Summary: 1. Son or daughter of predeceased son before promulgation of The Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 was not entitled to inheritance nor the Ordinance is retrospective in nature. 2. Owner in possession cannot be non-suited on the ground of limitation where wrong entries in revenue record are alleged and every fresh entry against his/her interest would give him/her a fresh cause of action.

Summary: Under Article 167 of the Order, a Register of daily diary shall be maintained at every Police Station and a unique power has been vested in the District & Sessions Judge of the District to call for and inspect such diaries which contained very important information with their direct nexus with the functioning and accountability of the Police and to ensure protection of fundamental rights of the citizens. Under this Article, the Sessions Judge either on his own or on any information, irrespective of the source of such information can call for the record for inspection. As required under Article 167(2) of the Police Orders 2002, the office of District & Sessions Judge of the District should also be linked with the same online system. Linking the office of the District & Sessions Judge with online system would reduce the physical distance and make the inspection of the daily diary register possible on one click. A direction is, therefore, issued to the Inspector General of Police Punjab, to ensure online access to all the District & Sessions Judges throughout the Punjab in line with the SOPs circulated by the Deputy Inspector General of Police Information Technology Punjab, Lahore, vide his office No.3516/PS-DIG-IT dated 01.03.2017, or any other latest digitalization method in future, within a period of three months.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)— Arts. 4, 199 & 212 — Constitutional jurisdiction — Maintainability — Nature of challenge — Disciplinary proceedings against public prosecutors — Scope of writ jurisdiction — Bar of Article 212 — Applicability.Held, where disciplinary action is challenged not on the basis of terms and conditions of service but for being initiated in violation of statutory mandate (Section 10(2) of Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service Act, 2006), constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 is maintainable — Bar under Article 212 is not attracted where a pure question of law regarding lawful authority of respondents is raised.(b) Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2006— Ss. 5, 6, 9, 10(1), 10(2), 13, 17 & 18 — Prosecutorial structure and independence — Hierarchical command — Disciplinary authority — Prosecutor General as head of service — Role of Appeal Committees — Scope of recommendations — Validity of proceedings initiated without reference by Prosecutor General.Held, the Prosecutor General is the administrative and functional head of the Prosecution Service with exclusive statutory mandate to issue directions and oversee prosecutorial conduct — All prosecutors are bound to follow Code of Conduct and guidelines issued by the Prosecutor General — No disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against a prosecutor without a reference from the Prosecutor General or District Public Prosecutor under Section 10(2) of the Act — Initiation of proceedings by Secretary, Public Prosecution Department, in absence of such reference, held illegal and ultra vires.(c) Criminal Procedure Code (1898)— Ss. 417, 492–495 — Prosecution — Functions and powers of Public Prosecutors — Role in trial and appeals — Distinction between opinion and final authority to appeal — Legal protection to prosecutorial discretion.Held, opinion formed by prosecutors or appeal committees regarding fitness of case for appeal is advisory and not binding on the Government — Absence of mala fide precludes punitive consequences — Prosecutors’ assessments, when made in accordance with issued guidelines, enjoy statutory protection under Section 18(1) of the 2006 Act.(d) Interpretation of Statutes— Delegation of powers — Statutory compliance — Mandatory procedural requirement — Non-compliance — Effect.Held, Section 10(2) of the 2006 Act vests exclusive authority in Prosecutor General or District Public Prosecutor to initiate reference for disciplinary proceedings — Any action taken in contravention is void and without legal effect — Procedural safeguards prescribed in statute cannot be bypassed or substituted.(e) Administrative Law— Ultra vires — Absence of lawful authority — Quashment of disciplinary proceedings.Held, orders passed by Secretary Public Prosecution and inquiry report prepared without statutory authority or proper reference held to be ultra vires, illegal, and void ab initio — Entire proceedings quashed.Disposition:Writ petition allowed.Impugned disciplinary proceedings declared to have been initiated without lawful authority.Orders dated 16.07.2021, 07.10.2021, and 05.04.2022 set aside and quashed.

