Summary: (Against the judgment dated 18.03.2022 of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi passed in Special Customs Reference Application No. 05 of 2016). Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----Ss. 2(s), 157(2), proviso & 157(3)---S.R.O. 499(I) /2009,dated 13.06.2009---Smuggling---Vehicle carrying smuggled goods, confiscation of---No connection of owner of vehicle with smuggling---Burden of proof on owner ---An LPG bowser was found parked at a road side ; on search, foreign-origin High Speed Diesel/HSD was found in hidden cavities / a separate hole made in the roof of LPG bowser for transportation through vehicle-in-question---On the strength of the registration book found inside the vehicle-in-question, the petitioner being the owner was proceeded against, resulting in confiscation of both HSD and vehicle-in-question---Plea / defence of the petitioner / owner , seeking release of vehicle-in-question was that at the relevant time the vehicle-in-question, under an agreement , was with someone for transportation and that he was unaware of the smuggling of the goods i.e. foreign-origin HSD---Validity---Section 157 of the Customs Act, 1969 ('the Act 1969') unambiguously talks about the confiscation of the conveyance of whatever kind used in the removal of any goods liable to confiscation under the Act, 1969---Proviso to subsection (2) of section 157 of the Act, 1969 only caters for its release by an authorized officer of the customs as required by the prescribed rules pending adjudication of the goods involving its confiscation, subject to furnishing sufficient guarantee from the scheduled bank for due production of the conveyance at any time and place it is required by the appropriate officer to be produced---Subsection (3) of section 157 of the Act, 1969 also related to confiscation of vessel which includes, tackle, apparel and furniture---The distinction, however , was made in terms of the S.R.O. 499(I) / 2009, dated 13.06.2009 issued under first proviso to section 181 of S.R.O. 499(I) /2009,dated 13.06.2009 and such relaxation was not available where conveyance was found carrying smuggled goods in specially made cavities, hidden or being used exclusively and wholly for the transportation of the smuggled goods and where such activity was apparent---A hire agreement produced at the Tribunal stage was only a contract between two private persons and would not be convincing for the Court to take any different view, however, under the reference jurisdiction the High Court rightly discarded the effect of such agreement as nothing was produced in the two forums below---The burden to prove that the owner had no nexus with the smuggled goods or with such transaction and transportation was on the petitioner himself and which had not been discharged satisfactorily at all---Nothing was disclosed as to what amount was received by the petitioner under the contract nor the motor registration wing was informed of such contract as required under Motor Vehicle Rules, 1969---Surprisingly, the registration book was also found inside the vehicle, though an authority letter in said regard for driving the vehicle could have been sufficient as registration book was an important document to claim title --- Petitioner had also not satisfactorily discharged the burden that the hidden cavities or the separate hole made in the roof of LPG bowser for purposes of transporting goods was not in his knowledge and that such "rebuilding" of the LPG bowser has rendered its use for the transportation of LPG as unfit---When the petitioner had failed to disclose the disconnect between smuggled goods managed through his vehicle having special cavities for the transportation of the smuggled goods it would not leave the option to the owner to pay fine rather fell in the proviso to the Section 157(2) of Act, 1969 and, consequently, such options were not available---Thus, no case was made out to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the High Court---Petition to leave to appeal was dismissed. Ms. Dil Kurram Shaheen, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Munawar Ali Memon, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (via video-link from Karachi). Ch. M. Javed, Chief Customs for Respondents. M. Tahir, Director Law, Customs for Respondents (At Islamabad). Rana Asadullah, Additional Attorney-General for Pakistan on Court Notice. Date of hearing: 7th May, 2025.

Summary: (Against the judgment/order dated 10.03.2016 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl.A. No. 231-J of 2012 and M.R. No. 280 of 2012). (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Re-appraisal of evidence---Promptly lodgment of FIR---Accused was alleged to have committed murder of his wife---Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to death---High Court converted the death sentence into imprisonment for life---Validity---Crime report of this fateful occurrence that took place at 01:00 a.m. was registered at the instance of complainant, who happened to be the real brother of the deceased at 03:00 a.m.---Keeping in view the relationship of the appellant with the deceased and the complainant coupled with the time of incident, Court was of the view that the matter was reported to the police without any conscious and deliberate delay---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Re-appraisal of evidence---Related witnesses, evidence of---Reliance---Accused was alleged to have committed murder of his wife---Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to death---High Court converted the death sentence into imprisonment for life---Validity---Ocular account had been furnished by complainant and a witness---Complainant was real brother of the deceased, whereas witness was brother-in-law of the complainant, as such, their presence in the house of deceased and the appellant at the time of occurrence could not be doubted nor their evidence could be discredited due to their relationship with the deceased being cogent and confidence inspiring---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Re-appraisal of evidence---Ocular account supported by medical evidence---Accused was alleged to have committed murder of his wife---Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to death---High Court converted the death sentence into imprisonment for life---Validity---Ocular account found corroboration from the medical evidence as ante-mortem injuries on the person of deceased attributed to the appellant by the eye-witnesses was reflected in the post-mortem examination report which became the cause of unnatural death of deceased as opined by Female Medical Officer---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Re-appraisal of evidence---Absconsion of accused---Not participating in funeral of wife---Accused was alleged to have committed murder of his wife---Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to death---High Court converted the death sentence into imprisonment for life---Validity---Appellant absconded and was arrested on 15.08.2010, i.e. after a period about 37 days of his wife's death---It was strange and astonishing that neither the appellant reported the matter to the police authorities nor participated in the last rites of the deceased---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Re-appraisal of evidence---Murder of wife committed in the house of accused---Onus on accused/husband to explain circumstances leading to death---Accused was alleged to have committed murder of his wife---Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to death---High Court converted the death sentence into imprisonment for life---Validity---Appellant also failed to give any plausible explanation regarding the murder of his wife in his house---In criminal cases, it is for the prosecution to establish its case against an accused, however, in the instant case deceased was a vulnerable dependent of the appellant, as such, some part of the onus had shifted to the appellant to explain the circumstances in which his wife had died an unnatural death in his house during the fateful night which part of the onus had not been discharged by the appellant---Undoubtedly, the accused was not required to take a special plea, but where the only alternative theory to his guilt was a remote possibility which, if correct, he was in a position to explain, the absence of any explanation must be considered in determining whether the possibility should be disregarded or taken into account--- Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. Saeed Ahmed v. State 2015 SCMR 710; Arshad Mehmood v. State 2005 SCMR 1524; Nasrullah v. State 2017 SCMR 724 and Asad Khan v. State PLD 2017 SC 681 rel. Ms. Aisha Tasneem, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Tariq Siddique, Additional Prosecutor General for the State. Nemo for the Respondent. Date of hearing: 7th May, 2025.

