Summary: Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (XL of 2016)--- ----Ss. 16, 20 & 21---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 109 & 500---Tampering, etc., of communication equipment, malicious code, cyber stalking, abetment, defamation---Appreciation of evidence---Concurrent findings of conviction---Complainant alleged that accused-petitioner had been uploading her obscene and objectionable pictures on Facebook---During the enquiry conducted by the FIA Cyber Crime Circle, the accused was specifically confronted with the Facebook accounts and he voluntarily admitted to have created both profiles---Accused further confessed that he had uploaded, circulated, and transmitted obscene and nude photographs of the complainant through those platforms without her consent---Technical analysis team obtained and examined IP logs and device usage data shared by Facebook, which showed consistent logins to the impugned Facebook IDs from IP addresses associated with an internet connection registered in the name of the brother of the applicant at their shared residence---Moreover, forensic analysis of the mobile device recovered during the raid confirmed that the handset remained in the continuous use of the applicant---Forensic data extracted from the said device included access logs, media files and saved credentials directly correlating with the impugned Facebook accounts and objectionable content---It was further substantiated that the Ufone mobile number, which was used for verification and recovery of said Facebook IDs, was registered in the name of accused-petitioner and remained in his active use during the relevant period---Convergence of testimonial admission, corroborated technical evidence and verified forensic findings left no room for doubt regarding the identity of the perpetrator---Digital trail meticulously traced and authenticated by the forensic team unequivocally confirmed that the applicant was the creator and operator of the Facebook IDs in question and the originator of the illicit online transmission of private and explicit material targeting the complainant being his ex-wife---Complainant was the pivotal witness in the case and her evidence had been thoroughly scrutinized by the Court in juxtaposition with the concurrent findings of the Courts below---Report produced by the Investigating Officer from M/s Connect Communication Authority further confirmed that the internet connection used for uploading the said images was registered in the name of real brother of the applicant---Said Wi-Fi connection was installed at the premises, where the applicant resided along with other family members---Applicant also admitted the same address as his place of residence, corresponding with the IP address used in the commission of the offence---Although the applicant took the plea that the SIM card, albeit registered in his name, was being used by his wife, the complainant in the case was, in fact, his ex-wife, with their marriage having been dissolved through a decree of Khula---During trial, two brothers of applicant appeared as prosecution witnesses---Testimonies of both witnesses, being close relatives of the applicant, not only remained unshaken but also stood in consonance with the prosecution case and the investigative findings, lending corroboration to the fact that the digital devices and associated accounts were operated from within the household of the applicant---Forensic Analysis Report submitted by the FIA Cyber Crime Wing further corroborated that admission---Forensic examination of the mobile phone recovered from the possession of the applicant, confirmed to have remained in his continuous use, revealed login credentials, chat histories and media files directly linking him to the Facebook accounts and the objectionable transmissions in question---Technical report explicitly confirmed that the images were uploaded through devices used exclusively by the applicant and that the Facebook IDs were accessed from IP addresses corresponding to the locations frequented by him---Said findings were supported by the Digital Forensics Expert, who, while observing the prescribed protocols and standard operating procedures for cyber investigation, validated the extraction and preservation of evidence from the device---Integrity of the digital chain of custody, the technical evidence retrieved from the mobile phone, and the explicit forensic linkages between the fake Facebook accounts and the accused established his culpability beyond any shadow of doubt---Criminal revision application, being devoid of merit, was dismissed. Muhammad Shahid Malik for Applicant. Sharafuddin Jamali, Asst; Attorney General for the State. Date of hearing: 7th April, 2025.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 203––Dismissal of complaint––Scope and stage of proceedings––Maintainability of special leave to appeal––Appellant’s private complaint under S. 200, Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge at the preliminary stage due to non-appearance and non-compliance with court orders for recording cursory statement––Held, at the stage of S. 203 Cr.P.C., where no process has been issued under S. 204 Cr.P.C. and the accused has not been summoned, the dismissal of the complaint does not amount to acquittal––Hence, no appeal under S. 417(2-A), Cr.P.C. lies––Petition for special leave to appeal was held not maintainable. ----Cited Cases: • Muhammad Jawad Hamid v. Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif 2019 PCr.LJ 665 (Lahore) • Azmat Bibi v. Asifa Riaz PLD 2002 SC 687 (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 403––Second complaint after dismissal––Bar of double jeopardy––Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 13––Held, dismissal of a private complaint at preliminary stage under S. 203 Cr.P.C. does not attract the bar under S. 403 Cr.P.C. or Art. 13 of the Constitution––Dismissal of complaint does not amount to acquittal; hence, does not preclude filing of a second complaint––A fresh complaint can be filed before the same court if supported by new facts or material not available earlier, or if earlier dismissal was based on incomplete record or misreading––Appellant may, if so advised, file second complaint before appropriate forum. ----Cited Cases: • Zahoor v. Said-ul-Abrar 2003 SCMR 59 • Azmat Bibi v. Asifa Riaz PLD 2002 SC 687 • Muhammad Akram v. Haji Mir Aziz Ahmed 2000 PCr.LJ 489 • Saeed Ahmed v. Abdul Shakoor 2005 PCr.LJ 1631 • Abdul Majid v. MD. Mansur Ali 1969 PCr.LJ 692 (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----Ss. 200, 203 & 204––Distinction in procedural stages––Issuance of process––Effect of non-recording of cursory statement––Where complaint is dismissed before recording of cursory statement and prior to issuance of summons under S. 204 Cr.P.C., Court may lawfully dismiss it under S. 203 Cr.P.C.––Use of phrase “if any” in S. 203 allows dismissal without recording cursory statement if justified––Such dismissal not a bar to reinstitution of complaint––Impugned order was found consistent with law; appeal dismissed. ----Disposition: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal dismissed as not maintainable––Held, dismissal under S. 203 Cr.P.C. at preliminary stage did not amount to acquittal––Appellant may file second complaint if so advised, in accordance with law. "PSLA against Acquittal from charge of S. 500 PPC, leaved through a private complaint."

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 341, 500, 147 & 34---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, wrongful restraint, defamation, rioting, common intention---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Allegation against the accused-petitioner was that he made firing upon the complainant and his son with the intention to kill them---All offences reflected in the FIR except S.324, P.P.C., were bailable---Admittedly, the allegation pertained to ineffective aerial firing and no one had sustained injuries, as such it would be moot question for the Trial Court to determine whether the allegation of attempt to murder was established in the case or not, which could be done at the time of conclusion of trial, which made the instant case of prosecution as one of further inquiry under S.497(2),Cr.P.C.---Investigation of case was complete and the accused petitioner was behind bar since his arrest---Accused was no more required for further investigation or for any other case to the prosecution---Speedy trial was the right of the accused and was now guaranteed under the Constitution but trial of the case did not witness any progress because complete challan of the case was still awaited---Bail application was allowed, in circumstances. Sajjad Hussain v. State 2021 YLR Note 150; 2020 MLD 1187; 2018 MLD 724; 2020 YLR Note 147; 2019 MLD 724 and 2022 YLR 2082 ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Bail---Observations of the Court---Scope---Findings of the Court made in bail order are tentative in nature and the Trial Court need not be influenced in any way---Trial Court may reach its own conclusions after recording evidence in the case. Burhan Wali for Petitioner. Malik Sher Baz Addl. AG for the State. Shehbaz Ali for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 24th February, 2025.

Summary: Article 13 and 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Sections 500/505/120-B/124A, PPC, 7 ATA.ii) Quashment of second FIR of the same incident registered in another district on video of the same incident gone viral on Social Media.iii) After registration of one FIR every second/other version of the same incident shall be considered as a statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC.iii) Doctrine of "Double Jeopardy". No one should be punished twice for the same offence. ---- The court, referring to relevant legal provisions and precedents, held that once an FIR is registered for a cognizable offense, it is treated as a "case." Any subsequent versions or circumstances related to the same incident should be investigated under the same case without the need for separate FIRs. The court cited Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and police rules to support this position.The court emphasized that allowing multiple FIRs for the same incident could lead to abuse of the legal process and violate the principle of double jeopardy. It relied on judgments from both Pakistani and Indian courts, such as "Mst. Sughran Bibi vs the State" and "Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs Union of India," to establish the legal principles governing the prohibition of multiple prosecutions for the same offense. ---- The court allowed the petitioner's petitions, quashing the multiple FIRs filed against Muhammad Azam Khan Swati. The court directed the petitioner's release in connection with the questioned FIRs. The judgment highlighted the importance of protecting individuals from double prosecution and ensuring a fair and just legal process.