Summary: It is settled principle that when a witness is declared as hostile, the trial Court must examine the totality of his evidence with great caution. The record reveals that the prosecution had requested the trial Court to declare PW-17 and PW-18 as hostile witnesses during the cross-examination of Abdul Samad Shah (PW-18) when cross-examination on the complainant (PW-17) had already been completed. A party can ask for declaring the witness as hostile, when the opposite party has not started cross examination but once cross examination starts or commence then such request could not be entertained.

Summary: Bail granted ---- (a) Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973 ----Ss. 58 & 59---Punjab Legal Practitioners & Bar Council Rules, 2023, Rr. 4.17, 4.19, 4.21, 4.23, 4.25 & 4.26---Impersonation as advocate---Mode of prosecution---Maintainability of FIR---Petitioner accused of fraudulently impersonating a lawyer and threatening complainant during court proceedings---FIR registered under various Penal Code sections without involvement of Punjab Bar Council---Held, prosecution for impersonation as an advocate must originate through prescribed mechanism under Punjab Bar Council Rules---No prior complaint or inquiry initiated by Punjab Bar Council before registration of FIR---Executive Committee of Bar Council is competent authority to investigate and initiate criminal proceedings under S. 58 of the Act---Private individuals cannot unilaterally initiate prosecution in such matters unless Bar Council declines to act---FIR held to be premature and without jurisdiction---Bail granted on ground of further inquiry. Cited Cases: • Syed Sakhawat Hussain v. The State and another (2024 SCMR 1103) • Ahmad Nawaz and another v. The State and another (2024 SCMR 1525) (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 185---Jurisdiction---Conflict of territorial jurisdiction in offences under Legal Practitioners & Bar Councils Act, 1973---Punjab Legal Practitioners & Bar Council Rules, 2023, R. 4.26---Held, offence may be tried at the place of commission or consequences, or where Bar Council’s office is situated (Lahore)---If doubt arises as to proper forum, High Court is competent to determine jurisdiction under S. 185, Cr.P.C. (c) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 419, 468, 471 & 379---Cheating by impersonation, forgery, and theft---Allegation of posing as fake lawyer---No documentary evidence on record---No cause list or signed pleadings by petitioner to prove impersonation---Copy of license allegedly handed over by complainant not recovered from accused---Police failed to obtain confirmation from Punjab Bar Council prior to registration of FIR---Held, no prima facie case made out at this stage---Petitioner admitted to post-arrest bail. Disposition: Post-arrest bail granted---FIR registered prematurely without invoking Bar Council’s authority---Case falls under further inquiry.

