Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure----Cancellation of bail---Scope---Principles---Post-arrest bail---Reappraisal of evidence---Test identification parade---Delay---Scope of appellate interference---Respondent No.1 was granted post-arrest bail by the High Court in a murder case registered under Ss. 302/427/109/34, P.P.C., based on the finding that the test identification parade was conducted after a delay of seven months from the occurrence and its evidentiary value would be assessed during trial---Recovery of Kalashnikov was held to be corroborative in nature, not sufficient alone to deny bail---Petitioner sought cancellation of bail on the ground that it was improperly granted---Held, cancellation of bail is permissible where there is: (i) misuse of bail (e.g. intimidation, tampering of evidence, reoffending), or (ii) a perverse or arbitrary bail order passed without proper application of mind or contrary to established principles of bail---Courts do not undertake deeper appreciation of evidence at bail stage and only assess whether “reasonable grounds” exist for believing the accused is guilty---No new facts or perverse reasoning identified in the High Court’s order to justify cancellation---Impugned order neither arbitrary nor in disregard of settled principles of bail---No interference warranted.Disposition: Petition dismissed; leave to appeal declined.Cited Cases:• Zaro v. State 1974 SCMR 11• Sidra Abbas v. State 2020 SCMR 2089• Farid v. Ghulam Hussan 1968 SCMR 924• Khalid Saigol v. State PLD 1962 SC 495Cited Statutes:• Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 427, 109, 34

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Private individuals must hold on to initiate prosecution against 'Fake Advocates' until Punjab Bar Council recommends filing of private complaint or registration of FIR.

Summary: Conviction solely on the basis of DNA evidence in rape case would be unconstitutional.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Private individuals must hold on to initiate prosecution against 'Fake Advocates' until Punjab Bar Council recommends filing of private complaint or registration of FIR. 606ICA (Writ)- ICA Land 99-24 JADEED FEEDS INDUSTRIES VS BOARD OF REVENUE ETC Mr. Justice Jawad Hassan 25- 03- 2025 2025 LHC 1338 2025 CLD 587 [Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench)]

Summary: Conviction solely on the basis of DNA evidence in rape case would be unconstitutional. 605Crl. Misc.- Post- arrest Bail 796-B-

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 311 & 325---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act (XXIII of 2013), S. 15---Qatl-i-amd, ta'azir after waiver or compounding of right of qisas in qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit suicide, possession of illicit weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Accused-father was charged for committing murder of his minor daughter by slaughtering her with a dagger/churri---Record showed that soon after the matter was reported, the dead body was discovered after few hours of the report, but record was silent regarding the source of information and the complainant could not tell that how was he informed regarding the fact that the dead body was that of his daughter and that who identified her before the complainant was informed---Said uncertainty regarding the source of information to the complainant put the law enforcement agency on guard regarding the connectivity of the appellant with the tragic incident--- Suspicion grew stronger, when wife of the appellant recorded her statement 164, Cr.P.C., where she explained that how the deceased left the house and subsequently it was she who charged the appellant for the murder of the deceased---Appellant was arrested and it was during investigation that he led the police party to the place of occurrence and he helped the Investigating Officer for making addition in the site plan---Moreover, it was appellant on whose pointation the dagger/churri was recovered a little away from the place of occurrence and the same was taken into possession--- Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 311 & 325---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act (XXIII of 2013), S. 15---Qatl-i-amd, ta'azir after waiver or compounding of right of qisas in qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit suicide, possession of illicit weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of weapon of offence and a pistol on the pointation of accused---Reliance---Scope---Accused-father was charged for committing murder of his minor daughter by slaughtering her with a dagger/churri---As the weapon of offence was recovered from a field and as the field was situated away from the place where the dead body was found, so such a recovery, that too, on the pointation of the appellant had strengthened the case of the prosecution---As the place wherefrom the dagger was recovered was not in the knowledge of the local police and the local police had not visited the same, so the recovery on the pointation of the appellant had confirmed that the same was in the knowledge of the appellant and as that recovery was made on his pointation, so under Art.40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, the same could be taken into consideration---Matter did not end here, rather the appellant led the police party to the house of one from whom the pistol was barrowed and it was the said person who handed over the pistol to the Investigating Officer with a stuck bullet in its chamber---Though the pistol was never used in the commission of the offence, yet as per narration of the appellant he collected the same so that after killing the deceased he could commit suicide---Recovery of