Summary: Acquittal granted ----(a) Criminal Law – Nighttime Identification – Lack of Light Source Creates DoubtWhere an offense is alleged to have occurred at night, the prosecution must establish a credible source of light enabling identification of the accused. Failure to mention or recover a light source casts serious doubt on the identification. (Usman alias Kaloo v. The State, 2017 SCMR 622)(b) Criminal Law – Medico-Ocular Conflict – Discrepancy Between Eyewitness Account and Medical EvidenceA conflict between the number and nature of injuries mentioned in the ocular testimony and those documented in the medical report is fatal to the prosecution’s case. Where eyewitnesses claim multiple gunshot wounds, but post-mortem findings contradict this, the credibility of the prosecution's version is significantly weakened. (Muhammad Shafi alias Kuddoo v. The State, 2019 SCMR 1045)(c) Criminal Procedure – Firearm Recovery Without Matching Crime Empties is InconsequentialFor a firearm recovery to hold evidentiary weight, it must be corroborated by matching crime empties retrieved from the scene. Where no empties are recovered or matched, the firearm recovery loses its probative value. (Sardar Bibi v. Munir Ahmed, 2017 SCMR 344)(d) Criminal Procedure – Delay in Lodging FIR – Presumption of FabricationA delayed FIR without reasonable justification raises a strong inference of afterthought, fabrication, or pre-trial consultation. The prosecution’s failure to promptly report the incident diminishes the evidentiary value of the FIR. (Iftikhar Hussain v. The State, 2004 SCMR 1185; Zeeshan alias Shani v. The State, 2012 SCMR 428)(e) Criminal Law – Failure to Prove Motive Renders Prosecution Story DoubtfulWhen the prosecution alleges a motive but fails to specify the date, time, and circumstances of the prior dispute, such an unsubstantiated claim is not sufficient to support a conviction. A vague and uncorroborated motive weakens the prosecution’s version of events. (Mst. Nazia Anwar v. The State, 2018 SCMR 911; Muhammad Azhar alias Ajja v. The State, 2016 SCMR 1928)(f) Appeal & Acquittal – Failure to Prove Case Beyond Reasonable DoubtGiven multiple discrepancies, including lack of nighttime visibility, medico-ocular conflicts, uncorroborated firearm recovery, delayed FIR, and failure to prove motive, the prosecution’s case was not established beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. (Muhammad Ali v. The State, 2015 SCMR 137).

Summary: (a) Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-Organization) Act, 1996 (XVII of 1996)----S. 31(6)---Illegal termination of international traffic---Scope of liability---Corporate employees' criminal liability under telecommunication laws---Prosecution alleged that respondents, employed as Chief Technical Officer and Manager Networking Operations of Wise Communication (Pvt.) Ltd., were involved in illegal termination of international traffic, bypassing legal gateway exchanges, causing financial loss to the public exchequer---Held, that while the company was licensed by Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA), the respondents were mere employees and did not hold a position making them personally liable under S. 31(6) of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-Organization) Act, 1996---Prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents had committed an offense under the said law---Acquittal upheld.(b) Criminal Procedure---Burden of Proof---Scope----Standard of proof in cases involving corporate criminal liability---Scope---Prosecution must prove not only the occurrence of an offense but also the direct involvement of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt---In the present case, respondents were employees of a licensed telecommunication company and not decision-makers responsible for illegal operations---High Court rightly concluded that no evidence established their direct involvement, leading to acquittal.Cited Principle:Prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt for criminal liability to be imposed on corporate employees.(c) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973----Art. 185(3)---Scope of Supreme Court’s review of acquittal orders---Principle---Acquittal orders by lower courts are not lightly interfered with unless there is a clear miscarriage of justice or misreading of evidence---Supreme Court found no legal justification to overturn the High Court’s finding that prosecution had failed to prove the case against the respondents---Leave to appeal refused.Disposition: Criminal petition dismissed. Acquittal upheld. Leave to appeal refused.

Summary: Courts must interpret laws in a manner that aligns with legislative intent, particularly under the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021, which aims to ensure expeditious redressal of sexual violence against women and children. The Act establishes specialized mechanisms, including special courts and investigation units, to expedite trials and prevent delays. Courts are empowered to alter or delete charges during trial based on evidence, ensuring fair trials while prioritizing the Act's objectives. Special laws prevail over general provisions, and procedural amendments operate retrospectively.