Summary: Bail granted----(a) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (Cr.P.C) – S. 497 – Bail in bailable and non-prohibitory offences – Principle. Offence under Section 489-F PPC (dishonour of cheque) carries a maximum sentence of three years, hence falling in the second category of non-bailable offences (i.e., punishable with imprisonment of less than ten years) – As per settled principle laid down in Tariq Bashir v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34), grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception in such offences – No exceptional circumstances were shown by the prosecution or the complainant’s counsel to justify denial of bail. Tariq Bashir v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34) Muhammad Sarfraz v. The State (2014 SCMR 1032) Muhammad Tanveer v. The State (PLD 2017 SC 733) Abdul Saboor v. The State (2022 SCMR 592) (b) Penal Code, 1860 – S. 489-F – Scope – Post-arrest bail – Dishonoured cheque – Prima facie business transaction – Civil proceedings pending – Relevance. Allegation against the petitioner was issuance of two cheques for Rs. 32,00,000/- and Rs. 500,000/-, the latter of which was dishonoured – Petitioner and complainant had prior business dealings under the name “Qarni & Haider Traders” – Bank statements evidenced commercial transactions – A civil suit was already pending for recovery – Whether the cheque was issued dishonestly or in discharge of a lawful obligation is a factual controversy to be determined by the trial Court upon evidence. Muhammad Anwar v. The State (2024 SCMR 1567) Abdul Rasheed v. The State (2023 SCMR 1948) (c) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XXXVII – Alternate remedy for recovery – Bail not to be denied due to pendency of civil liability. The civil nature of the dispute and existence of civil remedies under Order XXXVII CPC do not bar grant of bail – Involvement of large amount does not enhance penal consequences under Section 489-F PPC nor does it constitute a ground to refuse bail. Jehanzeb Khan v. The State (2020 SCMR 1268) (d) Criminal Law – Bail – Previous involvement in other cases – Effect. Mere registration of other FIRs against the petitioner does not disqualify him from bail if on merits he has a prima facie case – Bail cannot be refused solely based on past criminal record. Moundar v. The State (PLD 1990 SC 934) Muhammad Rafique v. The State (1997 SCMR 412) Syeda Sumera Andaleeb v. The State (2021 SCMR 1227) Nazir Ahmad alias Bhaga v. The State (2022 SCMR 1467) Ali Anwar Paracha v. The State (2024 SCMR 1596) (e) Post-arrest bail – Continued detention – When unjustified. Petitioner had been in custody since 22.01.2025 – Investigation already concluded and no further physical custody required by the police – Prolonged incarceration, in absence of necessity, amounts to pre-trial punishment, which is impermissible. ----Disposition: Post-arrest bail allowed. Petitioner admitted to bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 200,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Observations made are tentative in nature and shall not prejudice trial proceedings.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----Ss. 22-A & 22-B---Application for registration of FIR---Dismissal of application by Ex-officio Justice of Peace---Scope---Petitioner, a former student of IBA Karachi, sought registration of FIR alleging mental torture, humiliation, and blackmail by respondents after her admission was terminated for academic reasons---Prior attempt to lodge FIR with police allegedly failed---Inquiry conducted by SHO revealed petitioner had already availed a scholarship under BBSHRRDB program and was permitted to attend classes again on humanitarian grounds---Misconduct and disruptive behavior in class led to her removal---Objections of proposed accused noted in SHO report, citing overage and ineligibility for stipend---Held, no cognizable offence made out; both the Ex-officio Justice of Peace and the High Court found no illegality in the inquiry or dismissal---Petitioner left at liberty to seek alternate remedy under the law.(b) Administration of justice----Concurrent findings of fact---No interference by Supreme Court---Scope---Where two forums below concurrently hold that no cognizable offence is made out and petitioner has alternate civil remedies, Supreme Court would not interfere in absence of legal error or miscarriage of justice---Petition found meritless and dismissed accordingly.Disposition: Criminal petition dismissed.

Summary: Companies Act, 2017 (XIX of 2017)----S. 282(5)---Stamp duty---Merger of companies---Applicability of stamp duty in Punjab---Override of federal law over provincial law---Scope---Appellant challenged imposition of stamp duty by the Board of Revenue, Punjab on a court-sanctioned merger of companies under Section 282 of the Companies Act, 2017---Held, proviso to S. 282(5) of the Companies Act expressly exempts stamp duty on transfer of property pursuant to a sanctioned scheme of arrangement, applicable in ICT forthwith and in provinces upon notification or legislation---Companies Act is a federal law enacted under Entry 31 of Part I of the Federal Legislative List, and thus prevails over any inconsistent provincial legislation under Article 143 of the Constitution---Court observed that the Stamp Act, 1899, being a provincial law, cannot override the Companies Act in matters falling within the exclusive legislative domain of Parliament---Court further noted the absence of proper representation from SECP in earlier case law (including Fatima Sugar Mills and Jadeed Feeds Industries), and directed reconsideration of applicability in light of changed legal regime post-2017 Companies Act.Stamp Act, 1899 (II of 1899)----S. 27-A, Ss. 2(10) & 3---Levy of stamp duty---Whether court-sanctioned merger order is a 'conveyance' or 'chargeable instrument'---Scope---Held, a merger sanctioned by court under the Companies Act does not involve an instrument executed inter vivos, but is a transfer by operation of law---Such sanction order does not fall within the scope of 'conveyance' or a 'chargeable instrument' under Ss. 2(10) and 3 of the Stamp Act---Doctrine of Harmonious Construction mandates reading the Stamp Act provisions in line with the overriding effect of S. 282(5) of the Companies Act.Constitution of Pakistan, 1973----Art. 143---Conflict between federal and provincial laws---Prevalence of federal law---Held, where Parliament is competent to legislate on a subject and both federal and provincial laws exist, the federal law shall prevail to the extent of inconsistency or repugnancy---Sections 4 and 282(5) of the Companies Act override the Stamp Act where merger of companies is concerned.SECP Act, 1997----S. 5(10)---SECP’s regulatory guidance---Mergers and restructuring---Court noted the SECP has established a dedicated Mergers & Restructuring Department and is the primary authority for sanctioning mergers under the Companies Act---Lack of SECP's representation in earlier cases was found significant.Interim Relief---Balance of convenience----Held, in view of substantial legal questions and pending deliberation on constitutional and statutory provisions, interim relief granted---Implementation of impugned judgment (2024 CLD 1570) stayed until next date of hearing.Disposition: Case adjourned for resolution by Chief Secretary Punjab; interim relief granted.Cited Legislation:Companies Act, 2017, Ss. 4, 5, 282(5)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Arts. 143, 70(4), 148, 149, 201Stamp Act, 1899, Ss. 2(10), 3, 27-ASECP Act, 1997, S. 5(10)Cited Cases:Fatima Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Chief Inspector of Stamps, PLD 2015 Lahore 632Jadeed Feeds Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Board of Revenue, 2024 CLD 1570Fauji Cement Co. Ltd. v. SECP, 2022 CLD 604Total Parco Pakistan Ltd. v. Total Oil Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd., 2023 CLD 241Kausar Rana Resources (Pvt.) Ltd. v. QALCO, 2025 SCMR 517Mustafa Impex v. Government of Pakistan, PLD 2016 SC 808Benazir Bhutto v. President of Pakistan, PLD 1998 SC 388Sharaf Faridi v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 1989 Karachi 404