the pistol with a stuck bullet in its chamber had supported the case of the prosecution and was a circumstance which could be taken into consideration---Investigating Officer also recorded the statement of a shopkeeper, from whose shop the dagger/churri was purchased---Said shopkeeper identified the dagger, as the one purchased from his shop---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 311 & 325---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act (XXIII of 2013), S. 15---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Qatl-i-amd, ta'azir after waiver or compounding of right of qisas in qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit suicide, possession of illicit weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Confessional statement of the accused---Voluntariness---Accused-father was charged for committing murder of his minor daughter by slaughtering her with a dagger/churri---Judicial Magistrate, who recorded the confessional statement of the appellant, explained that how the appellant was brought into his Court; that how he introduced himself and warned the appellant of the consequences of his statement and he also explained that it was after the willingness of the appellant was obtained, his statement was recorded---Questionnaire appended with the statement was taken into consideration, where the Court, despite effort, could not come across any illegality, rather it confirmed that the relevant questions were put and the relevant answers were obtained---Confessional statement was self- explanatory, where the appellant explained that how the deceased was brought to the spot, how was she killed and how the dead body was brought to the hospital---Appellant further explained that what prompted him to kill the deceased and he also confirmed that right from the day of his marriage he was suspecting his wife of enjoying illicit relationship in the area---Confessional statement could not give an impression that it was obtained because of influence and torture---The confessional statement got support from the recoveries made on the pointation of the appellant and also from the statements recorded by different persons in respect of different events---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. (d) Criminal trial--- ----Circumstantial evidence---Scope---In case of circumstantial evidence much is needed from the prosecution to collect and the Investigating Agency is under the obligation to create a well-built chain with no link missing, so that its one end would touch the dead body of the deceased and the other the neck of the accused. Muhammad Latif v. The State PLD 2008 SC 503 rel. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 311 & 325---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act (XXIII of 2013), S. 15---Qatl-i-amd, ta'azir after waiver or compounding of right of qisas in qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit suicide, possession of illicit weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Medical evidence supporting the ocular account---Accused-father was charged for committing murder of his minor daughter by slaughtering her with a dagger/churri---Medical evidence was in harmony with the confessional statement of the appellant, as the appellant admitted to have cut the throat of the deceased which was confirmed by the Medical Officer---Recovery of dagger and its identity by the shopkeeper from whose shop the same was purchased, was another factor which had granted support to the case of the prosecution---When the medical evidence was in harmony with the ocular account and when the circumstantial evidence was consistent, then no option was left with the Court to favour the appellant, that too, at the cost of the prosecution--- Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. Aqil v. The State 2023 SCMR 831 rel. (f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 311 & 325---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act (XXIII of 2013), S. 15---Qatl-i-amd, ta'azir after waiver or compounding of right of qisas in qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit suicide, possession of illicit weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Motive proved---Accused-father was charged for committing murder of his minor daughter by slaughtering her with a dagger/churri---Prosecution could not bring independent evidence to prove its motive, but as the motive was lying hidden in the mind of the appellant, so it was the appellant who disclosed the same and it was his confessional statement from where it could be gathered---Unfortunate on part of the appellant that it was his suspicion which turned to be the cause of brutal killing of the deceased---Being a father had he no suspicion, then there was no reason for him to kill, but it was the suspicion of legitimacy over the child which prompted him to kill the deceased---Manner in which the deceased was butchered, was a circumstance which indicated the hatred which the appellant had and it did tell that the appellant without asking for clarity committed the offence---Motive was fully proved, not only from the circumstances of the case, but also from the confessional statement of the appellant and as such the same was rightly taken into consideration---Circumstances established that the appellant could not succeed in making out a case for the indulgence of the High Court---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. Hayat Muhammad v. The State through Additional Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and another 2021 SCMR 1831 rel. Shakeel Ahmad Khan Hashtnagri for Appellant. Niaz Muhammad, A.A.G for the State. Arbab Sheraz Khan for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 20th March, 2025.