Summary: (a) Land Acquisition—Delay in announcing award—Impact on compensation: ---Sections 4, 6, 17(4), and 23, Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Notifications for acquisition were issued in 2006 and 2009, but the award was announced in 2010—Supreme Court held that four-year delay in finalizing the award led to an escalation in property value—Court reaffirmed that potential value must be considered along with market value while determining compensation—Reliance placed on Land Acquisition Collector Abbottabad v. Muhammad Iqbal (1992 SCMR 1245) and Pakistan Burmah Shell Ltd. v. Province of NWFP (1993 SCMR 1700). (b) Just and fair compensation—Principle of "Gold for Gold": ---Compensation under the Land Acquisition Act must be just and reasonable—Market value alone not the sole determinant—Supreme Court reiterated that compensation must be “gold for gold” rather than “copper for gold”—Court upheld Lahore High Court and Referee Court’s assessment that the landowner was entitled to Rs. 210,000 per marla instead of the originally awarded Rs. 50,000 per marla—Reliance placed on Land Acquisition Collector v. Mst. Iqbal Begum (PLD 2010 SC 719). (c) Nature and classification of land—Factors in determining compensation: ---While determining compensation, factors such as location, neighborhood, potential usage, and future commercial viability must be considered—Supreme Court noted that the acquired land was commercial in nature, situated on Lahore-Raiwind Road, and had an existing factory and godown—Court reaffirmed the principle that land use potential must be considered beyond its classification at the time of acquisition—Reliance placed on Malik Aman v. Land Acquisition Collector (PLD 1988 SC 32). (d) Limitation—Failure to remove objections within prescribed time—Appeal time-barred: ---Appellant’s RFA before Lahore High Court was initially filed within time but was returned due to deficiencies—Despite being given three days for correction, the appeal was resubmitted after three months—Supreme Court upheld dismissal of the appeal as time-barred, placing reliance on Asad Ali v. The Bank of Punjab (PLD 2020 SC 736)—No sufficient explanation provided for the delay. (e) Court’s discretionary powers in condoning delay—Strict adherence to limitation laws: ---Civil Appeal No. 3952 of 2022, filed by the Respondent seeking further enhancement, was dismissed as it was delayed by 19 days—Court held that no plausible justification for delay was presented—Emphasized that limitation is not a mere technicality but creates vested rights—Reliance placed on Nisar Ahmad Khan v. Collector Land Acquisition (PLD 2002 SC 25). ----Disposition: ---Civil Appeal No. 119-L of 2022 dismissed—Award of Rs. 210,000 per marla upheld. ---Civil Appeal No. 3952 of 2022 dismissed as time-barred and meritless—No further enhancement granted.

Summary: Acquittal granted---(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) – Section 302 – Qatl-e-amd – Acquittal due to prosecution's failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The case was marred by unexplained delays in FIR registration, postmortem examination, and investigative procedures, which indicated fabrication and afterthought. The ocular account provided by interested witnesses was found unreliable due to inconsistencies and contradictions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that even a single reasonable doubt in a prudent mind is sufficient for acquittal. Reliance placed on Khial Muhammad v. The State (2024 SCMR 1490) and Muhammad Ijaz alias Billa v. The State (2024 SCMR 1507). (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) – Section 374 – Murder Reference – Non-confirmation of death sentence due to unreliable prosecution evidence Murder Reference for the confirmation of the death sentence was answered in the negative as the entire prosecution case was found to be doubtful. The case involved a delayed FIR, inconsistencies in witness statements, unexplained delay in postmortem, and contradictions in forensic evidence. The prosecution withheld key witnesses, and the complainant’s version was found to be tainted by personal motives. The principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus applied, and the benefit of the doubt was extended to the accused. Reliance placed on Notice to Police Constable Khizar Hayat v. The State (PLD 2019 SC 527) and Pervaiz Khan v. The State (2022 SCMR 393). (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) – Section 161 – Contradictions in witness statements – Fabrication of evidence inferred Witness statements, particularly those of the complainant and key eyewitnesses, contained numerous contradictions and improvements. Discrepancies regarding the presence of witnesses, the timing of events, and the manner of the occurrence indicated afterthought and fabrication. The failure to present independent witnesses and the suppression of key evidence further weakened the prosecution’s case. The Supreme Court has consistently held that improvements in witness statements cast serious doubt on their veracity. Reliance placed on Mst. Saima Noreen v. The State (2024 SCMR 1310) and Abdul Qadeer v. The State (2024 SCMR 1146). (d) Evidence Act (I of 1872) – Article 129(g) – Withholding of best evidence – Adverse inference drawn against prosecution The prosecution failed to produce independent witnesses who could have provided a neutral account of the incident. The complainant mentioned that three friends of the deceased were present but did not produce them as witnesses. Under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, an adverse inference can be drawn that had these witnesses been produced, their testimony would have been unfavorable to the prosecution. Reliance placed on Zafar Ali Abbasi v. The State (2024 SCMR 1773). (e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) – Section 103 – Recovery of crime weapon not a substitute for credible direct evidence The alleged recovery of the weapon was found to be legally unreliable due to the absence of independent witnesses and the failure to comply with Section 103 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court has consistently held that recovery of a weapon, even with a positive forensic report, cannot form the sole basis for conviction in the absence of credible direct evidence. Reliance placed on Muhammad Ismail v. The State (2017 SCMR 989) and Muhammad Hassan v. The State (2024 SCMR 1427). ----Disposition: Criminal Appeal No.56099 of 2021: Allowed. Conviction and sentence of appellant Wasif Saeed set aside. He is acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released if not required in any other case. Murder Reference No.208 of 2021: Answered in the negative. Death sentence of appellant Wasif Saeed is not confirmed. Criminal PSLA No.56097 of 2021: Dismissed. Acquittal of co-accused upheld as the prosecution failed to establish their involvement.

