Summary: If according to own case of prosecution, parcel was comprising of recovered pistol as well as live bullets but in the report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency, it was mentioned that said parcel was having pistol but presence of live bullets is not mentioned in the same, then it means that safe custody of said parcel has been compromised and not proved.

Summary: Suit under order XXXVII CPC, 1908--- Suit for recovery of dishonoured cheque pertaining to Photo Account--- Clause 1.5 of Circular 10 dated 29.03.2003 of State Bank of Pakistan--- A unilateral presentation of a Photo Account cheque without associating the account holder, if said cheque is dishoured in absence of Photo Account Holder dishonouring of cheque is invalid and same does not give rise to cause of action to institute suit under Order XXXVII CPC. Thus suit stood dismissed.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: If according to own case of prosecution, parcel was comprising of recovered pistol as well as live bullets but in the report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency, it was mentioned that said parcel was having pistol but presence of live bullets is not mentioned in the same, then it means that safe custody of said parcel has been compromised and not proved. 500Land 18521/24 Sarja through Legal Heirs Vs Syed Zahid Hussain Shah etc Mr. Justice Ch. Muhammad Iqbal 02- 05- 2025 2025 LHC 3281

Summary: Suit under order XXXVII CPC, 1908--- Suit for recovery of dishonoured cheque pertaining to Photo Account--- Clause 1.5 of Circular 10 dated 29.03.2003 of State Bank of Pakistan--- A unilateral presentation of a Photo Account cheque without associating the account holder, if said cheque is dishoured in absence of Photo Account Holder dishonouring of cheque is invalid and same does not give rise to cause of action to institute suit under Order XXXVII CPC. Thus suit stood dismissed. 499Jail Appeal 80490/21 Mazhar Hussain Shah . etc. Vs State Etc Mr. Justice Farooq Haider 05- 05- 2025 2025 LHC 2927 PLJ 2025 Cr.C 516 (DB) (Lahore High Court, Lahore), 2025 YLR 1986 (Lahore)

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 03.12-2020 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Crl.A. No. 81407-J of 2017 and M.R. No. 364 of 2017). (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Re-appraisal of evidence---Contradictions in the statement of witnesses---Accused was alleged to have committed murder of mother of the complainant by inflicting sotta blow---Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to death, which was upheld by the High Court---Validity---After gleaning the complainant's depositions as well as the FIR registered upon his complaint, it could be gathered that the appellant statedly inflicted one blow on the deceased's head---Deposition of eyewitness showed that he stated having seen the appellant delivering four or five blows to the deceased's head---Both the said witnesses, claiming to have witnessed the event from a distance of four to six feet, evidently deposed in clear contradiction to one another---Third alleged eyewitness to the occurrence who might have provided necessary clarification in that regard, was given up by the prosecution---Thus, the testimonies of said two witnesses were rendered quite doubtful---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Re-appraisal of evidence---Medical evidence not supporting the ocular account---Accused was alleged to have committed murder of mother of the complainant by inflicting sotta blow---Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to death, which was upheld by the High Court---Validity---Postmortem examination of the deceased was conducted by Woman Medical Officer, in her report she noted only two injuries on the deceased's head---Such description neither corroborated the complainant's account of only one blow being delivered by the appellant on the deceased's head nor did it support eyewitness's version of four or five blows being inflicted upon the deceased---Thus, it could not safely be said that the medical evidence supported the ocular account---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Re-appraisal of evidence---Unnatural conduct of eye-witnesses---Accused was alleged to have committed murder of mother of the complainant by inflicting sotta blow---Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to death, which was upheld by the High Court---Validity---First Information Report and ocular account deposed by the complainant and eye-witness both mentioned that the appellant entered the home and raised a lalkara (threatening declaration) that he would not leave the deceased alive---During cross-examination while the complainant remained silent when asked how much time had cumulatively elapsed in between the appellant's arrival at the place of occurrence, his commission of the offence and his eventual escape, the complainant did betrayal that the altercation between the appellant and the deceased spanned across five minutes---Obvious question then arose that why did the eye-witnesses not monitor the appellant or follow him into the deceased's room as he crossed them in the courtyard despite the clear threat he posed to the deceased having made his intentions clear, while armed with a wooden stick/Sotta---However, the eye-witnesses did not intervene once the altercation had begun---Where the eye-witnesses had ample opportunity to intervene given the drawn-out