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 07.07.2003 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in C.R. No. 43 of 1991). (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 54---Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S. 42---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 117 & 120---Suit for declaration and injunction---Mutation of gift---Proof---Plea of fraud---Onus to prove---Appellant/plaintiff claimed to be owner of suit land and assailed mutation of gift on the plea of fraud, allegedly attested on her behalf in favour of respondents/defendants---Validity---Beneficiaries under mutation in question had burden to demonstrate validity of original transaction---This entailed meeting a threefold burden---Firstly, there was a pleading burden; respondents / defendants had to articulate all relevant facts and material particulars regarding purported gift in their written statement---Secondly, respondents/defendants had the burden of producing evidence, which meant presenting documents or testimony supporting their claims---Thirdly, they carried burden of persuasion, effectively convincing the Court of the legitimacy of their assertions regarding original gift transaction---Such burdens were not abstract legal formalities and formed the bedrock of fairness in civil litigation---Burden of pleading ensures proper framing of issues; the evidentiary burden establishes factual basis; and the burden of persuasion is the ultimate determinant of legal entitlement---Appellant/plaintiff was justified in delaying any legal action until the threat to her rights had become overt and undeniable---This point accrued when respondents/defendants formally denied her claim before revenue authorities---Such event culminated in an order directing appellant/plaintiff to pursue her claim in civil Court---Appellant's /plaintiff's suit was instituted within the stipulated limitation period---Supreme Court set aside concurrent findings of facts by all the Courts below as they were fundamentally flawed and the suit filed by appellant/plaintiff was decreed---Appeal was allowed. Nirman Singh v. Lal Rudra Partab Narain Singh AIR 1926 PC 100; Hakim Khan v. Nazeer Ahmad Lughmani and 10 others 1992 SCMR 1832; Muhammad Akram and another v. Altaf Ahmad PLD 2003 SC 688; Muhammad Iqbal and another v. Mukhtar Ahmad through L.Rs. 2008 SCMR 855; Peer Baksh through L.Rs and others. v. Mst. Khanzadi and others 2016 SCMR 1417; Muhammad Sarwar v. Mumtaz Bibi and others 2020 SCMR 276; Faqir Ali and others v. Sakina Bibi and others PLD 2022 SC 85; Sher Baz Khan v. The State PLD 2003 SC 849; Bashir Ahmed v. Muhammad Rafiq 2002 SCMR 1291; Muhammad Nawaz and others v. Sakina Bibi and others 2020 SCMR 1021; Atta Muhammad and others v. Mst. Munir Sultan (deceased) through her L.Rs and others 2021 SCMR 73; Farhan Aslam and others v. Mst. Nuzba Shaheen and another 2021 SCMR 179; Mst. Farid-un-Nisa v. Munshi Mukhtar Ahmad and another AIR 1925 PC 204; Tara Kumari v. Chandra Mauleshwar AIR 1931 PC 303; Janat Bibi v. Sikandar Ali and others PLD 1990 SC 642; Muhammad Saeed v. Mst. Sharaf Elahi and another 2010 SCMR 1358; Muhammad Yaqoob v. Mst. Sardaran Bibi and others PLD 2020 SC 338; Muhammad Ashraf v. Bahadur Khan and others 1989 SCMR 1390; Mangal Sen v. Emperor AIR 1929 Lahore 210; Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Shri Om Prakash AIR 1972 SC 975; Jaspal Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1979 SC 1708; Land Acquisition Collector, Nowshera and others v. Sarfaraz Khan and others PLD 2001 SC 514; Raj Bibi v. Province of Punjab through District Collector, Okara 2001 SCMR 1591; Evacuee Trust Property Board v. Mst. Sakina Bibi and others 2007 SCMR 262; Mt. Bolo v. Mt. Koklan AIR 1930 PC 270; Gobinda Narayan Singh v. Sham Lal Singh AIR 1931 PC 89; Izzat v. Allah Dita PLD 1981 SC 165 and Wali and others v. Akbar and others 1995 SCMR 284 rel. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 42---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 122---Gift, reason of---Principle---Donor is not legally obligated to provide a rationale for his/her decision to make a gift---It is generally uncommon for a gift to be made without some form of explanation or justification, unless the donor suffers from a serious impairment in mental capacity---Superficial or frivolous gifts are often made, particularly to disadvantage female family members and undermine their inheritance rights---Courts retain the power to scrutinize motives and circumstances surrounding a gift, ensuring that rightful ownership is protected and that established lines of inheritance are respected. Barkat Ali v. Muhammad Ismail 2002 SCMR 1938 and Faqir Ali and others v. Sakina Bibi and others PLD 2022 SC 85 rel. (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Arts. 59 & 84---Fingerprints---Forensic analysis---Dactyloscopy---Object, purpose and scope---Practice of utilizing fingerprints for identification, called dactyloscopy, has gained widespread acceptance and has become an indispensable tool to law due to its straightforward nature and cost-effectiveness---Dactyloscopy operates on the foundational principle that no fingerprints are alike and that an individual's fingerprint patterns remain constant throughout life---Such uniqueness makes fingerprints an invaluable asset in forensic science. (d) Maxim--- ----Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant---Meaning---Fraud and justice never dwell together. (e) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----S. 18---Fraudulent transactions, challenging of---Limitation---Fraud, by its very nature, unravels all aspects of any transaction, regardless of how solemnly it may have been conducted under the law---Any transaction born of deceit must be declared void, allowing the matter to be judged based on its substantive merits---This is important to prevent entrenchment of fraudulent actions, regardless of any time limitation issues. (f) Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)--- ----S. 42---Mutation---Scope---Mutation does not confer title in favour of any party but constitutes merely an official record for fiscal purposes---Illegal approval of any mutation by Revenue Officer has no bearing on the title and can be treated as a nullity. Chunder Nath Chowdhry v. Tirthanund Thakoor and another 3 Calcutta 504; Tallapragada Sundarappa and another v. Boorugapalli Sreermalulu and another 30 Madras 402 and Sheedi v. Muhammad Siddique and 2 others PLD 1980 Lah. 477 rel. (g) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 42---Suit for declaration---Right to sue, accrual of---Principle---Declaratory suit that seeks to establish title to a particular property represents a subsisting right---Right to institute such a suit is a continuing right, remaining intact as long as the claimant (plaintiff) possesses rights to disputed property---Pivotal point at which right to sue accrues arises when opposing party denies or challenges specific rights associated with property in question or at least exerts an unequivocal threat to infringe that right---In situations characterized by successive acts of denial, a new cause of action arises each time as there is a significant challenge to the claimant's (plaintiff's) rights. Muhammad Shahzad Shaukat, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Fayyaz A. Sherazi, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Sahibzada Anwar Hameed, Advocate Supreme Court for the Respondents. Date of hearing: 25th March, 2025.

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 26.10.2022 passed by Sindh Service Tribunal Karachi in Appeal No. 1017 of 2019). Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973)--- ----S. 4---Compulsory retirement---Misconduct---Regular inquiry, dispensing of---Petitioner / civil servant assailed dismissal of his appeal by Service Tribunal, whereby order of his compulsory retirement from service was maintained---Plea raised by petitioner / civil servant was that he used to be on outdoor duty---Validity---Plea was in itself an admission on the part of petitioner / civil servant of coming late without intimation, particularly in view of the fact that attendance sheet was placed on record which revealed that whenever he was on outdoor duty it was marked as "Out Working"---In the order in question it had been discussed as to how he put his attendance in bio-metric record though he was not on duty---Supreme Court declined to interfere in finding of Service Tribunal that documentary evidence was such that there was no need to hold an inquiry under the relevant law i.e. Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Petitioner in person. Suresh Kumar, Additional Advocate General, Sindh and Ms. Lubna Pervez, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 25th March, 2025.