Summary: Acquittal ---- (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 419, 421, 422 & 423---Criminal appeal---Scope and duty of appellate court---Even where conviction not expressly challenged and prayer confined to reduction of sentence, appellate court under S.423 is duty-bound to independently peruse entire record and adjudicate appeal on merits---Appellate jurisdiction not a mechanical exercise dependent upon concessions or strategy of counsel---Liberty of citizen cannot be compromised on account of omission or concession by defence counsel---High Court required to satisfy itself regarding legality of conviction notwithstanding limited prayer---Principle reaffirmed. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 423---Powers of appellate court---Phrase “after perusing such record”---Mandatory judicial obligation---Appellate court must apply independent judicial mind to evidence and law---Failure to examine record renders appellate adjudication legally vulnerable---Administration of criminal justice cannot hinge upon tactical choices of parties---Principle reiterated. (c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 ----S. 9(c)---Standard of proof---Stringent penal statute---Prosecution required to prove charge beyond shadow of doubt---Evidence must be confidence-inspiring, consistent and free from material discrepancies---Courts below failed to appreciate evidence in proper legal perspective---Conviction recorded on infirm and unreliable evidence held unsustainable. (d) Criminal trial ----Recovery of narcotics---Material contradiction in weight of recovered contraband---Prosecution alleged recovery of twelve packets each weighing 1200 grams totalling 12 kilograms---On de-sealing and weighing before court, total weight found significantly lesser---Individual packet weights inconsistent with prosecution version---Discrepancy struck at root of prosecution case---Benefit of doubt accrued to accused. (e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Roznamcha entries---Safe custody of case property---Moharrir admitted no roznamcha entry regarding receipt of narcotics---Roznamcha entry failed to mention recovered charas---Chain of custody not established---Procedural lapse materially affecting prosecution case. (f) Evidence appreciation ----Contradictions---Colour and description of recovered substance---Witness described substance as brown whereas produced material was black---Seizing officer failed to describe nature and appearance of narcotics in FIR and recovery memo---Inconsistencies created serious doubt regarding genuineness of recovery. (g) Criminal trial ----Failure to collect best available evidence---CCTV footage---Accused alleged false implication and unlawful detention---Installation of CCTV cameras at police station admitted---Investigating Officer failed to secure or produce footage---Withholding of best evidence attracted adverse inference against prosecution. (h) Criminal jurisprudence ----Benefit of doubt---Even single circumstance creating reasonable doubt sufficient for acquittal---Prosecution case riddled with contradictions, discrepancies and procedural lapses---Courts below erred in sustaining conviction---Accused entitled to benefit of doubt as of right and not as concession. Cited cases: • Murad Baloch alias Michel v. State 2011 SCMR 1417 • Shahab Khan v. State 1997 SCMR 871 • Farrukh Sayyar v. Chairman NAB and others 2004 SCMR 01 Disposition: Criminal petition converted into appeal; appeal allowed; conviction and sentence under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 set aside; petitioner acquitted of the charge.

