Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Art. 199---Maintainability---Statutory remedy not availed---Market Committee’s rent enhancement order---Challenge through writ petition without exhausting statutory appellate remedies under Punjab Agricultural Marketing Regulatory Authority Act, 2018---Held, remedy under Section 24 of the Act not availed, making writ petition incompetent---Petition entertained exceptionally to conclusively settle legal controversy as it was a case of first instance. (b) Punjab Agricultural Marketing Regulatory Authority Act, 2018 (XXXIII of 2018): ----Ss. 15A, 15C, 21(6), 24, 25, 27 & 30A---Market Committees---Fixation and recovery of rent---Scope and due process---Market Committees established under the Act are independent corporate bodies empowered to fix, assess, and recover rent for immovable properties in their jurisdiction without requiring special or general government approval---Rent fixation must align with departmental instructions and PAMRA guidelines---Market Committees are bound to ensure financial viability and may recover dues as arrears of land revenue and penalize defaults through civil or criminal proceedings---Held, MC, Toba Tek Singh lawfully enhanced rent based on Excise & Taxation assessment and PAMRA’s 2021 and 2025 instructions, following due process. (c) Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009: ----S. 6---Applicability---Rent increase by statutory authority---Non-applicability---Held, provisions of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 do not restrict rent increases by statutory bodies like Market Committees---No cap of 10% annual or 25% triennial enhancement exists in statute---Parties may determine rent and enhancement terms contractually through tenancy agreement. (d) Administrative Law: ----Due process---Fixation of rent by public authority---Compliance with departmental instructions---Market Committee assessed prevailing market rent via Excise & Taxation Department and approved enhancement through structured consultative process---Substantial number of tenants began paying revised rent---Held, no illegality, arbitrariness, or breach of rules established. (e) Public Property---Enforcement of obligations---Recovery mechanisms---Defaulting tenants---Market Committees as custodians of public markets are duty-bound to generate maximum revenue and may proceed against defaulters for recovery of arrears and cancellation of registration under the Act---Market Committee’s action to recover enhanced rent upheld. ----Disposition: Writ petition dismissed; Market Committee’s order upheld; remedy under Section 24 of the Act not availed. ----Quote: The due process for fixation and enhancement of rent of leased properties by a Market Committee under the Punjab Agricultural Marketing Regulatory Authority Act, 2018 dilated.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Sentence upheld ---- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)––S. 302(b)––Murder of wife––Unnatural death inside matrimonial home––Ocular account supported by medical evidence––Credibility of related witnesses––Conviction maintained–– Appellant was convicted under S. 302(b), P.P.C. for the murder of his wife and sentenced to death by the Trial Court; the High Court converted the death sentence into life imprisonment. The conviction was based on the ocular testimony of two eyewitnesses—brother and brother-in-law of the deceased—who were found to be present at the scene. The Supreme Court held that their relationship with the deceased did not discredit their evidence as it was cogent and confidence-inspiring. Their account was corroborated by the post-mortem report, which confirmed multiple ante-mortem injuries consistent with strangulation and torture, leading to cardiopulmonary arrest. Conviction was found to be supported by credible direct and medical evidence. Cited cases: Nasrullah v. State 2017 SCMR 724; Asad Khan v. State PLD 2017 SC 681. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)––S. 342––Statement of accused––Failure to explain presence at crime scene or report death––Adverse inference––Presumption in custodial killings–– Appellant failed to offer any plausible explanation for the unnatural death of his wife inside their house during the night. He neither reported the incident to the police nor participated in the funeral. The Court observed that although the primary burden remains on the prosecution, in cases where the death occurs within the exclusive domain of the accused and the deceased is a dependent, a portion of the burden shifts to the accused to provide an explanation. The appellant’s silence and failure to discharge this burden led the Court to draw an adverse inference against him. The legal principle was affirmed that in such situations, absence of explanation by the accused can be a relevant factor in determining culpability. Cited cases: Saeed Ahmed v. State 2015 SCMR 710; Arshad Mehmood v. State 2005 SCMR 1524. (c) Criminal law––Appellate review––Concurrent findings by Trial Court and High Court––Scope of interference by Supreme Court––Appeal dismissed–– Both the Trial Court and the High Court had rendered concurrent findings of guilt against the appellant based on consistent ocular and medical evidence. The Supreme Court found no legal infirmity or misappreciation of evidence warranting interference. It reaffirmed that where findings are based on reliable evidence and well-reasoned judgments by the lower courts, the apex court does not interfere merely for reappraisal of facts. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and conviction under S. 302(b), P.P.C., with sentence of life imprisonment, was upheld.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan —Arts. 4, 14 & 25 Fundamental rights—Administrative discretion—Scope of proportionality—The principle of proportionality, rooted in Arts. 4, 14, and 25 of the Constitution, requires that any administrative or disciplinary action must strike a fair balance between the harm to an individual’s rights and the legitimate public interest being pursued—It mandates a structured four-stage analysis: (i) legitimacy, (ii) suitability, (iii) necessity, and (iv) proportionality stricto sensu—Tribunals or courts reducing penalties must provide cogent reasoning within this framework—Bare assertions or subjective impressions, absent structured justification, violate constitutional safeguards and the rule of law. (b) Civil Servants—Disciplinary Proceedings —Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999 Corruption—Bribery by court staff—Respondent, a court Ahlmad, was found guilty of receiving substantial bribes for securing appointments of individuals in judicial service—Disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with law, and findings of guilt were duly recorded by the Inquiry Officer and endorsed by the competent authority—Tribunal, while confirming guilt, reduced the penalty of dismissal from service to forfeiture of two years of service without structured justification—Held, respondent's role as a record keeper in the judicial system is one of public trust; proven misconduct strikes at the core of institutional credibility and public confidence in courts—Dismissal from service was proportionate to the gravity of the offense and necessary to uphold judicial integrity—Tribunal’s leniency, absent transparent reasoning under the proportionality test, was held to be arbitrary and unsustainable. (c) Service Tribunal Jurisdiction —Standard for interference with disciplinary penalties—Service Tribunals may interfere with penalties only where disproportionality is demonstrated through structured reasoning—Compassionate or subjective assessments are not a valid substitute for rigorous legal analysis—Tribunal’s conclusion that the employee "deserved a second chance" was found to be unsupported by legal standards or balancing of relevant public interest factors. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Nasir Ismail v. Government of Punjab (2025 SCP 67) • Shahida Siddiqa v. Allied Bank Limited (2024 SCMR 92) • Pervaiz Hussain Shah v. Government of Punjab (2024 SCMR 309) • Ijaz Badshah v. Government of Pakistan (2023 SCMR 407) • Divisional Superintendent, Postal Services v. Nadeem Raza (2023 SCMR 803) • Muhammad Sharif v. Inspector General of Police (2021 PLC (C.S.) 762) • Muhammad Iqbal Khan Noori v. NAB (PLD 2021 SC 916) • Sabir Iqbal v. Cantonment Board (PLD 2019 SC 189) • Sakhib Zar v. K-Electric Limited (2024 SCMR 1722) • Bank Mellat v. HM Treasury (No.2) [2013] UKSC 39 • De Freitas v. Ministry of Agriculture [1999] AC 69 Disposition: Appeal allowed—Impugned order of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 09.07.2019 set aside—Original order of dismissal from service dated 17.10.2018 restored.

Summary: Acquittal --- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 393, 449—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 544-A—Qatl-i-Amd—Benefit of doubt—Absence of proven motive—Reduction of sentence—Scope. Petitioner Ahsin Ali was convicted and sentenced to death under S. 302(b) PPC for committing the murder of Muhammad Amjad during an attempted robbery, while co-accused Muhammad Ramzan alias Jani was awarded life imprisonment under the same charge for allegedly restraining the deceased—Both were further convicted under Ss. 393 and 449 PPC for attempted robbery and house trespass, respectively—High Court upheld the convictions and sentences—Supreme Court, on reappraisal of evidence, found that prosecution failed to prove any specific motive for murder; no looted property or stolen items were recovered, and prosecution’s claim of dacoity was contradicted by lack of recoveries and failure to implicate alleged instigator—Postmortem inconsistencies did not materially contradict ocular evidence of hatchet-inflicted head injuries by Ahsin Ali, who was apprehended on the spot with a bloodstained hatchet—Nonetheless, due to lack of proven motive and in line with settled jurisprudence, death sentence was converted to life imprisonment—Convictions under Ss. 393 and 449 PPC were set aside as prosecution failed to establish ingredients of those offences—Compensation and default imprisonment under S. 544-A Cr.P.C. were upheld. Disposition: Jail Petition No. 389/2023 (Ahsin Ali) converted into appeal and partly allowed—Death sentence under S. 302(b) PPC reduced to life imprisonment—Acquitted under Ss. 393 & 449 PPC. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 34—Criminal trial—Benefit of doubt—Participation limited to ‘Jappah’ (holding the deceased)—No injury attributed—Acquittal. Co-accused Muhammad Ramzan alias Jani was assigned the role of catching hold of the deceased (Jappah) during the assault—No injury was attributed to him by any witness—Weapons allegedly carried by him were not recovered on his pointation—Held, in absence of overt act or corroborating circumstances linking him conclusively to the offence, benefit of doubt was warranted—His case was distinguished from principal offender—Reliance placed on Muhammad Anwar v. The State (1981 SCMR 850), Ahmad Ali v. The State (2021 SCMR 470), and Zarin Shah v. The State (1974 SCMR 376), where similar limited participation led to acquittal—Consequently, conviction under S. 302(b) PPC was set aside. Disposition: Jail Petition No. 549/2023 (Muhammad Ramzan alias Jani) converted into appeal and allowed—Acquitted of all charges—Released if not required in any other case. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Anwar v. The State (1981 SCMR 850) • Ahmad Ali v. The State (2021 SCMR 470) • Zarin Shah v. The State (1974 SCMR 376) • Arshad Beg v. The State (2017 SCMR 1727) • Allah Wasaya v. The State (2017 SCMR 1797) • Muhammad Yasin v. The State (2024 SCMR 128) • Iftikhar Mehmood v. Qaiser Iftikhar (2011 SCMR 1165) • Zeeshan Afzal alias Shani v. The State (2013 SCMR 1602) • Shehla Zia v. WAPDA (PLD 1994 SC 693)

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115—Revisional jurisdiction—Scope—Concurrent findings—When interference warranted—Principles restated. Civil revision was filed by one legal heir of Babu Noor Muhammad seeking declaration of ownership and injunction regarding land allegedly purchased via registered sale deed dated 03.01.1956—Trial Court decreed the suit—Appellate Court reversed, holding that the petitioner failed to prove title, possession, and limitation—Held, revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC does not permit reappraisal of evidence unless findings are based on misreading, non-reading, jurisdictional defect, or legal infirmity—No such defect found—Revisional petition dismissed. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Arts. 74, 76 & 79—Registered sale deed—Proof—Secondary evidence—Failure to produce attesting witness—Effect. Petitioner relied on a registered sale deed from 1956 but failed to produce the original document or attesting witnesses—Only produced a certified copy through revenue officials—Held, mere production of certified copy without meeting requirements of Articles 74 and 76 QSO does not constitute admissible secondary evidence—Execution and genuineness of deed not proved—Oral statements based on hearsay further weakened petitioner’s case. (c) Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts. 120 & 142—Suit for declaration and possession—Bar of limitation—Presumption of knowledge—Delay of decades—Effect. Claim filed in 2008 based on a transaction from 1956—Possession transferred to Provincial Government in 1965 and later to TMA Hazro in 1990—Petitioner failed to prove continuous possession or any effort by predecessor to assert title—Held, suit was barred by limitation under Articles 120 and 142—No specific date of knowledge pleaded—Delay of over 40 years unjustified—Relying on Wajdad v. Provincial Government (2020 SCMR 2046) and Rabia Gula v. Muhammad Janan (2022 SCMR 1009). (d) Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S. 52—Presumption of truth—Revenue record—Mutation in favour of government—No rebuttal—Effect. Land mutated to Provincial Government in 1965, later transferred to TMA Hazro—Held, under S. 52 of the Land Revenue Act, revenue entries carry presumption of truth—Petitioner failed to rebut with cogent evidence—No tenant record or khasra girdawari produced to prove possession—Reliance placed on Mazloom Hussain v. Abid Hussain (PLD 2008 SC 571). (e) Declaratory relief—Contradictory pleadings—Claim of both possession and lack of possession—Effect. Plaintiff’s pleadings reflected contradictory stances: claiming protection of possession and seeking possession simultaneously—Held, inconsistency undermined credibility of claim—Trial Court’s findings reversed on sound judicial reasoning. (f) Power of attorney—Validity—Filing of suit in others’ names without authority—Effect. Other legal heirs of Babu Noor Muhammad filed application under Order XLI Rule 33 CPC to disassociate from litigation, stating they never authorized suit—Held, petitioner had no valid power of attorney—Application to implead them later was also dismissed as misconceived—No relief could be granted in their name. Disposition: Civil revision dismissed. Appellate Court's findings upheld. No order as to costs.