Summary: Criminal Appeal No. 507 of 2023, decided on 7th May, 2025. (Against the judgment dated 10.06.2019, in Criminal Appeal No. 2068 of 2016, passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore). (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, possessing illicit weapon---Reappraisal of evidence---Ocular account supported by medical evidence---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and causing firearm injuries to injured witness---Ocular account was furnished by the complainant, injured and a witness, and out of them, the former two eye-witnesses were the brothers of the deceased---Depositions of the eye-witnesses were consistent and corroborative with each other on all material particulars, including the day, date, time and place of occurrence, as well as the mode and manner in which the deceased was fatally injured and done to death by the appellant through firing from a Kalashnikov---Eye-witnesses also provided a coherent and credible account regarding the firearm injuries sustained by injured as a result of firing by the absconding co-accused---Although the occurrence took place at night time, however, all the eyewitnesses had consistently stated that the area was sufficiently illuminated by an electric bulb installed outside the house of a witness, thereby enabling them to clearly identify the appellant and his co-accused---Presence of the appellant and co-accused at the crime scene had been unequivocally confirmed by witness, outside whose house the incident took place---Eye-witnesses were subjected to rigorous cross-examination, but nothing material could be elicited to cast doubt on their credibility or contradict their version---Presence of injured having firearm injuries, stood as un-refuted physical evidence supporting the ocular account---Likewise, the presence of the complainant and eye-witness at the crime spot at the time of occurrence had been plausibly explained and remained un-impeached during cross-examination---Medical evidence adduced by Medical Officer, who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, fully corroborated the ocular account of the prosecution's case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved the charge of murder against the accused---As regards the injury caused to injured, the specific role of firing at injured was attributed to the absconding co-accused---Therefore, the conviction of the accused under Section 324, P.P.C., was not sustainable in law, thus was set-aside---Appeal was partly allowed. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, possessing illicit weapon---Reappraisal of evidence---Related witnesses, evidence of---Reliance---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and causing firearm injuries to injured witness---Admittedly, the complainant and injured were real brothers of the deceased but their mere relationship with the deceased was not a sufficient ground for discarding their testimony, especially in the absence of any established animus or motive for false implication---Substitution of the actual perpetrator in place of an innocent individual particularly where close relatives are killed in the presence of family members is an improbable proposition and found consistent affirmation in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court---In the absence of any mala fide intent or ulterior motive to falsely implicate the appellant, the testimony of the eye-witnesses being confidence inspiring and having remained consistent throughout could not be discredited merely on the basis of their relationship with the deceased---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved the charge of murder against the accused---As regards the injury caused to injured, the specific role of firing at injured was attributed to the absconding co-accused---Therefore, the conviction of the accused under Section 324, P.P.C., was not sustainable in law, thus was set-aside---Appeal was partly allowed. Asfandyar v. The State and others 2021 SCMR 2009; Muhammad Abbas and another v. The State 2023 SCMR 487; Aman Ullah v. The State 2023 SCMR 723 and Imran Mehmood v. The State 2023 SCMR 795 rel. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, possessing illicit weapon---Reappraisal of evidence---Co-accused acquitted---Case of accused distinct from acquitted co-accused---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and causing firearm injuries to injured witness---Allegedly, co-accused, who was charged with causing a firearm injury to the deceased on the left upper arm, had been acquitted by a Court of competent jurisdiction and his acquittal had attained finality, therefore, the conviction and sentence of the appellant based on the same set of evidence was contrary to the settled principles of appreciation of evidence---Appellant was specifically assigned the role of having fired with a Kalashnikov, as a result of which the deceased sustained multiple injuries on various parts of his body and fell to the ground---Conversely, co-accused was assigned role of single fire shot which hit the deceased on his left arm---However, neither any crime empty of a 30 bore pistol was recovered from the spot nor was any such pistol recovered from the possession or on the pointation of co-accused---Acquittal of co-accused was not based on discrediting the ocular account of the prosecution witnesses as was manifest from the impugned judgment of the High Court---High Court in the impugned judgment had observed that co-accused was independently tried and the Trial Court observed that in the absence of recovery of any empty of 30 bore from the spot, the injury on the left arm of the deceased could not be conclusively attributed to the co-accused and might plausibly have been caused as a result of firing attributed to the appellant---Thus, the acquittal of the co-accused did not in any way undermine the prosecution's case against the appellant, whose role was categorically established through cogent and reliable evidence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved the charge of murder against the accused---As regards the injury caused to injured, the specific role of firing at injured was attributed to the absconding co-accused---Therefore, the conviction of the accused under Section 324, P.P.C., was not sustainable in law, thus was set-aside---Appeal was partly allowed. Khawar Mehmood Khatana, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Rai Akhtar Hussain, Additional Prosecutor General for the State. Nemo for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 29th April, 2025.