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.): ----S. 561-A—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 19—Freedom of Speech—Quashing of Criminal Proceedings—Scope and Limitations. The applicant, a journalist and YouTube content creator, uploaded a video that allegedly defamed Axact (Pvt.) Ltd. A private complaint was filed under Sections 499, 500, 502-A, and 505, P.P.C. before the trial court, which took cognizance. The applicant sought quashing of the proceedings under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. The High Court held: Scope of Section 561-A, Cr.P.C.: While a High Court should not ordinarily exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. unless alternate remedies under Sections 249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C. are exhausted, it may do so in exceptional cases to prevent abuse of court process or secure the ends of justice. Freedom of Speech (Article 19, Constitution of Pakistan, 1973): Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of a free society. Courts are duty-bound to protect this right against unwarranted encroachments. Restrictions on free speech must meet specific constitutional thresholds: undermining the glory of Islam, national security, public order, morality, contempt of court, or incitement to offense. Prima Facie Deficiency in Complaint: The complaint failed to establish how the video content defamed Axact or caused any damage. Additionally: No evidence of authorization from Axact’s board or general body to initiate criminal proceedings. The complainants were two unidentified employees of a subsidiary company without clear standing. The complaint appeared vague and lacked substantive evidence of harm. Unnecessary Litigation: Courts must prevent misuse of legal processes, especially where fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech, are at stake. The court observed that the complaint appeared more as a conflict of egos than a genuine criminal grievance and emphasized resolving such disputes through mediation instead of criminal proceedings. Disposition: Proceedings arising from the complaint were quashed under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. ----Cited Law: Criminal Procedure Code, Sections 561-A, 249-A, 265-K Pakistan Penal Code, Sections 499, 500, 502-A, 505 Constitution of Pakistan, Article 19 ----Cited Cases: FIA v. Syed Hamad Ali Shah (C.P. 1257 of 2020) Muhammad Farooq v. Ahmed Nawaz Jagirani (PLD 2016 SC 55)

Summary: Azam Swati has been arrested by FIA. Seeks direction upon the Interior secretary to compile data regarding all FIRs lodged against him regarding the same occurrences. (FIR No. 185/2022 dated 26.11.2022 U/s 20 of PECA 2016 r/w 131,500,501,505,109 PPC P.S. FIA Cyber Crime Reporting Centre, Islamabad) --- Background: In W.P. No. 4441 of 2022, Muhammad Azam Khan Swati petitioned for information on pending cases against him in Sindh and Balochistan related to the same occurrence of social media tweets against the Armed Forces of Pakistan. Swati sought directions for the Federation of Pakistan to provide this information, claiming it as his fundamental right for defense. ----Issues: 1) Whether Swati has a legal right to seek information on pending cases against him in other provinces. 2) Whether the Federal Government is obligated to provide such information. 3) Application of Articles 149 and 10-A of the Constitution in this context. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ----Legal Right to Information: The court held that there is no legal right for an individual to seek such information under Article 149 or the Rules of Business, 1973. Article 10-A provides the right to a fair trial but does not mandate the provision of information about pending cases. Federal Government's Obligation: The court found no obligation on the Federal Government to obtain information for the petitioner. Article 149 and Rules of Business: The court noted that these provisions empower the Federal Government to issue general directions, not specific to individuals seeking information about pending cases. -----Outcome: The petition was disposed of, with the court advising Swati to seek remedies in the relevant provincial jurisdictions (Sindh and Balochistan). The court suggested the development of a national system to link all police stations to manage information on FIRs, referencing the principles laid down in Sughran Bibi’s case. -----Citations/Precedents: The State of Pakistan v. Mehrajuddin [PLD 1959 SC 147] Fazal-E-Haq v. The State [PLD 1960 SC 295] Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali v. Chief Settlement Commission [PLD 1973 SC 236] Masudul Hassan v. Khadim Hussain [PLD 1963 SC 203] Mst. Sughran Bibi v. The State [PLD 2018 SC 595] Sh. Ihsanul Haq Piracha v. Mr. Wasim Sajjad [PLD 1986 SC 200]

Summary: Method of production for video or audio evidence in court --- Court acceptance of audio tapes or videos is contingent upon establishing their authenticity and integrity. Forensic analysis from the Punjab Forensic Science Agency can automatically be considered admissible under the provisions of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency Act, 2007. Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, grants courts discretion in admitting evidence obtained through audio tapes or videos.Even when permitted, presenting audio tapes or videos requires compliance with evidentiary laws. The accuracy of recordings must be demonstrated, with direct or circumstantial evidence ruling out tampering. The submitted material must genuinely reflect the conversation or event and be authenticated by the person who recorded it.The individual recording the audio or video must appear in court to present the material. The playback in court should ensure clarity, and the voices or persons involved must be correctly identified. Additional testimony from individuals present during the recording or event may support the audio or video's credibility.Relevance and admissibility are crucial; the evidence should pertain to the dispute at hand. Proper custody, disclosure of the source, and the date of acquisition must be proven, avoiding suspicion when introduced late in judicial proceedings. Formal applications are required for inclusion in the case record, preventing misuse of audio tapes or videos for trap purposes.