Summary: Conviction upheld ---- Quote: ''Sections: 324,337-D Pakistan Penal Code, 1860(i) Powers of Appellate Court in disposal of appeal: Appellate Court has ample power to rectify the error committed by trial court u/s 423 Cr.PC.(ii) Appellate Court has the power to alter the nature of sentence/conviction from one charge to another charge u/s 423 & 238(2) Cr.PC.(iii) Essential ingredients and parameters to prove the cause of hurt under S. 337-N(2) PPC.''-------Background:This case revolves around a criminal appeal filed by Iqbal-ud-Din against a judgment by the Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Nowshera, dated 25.11.2021. Iqbal-ud-Din was convicted under sections 324 and 337-D of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) for an incident on 06.07.2017, where he allegedly fired at and injured his son-in-law, Atif-ur-Rehman, and his brother during a visit to finalize marriage arrangements. The altercation reportedly occurred at Iqbal-ud-Din's residence in Zarin Abad, Nowshera Kalan.------Issues:Whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of Iqbal-ud-Din under section 324 PPC (attempt to commit qatl-e-amd by causing injury).Whether the sentence awarded to Iqbal-ud-Din by the trial court was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.Whether the injury caused to the complainant falls within the purview of "faifoh" as defined under section 337-D PPC, warranting the prescribed punishment.------Holding/Reasoning:The Peshawar High Court held that:The prosecution successfully proved the guilt of Iqbal-ud-Din under section 324 PPC. The evidence, including eyewitness accounts, medical reports, and forensic analysis, supported the version of events provided by the complainant.The circumstances of the case, including the lack of prior ill-will and the spontaneous nature of the occurrence, warranted a reduction in the sentence from five years to three years of rigorous imprisonment under section 324 PPC. The fine imposed was maintained.The court found that the injury did not fall under section 337-D PPC as "faifoh" but rather should be considered under section 337-A(iii) PPC as "Shajjah-i-Hashimah," meriting a sentence of Arsh equal to ten percent of Diyat without additional imprisonment by way of Ta'zir, due to the lack of evidence supporting the conditions outlined in section 337-N(2) PPC. Peshawar High Court upheld the conviction of Iqbal-ud-Din under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) but reduced his sentence from five years to three years of rigorous imprisonment. The court also upheld the imposition of a fine. However, the court altered the conviction from section 337-D PPC to section 337-A(iii) PPC, determining that the injury caused was "Shajjah-i-Hashimah" and sentenced Iqbal-ud-Din to pay Arsh equal to ten percent of Diyat to the injured complainant. No additional imprisonment by way of Ta'zir was awarded due to the lack of evidence supporting the conditions outlined in section 337-N(2) PPC.------Citations/Precedents:The court invoked sections 423 and 238 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) to modify the conviction and sentence, highlighting the appellate court's power to alter findings and sentences.The court referenced the case of "Abdul Wahab and others Vs the State and others" (2019 SCMR 516) to clarify the conditions under which imprisonment by way of Ta'zir can be awarded in cases of causing hurt, underscoring that such punishment requires specific aggravating factors, none of which were present in Iqbal-ud-Din's case.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898):----S. 265-K---Acquittal at preliminary stage---Scope and limitations---Trial Court acquitted accused before framing of charge under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C. on ground that PFSA report lacked mandatory protocols under Rule 6 of Government Analyst Rules, 2001---Held, premature acquittal without recording evidence or tendering analyst report was erroneous---Even if protocols in PFSA report were disputed, prosecution could invoke S. 510, Cr.P.C. to summon analyst or seek clarification under Ss. 11 & 12 of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency Act, 2007---Trial Court failed to grasp the statutory philosophy behind "probability of conviction", which requires deeper scrutiny beyond technicalities at pre-trial stage---Judgment of acquittal set aside and case remanded for trial.Cited Cases:• President National Bank of Pakistan v. Waqas Ahmed Khan 2023 SCMR 766• Model Customs Collectorate v. Aamir Mumtaz Qureshi 2022 SCMR 1861• State v. Raja Abdul Rehman 2005 SCMR 1544• Raja Muhammad Yasin v. Zaitoon Begum 1993 CLC 2448(b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997:----S. 9(c)---Charas recovery---PFSA report