Summary: The PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary Punjab, Lahore Versus JAWWAD S.KHAWAJA and others I.C.A. No. 10/2023 in C.P. No. 26/2023 and C.M.A. No. 10536/2023 FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad Versus KARAMAT ALI and others I.C.A. No. 11/2023 in C.P. No. 30/2023 and C.M.A. No. 10537/2023 FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad Versus SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION OF PAKISTAN, through Secretary, Islamabad and others I.C.A. No. 12/2023 in C.P. No. 35/2023 and C.M.A. No. 10538/2023 FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice Islamabad Versus SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Islamabad and others I.C.A. No. 13/2023 in C.P. No. 27/2023 and C.M.A. No. 10539/2023 The FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad Versus ZAMAN KHAN VARDAG and others I.C.A. No. 14/2023 in C.P. No. 24/2023 and C.M.A. No. 10540/2023 FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Division, Ministry of Law and Justice Islamabad Versus JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA and others I.C.A. No. 15/2023 in C.P. No. 35/2023 and C.M.A. No. 10541/2023 The PROVINCE OF BALOCHISTAN through Chief Secretary Services and General Administration Department Quetta Versus SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION OF PAKISTAN through its Secretary, Islamabad and others I.C.A. No. 16/2023 in C.P. No. 26/2023 and C.M.A. No. 10542/2023 and C.M.A. No. 597/2024 The PROVINCE OF BALOCHISTAN through Chief Secretary Services and General Administration Department Quetta Versus KARAMAT ALI and others I.C.A. No. 17/2023 in C.P. No. 24/2023 and C.M.A. No. 10543/2023 The PROVINCE OF BALOCHISTAN through Chief Secretary Services and General Administration Department Quetta Versus JAWWAD S.KHAWAJA and others I.C.A. No. 18/2023 in C.P. No. 30/2023 and C.M.A. No. 10544/2023 The PROVINCE OF BALOCHISTAN through Chief Secretary Services and General Administration Department Quetta Versus SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION OF PAKISTAN through its Secretary, Islamabad and others I.C.A. No. 19/2023 in C.P. No. 25/2023 and C.M.A. No. 10545/2023 The PROVINCE OF BALOCHISTAN through Chief Secretary Services and General Administration Department Quetta Versus AITZAZ AHSAN and others I.C.A. No. 20/2023 in C.P. No. 25/2023 and C.M.A. No. 10546/2023 FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi Versus AITZAZ AHSAN and others I.C.A. No. 21/2023 in C.P. No. 28/2023 and C.M.A. No. 10547/2023 FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi Versus JUNAID RAZZAQ and others I.C.A. No. 22/2023 in C.P. No. 25/2023 and C.M.A. No. 10548/2023 FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad Versus AITZAZ AHSAN and others I.C.A. No. 23/2023 in C.P. No. 30/2023 and C.M.A. No. 10549/2023 FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad Versus SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION OF PAKISTAN through its Secretary, Islamabad and others I.C.A. No. 24/2023 in C.P. No. 26/2023 and C.M.A. No. 10550/2023 and C.M.A. No. 598/2024 FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad Versus KARAMAT ALI and others I.C.A. No. 25/2023 in C.P.28/2023 and C.M.A. No. 10551/2023 FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad Versus JUNAID RAZZAQ and others I.C.A. No. 5/2023 in C.P. 24/2023 and C.M.A. No. 10534/2023 (and other connected cases), decided on 7th May, 2025. Per Amin-ud Din Khan, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, and Shahid Bilal Hassan, JJ; Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Naeem Akhtar Afghan, JJ. dissenting (a) Pakistan Army Act (XXXIX of 1952)--- ----Ss. 2(1)(d)(i), (ii) & 59(4)---International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Art. 14(5)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.8(5)---Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act (XVII of 2023), S. 5---Intra Court Appeal---Court Martial of civilians, vires of---Matter pertained to occurrence of 09-05-2023, whereby followers of a political party ransacked/attacked military installations situated in cantonment areas in different cities of Pakistan---Supreme Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution declared the provisions of sections 2 (1) (d) (i), (ii) & 59(4) of Pakistan Army Act, 1952 ultra vires the Constitution and of no legal effect---Validity---Attack on Corps Commander House, Lahore rendered the command dysfunctional for at least 4 to 5 hours creating a highly dangerous situation---All fundamental rights enshrined and envisaged under the Constitution were subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law---Peaceful assembly, association or public demonstration/protest within the bounds and precincts of reasonable restriction imposed by law is not prohibited as long as it is without violating or breaking the law or taking the law in one's hands---Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court restored the provisions of Pakistan Army Act, 1952, that were struck down by means of judgment passed by Supreme Court in original proceedings---Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court sensitized the need of legislative changes, which would also be compliant to the requirements laid down under International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) for maintaining and preserving Constitutional and societal norms in existing legal framework---Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court referred the matter to Government/Parliament for considering and making necessary amendments/legislation in Pakistan Army Act, 1952 and allied Rules in order to provide an independent right of appeal in High Court against conviction awarded to persons by Court Martial/Military Courts under the provisions of sections 2(1) (d) (i), (ii) & 59 (4) of Pakistan Army Act, 1952---Intra Court Appeal was allowed. [Majority view] Col. (R) Muhammad Akram v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and another PLD 2009 FSC 36 and Jurist Foundation v. Federal Government PLD 2020 SC 1 ref. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 10A---Due process of law and fair trial---Right of appeal---Scope---Independent right of appeal before an independent forum is also a basic limb of doctrine of due process and right to a fair trial, as enshrined under Article 10A of the Constitution. Brig. (Retd.) F. B. Ali's case PLD 1975 SC 506; Shahida Zahir Abbasi's case PLD 1996 SC 632 and District Bar Rawalpindi's case PLD 2015 SC 401 rel. (c) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 10A---Due process of law and fair trial---Applicability---Provisions merely accentuating right to a fair trial and due process in any statute and its actual application and proper implementation during trial are two distinct features and situations---If an independent right of appeal is provided in High Court for challenging original order or internal departmental appellate order of conviction, then High Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction as conferred under the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, may examine whether an appeal and fair opportunity to defend the charges was afforded to the convict; whether sufficient evidence was available to substantiate the charges; and whether proper procedure in trial was followed in letter and spirit. Per Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Naeem Akhter Afghan, JJ. dissenting. [Minority view] (d) Pakistan Army Act (XXXIX of 1952)--- ----Ss. 2(1)(d)(i), (ii) & 59(4)---International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Art. 