---- There cannot be two opinions about the legal position that during the pendency of an appeal, after conviction and sentence, it is the Court of Appeal alone which can maintain, alter or set aside such conviction and sentence on the basis of the evidence brought on the record. Any Commission constituted by the Government or by this Court, any inquiry or investigation conducted by the police or by any other agency and any probe into the matter (of video recording of the trial judge purportedly showing him stating that he was pressurized into convicting the accused) by any other institution or body can only render an opinion in the matter of the relevant video which opinion is treated by the law as irrelevant and it cannot per se be treated as evidence for the benefit of the convict in his pending appeal. --- ''With the advancement of science and technology it isnow possible to get a forensic examination, audit or testconducted through an appropriate laboratory so as to get itascertained as to whether an audio tape or a video isgenuine or not and such examination, audit or test can alsoreasonably establish if such audio tape or video has beenedited, doctored or tampered with or not. In the present casethe learned Judge had asserted through his press releasethat the conversation shown to be taking place in the abovementioned video (the ?subject video?) had been distorted andtwisted. The advancement of science and technology has nowmade it very convenient and easy to edit, doctor,superimpose or photoshop a voice or picture in an audiotape or video and, therefore, without a forensic examination,audit or test of an audio tape or video it is becoming moreand more unsafe to rely upon the same as a piece ofevidence in a court of law. It must never be lost sight of thatthe standard of proof required in a criminal case is beyondreasonable doubt and any realistic doubt about an audiotape or video not being genuine may destroy its credibilityand reliability.''

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 500 & 501---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.200 & 201---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Defamation---Private complaint---Accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced to fine on the basis of moving false complaints and publishing pamphlets with defamatory words against the respondents---Complainant produced two witnesses including his brother in support of his claim---Record showed that Trial Court, after recording statement of accused under S. 342, Cr.P.C. and hearing final arguments, without assigning any reason, instead announcing order on merit, restarted the trial and issued process for evidence to the Additional Collector as court witness---Trial Court, after recording statement of court witness, recorded statement of accused under Ss.342 & 340(2), Cr.P.C. second time---Accused, after second statement under S.342, Cr.P.C. had examined himself on oath and had produced documents showing character of the complainant---Record showed that Trial Court failed to appreciate that even complainant's own brother had not supported him---Trial Court misinterpreted the evidence with reference to the burden of proof in criminal cases---Record did not show that the complainant had by way of rejoinder affidavit denied the contents of counter affidavit of officials containing the allegation of blackmailing and harassment by the complainant and, therefore, it ought to have been accepted as admitted document about a truth---Trial court failed to appreciate that the complainant was not aggrieved by derogatory remarks on oath against him---If such remarks did not cause any defamation to the complainant then how a letter written to any government functionary, which had not been conveyed to the complainant, would have caused any injury to the complainant---Trial Court clearly favoured the complainant when he convicted the accused and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs. 100,000/- as punishment and further ordered that fine be paid to the complainant---Trial Court had no authority to handover the amount of fine to the complainant---Amount of fine imposed as punishment had to be deposited by court through its ministerial office in the government treasury---Circumstances established that complainant failed to prove his claim---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court.(b) Criminal trial-------Burden of proof---Scope---Burden is never shifted on accused unless the prosecution evidence is found to have proved the commission of offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 377, 341, 342, 500, 506, 190 & 34---Unnatural offence, wrongful restraint, wrongfulconfinement, defamation, criminal intimidation, threat of injury to induce person to refrainfrom applying for protection to public servant, common intention---Appreciaiton of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Ocular account supported by medical evidence---Prosecution casewas that accused persons on gun point committed unnatural offence with complainant andthey also made a video and threatened that in case he informed anyone they would show thevideo to others---Complainant of the case appeared as witness and reiterated the contents ofFIR and narrated the entire story in line with complaint---Victim correctly identified all theaccused persons in the Trial Court---Evidence of said witness was subjected to lengthy crossexamination, but nothing benefit or advantageous had come on record---Even otherwise, thedefence had failed to put any suggestion to the victim for false implication of the accusedpersons---Prosecution case had been