Summary: Acquittal granted----(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Burden of proof—Contradictions in prosecution case—Effect ----S. 9(1)(c), CNSA, 1997—Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt—In the instant case, contradictions in witness testimonies regarding time, location, and sequence of events raised serious doubts—Court held that conflicting statements made in separate FIRs by the same police witness regarding simultaneous events at different locations rendered the prosecution's case highly improbable—Reliance placed on Majid etc. v. State of Haryana (2001 10 SSC 6). (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984—Contradictory witness statements—Use for impeachment of credibility ----Art. 151(3), QSO, 1984—Contradictions in the testimony of a prosecution witness (PW-6) exposed inconsistencies in the case—Court held that under Art. 151(3), QSO, a witness’s previous statement can be used to impeach his credibility if it is inconsistent with his testimony—Contradictions noted by the defense were legally valid and judicially recognized—Reliance placed on Taj Muhammad v. Muhammad Yousaf and 2 others (PLD 1976 SC 234). (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)—Benefit of doubt—Standard of proof in criminal cases ----S. 342, Cr.P.C.—Appellant denied the charges and was not required to prove his innocence—Prosecution failed to establish the case beyond a reasonable doubt—Court reaffirmed that even a single reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right, not grace—Reliance placed on Muhammad Mansha v. The State (2018 SCMR 772). (d) Criminal Procedure—Forensic evidence—Break in the chain of custody—Effect ----Failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody for narcotic samples—Lapses in handling and transmission of evidence to PFSA raised concerns about potential tampering—Court held that failure to establish the secure handling of forensic evidence weakens the prosecution's case—Reliance placed on Ikramullah and others v. The State (2015 SCMR 1002). (e) Criminal Trial—Presumption of innocence—Fundamental right of accused ----Accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt—Conflicting evidence and procedural lapses entitled the accused to benefit of doubt—Court reiterated that in case of doubt, the benefit must be extended to the accused as a matter of law—Reliance placed on Tariq Pervaiz v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345). ----Disposition: Criminal Appeal No. 448 of 2023 allowed—Conviction and sentence set aside—Appellant acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt—Released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ---Arts. 4, 10-A & 37(d) Right to fair trial and equal access to justice—Challenge to the amendment in the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 through the Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 2024—The impugned amendment abolished an appellate forum, thereby burdening the judiciary and restricting taxpayers' access to justice—Held, that the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) faces no financial burden in filing Tax References as it is exempt from court fees, whereas litigants must pay Rs. 50,000 per reference—Such a distinction violates the fundamental right of equal treatment under the law—Amendment restricting appellate remedies infringes Articles 4, 10-A, and 37(d) of the Constitution, which guarantee due process and inexpensive, expeditious justice. (b) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001: ---S. 133—Appellate procedure—Elimination of one appellate forum—Pecuniary jurisdiction and the right of appeal—The Ordinance originally provided a three-tier appellate structure: first before the Commissioner (Appeals), then the Appellate Tribunal, and finally a Tax Reference before the High Court—The impugned amendment removed one appellate forum, placing an excessive burden on the High Court—Held, that the appellate forums play a crucial role in ensuring just adjudication, particularly in tax matters, and their elimination clogs the judicial system by overburdening the High Court. (c) Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 2024: ---Legislative intent and judicial interpretation—Doctrine of Textualism—Whether an amendment reducing appellate forums in tax cases aligns with constitutional mandates—Held, that judicial interpretation should adhere to the plain meaning of the law rather than inferred legislative intent—However, when legislative amendments obstruct the administration of justice and cause systemic delays, courts must assess their impact on fundamental rights—Impugned amendment scrutinized in light of the doctrine of textualism as discussed in Service Global Footwear Limited and another v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2023 Lahore 471). (d) Role of Federal Board of Revenue (FBR): ---Regulatory functions—Judicial precedents—The FBR, as held in Chenab Flour and General Mills v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2021 Lahore 343) and Ramzan Sugar Mills Limited