Summary: (a) Dismissal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000----S. 3---Departmental disciplinary proceedings---Compulsory retirement---Absenteeism and habitual late coming---Scope---Petitioner, a police official, was compulsorily retired from service for habitual tardiness and absence from duty without intimation---Attendance sheets and biometric data revealed repeated violations---Plea of petitioner that he arrived late due to arranging official events found to be self-incriminating, as no formal exemptions were sought---“Out Working” entries were clearly marked in attendance record when petitioner was legitimately out on duty---Biometric records further indicated falsification of presence---Held, that in presence of such overwhelming documentary evidence, no formal inquiry was required under Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000---Service Tribunal rightly concluded that petitioner’s conduct warranted disciplinary action---No jurisdictional error or legal infirmity found to justify interference---Leave to appeal refused.Disposition: Petition dismissed; leave to appeal refused.Cited Legislation:• Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, S. 3

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXXI of 2019), S. 11(b)---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act (XXIII of 2013), S. 15---Possession of narcotic substances and illicit weapon---Bail, grant of---Prosecution case was that 510-grams Ice along with kalashnikov and rounds were recovered from the accused/ petitioner---Perusal of the record revealed that the recovery was allegedly effected on 13.10.2024, while the sample parcel of the recovered methamphetamine was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory on 23.10.2024---Relevant provision that related to the dispatch of samples for testing or analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory was contained in Rule 4(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, which provided that the samples might be dispatched for analysis under the cover of a test memorandum specified in Form-I at the earliest, but not later than seventy-two hours after the seizure---In the instant case, the sample parcel was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory beyond seventy-two hours after its seizure---Moreover, a copy of Register-XIX was available on the record, however, it did not reveal the name of the Police Official who transmitted the sample parcel to the Forensic Science Laboratory---Therefore, the prosecution was yet to establish not only the factum of the recovery, but also its safe custody and secure transmission to the Forensic Science Laboratory---Said discrepancy made the instant case arguable for the purpose of bail---As far as the offence under Section 15 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act, 2013, was concerned, suffice it to say that it did not attract the prohibition contained in Section 497,Cr.P.C., and the grant of bail in such cases was the rule, while refusal was an exception---However, there was nothing on the record which could bring the instant case within the exceptional limb of that provision---Petition was allowed, in circumstances. Sagheer Ahmed v. The State 2024 SCMR 913 rel. Habib-ur-Rehman for Petitioner. Najib Ullah, A.A.G for the State. Date of hearing: 24th March, 2025.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: At the time of deciding criminal case particularly when defence has taken specific plea and prosecution has proved its case beyond shadow of doubt, then trend of cross-examination conducted by the accused on the prosecution witnesses can also be taken into consideration because approach of court must be inquisitorial, rather than adversarial.

Summary: procedure for summoning individuals as court witnesses; the Court's role while exercising its powers under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; the purpose of criminal trials and the rationale behind the incorporation of Sections 94, 244, 265-F, and 540 of the Cr.P.C, as well as Article 161 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Ordinance (QSO) and Rule 2 of Chapter 1-E, Volume III of the Rules and Orders of the Lahore High Court.