strengthened by the medical evidence produced by theMedical Officer---Medical Officer opined that the accused persons were mentally andphysically fit to perform the act of sexual intercourse---Medical Officer also opined that thevictim was sexually assaulted by many persons due to which tone of anal splinter was lessand duration was old---Medical evidence was in line with the ocular testimony---Prosecutionhad produced corroborative and confidence inspiring evidence and the defence had failed tocause any dent in the evidence of prosecution---Circumstances established that accusedpersons failed to point out any material illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment---Trial Court had awarded sentence of seven years to accused persons by the impugnedjudgment,being harsh was reduced to three years in circumstances---Appeal againstconviction was dismissed.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 377, 341, 342, 500, 506, 190 & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 40---Unnatural offence, wrongful restraint, wrongful confinement, defamation, criminalintimidation, threat of injury to induce person to refrain from applying for protection topublic servant, common intention---Apreciation of evidence---Disclosures of accusedpersons---Admissibility---Prosecution case had been supported by the disclosures of theaccused pesons, who admitted their guilt and narrated the entire story for making plan toblackmail and commit sodomy with the victim---Discloures of the accsused personsdiscovered new facts, whereby the accused persons made plan to compel the victim to bringhis younger brother, the same was admissible under Art.40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 377, 341, 342, 500, 506, 190 & 34---Unnatural offence, wrongful restrain, wrongfulconfinement, defamation, criminal intimidation, threat of injury ot induce person to refrainfrom applying for protection to public servant, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Hostile witnesses---Effect---Defence objected that father and uncle of victim, who appearedas witnesses but did not support the case of prosecution and thus were declared hostile, whichhad made the case doubtful---Record showed that father and uncle of victim were not directwitnesses of the case and Investigating Officer unnecessarily associated both the saidwitnesses in the case---Evidence of said witnesses had not made any dent or damage to thecase of prosecution, when the prosecution had produced direct and medical evidence againstthe accused persons.(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 377---Unnatural offence---Solitary statement of victim---Evidentiary value---Solitarystatement of the victim was sufficient to convict the accused.Fayyaz alias Fayyazi and another v. The State 2006 SCMR 1042 and Mushtaq Ahmedand another v. The State 2007 SCMR 473 rel.(e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 154---First Information Report---Delay in lodging---Effect---Mere delay in lodging FIRwas not of any help for defence to claim acquittal of the accused.(f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 377, 341, 342, 500, 506, 190 & 34---Unnatural offence, wrongful restrain, wrongfulconfinement, defamation, criminal intimidation, threat of injury to induce person to refrainfrom applying for protection to public servant, common intention---Appreciatin of evidence---Delay inlodging FIR---Effect---Allegedly, matter was reported to the police after the delayof 44 days without any plausible explanation-Facts remained that in such like cases, theprestige of family, risk and honour was involved and people were reluctant in filing report tothe police---In the present case, the victim kept mum due to the fear that accused might showthe video---Accused persons, however, started blackmailing the victim and forced him tobring his younger brother for unnatural offence---Said facts compelled the victim to informhis elders and to lodge FIR---In these circumstances, delay in filing FIR was natural. Kamran alias Kami v. The State 2012 PCr.LJ 1200 rel.

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a private complaint under Section 7 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance VIII of 1979, along with Sections 420, 468, 471, 419, 500, 501 PPC read with Section 476 Cr.P.C., against multiple respondents. The complaint alleged that the respondents had made false accusations of zina (adultery) and the birth of an illegitimate child. The learned Additional Sessions Judge Chakwal dismissed the complaint on February 22, 2016, leading to the current revision petition. ----Issues: 1- Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the private complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. 2- Whether the trial court's decision was contrary to Islamic law and based on a misreading of the evidence. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the criminal revision petition. The Court found that: The evidence provided by the petitioner was insufficient to establish the offence of Qazf. The statement by the respondent was not challenged during cross-examination, rendering it accepted as true. The timing and nature of the divorce and marriage allegations were inconsistent and raised doubts about the credibility of the petitioner’s claims. The trial court's decision was based on sound reasoning, and the issues raised in the revision petition did not justify overturning the dismissal of the complaint. ----Citations/Precedents: Mst. Nuzhat Jabin v. Jamil Hussain Shah and 2 others, PLD 1996 FSC 15 Abdul Rashid v. Mst. Safia Bibi, PLD 1986 FSC 10 Haji Bakhtawar Said Muhammad v. Mst. Dur-e-Shahwar Begum and others, 2010 SCMR 681 Muhammad Humayun v. The State, PLD 1997 FSC 5