14 (5)---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 2A, 8(3)(a), 9, 10, 10A, 19A, 25, 175(3), 227(1) & 245---Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act (XVII of 2023), S. 5---Intra Court Appeal---Court Martial of civilians, vires of---Matter pertained to occurrence of 09-05-2023, whereby followers of a political party ransacked/attacked military installations situated in cantonment areas in different cities of Pakistan---Supreme Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, declared the provisions of sections 2(1)(d)(i), (ii) & 59(4) of Pakistan Army Act, 1952 ultra vires the Constitution and of no legal effect---Validity---The Pakistan Army Act, 1952 ('PAA') is a disciplinary statute, relates to members of the Armed Forces, for the purpose of ensuring the proper discharge of their duties or the maintenance of discipline amongst them, as provided by clause (a) of sub-Article (3) of Article 8 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ('Constitution'), hence, does not offer fundamental rights to persons under the military discipline---To the contrary, clause (d) added to subsection (1) of section 2 of the PAA relates to persons not otherwise subject to the PAA ('Civilians')---It does not relate to members of the Armed Forces, nor serves the aforesaid purpose, as provided by sub-clause (a) of sub-Article (3) of Article 8 of the Constitution, as such, it does not qualify for exemption from fundamental rights, hence, cannot be retained as part of the PAA---Article 175 of the Constitution provides the establishment and jurisdiction of courts---It requires that in order to fully secure the independence of judiciary, it must be separated from executive in all respects---The courts martial comprising of executive, being outside the scope of Article 175(3) of the Constitution cannot prosecute the civilians---The trial of civilians by courts martial offends the fundamental principle of independence of judiciary, fundamental rights of security of person, safeguard as to arrest and detention, fair trial and due process, right to information, equality of citizens and Injunctions of Islam, as guaranteed by Articles 2A, 9, 10, 10A, 19A, 25 and 227(1) of the Constitution, respectively---Denial of right of appeal to civilians against the conviction and sentence by courts martial before an independent and impartial forum is also violative of fundamental right of fair trial and due process---The trial of civilians by courts martial presided over by active military officers, is violative of the recognized covenants of the United Nations Human Rights Commission ('UNHRC') as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 ('ICCPR') and treaties, to which Pakistan is a signatory---The trial of civilians by courts martial is in excess of the functions assigned to the Armed Forces by Article 245 of the Constitution---Convictions and sentences awarded to civilians by Courts Martial for the occurrence of 09-05-2023 were without jurisdiction and were set aside---Accused under custody were to be treated as under-trial prisoners and their cases would be transferred to concerned Courts of competent jurisdiction for trial---Upon receipt of cases, the concerned Courts should proceed with their trials expeditiously and decide the same at the earliest in accordance with law---Persons who had completed/undergone their sentences or had been acquitted of the charge by Courts Martial or Forum of Appeal under Pakistan Army Act, 1952, would have the effect of their discharge under section 169 Cr.P.C.---Intra Court Appeal was dismissed. [Minority view] For Appellant(s)/Applicant(s) For Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Law: Mansoor Usman Awan, A.G.P. Ch. Aamir Rehman, Addl. A.G.P. Raja Muhammad Shafqat Abbasi, D.A.G. Anis Muhammad Shahzad, Advocate-on-Record. Jawaid Masood Tahir Bhatti, Advocate-on-Record. Dr. Nazakat Ali Bhand, Asst Solicitor, Ministry of Law and Hasan Mehmood, Legislative Advisor Ministry of Law (in I.C.As. Nos. 10 to 14 and 22 to 25 of 2023) For Ministry of Defence: Khawaja Haris Ahmad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court Assisted by Miss Zaynib Chaudhry, Advocate and Hamza Khalid, LLB (Hons). Brig. (R) Falak Naz, Legal Advisor, Ministry of Defence. Lt. Col. Zahid Hussain, LO, Ministry of Defence. Lt. Col. Muhammad Ali, LO, Ministry of Defence (in I.C.As. Nos.20 and 21/2023). For Province of Balochistan: Sikandar Bashir Mohmand, Advocate Supreme Court. M. Ayaz Khan Swati, Addl.A.G. Balochistan. Tariq Aziz, Advocate-on-Record. Assisted by Messrs Abdullah Noor, Advocate Hamza Azmat Khan, Advocate, Barrister Khizer Hayat Khan, Barrister Imran Khan and Muhammad Arsal Kamran Advocate (in I.C.As. Nos. 15 to 19 of 2023). For Shuhada Forum Balochistan: Shumail Butt, Advocate Supreme Court. (through video link from Peshawar). Mehmood A. Sheikh, Advocate-on-Record (in I.C.A. No. 5 of 2023). For Province of Punjab: Wasim Mumtaz Malik, Addl. A.G. Punjab and Sanaullah Zahid, Addl. A.G., Punjab (in I.C.A. No.6/2023) For Government of Sindh: Saifullah, Addl. AG, Sindh and Sibtain Mehmood, Addl.A.G. Sindh (Via video link, Karachi). For the Respondents: For Justice (R) Jawwad S. Khawaja: Khwaja Ahmad Hosain, Advocate Supreme Court, Assisted by Ms. Rida Hosain, Advocate (in I.C.As. Nos. 5, 6, 14 and 17 of 2023). For Lahore High Court Bar and Lahore Bar Associations: Hamid Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court. Muhammad Waqar Rana, Advocate Supreme Court. Ajmal Ghaffar Toor, Advocate Supreme Court. Syed Rifaqat Husain Shah, Advocate-on-Record (in I.C.As. Nos. 5, 6, 11, 15 and 20 of 2023). For Ch. Aitzaz Ahsan: Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa, Sr. Advocate Supreme Court. Barrister Ch. Aitzaz Ahsan, Sr. Advocate Supreme Court. Shahbaz Khan Khosa, Advocate Supreme Court. Assisted by Barrister Zunaira Fayyaz, Sozain Jehan, Ghulam Murtaza Malik, Syed Mehmood ul Hassan Gilani and Usman Zakir Abbasi, Advocates (in I.C.As. Nos. 19, 20 and 22 of 2023). For Junaid Razzaq: Salman Akram Raja, Advocate Supreme Court. Assisted by Asad Rahim Khan, Malik Ahsan Mehmood, Atira Ikram, Raja Hamza Anwar, Wyena Qureshi, Minahil Fatima, M. Ali Talib, Muhammad Shakeel Mughal, Muhammad Hamza Aslam, Sardar Ahsan Raza and Malik Ghulam Sabir, Advocates (in I.C.As. Nos.21 and 25 of 2023). For Karamat Ali, etc.: Faisal Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court (in I.C.As. Nos. 10, 16 and 24 of 2023). For Imran Khan Niazi: Uzair Karamat Bhandari, Advocate Supreme Court. Dr. Usman Mirza, Advocate-on-Record. Assisted by Ali Uzair Bhandari, Advocate (in I.C.As. Nos. 19, 20 and 22 of 2023). For Aamir Sabir: Abid S. Zuberi, Advocate Supreme Court. Ms. Bushra Qamar, Advocate Supreme Court. Assisted by Amna Khalili, Saif Shahid and Ashar Khan, Advocates. Muqtedir Akhtar Shabbir, Advocate Supreme Court (via video link from Lahore) (in I.C.A. No. 12 of 2023). Zaman Khan Vardag, Advocate Supreme Court, in-person (via video link from Lahore) (in person in I.C.A. No. 13 of 2023). For Supreme Court Bar Association: Mian Rauf Atta, Advocate Supreme Court/President and Muhammad Aurangzeb Khan, Advocate Supreme Court/Acting Secretary. Voluntarily appeard: Hafeez Ullah Khan Niazi, In-person. (father of one of the convicts.) For Province of KPK: Shah Faisal Ilyas, Addl.A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Dates of hearings: 9th, 10th, 12th and 13th December 2024, 7th to 10th, 13th to 17th, 28th to 31st January, 3rd, 4th, 10th to 13th and 18th to 20th, 24th to 27th February, 3rd to 6th, 10th to 13th March, 7th to 9th, 14th to 18th and 28th, April and 5th May, 2025.