containing test protocols---Admissibility and sufficiency---PFSA Analysis Report showed full testing protocols including: (i) Analytical balance for weight, (ii) Chemical spot test, and (iii) Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry---Such protocol, though not in suggested template of Qaiser Javed Khan case (PLD 2020 SC 57), was deemed sufficient in several Supreme Court rulings to satisfy Rule 6 of Government Analyst Rules, 2001---Trial Court erred in rejecting report solely for not following template format.Cited Cases:• Shazia Bibi v. The State 2020 SCMR 460• Mushtaq Ahmad v. The State 2020 SCMR 474• Asmat Ali v. The State 2020 SCMR 1000• Qaiser Javed Khan v. The State PLD 2020 SC 57(c) Control of Narcotic Substances (Govt. Analyst) Rules, 2001:----R. 6---Compliance with protocol requirement---Pending interpretation before Supreme Court---Question of mandatory protocol format under Rule 6 still sub judice before Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Baz Khan case---Held, Trial Courts must exercise caution in rendering acquittals based on evolving jurisprudence when matter is undecided---Existing PFSA formats accepted in multiple SC cases as compliant for narcotic drug identification.Cited Cases:• The State through ANF v. Imam Bakhsh 2018 SCMR 2039• Khair-ul-Bashar v. The State 2019 SCMR 930• Minhaj Khan v. The State 2019 SCMR 326(d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898):----S. 423---Appeal against acquittal---Hearing in absence of accused---Maintainability---Accused/respondent remained absent despite notice---Held, appeal against acquittal can be decided in his absence under S. 423, Cr.P.C.---Trial cannot be indefinitely delayed due to abscondence---Court justified in deciding matter without presence of respondent.Cited Case:• Hayat Bakhsh v. The State 1981 SCMR 1 = PLD 1981 SC 265----Disposition:Appeal allowed; acquittal judgment dated 06.01.2020 set aside; case remanded for trial on merits.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-----S. 423---Appeal--Absence of appellant or his pleader-Effect---Once an appeal was admittedfor regular hearing it must be decided on merits by assigning reasons rather than dismissing thesame for non-prosecution---Appellate Court after calling the record of Trial Court and perusingthe same should decide appeal on merits---If appellant or his pleader failed to appear or argue theappeal it did not relieve the Appellate Court of its duty of disposing of an appeal on merits.Muhammad Ashique Faqir v. State PLD 1970 SC 177 rel.(b) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 13---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 403---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.26---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 109, 275, 276, 419, 420, 468 & 471---Drugs Act (XXXI of1976), Ss. 23 & 27---Abetment, sale of adulterated drugs, sale of drug as a different drug orpreparation, cheating by personation, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property,forgery for the purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged document and recovery ofdifferent types of spurious drugs---One offence punishable under two or more enactments---Conviction under one enactment---Bar of subsequent prosecution and punishment for the sameoffence---Scope---Accused was convicted and sentenced under Ss. 109, 275, 276, 419, 420, 468& 471, P. P. C by the Judicial Magistrate and thereafter he was further convicted and sentencedunder Ss. 23 & 27 of Drugs Act, 1976 on complaint---Contention of accused was thatpunishment awarded to him by the Drug Court would amount to a double jeopardy as on thesame facts Judicial Magistrate had already sentenced him---Validity---If a person was chargedand prosecuted under different enactments for the same offence and subsequently was convictedor acquitted of the offence under one enactment by a competent court of law then Constitutionand law had prohibited subsequent prosecution and punishment of the accused for the sameoffence---Bar of subsequent prosecution was to avoid duplication of punishment for one and thesame offence---Accused was liable to be prosecuted and punished for the offence in either of thetwo enactments---Once accused was convicted and sentenced by the Judicial Magistrate, therewas a bar to subsequent prosecution and punishment by the Drug Court---Drug Court continuedthe trial despite such bar which was not warranted---Conviction awarded to the accused by theDrug Court was against the provisions of Constitution and the law---Impugned judgment passedby the Drug Court was set aside and complaint was dismissed---Appeal was allowed incircumstances.Nazir Ahmed v. Capital City Police Officer 2011 SCMR 484 rel.(c) Words and phrases-------"Offence"---Meaning.