five-minute duration of the altercation and where the site map stated that the eye-witnesses saw the appellant perpetrated his assault from a distance of four to six feet---Filial duty would naturally cause the complainant to intervene, however, he and the eye-witnesses who were also close to the deceased did not even launch an abortive attempt at preventing the appellant's alleged grievous assault---Equally important was the fact that the appellant was not armed with a formidable weapon, having only a wooden stick measuring 1 foot 4 inches---Eye-witnesses' conduct was then manifestly unnatural and that failure to intervene raised serious doubts regarding both the veracity of their account as well as their presence at the scene---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Pathan v. The State 2015 SCMR 315; Zafar v. The State 2018 SCMR 326 and Liaqat Ali v. The State 2009 SCMR 95 rel. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Re-appraisal of evidence---Presence of eye-witnesses at the place and time of occurrence not proved---Accused was alleged to have committed murder of mother of the complainant by inflicting sotta blow---Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to death, which was upheld by the High Court---Validity---Eye-witnesses' failure to apprehend the appellant after he had allegedly murdered the deceased raised serious doubts about their presence at the scene---Complainant explained during cross-examination that the eye-witnesses had made an attempt to apprehend the appellant but he was able to escape---Moreover, the complainant admitted that the eye-witnesses were well-built in contrast to the weaker appellant---Here, it could reasonably be expected that eye-witnesses should have overpowered the appellant---Surprisingly, however, the appellant managed to slip away from the eye-witnesses, making his way out of the room where the deceased was murdered despite there being only one doorway and the site map describing the eye-witnesses as standing in that doorway---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Re-appraisal of evidence---Recovery of sota from an open place on the disclosure of accused---Reliance---Scope---Accused was alleged to have committed murder of mother of the complainant by inflicting sota blow---Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to death, which was upheld by the High Court---Validity---Prosecution claimed that the recovery made upon the appellant's disclosure conclusively proved his guilt---There were, however, certain deficiencies in the recovery proceedings as well as the claim that the recovered sota was actually linked to the appellant---Foremost amongst those flaws was that the sota was recovered from an open and public place, i.e. an empty plot adjacent to the deceased/complainant's home---Complainant's cross-examination also highlighted that the spot from where the sota was recovered happened to be a public thoroughfare---Established doubtfulness of that recovery undermined the prosecution case---Undeniable fact that the crime weapon, i.e. the sota, was recovered from an open place accessible to all, which made it unsafe to place reliance upon such recovery---Police neither claimed that the recovered weapon, the sota, was covered in the deceased's blood nor was the sota subjected to any chemical or serologist examination for traces of human blood---In the absence of such testing, the weapon recovered by the police did not advance the prosecution case---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Mian Sohail Ahmed and others v. The State and others 2019 SCMR 956 and Muhammad Saleem v. Shabbir Ahmed and others 2016 SCMR 1605 rel. (f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Re-appraisal of evidence---Motive not proved---Accused was alleged to have committed murder of mother of the complainant by inflicting sotta blow---Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to death, which was upheld by the High Court---Validity---Motive alleged by the prosecution was that the appellant was addicted to narcotics and had demanded money from the deceased for the purchase of drugs and that when the deceased refused to pay, the appellant murdered her out of anger---Complainant, however, admitted during his cross-examination that the appellant was never booked in any case of narcotics---Likewise, eyewitness stated during his cross-examination that he did not know the amount that was demanded by the appellant from his mother, the deceased---No evidence was produced to show that the appellant ever remained under medical treatment for drug addiction---No cogent evidence was produced to prove the alleged motive---Thus, the motive alleged by the prosecution had not been proved in that case---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (g) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Principle---Where single doubt existed in the prosecution case, the benefit of such doubt accrued as of right in the accused's favour and may form the basis for an acquittal. Muhammad Hassan v. The State 2024 SCMR 1427; Abdul Samad v. The State 2025 SCMR 639; Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345; Muhammad Akram v. The State 2009 SCMR 230 and Muhammad Imran v. The State 2020 SCMR 857 rel. Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Rai Akhtar Hussain, Additional Prosecutor General, Punjab for the State. Nemo for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 5th May, 2025.

