Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ----S. 96---Regular First Appeal---Concurrent findings---Scope---Appeal against judgment and decree decreeing suit for declaration, possession, and mesne profits---High Court observed that appellant failed to demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform contractual obligations under agreement to sell---New grounds raised in appeal not permissible unless pleaded before trial court---Failure to frame specific issues immaterial once controversy was clear and evidence was recorded accordingly---Findings of trial court based on proper appreciation of pleadings and evidence upheld---Appeal dismissed. (b) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882) ----S. 53-A---Doctrine of part performance---Scope---Protection of possession---Appellant sought protection under doctrine of part performance without fulfilling contractual obligations---High Court held that willingness to perform is a condition precedent for invoking Section 53-A---Appellant’s failure to deposit balance sale consideration disentitled him from claiming benefit of part performance---Possession without compliance with contractual obligations not protected. (c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) ----S. 39---Cancellation of instruments---Scope---Misplaced plea---Appellant’s contention under Section 39 found irrelevant where relief of cancellation was neither properly pleaded nor substantiated---Burden to establish entitlement to equitable relief lies upon party invoking it---Appellant failed to establish claim. Cited Cases: • Shafi Muhammad v. Khanzada Gul (2007 SCMR 368) • Amjad Ikram v. Mst. Asiya Kausar and 2 others (2015 SCMR 1) • Mehr Din (represented by Legal Heirs) v. Dr. Bashir Ahmed Khan and 2 others (1985 SCMR 1) • Muhammad Akram alias Raja v. Muhammad Ishaque (2004 SCMR 1130) • Eada Khan v. Mst. Ghanwar and others (2004 SCMR 1524) • Fazal Muhammad Bhatti and another v. Mst. Saeeda Akhtar and 2 others (1993 SCMR 2018) • Ahmad Waqas and others v. Ishtiaq Ali and others (PLD 2022 Lahore 313) • Muhammad Yousaf v. Munawar Hussain and 5 others (2000 SCMR 204) • Sana Ullah and another v. Muhammad Manzoor and another (PLD 1996 SC 256) • Qasim Ali v. Khadim Hussain (deceased) through Legal Representatives and another (PLD 2005 Lahore 654) ---- "Willingness to perform its part of contract is crucial ingredient for a party to claim protection u/s 53-A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882"

Summary: (a) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 ----S. 133 read with S. 113 & Division IX, Part I of First Schedule; S. 2(22A)---Minimum tax---Fast moving consumer goods (FMCGs)---Interpretation of term “fast moving consumer goods” as applicable to tax year 2015---Amendment introduced by Finance Act, 2017 excluding “durable goods” from FMCGs held not to have retrospective effect---Court held that each tax year is a separate unit of taxation, and thus the definition applicable in tax year 2015 shall govern the case---Glassware held to be fast moving consumer goods under pre-amendment definition. Cited Cases: • Fawad Ahmad Mukhtar v. CIR 2022 PTD 454 • CIR v. Haier Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. 2018 PTD 1582 (b) Constitutional Law ----Art. 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973---Equality before law---Tax discrimination---Glassware distributors subjected to higher minimum tax than electronics distributors---Held, differential tax treatment without valid economic or legal justification constitutes discrimination and violates Article 25---Court declared that fiscal neutrality and fair competition demand uniform tax treatment of similarly situated distributors of consumer durables. Cited Cases: • Elahi Cotton Mills v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1997 SC 582 • D.G. Khan Cement Co. Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 2008 PTD 425 • Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic C-481/98 (ECJ) (c) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 ----S. 113, Division IX, Part I of First Schedule---Minimum tax---Distributor of consumer goods---Classification under reduced rate of 0.2%---Glassware items held to be “consumer goods” used for personal/household purposes, hence entitled to reduced rate---Imposition of 1% tax rate by department was based on misinterpretation of taxpayer’s business classification---Court directed application of 0.2% rate applicable to FMCG distributors. (d) Statutory Interpretation ----Interpretation of tax exemptions---Retrospective application---Legal principle---Remedial and curative legislation may apply retrospectively only when expressly stated or necessarily implied---Tax exemptions or exclusions that create new liabilities or disturb past transactions not to be applied retrospectively---Amendment excluding “durable goods” from FMCGs held not applicable to tax year 2015. Cited Cases: • CST v. Pak Suzuki Co. Ltd. 2016 PTD 867 • CIR v. Muhammad Aslam 2019 PTD 381 (e) Tax Law---Judicial Review of Tax Policy ----Minimum tax under Section 113---Discrimination in tax rates between similar industries---Table glassware and electronic appliances---Both classified as non-essential consumer durables with similar commercial distribution characteristics---No valid justification for disparity in tax rates---Court emphasized importance of consistent tax treatment to avoid market distortion and uphold fair competition. Disposition: Reference application allowed; respondent-Department directed to treat glassware as consumer goods under Division IX, Part I of First Schedule and apply reduced minimum tax rate of 0.2% for tax year 2015.