Summary: Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Arts. 204 & 10-A---Contempt of court---Violation of status quo order---Punishment to contemnor summarily---Scope---Contempt proceedings, nature of---Principles of natural justice and fair opportunity of hearing---Non-availability of any material to prove the allegation---Objection qua maintainability of contempt petition was raised by the contemnor---Validity---Material available on record did not support the allegation---Respondents in their replies had denied any violation and claimed that they were in lawful possession of the suit property---As per report of SHO concerned no fresh construction was found at the site in question---Matter of possession was seriously disputed between the parties and was subjudice before the civil court---Contemnor cannot be punished on the ground of contempt summarily---Contempt proceedings are of a special nature and cannot be initiated or continued unless the disobedience of the order is established to be clear, deliberate, and willful---Although contempt proceedings are not bound by technical requirements of the CPC or Cr.P.C., yet the principles of natural justice and fair opportunity must be followed in letter and spirit---Power to punish for contempt is an extraordinary one and must be exercised with circumspection and only in those cases where the authority and dignity of the Court is undermined through a contumacious act---Mere allegations, assumptions or technical infractions without a conscious effort to defy the Court's command are not sufficient to attract penal consequences---Petitioner failed to establish willful disobedience of order of High Court, thus, no case of contempt of court was made out against respondents---Contempt petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Saadat Khialy, Staff Reporter ("Kohistan" Daily) and others v. The State and another PLD 1962 SC 457; G.S. Gideon Advocate v. The State PLD 1963 SC 1 and Muhammad Ibrahim and others v. Syed Ahmad and others PLD 2000 SC 71 rel. Muhammad Kokab Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Tanvir Iqbal Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents. Order Jawad Hassan, J .--- The grievance agitated through this contempt petition under Article 204 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (the "Constitution") is that the Respondents have not complied with orders dated 11.12.2023 passed in W.P.No.2998 of 2022 whereby status quo qua the property in dispute was ordered to be maintained. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Respondents Nos.2 to 5 have committed violation of the status quo orders of this Court. He submitted that the Petitioner is in possession of the suit property but the Respondents while breaking its boundary wall started construction over there. He pleads that the Respondents be proceeded and punished accordingly for disobeying the aforesaid orders. 3. Conversely, learned counsel for the Respondents have objected to the maintainability of this Petition on the basis of reply of the Respondents Nos.2 and 3 stating that they did not disobey any order of this Court. He added that the Petitioner filed this Petition with malafide intention because he is not in possession of the suit land but succeeded to obtain interim relief. He submitted that pursuant to the order dated 09.02.2024, Faisal Khan, SI/SHO concerned visited the place and got recorded his statement on 27.02.2024, that he did not see any new construction over the disputed land. He stated that the Respondents Nos.2 and 3 are in lawful possession of the suit land and the Petitioner has no concern whatsoever with it. 4. Heard. Record perused. 5. In order to proceed in the contempt proceedings under Article 204 of the Constitution for disobeying the orders of this Court, it is necessary to go through the history of the case. On 09.02.2024, notices were issued to the Respondents to file reply regarding violation of status quo orders dated 11.12.2023 disobeyed on 14.12.2023 and 24.12.2023. It is noted that Petitioner's civil suit is still pending which was instituted on 31.03.2021 and status quo order was granted on 31.03.2021 but plaint was rejected on 30.03.2022. Against which an appeal was filed on 01.04.2022 and again status quo was granted on the said date. However, the said appeal was decided on 27.04.2022 remanding the case to trial Court for its decision afresh. In post remand proceedings, application for temporary injunction was dismissed on 23.07.2022. The said order was then appealed in which status quo was granted on 26.07.2022 but ultimately, the appeal was dismissed on 04.10.2022, which order was challenged in writ petition wherein this Court granted status quo orders, referred to above. 6. Pertinently, a contemnor cannot be punished on the ground of contempt summarily, since in the judgment reported as "Saadat Khialy, Staff Reporter ("Kohistan" Daily) and others v. The State and another" (PLD 1962 SC 457) the Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that "contempt of Court proceedings were sui generis in nature partaking of some of the elements of both civil and criminal proceedings but really constituting neither, that there was no fixed formula for contempt proceedings and that technical accuracies were not required, nor were we bound by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or by the technicalities of ordinary criminal proceedings; but, nevertheless being Courts of justice, we would normally follow the fundamental rules for the ascertainment of the truth by giving the fullest opportunity to the person accused of defending himself and of putting forward his case with as much, if not, more fairness than we would in an ordinary trial before us". Further it was held in case titled "G. S. Gideon, Advocate v. The State" (PLD 1963 SC 1) that "the jurisdiction of Courts of Record or superior Courts to punish for contempt by the summary process of attachment or committal is a special jurisdiction, which is inherent in all such Courts as an essential concomitant of their power to preserve order in judicial proceedings and to maintain the authority of law. There is no fixed formula for contempt proceedings and technical accuracies are not required nor are the superior Courts bound by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or by the technicalities of ordinary criminal proceedings. All that is necessary is that the fundamental rules for the ascertainment of truth should be followed and the contemnor should be given the fullest opportunity of defending himself". In "Muhammad Ibrahim and others v. Syed Ahmad and others" (PLD 2000 SC 71) it was further held that "admittedly, the Code of Civil Procedure regulates civil proceedings but the contempt proceedings are neither civil nor criminal and it partakes both. The power exercised by the Court in contempt proceedings is in the nature of special jurisdiction. Section 7 of the Act lays down a procedure for Supreme Court and High Court. Where it is necessary in the interest of effective administration of justice to proceed against a contemnor, he may be proceeded against by setting forth the substance of the charge against him and the ground on which he is charged with contempt of Court and calling upon him to show cause why he should not be punished, after holding such enquiry and taking such evidence as the Court deems necessary. A bare perusal of section 7 of the Act indicates that section 12(2), C.P.C. is not applicable to proceedings initiated under the Act Refer clause (3) of Article 204 of the Constitution which provides that the exercise of the power conferred on a Court may be regulated by law and subject' to law by rules made by the Court. The superior Courts are not bound by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code or the Code of Criminal Procedure or by the technicalities of ordinary criminal proceedings or civil proceedings in dealing with a contempt matter". 