Summary: (a) Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)--- ----S. 25---Petition for custody filed by the father---Custody of minor---Right of father---Scope---Mother not re-marrying---Effect---Welfare of minor---Appellate Court set-aside order passed by Guardian Court giving findings that when a mother does not get remarried then hardly any scope is left for the father to retain custody of a child of a tender age---Validity---Record reveals that the Guardian Court, after going through the relevant record and discussing in detail each and every aspect of the matter, including welfare of the minor, allowed the petition filed by petitioner / father by chalking out a schedule for meeting of the minor with the mother, however, on appeal preferred by the respondent/mother, the Appellate Court set-aside the said order of the Guardian Court---Petitioner/father produced sufficient documentary evidence in the shape of his affidavit, proof of salary, school fee card, photos of minor whereas the respondent / mother had only tendered (got exhibited) one document in her evidence, i.e. school certificate of the minor---Admittedly, the petitioner/ father is serving as a Quran teacher at a reputed school and he is looking after his son/minor in a better way with improved lifestyle and higher quality of life, as is evident from the (exhibited)pictures, whereas the respondent/mother is residing in a village---Thus, the findings given by the Appellate Court are wrong that when a mother does not get remarried then hardly any scope is left for the father to retain custody of a child of a tender age---Paramount consideration in custody of a minor is the welfare of the minor and nothing else---Guardian Court has only/strictly considered the welfare of the minor in light of the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner/father, while dealing with the matter---High Court set-aside the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate/ District Court, being not sustainable in the eye of law---Constitutional petition, filed by father, was allowed, in circumstances. Mst. Seema Chaudhry and another v. Ahsan Ashraf Sheikh and others PLD 2003 SC 877 and Irfan Arshad v. Mst. Zainab Noor and 2 others 2025 MLD 401 ref. (b) Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)--- ----S. 25---Petition for custody filed by the father---Custody of minor---Right of father---Scope---Mother not re-marrying---Effect---Welfare of minor---Appellate Court set-aside order passed by Guardian Court giving findings that when a mother does not get remarried then hardly any scope is left for the father to retain custody of a child of a tender age---Validity---Record reveals that the minor is near to attaining the age of seven years, therefore, the petitioner, being real father and natural guardian, can claim his custody as a matter of right---High Court set-aside the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate/ District Court, being not sustainable in the eye of law--- Constitutional petition, filed by father, was allowed, in circumstances. Sitara Aslam v. Family Judge and others 2018 CLC 382 ref. Sardar Bilal Firdous, Advocate Supreme Court along with Muhammad Talib Shahzad for Petitioner. Respondent No. 1 has been proceeded ex-parte, vide order dated 08.04.2025. Date of hearing: 5th May, 2025. Judgment Jawad hassan, J .--- The Petitioner, through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (the "Constitution"), has called in question the validity of the impugned judgment dated 27.09.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chakwal. 2. The bone of the contentions raised by learned counsel for the Petitioner is that the Lower Appellate Court has failed to consider the welfare of the minor, while dealing with the matter in a hasty manner. Sardar Bilal Firdous, ASC added that the Petitioner has produced sufficient evidence in support of his claim whereas the Respondent No.1 has only produced one document in support of her claim but this aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the Lower Appellate Court. He maintained that welfare of the minor lies with the Petitioner who, being his real father, is in a better position to look after the child, as compared to the Respondent No.1. He contended that the impugned judgment is the outcome of a direction issued by this Court, vide order dated 09.02.2021, in Writ Petition No.398/2021 filed by the Respondent No.1 under Section 491 of Cr.P.C and the Lower Court has ignored the mandate given in paragraph-9 of the said order, whereby it has been observed that the case will be decided on its merit without being prejudiced in any manner by any observation made in the said order. 3. Despite issuance of notice and presentation through counsel, none entered appearance on behalf of the Respondent No.1, hence, she was proceeded against ex-parte on 08.04.2025. 4. Arguments of learned counsel for the Petitioner have been heard and record perused. 