Summary: Acquittal granted----(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860): ----S. 302(b)----Murder----Benefit of doubt----Appellants convicted for qatl-e-amd of two persons and sentenced to life imprisonment----Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt----Contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, unexplained delay in post-mortem, and absence of forensic linkage between recovered weapon and crime scene weakened prosecution case----Presence of eyewitnesses at the scene not corroborated by independent evidence, rendering their testimony unreliable----Conviction set aside. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984: ----Art. 129(g)----Withholding of best evidence----Prosecution failed to produce key documentary evidence, such as attendance record of the complainant at DSP’s office or vehicle used to transport the deceased to the hospital----Non-production of best available evidence creates a presumption that had it been presented, it would have been unfavorable to the prosecution----Case law relied upon: Mst. Saima Noreen v. The State (2024 SCMR 1310). (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 417----Acquittal of co-accused----Supplementary statement used to substitute an accused with another after four months and eighteen days, raising serious concerns about fairness of investigation----Confession of co-accused recorded before police without judicial attestation deemed inadmissible----Extra-judicial confession lacks legal weight and cannot form the sole basis for conviction----Acquittal of similarly placed co-accused further weakened prosecution’s case. (d) Administration of justice: ----Presumption of innocence----Doubtful presence of eyewitnesses at crime scene, reliance on belated supplementary statements, and lack of forensic corroboration make it unsafe to sustain conviction----A single reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case is sufficient to warrant acquittal----Reliance placed on The State v. Ahmed Omer Sheikh (2021 SCMR 873) and Tariq Pervaiz v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345). ----Disposition: Criminal appeal accepted. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted of charges and ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. ----Cited Cases: Mst. Saima Noreen v. The State (2024 SCMR 1310) Muhammad Riaz v. Khurram Shehzad (2024 SCMR 51) Mst. Rukhsana Begum v. Sajjad (2017 SCMR 596) Muhammad Mansha v. The State (2018 SCMR 772) Tariq Pervaiz v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345)

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860): ----S. 302(b)----Murder----Conviction and sentence----Petitioner convicted under S. 302(b), P.P.C. and awarded death sentence, later modified to life imprisonment by High Court----Factual and evidentiary assessment----Ocular account furnished by eyewitnesses was consistent, corroborated by medical evidence, and substantiated by prompt registration of F.I.R.----Minor contradictions in witness statements not material, given passage of time----Occurrence took place in broad daylight, ruling out mistaken identity----Petitioner failed to prove false implication----Trial Court and High Court, upon proper appreciation of evidence, upheld conviction, modifying only the sentence due to unproven motive. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 544-A----Compensation to legal heirs----Petitioner ordered to pay Rs. 300,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of deceased with six-months’ imprisonment in case of default----Compensation upheld by High Court and Supreme Court, reinforcing the principle that monetary reparation is necessary despite modification of sentence. (c) Qisas and Diyat Ordinance, 1990: ----Ss. 338-F, 331----Diyat----Inability to pay due to financial constraints----Compromise between petitioner and legal heirs of deceased deemed incomplete as minor legal heir’s share of Diyat remained unpaid----Precedents indicate that compromise is ineffective unless fully executed and all legal heirs are compensated----Petitioner directed to seek relief under “Diyat, Arsh and Daman Fund Rules, 2007” for financial assistance or payment in installments as per S. 331, P.P.C. (d) Administration of justice: ----Judicial review of compromise in murder cases----Incomplete compromise cannot absolve liability of a convict unless executed in its entirety----Financial incapacity to pay Diyat does not bar alternative legal remedies, including installment-based payment or assistance from government-administered funds. ----Disposition: Petition dismissed. Conviction maintained. Life imprisonment upheld in lieu of death sentence. Compensation and Diyat obligations sustained. ----Cited Cases: Government of Punjab v. Abid Hussain (PLD 2007 SC 315) Muhammad Aslam v. The State (2003 SCMR 658) Muhammad Akram v. The State (2011 SCMR 1964) PLD 2012 SC 769