Summary: Section 13(e) of Arms Ordinance 1965, Section 17(2) of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, Section 423 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1908)--West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)-------S. 13(e)---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979),S.17(2)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.423---Possessing arms and Haraabah---Appreciation of evidence--Counsel for accused had contended that he did not want to pressappeal on merits, if the court while exercising powers under S.423, Cr.P.C. forego theremaining period of sentence as accused had already undergone 1/3rd of his sentence---In thepresent case though the accused was charged only for keeping in possession arms without anylegal or lawful title, permit or licence, and the quantum of sentence was also two years, butrecord had revealed that accused was apprehended from the spot when he along with his coaccused were snatching motorcycle from a person---Allegation against accused, incircumstances, was not simply in respect of illegal possession of arms, but major offence wasof Haraabah under S.17(2) of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood)Ordinance, 1979---Crime weapon was also in working condition as per Examination Report---Accused was further involved and booked in commission of major offence---Lenient viewwas not required to be taken in favour of accused, in circumstances--Accused had failed topoint out asserted contradictions present in the evidence and any illegality in the judgment ofthe Trial Court---No interference, in circumstances was required to be made in the impugnedorder.

Summary: a) Criminal Law (AJ&K Penal Code) ----Ss. 302(a) & 302(b)—Double murder—Conviction—Death sentence as Qisas for one murder and life imprisonment for another—Ocular account—Corroboration by medical and recovery evidence—Scope.— Convict fired multiple shots with 30-bore pistol at deceased Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Javed, causing their death—Eye-witnesses consistently deposed to the convict’s active participation, corroborated by post-mortem reports showing firearm injuries and recovery of weapon and empties on pointation of the convict—Held, ocular evidence was confidence-inspiring, consistent, and supported by medical and recovery evidence—Conviction under S. 302(a) for murder of Muhammad Javed (death as Qisas) and under S. 302(b) for murder of Muhammad Aslam (life imprisonment) maintained—No mitigating circumstances established. (b) Criminal Jurisprudence—Interested Witnesses ----Evidence of related or interested witnesses—Evidentiary value.— Mere relationship of witnesses with deceased not a ground to discard their testimony absent proof of animosity or motive for false implication—Credibility depends on intrinsic worth of evidence, not relationship—If statement inspires confidence, conviction can rest on such testimony alone without independent corroboration—2015 SCR 1487 ref. (c) Criminal Law—Motive ----Proof of motive—Failure—Effect.— Even if motive is not proved, conviction can still be maintained where guilt is established by reliable direct evidence—Motive is not sine qua non for murder—1997 SCR 206; Ahmad Nisar v. State PLD SC (Pak.) ref. (d) Criminal Law—Chance Witnesses ----Chance witnesses—Caution in appreciation—Admissibility.— Presence of chance witnesses at place of occurrence satisfactorily explained; their testimony consistent and supported by medical and documentary evidence—Held, evidence of chance witnesses may safely be relied upon where credibility and presence stand established. (e) Criminal Law—Minor Discrepancies ----Minor contradictions—Effect.— Minor inconsistencies not affecting core of prosecution case are to be ignored; accused cannot claim benefit of trivial discrepancies—2022 SCMR 2024 ref. (f) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (AJ&K) ----S. 423—Appeal—Enhancement of sentence—Bar.— Appellate Court has no power to enhance sentence awarded by trial court; such enhancement lies only through revision under S. 439 Cr.P.C—Appeal by complainant/legal heirs for enhancement from life imprisonment to death held not maintainable—PLD 2007 SC 405; Usman v. State (2022 AJ&K Shariat App. Bench) ref. (g) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (AJ&K) ----S. 439—Revision—Scope contrasted with appeal.— While powers of appeal and revision are similar, only the High Court in revision can enhance sentence; appellate jurisdiction cannot be invoked for enhancement. (h) Criminal Law—Common Intention ----S. 34—Common intention—Mere presence—Effect.