Summary: (a) Market Committee – Powers to Fix Rent of Shops in Public Market: —Punjab Agricultural Marketing Regulatory Authority Act, 2018, Ss. 15A, 15C, 21(6), 24—Fixation of rent—Due process—Held: A Market Committee, as a body corporate under PAMRA, is legally empowered to fix market-based rents for shops in public markets under its management—No governmental approval required unless specified under the Act—Objective is to ensure financial solvency of Market Committee and effective delivery of services—Rent fixed after assessment from Excise & Taxation Department is valid and enforceable. 2022 CLC 414 (DB) and PLD 2021 SC 45 referred. (b) Statutory Framework – Repeal and Supersession of Prior Rules: —Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Ordinance, 1978 (Repealed)—Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1979—Repealed framework replaced by PAMRA Act, 2018—Held: Rule 21 of 1979 Rules providing appeal to ADC(R) ceased to have effect—New appeal forum under S. 24 of PAMRA Act must be followed—Earlier appeals filed before ADC(R) were misdirected and writ petitions were not maintainable in light of statutory bar. (c) Fixation of Rent – No Cap under Rented Premises Act, 2009: —Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, S. 6—Held: There is no statutory cap or limit on enhancement of rent such as 10% per annum or 25% per three years—Parties may agree freely in tenancy agreements—Market Committee, as landlord, may rationalize or enhance rent to match market rates after meaningful consultation—Tenants resisting such lawful enhancement may be proceeded against in accordance with PAMRA Act. (d) Eviction & Recovery – Enforcement Powers of Market Committee: —Punjab Agricultural Marketing Regulatory Authority Act, 2018, Ss. 25, 27—Held: Market Committees are empowered to recover unpaid dues as arrears of land revenue and initiate criminal or civil proceedings for default in rent payment—May also cancel registration of market functionaries in default. (e) Rent Assessment Procedure – Validity and Fairness: —Rent fixed based on Excise & Taxation Department’s assessment under PAMRA’s instructions—Held: Rent assessment was structured, fair, and consistent with departmental guidelines—No evidence placed on record to show that enhanced rent was arbitrary or disproportionate—Substantial number of shopkeepers had started paying enhanced rent. (f) Maintainability – Bypassing Statutory Appeal Mechanism: —Constitutional petition filed without availing remedy under S. 24 of PAMRA Act—Held: Writ petition not maintainable—However, decided on merits since matter was of first instance and past judicial directions led to misdirected appeal before ADC(R). ----Disposition: Petition dismissed. Market Committee's rent fixation upheld as lawful, market-based, and procedurally compliant under PAMRA Act. Petitioners held liable to pay enhanced rent and subject to legal consequences for default.

Summary: (a) Customs Act (IV of 1969) ----Ss. 2(s), 157 & 180—Confiscation of conveyance—Smuggling of petroleum product—Burden of proof on owner—Specially modified cavities in vehicle—Absence of bona fide defence Petitioner’s LPG bowser was seized by Customs Anti-Smuggling Organization while transporting foreign-origin high speed diesel (HSD); Show Cause Notice issued under S. 180—Petitioner contended the vehicle was on hire and smuggling was without his knowledge—Tribunal allowed appeal, setting aside confiscation—High Court, however, allowed reference under S. 196, holding petitioner failed to discharge burden of proving disconnection from the smuggled goods—Supreme Court upheld High Court’s view, emphasizing that under S. 157, burden lies on owner to show lack of nexus—Modification of LPG bowser with concealed compartments indicated knowledge or willful ignorance—Hiring contract, produced belatedly, was insufficient to rebut statutory presumption—Held, no right to release or redemption exists where vehicle is used exclusively for smuggling with concealed modifications. Cited Case: • Abdul Razzak v. Pakistan PLD 1974 SC 5 (distinguished) (b) Statutory Rules & Orders—S.R.O. 499(I)/2009 dated 13.06.2009 ----Application—Conveyance carrying smuggled goods in concealed compartments—Ineligibility for redemption Relaxation under first proviso to S. 181 of the Act via S.R.O. 499(I)/2009 not applicable where vehicle is found with hidden cavities or used wholly for smuggling—Petitioner’s bowser was structurally modified with concealed roof inlet for illegal transport—Held, such facts bar applicability of redemption option or imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation. (c) Evidence Act (I of 1872), General Principles—Burden of proof—Owner’s liability in smuggling cases Petitioner failed to produce documentary evidence of hire amount, report contract to Motor Vehicle Authority, or explain presence of original registration book in vehicle—Held, burden under customs law is affirmative; mere denial or unsubstantiated private agreement does not exonerate vehicle owner—Rebuttal of presumptive culpability requires cogent and credible evidence. Disposition: Leave to appeal declined—High Court’s judgment upheld—Petition dismissed—Confiscation of vehicle maintained due to exclusive use in smuggling operation and failure to rebut statutory presumption.