Summary: (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997: –––Ss. 9(c), 15 & 29–––Possession of narcotics–––Recovery of large quantity–––Presumption under S.29–––Driver of vehicle–––Appellant was apprehended while driving a vehicle carrying 13.2 kg of opium and 4.8 kg of charas hidden in a secret cavity–––Prosecution established continuous chain of custody from recovery to chemical analysis through unimpeached testimony of PW.2 and PW.3–––Chemical Examiner’s reports confirmed presence of narcotics and were found to be in compliance with the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001–––Held, driver of vehicle is presumed to be in possession and knowledge of narcotics unless rebutted–––Appellant failed to produce any convincing evidence to rebut presumption or establish false implication–––Appeal dismissed–––Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment with fine upheld. Cited Cases: • Faisal Shahzad v. The State, 2022 SCMR 905 • Ajab Khan v. The State, 2022 SCMR 317 • Muhammad Noor v. The State, 2010 SCMR 927 • Sherzada v. The State, 1993 SCMR 149 • Nadir Khan v. The State, 1988 SCMR 1899 (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): –––Ss. 103, 161, 342 & 382-B–––Non-association of public witnesses–––Effect–––Appellant argued that no private person was made witness to the recovery, violating S.103 Cr.P.C.–––Held, S.25 of CNSA explicitly excludes the application of S.103 Cr.P.C.–––Police witnesses are competent and their testimony cannot be discarded merely due to official status–––Statements of PWs remained consistent on material points and withstood cross-examination–––No mala fides or animosity alleged against prosecution witnesses–––Benefit of S.382-B Cr.P.C. was rightly extended by Trial Court. Cited Cases: • Zaffar v. The State, 2008 SCMR 1254 • State/ANF v. Muhammad Arshad, 2017 SCMR 283 • Salah-ud-Din v. The State, 2010 SCMR 1962 (c) Evidence Act (I of 1872): –––Burden of proof–––Presumption of possession–––Appellant failed to discharge burden under S.29 of CNSA–––Vehicle was in appellant’s control and narcotics were hidden in a concealed cavity–––Held, items recovered from a vehicle in an accused’s control are presumed to be in his possession and knowledge–––Appellant’s denial was not substantiated with any credible evidence–––Mere procedural objections do not outweigh the substantial and consistent prosecution evidence. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Noor v. The State, 2010 SCMR 927 • Adil Ahmed v. Deputy Collector C&CE, 1991 SCMR 1951 • Rab Nawaz v. The State, PLD 1984 SC 858

Summary: Specific performance of agreement to sell dated 29-07-2018 and as per the terms and conditions of said agreement respondents are also bound to fulfill their part of the agreement before seeking relief in their favour.