Summary: (a) Maintenance of a Child Born Out of Wedlock—Legal and Shariah Perspective: ----Scope and Jurisdiction of Family Court—Burden of Proof in Paternity Disputes—Petitioner challenged judgment and decree granting maintenance allowance to minor child born to respondent No.2, alleging she was conceived as a result of rape—Held, Family Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate maintenance claims, including disputes over paternity—However, when paternity is denied, burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish biological relation—Reliance placed on Major Muhammad Khalid Kareem v. Mst. Sadia Yaqoob (PLD 2012 SC 66) and Muhammad Khalil-ur-Rehman v. Mst. Shabana Rahman (PLD 1995 SC 633). (b) Legal Distinction Between ‘Biological’ and ‘Legitimate’ Child: ----Difference in rights and obligations—A "biological child" is genetically linked to the parent, regardless of marital status—A "legitimate child" is born within wedlock and enjoys full legal recognition—Under Islamic law, an illegitimate child is attributed to the mother and does not inherit from the biological father—However, this does not absolve the father from financial responsibility—Reference made to D.F. Mulla’s Muhammadan Law (Para 370) and Council of Islamic Ideology Report confirming maintenance obligation. (c) Judicial Interpretation on Maintenance of Illegitimate Child: ----Evolution of legal framework in Pakistan and international parallels—Initially governed by Section 488 CrPC (now repealed), later incorporated into Family Courts Act, 1964—Although the Act does not explicitly distinguish between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" children, the broader interpretation includes all minors in need of support—Reference to Federal Shariat Court ruling upholding maintenance obligation even in cases of illegitimacy—Comparative analysis of Bangladesh’s Nari O Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000, and India’s Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, both recognizing maintenance rights of children born of rape. (d) Constitutional and Islamic Injunctions Supporting Child Welfare: ----Social and moral responsibility of the father—Holy Quran (Surah Al-Baqarah, 2:233) mandates that fathers bear financial responsibility for children, irrespective of circumstances—Judicial precedents emphasize state’s duty to protect children's rights under Article 2-A and fundamental rights of the Constitution—Case of Nadeem Maqsood v. State (2015 PCrLJ 1633), where a child born out of rape was awarded Rs. 1 million compensation, cited as a guiding principle. (e) Findings and Disposition: ----Premature grant of maintenance set aside—Case remanded for evidence on paternity—Court ruled that maintenance allowance cannot be awarded without first establishing biological paternity through due process—Petitioner directed to appear before the District Judge, Nankana Sahib, on 10.03.2025, who shall entrust the case to the competent court—If biological relationship is proven, proceedings will continue for determination of maintenance allowance. -----Petition allowed. Case remanded for trial on paternity dispute.

Summary: Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance (XLVI of 1981)--- ----S. 2---Passport Rules, 2021, R.22 (1)---Exit Control List---Passport Control List---Jurisdiction---Petitioner was aggrieved of placing of his name on Exit Control List / Passport Control List due to his involvement in a criminal case, in which petitioner had been granted bail---Validity---Whenever a power is conferred on Federal Government, it is construed as a power given to Prime Minister and Federal Ministers / Cabinet to be exercised in the name of Federal Government---No approval was granted by Federal Government for placing name of petitioner on Exit Control List, as provided by R.22 (1) of Passport Rules, 2021---Inclusion of name of petitioner on Passport Control List violated his fundamental rights to due process, liberty, life and freedom of movement, all of which were guaranteed by the Constitution---High Court directed the authorities to remove name of petitioner from ECL/PNIL/PCL as it was unjustified, illegal, lacked lawful authority and was of no legal effect---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. Syed Zulfiqar Abbas Bukhari v. Federation of Pakistan and other PLD 2019 Isl. 316; Dr. Shireen M. Mazari v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2024 MLD 1020; Rasikh Ellahi v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2024 YLR 2616; Controller General of Accounts v. Fazil Ahmad DAO EC (C & W Division Hangu) and others 2021 SCMR 800; Government of Sindh through Secretary Health Department and others v. Dr. Nadeem Rizvi and others 2020 SCMR 1; Messrs Mustafa Impex Karachi and others v. The Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and others PLD 2016 SC 808 and Faisal Maqbool Sheikh v. Federation of Pakistan Writ Petition No. 2141 of 2023 rel. Barrister Raja Abdul Qadeer and Barrister Abdul Ahad Khokhar for Petitioner. Ms. Azra Batool, AAG with Muhammad Riaz Assistant Director, Legal FIA, Islamabad for Respondents. Date of hearing: 17th February, 2025.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: The scope of exercise of suo motu jurisdiction in time barred Civil Revisions filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The effect of re-insertion of Article 162-A in the First Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1908 (Punjab Amendment). Argument of unjust enrichment & its scope. The scope and applicability of Order XXII Rule 10 CPC.

Summary: Where the cancellation report has been prepared and agreed with by the concerned Magistrate, no further investigation can be conducted/carried out.