Summary: Conviction maintained ---- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149 — Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, S.13 — Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 544-A & 382-B Conviction for murder — Role of accused established through consistent and credible ocular and medical evidence — Appellant was convicted for committing murder by burst fire from a Kalashnikov, resulting in multiple firearm injuries to the deceased — Eyewitnesses, including complainant (brother of the deceased), an injured witness, and an independent witness (in front of whose house the occurrence took place), provided corroborated testimony — Presence of electric bulb at the site supported possibility of accurate identification at night — Medical evidence confirmed ten firearm injuries with extensive internal damage — Appellant’s specific role distinguished from that of co-accused Manzoor Hussain (acquitted), whose conviction failed due to lack of ballistic recovery or conclusive attribution — Acquittal of co-accused did not undermine case against appellant, whose involvement was independently and reliably established — Conviction under S. 302(b), PPC upheld. Cited Cases: • Asfandyar v. The State 2021 SCMR 2009 • Muhammad Abbas & another v. The State 2023 SCMR 487 • Aman Ullah v. The State 2023 SCMR 723 • Imran Mehmood v. The State 2023 SCMR 795 • Sher Afzal v. The State (Criminal Appeals Nos. 229 & 230/2021, judgment dated 25.02.2025) • Khadim Hussain v. The State 2010 SCMR 1090 • Muhammad Afzal v. The State 2017 SCMR 1645 • Munir Ahmad v. The State 2019 SCMR 79 • Muhammad Kakki v. The State 2021 SCMR 1672 • Sadaruddin case (Criminal Jail Appeal No.S-26 of 2019) (b) Criminal Trial — Appreciation of Evidence — Relationship of Witnesses with Deceased Testimony of related witnesses — Admissibility and reliability — Merely being relatives of the deceased does not render eyewitnesses unreliable — No evidence of animus, mala fide intent, or false implication found — Principle of substitution considered improbable where the deceased was killed in presence of close relatives — Consistent jurisprudence upholds credibility of such testimony where no motive for false implication is shown. Cited Cases: • Asfandyar v. The State 2021 SCMR 2009 • Muhammad Abbas & another v. The State 2023 SCMR 487 • Aman Ullah v. The State 2023 SCMR 723 • Imran Mehmood v. The State 2023 SCMR 795 (c) Criminal Trial — Sifting Grain from Chaff — Principle of "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" Application of evidentiary principles — The acquittal of a co-accused does not automatically nullify the conviction of another where the evidence against them is separable and individually sufficient — Principle of “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” not strictly applicable in Pakistan — Courts must assess whether contradictions relate to material facts and must sift credible evidence from doubtful portions — Appellant’s role, being separately established, not affected by co-accused’s acquittal. Cited Cases: • Sher Afzal v. The State (Criminal Appeals Nos. 229 & 230/2021) • Khadim Hussain v. The State 2010 SCMR 1090 • Muhammad Afzal v. The State 2017 SCMR 1645 • Munir Ahmad v. The State 2019 SCMR 79 • Muhammad Kakki v. The State 2021 SCMR 1672 • Sadaruddin case (Criminal Jail Appeal No.S-26 of 2019) (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 324 — Conviction Unsustainable — Role Attributed to Absconding Co-Accused Appellant was initially convicted under S. 324, PPC for causing injury to another victim — However, specific role of firing at injured witness was attributed to absconding co-accused Sajid Ali — As no evidence supported appellant’s participation in that specific act, his conviction under S. 324, PPC was set aside by the Supreme Court. Disposition: Appeal partly allowed — Conviction and sentence under S. 302(b), PPC maintained — Conviction and sentence under S. 324, PPC set aside.