Summary: (a) Family Law – Dower – Jurisdiction of Family Court---Family Courts Act, 1964, S. 5---Dower (Haq Mahr)---Claim of immovable property as dower---Whether Family Court has jurisdiction---Respondent (wife) filed a suit for recovery of dower based on an agreement executed by her deceased husband in his lifetime, whereby he gifted 12 acres of land to her---Petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the Family Court, arguing that the matter pertained to an agreement and should have been adjudicated by a Civil Court---Held, Family Courts have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and decide cases regarding dower, whether in cash, moveable, or immovable property, as explicitly mentioned in Section 5 of the Family Courts Act, 1964---Reliance placed on Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. Messrs Rashid Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. (2024 SCMR 1816).(b) Family Law – Proof of Dower Agreement – Concurrent Findings of Fact---Evidentiary value of agreement to gift property as dower---Whether claim of dower based on an agreement was sufficiently proved---Trial Court, Appellate Court, and High Court concurrently held that the respondent successfully proved the execution of the agreement, producing the scribe and marginal witnesses who testified in her favor---Petitioners failed to produce any contrary evidence, nor did they request a forensic comparison of the deceased’s signatures---Held, where concurrent findings of three courts are based on cogent evidence, the Supreme Court will not interfere in the absence of a legal infirmity or jurisdictional error---Reliance placed on Fozia Mazhar v. Additional District Judge, Jhang (PLD 2024 SC 771).(c) Civil Procedure – Burden of Proof – Failure to Challenge Evidence---Evidentiary burden on party alleging forgery---Effect of failure to produce rebuttal evidence---Petitioners claimed the agreement was forged and backdated but did not produce any independent witness, handwriting expert, or documentary evidence to support their claim---They withdrew their application for the production of the stamp vendor who issued the document---Held, mere allegations of forgery without supporting evidence cannot rebut a duly proved agreement, especially when attesting witnesses confirm its execution---Reliance placed on Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. Messrs Rashid Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. (2024 SCMR 1816).(d) Appellate Jurisdiction – Scope of Supreme Court’s Review---Interference with concurrent findings of fact---Scope of Supreme Court’s appellate review---Held, where three forums, including the High Court, have concurrently found the evidence to be credible and the claim legally valid, the Supreme Court will not reappraise the evidence unless a manifest legal or procedural irregularity is identified---Petitioners failed to point out any jurisdictional defect or misreading of evidence warranting interference---Reliance placed on Fozia Mazhar v. Additional District Judge, Jhang (PLD 2024 SC 771).---- Disposition:Petition dismissed – Leave to appeal refused.Findings of the three lower courts upheld – Agreement validly proved; Family Court had jurisdiction.

Summary: Acquittal granted---Non-production of witness transmitting samples to the PFSA fatal to prosecution; importance of exhibition of recovered material; examination of accused under section 342 Cr.P.C. for fair trial; exercise of reversional jurisdiction; failure to establish identity; to present incriminating evidence as required by law; procedural lapses & non-compliance with legal requirements warrant acquittal (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) & Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979—Scope of revisional jurisdiction—Misreading and non-reading of evidence ----S. 435, S. 439, Cr.P.C.; Art. 3 & 4, PEHO—Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is limited and may only be exercised when findings of fact are unsupported by evidence or result from misreading or non-reading of the material on record—Court must examine whether lower courts appreciated the evidence correctly—Conviction of petitioner set aside due to non-exhibition of recovered articles, breaking of chain of custody, and failure to put incriminating material to accused under S. 342, Cr.P.C.—Reliance placed on Ali Gohar v. The State (PLD 2020 SC 427). (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) & Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984—Exhibiting of articles and documents—Mandatory requirement for admissibility ----S. 342, Cr.P.C.; Art. 22, QSO, 1984—Prosecution failed to exhibit recovered articles during trial, violating Rule 14-H, Part B, Chapter 24, Volume III, of the Lahore High Court Rules and Orders—Non-exhibited articles and documents cannot be used against the accused—PFSA report (Exh.PE) was never exhibited in evidence, rendering it inadmissible—Reliance placed on Aziz Khan v. The State (2023 PCr.LJ 1806 Lahore (DB)) and Ghulam Sarwar v. The State (1996 PCr.LJ 1853 FSC). (c) Evidence Act (I of 1872) & Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)—Chain of custody—Failure to establish safe transmission of forensic evidence ----S. 510, Cr.P.C.—Failure to produce the witness responsible for transmitting forensic samples (Muhammad Khalid) raised concerns about tampering and compromised the credibility of the PFSA report—Court held that forensic evidence without a secure chain of custody lacks evidentiary value—Reliance placed on Muhammad Adnan and another v. The State (2021 SCMR 16) and Ikramullah and others v. The State (2015 SCMR 1002). (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)—Incriminating material not put to accused under S. 342, Cr.P.C.