7. The entire case of the Petitioner rests on the allegation that the Respondents violated the status quo order dated 11.12.2023; however, the material available on record does not support this allegation. The Respondents No.2 and 3 have submitted their replies wherein they have denied any violation and claimed that they are in lawful possession of the suit property. The record further shows that in compliance with the directions of this Court, the concerned SHO visited the site and recorded his statement on 27.02.2024, stating that no fresh construction was found at the site in question. It also appears that the matter of possession is seriously disputed between the parties and is sub judice before the civil court. Contempt proceedings are of a special nature and cannot be initiated or continued unless the disobedience of the order is established to be clear, deliberate, and willful. It is now well-settled that although such proceedings are not bound by technical requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure or Code of Criminal Procedure, yet the principles of natural justice and fair opportunity must be followed in letter and spirit. The power to punish for contempt is an extraordinary one and must be exercised with circumspection and only in those cases where the authority and dignity of the Court is undermined through a contumacious act. Mere allegations, assumptions, or technical infractions without a conscious effort to defy the Court's command are not sufficient to attract penal consequences. 8. In the present facts and circumstances, since the Petitioner has failed to establish that the Respondents have willfully disobeyed the order(s) of this Court, so no case for initiating contempt proceedings against the Respondents is made out. This contempt petition is therefore dismissed being devoid of any force. SA/A-47/L Petition dismissed.

Summary: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 54---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 74 & 76---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115---Suit for declaration and injunction---Secondary evidence, proof of---Procedure---Judgments at variance---Suit filed by petitioner / plaintiff was decreed in his favour by Trial Court but Lower Appellate Court dismissed the same---Validity---Petitioner / plaintiff claimed ownership of suit property through his father, as one of his legal heirs---Suit was filed on 08-01-2008 i.e. fifty-eight (58) years after execution and registration of alleged mutation in favour of respondent/Tehsil Municipal Administration---During his lifetime, father of petitioner / plaintiff never asserted any right or claim over the property on the basis of alleged sale deed---Petitioner / plaintiff did not inherit any asserted or recognized right from his predecessor-in-interest, therefore, he lacked locus standi to file civil revision---Petitioner / plaintiff adopted an unconventional method by summoning officials of revenue department to testify existence of alleged registered sale deed---Such document constituted secondary evidence within the meaning of Art. 74 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Record was silent as to whether requisite permission for production of secondary evidence was sought or granted under Art. 76 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Official witnesses deposed that a copy of registered sale deed dated 03-01-1956 was available on record but the witness had never stated that it was a genuine document---In absence of such compliance, the document could not be treated as admissible evidence---Petitioner / plaintiff nor his father took any steps to assert or reclaim possession thereafter and had failed to refer to any application or proceeding in that regard---As per revenue record for the year 2003-04, respondent/Tehsil Municipal Administration had been lawful owner in possession of suit property since its transfer---Each and every issue was discussed in detail and reasons were assigned by Lower Appellate Court for reversing findings of Trial Court---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction declined to interfere as petitioner / plaintiff failed to point out any jurisdictional error, illegality, material irregularity, or misreading/non-reading of evidence in the judgment passed by Lower Appellate Court---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances. Muhammad Yaqoob v. Mst. Sardaran Bibi and others PLD 2020 SC 338; Abdul Sattar Khan and another v. Rafiq Khan and others 2000 SCMR 1574; Atta Muhammad v. Nasir-ud-Din PLD 1993 Peshawar 127; Khaliq Dad v. Ahmad Nawaz 2014 MLD 1706; Khawaja Muhammad Khan v. Hayat Khan 1997 MLD 2182; Habibullah Jan and others v. M. Hassan Khan and others 1991 MLD 25; Qasim Khan v. Mirza Ali Khan and others 1990 MLD 2406; Mst. Irum Un Nisa and 8 others v. Mst. Naz Parver and another 2019 CLC 335 and "Haji Atlas Khan and another v. Mst. Mehran Bibi and 5 others 2010 CLC 1629 distinguished. Haji Muhammad Yunis (Deceased) through legal heirs and another v. Mst. Farukh Sultan and others 2022 SCMR 1282; Mazloom Hussain v. Abid Hussain and 4 others PLD 2008 SC 571; Mst. Rabia Gula and others v. Muhammad Janan and others 2022 SCMR 1009; Haji Wajdad v. Provincial Government through Secretary Board of Revenue Government of Balochistan, Quetta and others 2020 SCMR 2046; Ghulam Abbas and others v. Mohammad Shafi through LRs and others 2016 SCMR 1403; Muhammad Rustam and another v. Mst. Makhan Jan and others 2013 SCMR 299; Kala Khan and others v. Rab Nawaz and others 2004 SCMR 517; Abdul Haq and another v. Mst. Surrya Begum and others 2002 SCMR 1330; Imam Din and 4 others v. Bashir Ahmed and 10 others PLD 2005 SC 418; Mukhtar Ahmad through Legal Heirs v. Muhammad Yunus and 4 others 2001 CLC 1796 and Muhammad Hafeez and another v. District Judge, Karachi East and another 2008 SCMR 398 rel. Barrister Syed Ali Nouman Shah and Arsalan Qaiser for Petitioner. Barrister Raja Hashim Javed, Assistant Advocate-General. Ms. Nabila Rubab, Assistant Attorney General. Sh. Zamir Hussain, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 2/TMA, Hazro. Date of hearing: 7th May, 2025.