— Mere presence of co-accused at scene or relationship with principal offender not sufficient to attract S. 34; prosecution must prove overt act or participation in furtherance of shared intent—Absence of such proof warranted acquittal of co-accused—PLD 2003 SC 704; 2014 SCR 351 ref. (i) Criminal Jurisprudence—Benefit of Doubt ----Scope—Acquittal—Double presumption of innocence—Interference threshold.— Acquitted accused enjoy double presumption of innocence; interference with acquittal permissible only if findings are perverse or arbitrary—Trial court’s acquittal of co-accused upheld—Asia Bibi v. Ghazanfar Ali (2005 SCR 1); Waseem Hussain v. Muhammad Rafique (2017 SCR 428) ref. Disposition: Appeals Nos. 04 & 31 of 2019 dismissed; conviction and sentences of Nazar Yousaf maintained (life imprisonment u/s 302(b) for murder of Muhammad Aslam; death as Qisas u/s 302(a) for murder of Muhammad Javed, plus compensation u/s 544-A Cr.P.C). Criminal Reference answered in affirmative. Appeal for enhancement of sentence by complainant/legal heirs dismissed as not maintainable. Acquittal of co-accused affirmed; no misreading or infirmity found. Cited Cases: • 2020 P.Cr.L.J Note 53 (partial disbelief of evidence—cannot convict rest) • 2014 P.Cr.L.J 1559 (improvements by witnesses—loss of credibility) • 2008 SCMR 6 (dishonest improvement—inadmissibility) • 2005 P.Cr.L.J 1135 (failure to prove motive—prosecution suffers) • 2002 P.Cr.L.J 377 (benefit of slightest doubt) • 2009 SCR 71 (normal penalty—death; deterrence) • PLD 1984 SC (AJ&K) 82 (minor contradictions immaterial; mitigation test) • PLD 2010 SC 1080 (premeditation—intention test) • PLD 2006 SC 354 (motive not necessary for capital offence) • PLJ 1996 SC 1596 (cross-examination—admission of presence) • 2000 SCR 123 (Adil witness; ocular evidence suffices) • 2014 MLD 489 (minor variation not fatal) • PLJ 2000 SC 603 (reliable day-light ocular testimony) • 2015 SCR 1487 (related witness; reliability test) • 2022 SCMR 2024 (minor discrepancies immaterial) • 2014 SCR 351; 2005 SCR 1 (benefit of doubt; double presumption of innocence) • PLD 2007 SC 405 (appellate bar on enhancement).

Summary: Acquittal ---- a) Criminal Law (AJ&K Penal Code) ----Ss. 302(b) & 34—Double murder—Conviction on circumstantial evidence—Standard and links in chain—Motive—Pointation-led recoveries.— Occurrence was admittedly unseen; prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence (recoveries, site plan, post-mortem, call-data, and related circumstances)—Held, to justify inference of guilt on circumstantial evidence, each link must be proved, forming a continuous chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence—On arrest, the convict disclosed the place where the dead bodies had been thrown; dead bodies were recovered on his pointation—This discovery fact, read with other proven circumstances, furnished a complete chain connecting the convict to the crime—Mere failure of the trial court to accept some pre-murder narrative (rented house aspect) did not demolish the overall prosecution case—Conviction maintained under S. 302(b), AJ&K Penal Code; S. 34 not attracted against co-accused absent proof of common intention and overt act. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ----Art. 40—Information received from accused in police custody—Scope—Admissibility confined to “fact discovered”.— So much of the information given by an accused in police custody as distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered may be proved—Dead bodies were recovered on the convict’s pointation; the “discovery” aspect was admissible under Art. 40 and could be relied upon—However, disclosure by co-accused (Safina) while in police custody was not treated as a confession against her per Art. 39 and yielded no independent incriminating recovery; she was rightly extended benefit of doubt. (c) Criminal Trial—Witness Credibility ----Related witnesses—Enmity test—Corroboration—Minor discrepancies.— Mere relationship with the deceased is not a ground to discard testimony unless inimical motive for false implication is shown—No such inimicality established—Minor discrepancies not going to the root of the case are to be ignored; accused cannot claim premium for insignificant inconsistencies. (d) Medical Evidence ----Post-mortem—Cause of death not ascertained due to decomposition—Effect.