—Effect on conviction ----Failure to put recovered articles to accused in his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C. violated fundamental rights of defense—Incriminating material must be put to the accused for explanation; otherwise, it cannot be relied upon for conviction—Court held that lapse on part of Trial Court rendered the conviction unlawful—Reliance placed on Abdul Hayee and Abdullah alias Ghazali and another v. The State and others (2025 SCMR 281) and Syed Fida Hussain Shah v. The State and another (2024 SCMR 1622). (e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) & Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984—Identification of accused—Failure to conduct identification parade—Effect ----Art. 22, QSO, 1984—Accused was not previously known to prosecution witnesses, no identification parade was conducted, and no description of accused was provided in FIR—Court held that in absence of proper identification procedures, identity of accused remained doubtful—Reliance placed on The State v. Ahmed Omer Sheikh (2021 SCMR 873). (f) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)—Suo moto revisional jurisdiction—Acquittal in absentia permissible ----High Court has inherent revisional jurisdiction to correct errors and ensure safe administration of justice—Acquittal in absentia is permissible to rectify miscarriage of justice and clear criminal records—Reliance placed on Rizwan Ahmad and 3 others v. The State and another (2021 YLR 2060 Lahore) and The State v. Muhammad Umar alias Chotoo (2003 PCr.LJ 216 Karachi). (g) Criminal Law—Principle of benefit of doubt—Single doubt sufficient for acquittal ----Court reiterated the principle that even a single doubt, if reasonable, is sufficient for acquittal—Accused entitled to benefit of doubt as a matter of right, not grace—Reliance placed on Barkhudar v. The State and another (2023 SCMR 1791), Muhammad Mansha v. The State (2018 SCMR 772), and Tariq Pervaiz v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345). ----Disposition: Criminal Revision Petition accepted—Conviction and sentence set aside—Petitioner acquitted of all charges.

Summary: Acquittal granted----(a) Criminal Law: --- Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860), Ss. 365-B, 376, 380 --- Abduction, rape, and theft --- Burden of proof --- Benefit of doubt --- The appellant was convicted for abducting a minor girl (13/14 years old), committing rape, and theft under Sections 365-B, 376, and 380 PPC. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment and 25 years R.I. for rape, which was upheld by the High Court, except for the theft charge. Held, the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to serious gaps in evidence, contradictions in witness testimonies, delayed reporting, and absence of crucial witnesses. Benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right, not concession. Conviction set aside. (b) Criminal Procedure: --- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898), Ss. 161, 342 --- Investigation flaws --- Non-production of material witnesses --- Effect on prosecution's case --- The mother and brothers of the victim, who were allegedly drugged and present during the incident, were neither cited as witnesses nor their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.. The prosecution also failed to produce the old lady who allegedly provided information about the victim’s location. Held, withholding of material witnesses creates serious doubts under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, as the court must presume that the missing evidence would have been unfavorable to the prosecution. (c) Forensic & Medical Evidence: --- Rape allegations --- Delay in medical examination --- Evidentiary value --- The vaginal swabs of the victim were sent to the Chemical Examiner three weeks after recovery, with no explanation for the delay. The victim’s medical report showed old, healed hymenal tears, and no semen analysis of the accused was conducted. Held, forensic evidence was inconclusive and could not establish rape beyond doubt, making reliance solely on the victim’s testimony unsafe. (d) Delay in FIR & Recovery of Victim: --- Unexplained delay in lodging FIR --- Independent recovery of the victim --- Effect on prosecution case --- The FIR was registered seven days after the alleged abduction, with no plausible explanation for the delay. Additionally, the victim was recovered by her father, not law enforcement, without police involvement. Held, these factors cast serious doubt on the prosecution’s version and weaken the credibility of the case. (e) Benefit of Doubt & Acquittal: --- Standard for acquittal --- Maxim “Better ten guilty men go free than one innocent suffer” --- The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and where doubt exists, it must favor the accused. Held, applying the principles in Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345), Muhammad Mansha v. The State (2018 SCMR 772), and Najaf Ali Shah v. The State (2021 SCMR 736), the accused was entitled to acquittal due to multiple contradictions and lack of conclusive evidence. (f) Disposition: Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentences set aside. Appellant acquitted. Released if not required in any other case.