5. Perusal of the record shows that the Petitioner filed a petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (the "Act") and the Judge Guardian Court, Chakwal after going through the relevant record and discussing in detail each and every aspect of the matter, including welfare of the minor, allowed the said petition by chalking out a schedule for meeting of the minor with the mother, vide order dated 26.04.2023. Subsequently, on appeal of the Respondent No.1, the Lower Appellate Court set-aside the aforesaid order of the Guardian Court through the impugned judgment dated 27.09.2023. The Petitioner has produced sufficient documentary evidence in the shape of his affidavit, proof of salary, school fee card, photos of minor as Exh.Al to Exh.A4 respectively whereas the Respondent No.1 has only tendered one document in her evidence, i.e. school certificate of the minor, as Exh.R2, besides filing her affidavit as Exh.R1. Admittedly, the Petitioner is serving as a Quran teacher at Air Foundation School System, Rawalpindi and he is looking after his son/minor in a better way with improved lifestyle and higher quality of life, as is evident from the pictures/Exh.A4. Whereas, the Respondent No.1, who is residing in a village, has also admitted the minor in a school located in the said village. The finding given by the Lower Appellate Court that when a mother does not get remarried then hardly any scope is left for the father to retain custody of a child of a tender age, is oblivious to the principles settled by the superior Courts of the country from time to time in such like matter that paramount consideration in custody of a minor is the welfare of the minor and nothing else. In this regard, reference can be made to the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Mst. Seema Chaudhry and another versus Ahsan Ashraf Sheikh and others (PLD 2003 SC 877) wherein it has been held that: "...the duty of the Court to search out the welfare of the minor by considering the essential factors relating to his welfare and should not confine only to the consideration that the mother or father has more love and affection for the minor or that the minor was more associated with the mother or father. The primary consideration for determining the question of custody is always the welfare of the minor and there could not be an absolute rule and fixed criteria to determine the question of welfare in the same manner in each case rather it being a mixed question of law and fact is decided in the facts of each case and consequently the factors having only social importance or the desirability of the father or mother to retain the custody of minor, would not overwrite the consideration of welfare in determining the question of custody...." Recently, in the judgment reported as Irfan Arshad v. Mst. Zainab Noor and 2 others (2025 MLD 401) this Court has also discussed in detail the welfare of a minor in light of applicable provisions of the Act. Relevant portion from paragraph-11 of which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: "...the paramount consideration in all such situations would be the betterment of the minor and even a mother may be deprived of the custody of a minor if circumstances of the case so allow. In the cases, concerning the custody of a child, the Guardian Court is not required to go into the intricacies /technicalities of the matter, rather is obliged to confine itself to the extent of the welfare of the child/minor, which is a paramount consideration." The Guardian Court has only considered the welfare of the minor in light of the documentary evidence produced by the Petitioner/father while dealing with the matter strictly as per afore-quoted observations of this Court, through well-reasoned order dated 26.04.2023. Another aspect to be noted here is that the minor was born on 18.08.2018 and now, he is near to attain the age of seven years, therefore, the Petitioner, being real father and natural guardian, can claim his custody as a matter of right. In this regard, reference can be made to the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Sitara Aslam v. Family Judge and others (2018 CLC 382), relevant part from paragraph-6 of which reads as under: "...Under Muslim Personal Law, mother is entitled to the custody of daughter even after she has attained the age of puberty and until she is married, whereas the father can claim custody of his male child after seven years. The welfare of the minors is to be determined while keeping in view their mental, intellectual, moral and spiritual wellbeing. The Guardian Court has also to look into qualification of parents, the age, gender, religion of minor, the character and capacity of the proposed guardian and his/her nearness of kin to the minor as provided under Section 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (the "Act")..." 6. In view of the above backdrop, the instant writ petition is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 27.09.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chakwal is set-aside, being not sustainable in the eye of law. No order as to costs. MQ/M-93/L Petition allowed.