or office work due to service exigencies or subsequent limitations. The petitioner, on the other hand, never crossed the initial threshold of eligibility for recruitment, namely compliance with the prescribed medical standards for the post of Constable. Therefore, no case of discrimination or arbitrariness was made out merely because certain already-serving officials were performing desk assignments. Persons with disabilities—Protective legislation—Job quota—Beneficial interpretation—The Court nevertheless examined whether the petitioner’s case attracted protection under the Punjab Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2022, observing that society and law must move with the times to protect persons with disabilities from discrimination, particularly in employment. The Court noted that the 2022 Act, in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, reflected principles of dignity, non-discrimination, equality of opportunity, accessibility and inclusion, and that courts must play their role in implementing such beneficial legislation. The Court further observed that the absence of an express disabled quota in the advertisement was immaterial, as the statutory regime governing disabled persons formed an inbuilt part of all job advertisements to which the Act applied. Relying approvingly on Peerzada Waqar Alam v. National Accountability Bureau (2023 SCMR 742), the Court reiterated that disability quota is not confined to lower-grade posts and applies across an organization. It also cited, with approval, the Supreme Court’s order in the matter of Yousaf Saleem, a blind candidate for appointment as Civil Judge, and persuasive Lahore High Court precedent recognizing that disability cannot, by itself, justify exclusion from public employment where the candidate can perform the functions of the office. Persons with disabilities—Disability certificate—Conflict between disability assessment and recruitment standards—The Court found that the petitioner had fallen into an anomalous position. On the one hand, the police medical authorities declared him unfit for recruitment as Constable because of defective vision; on the other hand, the Assessment Board for Persons with Disabilities, District Attock, had not certified him as disabled for purposes of the 2022 Act, notwithstanding that low vision is recognized in the statutory schedule. The Court also noted an earlier certificate issued by Holy Family Hospital, Rawalpindi, opining that with his present visual status the petitioner was fit for office/light work as Constable only in the Punjab Police Department. In these circumstances, the Court held that the petitioner appeared to have been caught between two inconsistent administrative positions: not medically fit under police standards, yet not recognized as disabled for purposes of claiming employment under the disability quota. Administrative directions—Reconsideration of medical standards—Fresh medical examination—Reassessment by disability board—While declining to interfere with the recruitment policy or direct appointment of the petitioner as Constable, the Court observed that the Police Rules, 1934, were framed nearly ninety years earlier and that considerable advances in medical science and technology may necessitate re-examination of the police medical rules, especially those concerning vision. The Court, therefore, requested the Punjab Home Minister and the Inspector General of Police to re-examine the issue and to consider, if permissible under law, relaxation or accommodation in the petitioner’s case for appointment against a post ordinarily reserved for the disabled quota, such as desk or office work, provided he fulfilled all other requirements. The Court further directed the IGP Punjab to arrange a fresh medical examination from another independent hospital for an additional opinion regarding the petitioner’s eyesight and his suitability for employment as police Constable or any other position within Punjab Police, and also directed the Social Welfare and Bait-ul-Maal Department, Assessment Board for Persons with Disabilities, District Attock, to reassess whether the petitioner suffered from a disability in terms of low vision under the 2022 Act. Petition dismissed—Leave refused—The Federal Constitutional Court held that, at the present stage, the petitioner could not be appointed as Constable in Punjab Police because he had failed the mandatory medical test under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, and had not been issued a disability certificate enabling consideration under the disability quota. Finding no legal infirmity in the impugned order of the Lahore High Court, the Court refused leave and dismissed the petition, subject to the observations and directions issued for fresh medical examination, reassessment of disability status, and possible policy reconsideration by the competent authorities.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: If place of occurrence alleged by the prosecution has not been proved during trial of the case, then it is fatal for the case of prosecution. 52Regular First Appeal (R.F.A) (Final Decree) 66044/25 SNGPL through Bilal Asghar Vs MS Value CNG through CEO Mr. Justice Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi 12-01- 2026 2026 LHC 53

Summary: Summary pending