Summary: (a) Contract Law – Auction of Evacuee Trust Property – No Vested Right Without Approval — Terms of auction – Clauses 4 and 8 – Right to match the highest bid – Cancellation of auction – Effect – Appellants participated in an auction conducted by the Evacuee Trust Property Board (ETPB) for land measuring 49 kanals and 11 marlas, where they exercised their right to match the highest bid of Rs.79,000/- per kanal – However, under clause 4 of the auction terms, the approval of the competent authority was necessary for the bid to be finalized – Clause 8 vested the ETPB with the right to cancel the auction without assigning any reason – Chairman, ETPB, canceled the auction before approving the appellants’ matched bid and ordered re-auction – Held, a bid at an auction, even if the highest, does not create any vested right in favor of the bidder unless confirmed by the competent authority – The appellants’ option to match the highest bid merely placed them in the position of the highest bidder, and without confirmation, they had no claim of ownership over the suit land – Courts cannot re-write auction terms, and in the absence of approval, no legal right accrues in favor of the appellants. Cited Cases: Javed Iqbal Abbasi & Company v. Province of Punjab (1996 SCMR 1433) – Principles of natural justice not violated where a re-auction is ordered. Captain-PQ Chemical Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. A.W. Brothers (2004 SCMR 1956) – Mere participation in an auction, even as the highest bidder, does not create a legal right. Afzal Maqsood Butt v. Banking Court No.2, Lahore (PLD 2005 SC 470) – An auction bid is only an offer; without confirmation, no rights in the property are vested.

Summary: ----Arts.17 & 79---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.12 & 22---Evidence Act (I of 1872) S.68---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) S.115---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Proof--- Courts’ discretion to grant relief of specific performance discussed---Execution of agreement denied by vendor---Agreement executed prior to promulgation of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Question was as to whether the agreement could be proved by just producing one attesting witness as per S. 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872, or since the evidence having been recorded after promulgation of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 the provisions of Ss. 17 & 79 would apply to the case requiring two attesting witnesses to prove execution of the agreement---Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 being procedural law would apply retrospectively to the case where the agreement under question was allegedly executed even prior to the existence of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Facts in brevity were that the respondent/plaintiff (vendee) filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 07.01.1982 claiming he purchased the land in question from petitioner No.2 (vendor) who later on through a sale deed dated 22.12.1997 sold the land to petitioner No.1 and contended that since the agreement was executed prior to promulgation of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, S. 68 of Evidence Act, 1872 would come to his aid and protection, which required only one attesting witness to prove the execution of the agreement---Held: The provisions of Arts. 17 & 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 were endowed with retrospective effect as same were procedural in nature, and as a jurisprudential principle, procedural laws possessed retrospective applicability unless explicitly stipulated otherwise---The retrospective application of Arts. 17 & 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 signified that they extend to cases that originated prior to their promulgation, contingent upon the evidence being recorded subsequent to their enforcement---Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 required that if a document was legally required to be attested it could not be used as evidence until at least one attesting witness was called to prove its execution---This provision was in effect before the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 was promulgated, however, once Qanun-e-Shahadat came into force, it repealed the Evidence Act, 1872 and its provisions took precedence---In the present case, the agreement to sell was executed on 07.01.1982 predating the promulgation of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---The agreement was attested by two witnesses, however, only one witness was produced when the evidence was recorded in the year 2003---Given that the evidence was recorded subsequent to the enforcement of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 the provisions encapsulated in Arts. 17 & 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 were unequivocally applicable and the respondent/plaintiff (vendee) was required to produce two attesting witnesses to prove the execution of the agreement---Notwithstanding, under S. 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, a court’s exercise of judicial discretion in decreeing the suit for specific performance of a contract was inherently discretionary and not a matter of absolute right for any party---The grant of specific performance was not obligatory and could be denied by the court if the prevailing circumstances warranted such denial---In the present case the respondent/plaintiff’s non-compliance with the attestation requirements mandated by Art. 