Summary: Criminal appeals filed by Haji Gul and Amir Zada against the acquittal of Ikram Ullah, Akhtar Hussain, and others in a case involving a dispute over water pipe installation. The court upheld the trial court`s judgment, which acquitted the accused due to lack of confidence-inspiring evidence. The prosecution`s case was marred by contradictions, inconsistencies, and unexplained delays. The court observed that the incident appeared to be a sudden fight between the parties without pre-planning or pre-meditation and that both parties had suppressed material facts. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and that the accused deserved the benefit of cross-version. Ultimately, the appeals were dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.

Summary: A criminal appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of Mst. Bacha Jehan and others, who were accused of murdering Mst. Haseena Bibi. The court found that the prosecution`s evidence was insufficient to prove the accused`s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to discharge its initial burden of proof, and the trial court rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the accused. The murder was an unseen and unwitnessed event, and no one came forward as an eyewitness despite a long delay in reporting the matter to the police. The testimonies of the alleged eyewitnesses were contradictory in nature and were rightly disbelieved by the trial court. The medical evidence was not confidence-inspiring and did not specify the size and width of the wounds caused to the deceased. The court emphasized that acquittal carries double presumption of innocence and can only be reversed if found blatantly perverse or resulting in miscarriage of justice.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan — Arts. 8(3), 8(5), 10-A, 175 & 268 — Pakistan Army Act (XXXIX of 1952), Ss. 2(1)(d)(i) & (ii), 59(4) — Vires of law — Trial of civilians by military courts — Scope and validity. Majority judgment under Art. 184(3) had declared the impugned provisions of the Army Act unconstitutional; however, upon intra-court appeal, the Supreme Court restored Ss. 2(1)(d)(i) & (ii) and 59(4). Justice Mazhar held that the authority to try persons “not otherwise subject” to the Act is confined to limited offences, namely sedition, abetment of desertion, or espionage under the Official Secrets Act, 1923, having a direct nexus with military affairs. The earlier declaration of invalidity misconstrued Art. 8(5), which merely prevents suspension of fundamental rights during a constitutional emergency and cannot be invoked to annul existing laws protected by Art. 268. Courts-martial, being part of a distinct military-justice system traceable to Entry No. 1, Federal Legislative List, fall outside Art. 175(3) separation-of-powers framework. Held, the Army Act provisions are intra vires and constitutionally sustainable. Cited Cases: F.B. Ali v. The State PLD 1975 SC 506; Benazir Bhutto v. Federation PLD 1988 SC 416; Dr. Mobashir Hasan v. Federation PLD 2010 SC 265; Sui Southern Gas Co. Ltd. v. Federation 2018 SCMR 802; LDA v. Imrana Tiwana 2015 SCMR 1739. (b) Intra-Court Appeal — Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act (2023), S. 5 — Nature and scope. Right of intra-court appeal against orders under Art. 184(3) is a substantive vested right, not a procedural formality. It enables the larger bench to affirm, modify, or vacate the earlier decision and ensures correction of legal or constitutional errors within the Supreme Court’s own jurisdiction. The remedy parallels a letters-patent appeal but is sui generis and integral to the constitutional guarantee of due process under Art. 10-A. Judicial propriety requires that while the Court is one, benches are functional divisions; therefore, ICA proceedings constitute continuation of the original jurisdiction, not an appeal from a subordinate court. (c) Interpretation of statutes — Doctrine of reading down — Presumption of constitutionality. A statute must be preserved if reasonably possible. Courts are bound to lean in favour of validity unless the law is ex facie violative of the Constitution. “Reading down” should be used to sustain functionality, not to destroy legislative intent. Judiciary cannot legislate; its duty is to interpret purposively and uphold Parliament’s objective. Article 8(3) permits special laws governing the armed forces for discipline and proper discharge of duty; therefore, S. 2(1)(d) and S. 59(4) fall within this constitutional exception. Cited Cases: Province of Sindh v. M.Q.M. PLD 2014 SC 531; Delhi Transport Corp. v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress AIR 1991 SC 101; Baz Muhammad Kakar v. Federation PLD 2012 SC 923; Province of E. Pakistan v. Siraj-ul-Haq Patwari PLD 1966 SC 854; Ellahi Cotton Mills v. Federation PLD 1997 SC 582. (d) Fair trial and due process — Art. 10-A — Courts-martial procedure — Right of appeal. Right to fair trial existed in procedural law long before Art. 10-A; its constitutional incorporation reinforced, but did not originate, the guarantee. The Army Act and Cr.P.C. collectively ensure fair-trial safeguards—e.g., S. 112 (rules of evidence identical to criminal courts) and S. 133-B (appeal before a Court of Appeals). Moreover, convicted persons now enjoy an independent statutory appeal to High Courts against convictions, consistent with Art. 10-A. Thus, allegations that military justice inherently denies fair trial are unfounded. (e) Delivery of accused to military authorities — Criminal Procedure Code (1898), S. 549 — Concurrent jurisdiction of civil and military courts. Section 549 Cr.P.C. authorizes transfer of custody to military authorities when the offence is triable by court-martial, but such discretion must be exercised by a reasoned, speaking order ensuring satisfaction that the case genuinely falls within military jurisdiction. Pending writs challenging Anti-Terrorism Court transfer orders are to be decided independently by respective High Courts on their own merits. (f) Doctrine of coordinate bench and judicial discipline — Binding precedent. Justice Mazhar endorsed the principle that co-equal benches cannot overrule each other; departures must be by larger benches. However, unlike the dissent of Afridi J., he viewed the ICA’s broader bench as constitutionally competent to revisit F.B. Ali in light of subsequent constitutional developments (Arts. 10-A & 184(3) practice). Judicial hierarchy requires consistency, but correction within the Supreme Court is permissible under statutory appeal. (g) Rights with responsibilities — Freedom of assembly and national security. Peaceful protest is a constitutional right subject to lawful restrictions. However, violent attacks on defence installations or espionage against the State transcend protected expression and fall within offences triable under the Army Act read with the Official Secrets Act, 1923. National security and fundamental rights must operate in harmony; neither can extinguish the other. (h) Legislative competence — Articles 8, 232–233, 268 & 260 — Existing laws protected. By virtue of Art. 268, all pre-constitutional enactments—including the 1967 amendment introducing S. 2(1)(d)—stand preserved until repealed by Parliament. Art. 8(5) cannot retrospectively invalidate these laws. The phrase “relating to members of the Armed Forces” in Art. 8(3)(a) must be construed broadly to cover statutes having any logical or operational connection with the armed forces’ discipline or defence of Pakistan. (i) Doctrine of ultra vires — Judicial review — Limits of judicial power. “Ultra vires” means beyond authority. While courts may strike down enactments lacking legislative competence, they must not question legislative wisdom. Judicial review aims to preserve constitutionality, not destroy it. The impugned Army Act provisions were found neither arbitrary nor discriminatory; the burden to prove otherwise lay on the challengers and was not discharged. Disposition: Appeals allowed. Impugned judgment dated 23 October 2023 was set aside. Sub-clauses (i) & (ii) of clause (d) of S. 2(1) and S. 59(4) of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 were restored. Civilians accused in the 9–10 May 2023 incidents shall be tried by competent criminal or special courts; individual transfer orders to military custody shall be adjudicated by High Courts on merits. Limitation for appeal before High Courts shall run from the date of notification of amendments under the Army Act.