v. Federal Board of Revenue (2021 PTD 1321), is a regulatory body responsible for enforcing fiscal laws and tax collection—Held, that FBR’s inefficiencies, including delays in hearings, inadequate reasoning in orders, and lack of judicious application of mind, contribute significantly to tax litigation—Impugned amendment exacerbates this issue by increasing the burden on the High Court without addressing systemic flaws in tax adjudication. (e) Administration of justice: ---Delay in adjudication—Burden on the judiciary—Held, that removing an appellate forum without enhancing the efficiency of lower tax adjudicating bodies results in undue delay in tax litigation—Commissioners (Appeals) frequently issue sketchy and deficient orders, necessitating remand, thereby increasing the backlog of cases—Such systemic delays violate the principles of fair and expeditious justice, as affirmed in Shaheen Merchant v. Federation of Pakistan (2021 PTD 2126). (f) Judicial oversight and executive accountability: ---Summoning of FBR official—Dr. Ishtiaq A. Khan, Director General, FBR, directed to appear before the Court—Court sought clarification on the legislative background, rationale, and objectives of the amendment—Held, that amendments affecting fundamental rights and judicial efficiency require thorough scrutiny to prevent obstruction of justice. ---Cited Cases: Chenab Flour and General Mills v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2021 Lahore 343) Ramzan Sugar Mills Limited v. Federal Board of Revenue (2021 PTD 1321) Shaheen Merchant v. Federation of Pakistan (2021 PTD 2126) Rizwan Ali Sayal v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2024 Lahore 54 = 2024 PTD 32) Service Global Footwear Limited and another v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2023 Lahore 471) ---Disposition: Case adjourned for further proceedings on 25.03.2025, with the FBR Director General directed to provide a detailed reply regarding the policy rationale and impact of the amendment on judicial efficiency.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 498 & 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 109---Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (VII of 1947), Ss. 5 & 23---Restriction on payments, restrictions on import and export of certain currency and bullion, abetment---Pre-arrest bail, confirmation of---Rule of consistency---Allegation against the applicant-accused was that he made transaction of foreign currency without any legal justification---Tentative assessment of the evidence showed that there was no direct evidence available on record to connect the applicant with the commission of alleged offence---Applicant was nominated in the FIR on the confessional statement of co-accused---Such confessional statement was not admissible under Art.38 & 39 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Confessional statement of an accused could not be used against the other in absence of any attending material produced by the prosecution---Contravention of S.5 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, entails total punishment as provided by S.23 of the said Act is imprisonment which may extend to five years or with fine or with both---Since the alternate sentence of fine had also been provided, therefore, the applicant was entitled to the concession of bail on that ground alone---Co-accused had already be enlarged on bail, thus the applicant was also entitled for bail on the ground that offence against accused fell outside the scope of prohibited clause contained in S.497, Cr.P.C, notwithstanding the fact that mandatory provision of law contained in the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, in respect of search and recovery had apparently not been complied with---If the bail of applicant was not confirmed, after arrest he could be allowed bail on the ground that similarly placed co-accused was already on bail---When bail application of co-accused having one and the same role was allowed, then applicant could also be given the benefit of such bail on the ground of consistency, even at the stage of bail before arrest---By sending applicant behind the bars, no useful purpose would be served---Petition was allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner was confirmed, in circumstances. Umeed v. The State 2013 YLR 1687; Abdul Majid Afridi v. The State 2022 SCMR 676; Nisar Ahmad v. The State 2015 PCr.LJ 478; Fida Hussain v. The State 2010 MLD 313 and Muhammad Azam Khan v. The State and another 2017 MLD 349 rel. Muammar Qazafi for Applicant. Umer Saeed, Assistant Director (Legal) FIA assisted by Abid Ali Jutt IP/SHO CBC, FIA for the State. Date of hearing: 25th February, 2025.

Summary: Any party's inconsistent conduct and shifting stances in pleadings not only disqualify it from discretionary relief but also invoke the doctrine of estoppel.

Summary: Any party's inconsistent conduct and shifting stances in pleadings not only disqualify it from discretionary relief but also invoke the doctrine of estoppel. 674Regular First Appeal (R.F.A) (Final Decree) 1687066.1123-