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, by failing to call both attesting witnesses, rendered the document inadmissible as evidence and undermined the credibility of the agreement’s execution---Additionally, the respondent/plaintiff could not substantiate the payment of the sale consideration, as the testimony of one attesting witness, was vague and did not corroborate the payment---The respondent/plaintiff failed to produce receipts to prove the payment of instalments, further diminishing the strength of his claim---Given the discrepancies in the evidence and the respondent/plaintiff’s inability to meet the legal requirements, granting specific performance would not have been equitable, as the court had to ensure that the relief granted did not result in injustice or unfairness to any party---Therefore, in light of the discretionary nature of specific performance and the circumstances of the present case, the Court should exercise its discretion judiciously and decline to grant specific performance---The court below acted with material irregularity---Present civil revision petition was allowed, in circumstances. Riazur Rahman and others v. Muhammad Urs 2005 MLD 1954 ref. Muhammad Riaz Hussain v. Zahoor ul Hassan 2021 SCMR 431 rel. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Arts.17 & 79---Agreement to sell---Proof---Execution of agreement denied---Producing two attesting witnesses is mandatory to prove execution---Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 being procedural law would apply retrospectively---Significance of Arts. 17 & 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984/stated---Article 17 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 addresses the competence of witnesses and the required number of witnesses for different types of matters---In matters relating to financial or future obligations that have been reduced to writing, Art. 17(2)(a) specifies that the document must be attested by two men, or one man and two women---For all other matters, Art. 17(2)(b) grants the court the discretion to accept or act on the testimony of one man or one woman, or any other evidence deemed appropriate given the circumstances of the case---The presence of multiple witnesses serves as a safeguard against potential fraud or false testimony---Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 further stipulates that if a document is required by law to be attested, it cannot be used as evidence until at least two attesting witnesses are called to prove its execution---This provision is intended to verify the authenticity of attested documents by requiring the testimony of persons who can confirm that the document was duly executed in their presence---The failure to call both attesting witnesses renders the document inadmissible, as it undermines the credibility of the document’s execution---The provisions encapsulated within Arts. 17 & 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, are endowed with retrospective effect---These provisions are applicable to cases wherein the evidence was recorded subsequent to their enforcement, notwithstanding that the transaction transpired prior to their promulgation---Article 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 unequivocally stipulates that a document mandated by law to be attested, cannot be admissible as evidence unless two attesting witnesses are summoned to substantiate its execution, contingent upon their being alive, subject to the court’s jurisdiction, and competent to provide testimony---The omission to summon the second attesting witness contravenes the explicit mandate of Art. 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and consequently impairs the credibility of the document’s execution---In summation, the provisions enshrined in Arts. 17 & 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, possess retrospective applicability---The non-compliance with the requirement of summoning both attesting witnesses culminates in the document being inadmissible in evidence. Riazur Rahman and others v. Muhammad Urs 2005 MLD 1954 ref. (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Arts. 17 & 79---Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S.17---Agreement to sell---Proof---Execution of agreement denied---Producing two attesting witnesses is mandatory to prove execution---Exception to the said rule stated---Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 outlines the procedure for proving the execution of a document required by law to be attested---According to this provision, if a document must be attested by law, it cannot be used as evidence until at least two attesting witnesses have been called to prove its execution---This provision aims to ensure the authenticity and validity of attested documents by requiring the testimony of witnesses who can confirm their execution---However, there is an exception to this rule---It is not necessary to call an attesting witness to prove the execution of any document (except for a will) that has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908---This means that for registered documents, the registration itself serves as sufficient proof of execution, and the testimony of attesting witnesses is not required unless the execution of the document is specifically denied by the person who purportedly executed it---In cases where the execution of the document is disputed, attesting witnesses must be called to provide evidence to resolve the matter. (d) Interpretation of statutes--- ----Procedural law---Retrospective