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan — Arts. 4, 8, 9, 10-A, 175(3), 184(3), 199 & 245 — Pakistan Army Act (XXXIX of 1952), Ss. 2(1)(d)(i), (ii), 59(4) — Jurisdiction of military courts to try civilians — Constitutionality and scope. Civilians cannot be subjected to trial by court-martial under the Army Act, 1952. The constitutional framework vests judicial power exclusively in the ordinary judiciary established under Art. 175(3). Military courts are not part of the judicial hierarchy; their purpose is limited to maintaining discipline within the Armed Forces. Any attempt to extend such jurisdiction to persons who are not members of the Armed Forces violates Arts. 4, 9, and 10-A, depriving them of the guarantee of fair trial and due process. The power of Parliament under Art. 8(3)(a) to legislate “in relation to members of the Armed Forces” cannot be stretched to include civilians. Sub-clauses (i) & (ii) of S. 2(1)(d) and S. 59(4) of the Pakistan Army Act were therefore declared unconstitutional, of no legal effect, and struck down. Cited Cases: F.B. Ali v. The State PLD 1975 SC 506; Sheikh Liaqat Hussain v. Federation PLD 1999 SC 504; District Bar Association Rawalpindi v. Federation PLD 2015 SC 401; Khan Asfandyar Wali v. Federation PLD 2001 SC 607; LDA v. Imrana Tiwana 2015 SCMR 1739. (b) Article 10-A — Fair trial and due process — Scope and application to all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. The right to a fair trial is a fundamental right available to “every person.” Military courts, functioning under executive control, do not provide independence, openness, or procedural safeguards inherent to Art. 10-A. Proceedings before courts-martial are held in secrecy; accused persons are denied open access to counsel, independent judges, and appeal to civilian courts. Such forums are incompatible with the constitutional mandate of a fair, public, and impartial hearing. Therefore, trials of civilians before military courts offend Art. 10-A and are void. (c) Constitutional structure — Separation of powers and independence of judiciary — Arts. 175(3) & 245 — Military justice vis-à-vis civilian courts. Judicial power is vested exclusively in courts established under Chapter 2 of Part VII. Military courts derive authority from executive control and are thus not courts of law within the meaning of Art. 175. The Armed Forces Act must operate under civilian supremacy; Art. 245 ensures assistance to civil power but does not authorize parallel judicial structures. Hence, exercise of criminal jurisdiction over civilians by military authorities amounts to a usurpation of judicial power, contrary to constitutional design. (d) Constitutional interpretation — Fundamental rights and supremacy of Constitution — Arts. 8 & 9. Fundamental rights form the foundation of constitutional democracy. Where statutory provisions infringe or restrict those rights, they are void to the extent of inconsistency. Article 8(5) cannot be used to justify continuation of an unconstitutional law. The Pakistan Army Act, being a pre-Constitution law, stands subject to constitutional limitations; it cannot override or curtail basic rights protected under the 1973 Constitution. (e) Civilian offences and military discipline — Scope of “persons subject to the Act.” Only those civilians who voluntarily accept service obligations or are directly connected to the Armed Forces in an employment or contractual capacity may fall within limited disciplinary control. The expression “persons not otherwise subject to the Act” cannot include ordinary citizens, protestors, or persons accused of general offences under the Pakistan Penal Code. The constitutional principle of equality before law requires all such persons to be tried by ordinary criminal courts. (f) Cr.P.C., 1898 — S. 549 — Delivery of accused to military authorities — Judicial control and legality. Section 549 Cr.P.C. empowers the Magistrate to deliver an accused to the military authorities only if the offence is exclusively triable by court-martial. The provision does not authorize indiscriminate transfers of civilian cases. Civilian courts retain primary jurisdiction over all ordinary offences; military custody without judicial sanction is unlawful. (g) Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 — Ss. 2–5 — Validity and legislative competence. The Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 was enacted under the legislative competence conferred by Entry No. 55, Federal Legislative List (jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court). The Act does not abridge judicial independence; rather, it provides a procedural mechanism to regulate benches and intra-court appeals within the Supreme Court. Section 5, granting a right of appeal from orders under Art. 184(3), is consistent with the constitutional guarantee of access to justice. The Act is valid, intra vires, and constitutionally sustainable. Cited Cases: Pakistan Lawyers Forum v. Federation PLD 2005 SC 719; Wukala Mahaz Barai Tahafuz Dastoor v. Federation PLD 1998 SC 1263; Sindh High Court Bar Assn. v. Federation PLD 2009 SC 879; Al-Jehad Trust PLD 1996 SC 324. (h) Maintainability of petitions under Art. 184(3) — Locus standi and public importance. Petitions challenging the trial of civilians by military courts involved enforcement of fundamental rights of citizens and raised questions of public importance under Art. 184(3). They were therefore maintainable. Judicial review remains available against executive or legislative acts violating the Constitution. (i) Remedy and implementation — Pending civilian cases under military custody. All civilians facing trial before military courts pursuant to notifications issued after the events of May 9–10, 2023, shall be transferred to the respective anti-terrorism or ordinary criminal courts having jurisdiction. Evidence collected by military authorities may be used before those courts subject to law and due process. Detention beyond legal remand or without judicial order shall stand quashed. Disposition: Appeals dismissed. Majority judgment of 23 October 2023 declaring Sections 2(1)(d)(i) & (ii) and 59(4) of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 ultra vires the Constitution was affirmed. All civilians accused of offences arising from the May 2023 incidents are to be tried by ordinary criminal courts. The Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 upheld as constitutional and intra vires.