application---Procedural laws possess retrospective applicability unless explicitly stipulated otherwise---Procedural laws govern the mechanisms and methodologies through which substantive rights and obligations are effectuated---This retrospective effect comports with the principle that procedural laws are designed to augment the administration of justice by ensuring that judicial proceedings are conducted with fairness and efficacy. (e) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)--- ----S. 53-A---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) S.12---Agreement to sell---Doctrine of part performance---Applicability and essential requirements---Agreement must reflect delivery of possession---Continuous possession in part performance must be substantiated by vendee---Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, provides protection to a transferee who has taken possession of a property based on a partially performed contract---This protection is available even if the contract itself is not fully registered or legally enforceable, as long as the transferee has acted in good faith and partially performed the terms of the agreement---This is commonly referred to as the "doctrine of part performance"---However, in the present case, the respondent/ plaintiff’s inability to prove possession since the year 1982 and the lack of any mention of possession in the agreement to sell precluded the application of S. 53-A---Since the agreement did not explicitly provide for the delivery of possession, and the respondent/plaintiff (vendee) could not substantiate his claim of possession through evidence, no protection under S. 53-A could be extended---The respondent/plaintiff’s (vendee) failure to prove possession from the date of execution of agreement to sell in 1982 and the absence of an explicit provision in the agreement regarding possession negated the applicability of the doctrine of part performance under S. 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882---Court below acted with material irregularity---Present civil revision petition was allowed, in circumstances. (f) Registration Act (XVI of 1908)--- ----Ss.28 & 30---Land documents must be registered in the Sub-Registrar’s office where the property is located---Registration of documents irrespective of the property’s location within Pakistan---Scope---Section 28 of the Registration Act, 1908 mandates that documents related to land must be presented for registration in the office of the Sub-Registrar within whose Sub-District the property is located---Section 30 of the Registration Act, 1908 grants Registrars the discretion to register documents that could be registered by any Sub-Registrar subordinate to them and to register documents without regard to the property’s location within Pakistan. (g) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S.115---Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court---Judgments at variance---Scope---When the findings of the two courts below are at variance, the High Court would be justified in appreciating the evidence to arrive at the conclusion as to which of the decisions is accord with the evidence on record---Where two courts below, while giving their findings on a question of law, have committed material irregularity or failed to read the evidence on point, which resulted in miscarriage of justice, the High Court would have the occasion to re-examine the question and to give its findings on that question in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Karim Bakhsh through L.R.s. and others v. Jindwadda Shah and others 2005 SCMR 1518 and Abdul Rashid v. Muhammad Yasin and another 2010 SCMR 1871 rel. Aqeel Ahmed Siddiqui for Applicants. Babar Ali Kazmi for Respondents. Date of hearing: 31st January, 2025.

Summary: Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199 (1)(b)(i)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 58--- Constitutional petition---Habeas corpus---Arrest of detenue---Use of internet applications (Apps)---Arrest of accused persons---Duty of police station to whom accused is required---Petitioner sought recovery of his cousin / detenue who was alleged to have been abducted by police---Held: Detenue was arrested on the basis of information taken from “Travel Eye App” from Bus Terminal when he was travelling from one city to another city---In “Travel Eye App” status of the detenue was shown as absconder (P.O.) in a criminal case registered in another city of another province---Soon after arrest of detenue it was accordingly intimated to the concerned police station---Although law provided ample mechanism and guidelines for police officers who had made arrest of accused person(s), yet no such guideline was provided for police/police station, to whom, such accused was required/involved in criminal cases except S.58, Cr.P.C, wherein, police officer was authorized to pursue and arrest such persons from any place in Pakistan---High Court directed to bring matter into the notice of quarters concerned (Legislation) in order to make laws, to regularize procedure/methods for law enforcement agencies regarding accused/suspects arrested with the help of afore-referred computer Apps., as no Law / Procedure / Rules and Regulations were available in such regard--- Constitutional petition was disposed of accused. Asad Jamal for Petitioner. Hafiz Muhammad Zaheer Nasir, Assistant Advocate General, Muhammad Naveed Umer Bhatti, Deputy Prosecutor General, Rafi Ullah SHO/Inspector and Sarfraz S.I for the State. Date of hearing: 28th February, 2025.