— Doctor could not opine cause of death owing to advanced decomposition and no material was available for chemical/forensic analysis—Held, medical inconclusiveness is not fatal where other reliable circumstances and discovery on pointation establish the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. (e) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (AJ&K) ----S. 423—Appeals—Enhancement of sentence—Not permissible.— In an appeal, the Appellate Court cannot enhance the sentence awarded by the trial court (prohibition under S. 423); enhancement lies, if at all, in revision under S. 439, Cr.P.C—Complainant/legal heirs’ appeal for enhancement from life imprisonment to death held not maintainable. (f) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (AJ&K) ----S. 439—Revision—Scope contrasted with appeal.— High Court’s revisional powers include enhancement of sentence; by contrast, appeal cannot be used to enhance sentence—Proper remedy for enhancement is revision, not appeal. (g) Criminal Law (AJ&K Penal Code) ----S. 34—Common intention—Mere presence/relationship with principal accused—Insufficiency.— To attract vicarious liability under S. 34, participation in furtherance of common intention must be shown—Mere companionship, relationship (as spouse), or presence is insufficient absent proof of overt act or other strong circumstances manifesting shared design—Acquittal of co-accused (Safina) upheld. (h) Criminal Jurisprudence ----Benefit of doubt—Acquittal—Double presumption of innocence—Interference threshold.— After acquittal, an accused enjoys double presumption of innocence; interference is warranted only if the order is perverse, capricious, or against settled norms of justice—Trial court’s acquittal of co-accused found well-reasoned; no misreading/non-reading shown; no interference called for. Disposition: Both appeals dismissed. Conviction and sentence of Ahsan-ullah under S. 302(b), AJ&K Penal Code (two counts of life imprisonment with S. 382-B benefit and compensation under S. 544-A, Cr.P.C) maintained. Complainant/legal heirs’ appeal for enhancement held not maintainable under S. 423, Cr.P.C. Acquittal of Mst. Safina affirmed; S. 34 not attracted. Cited Cases: • 2014 SCR 1441 (circumstantial evidence—missing link fatal) • 2017 SCR 428 (benefit of doubt; appellate interference with acquittal—high threshold) • 2016 SCR 1176 (circumstantial evidence—unbroken chain) • 2016 SCR 373 (necessary party; maintainability context) • 2014 SCR 1585 (Art. 40 QSO—disclosure leading to recovery; chain principle) • PLD 2003 SC 704 (confessional statements—criteria/admissibility) • 2005 SD 1116 (sentencing reasons; enhancement to death) • 2009 SCMR 135 (death sentence on circumstantial evidence when chain complete) • 2015 P.Cr.L.J 1685 (Isl.) (burden of proof; exceptions) • PLJ 2005 Sh.C (AJ&K) 36 (onus; exceptions) • PLD 1984 SC (AJ&K) 82 (confession before Magistrate; recovery witness; effect of irregular investigation) • 2015 SCR 1042; 2009 SCR 71 (related witnesses—enmity test) • 2022 SCMR 2024 (minor discrepancies immaterial) • 2014 SCR 351; 2005 SCR 1 (benefit of slightest doubt; double presumption of innocence)

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) & Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997): ----S. 419, S. 512, S. 366, S. 374, S. 423, S. 561-A Cr.P.C., & S. 19(10), (11), (11-A), S. 25 Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 Trial in Absentia—Right to Appeal by Absconding Convicts—Maintainability Appellants were tried in absentia under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, convicted, and sought to file appeals through their legal representatives or relatives without surrendering to the authorities—Primary question before the High Court was whether an appeal could be entertained without the convict surrendering to the process of law—Held, that a fugitive from justice forfeits the right to seek relief from a higher court without first submitting to the jurisdiction of the court—A convict sentenced in absentia must surrender before filing an appeal, as permitting appeals without surrender would encourage lawlessness and undermine the administration of justice—Precedents from the Supreme Court and High Courts, including Chan Shah v. Crown PLD 1956 FC 43, Gul Hassan v. State PLD 1969 SC 89, and Miraj Begum v. Ejaz Anwar PLD 1982 SC 294, upheld the principle that courts would not act in aid of fugitives from law—Similarly, cases such as Benazir Bhutto v. State 1999 SCMR 1619 were distinguished, as the appellant was out of the country with court permission and had not intentionally absconded—Further, the statutory provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, allowed for trial in absentia but did not expressly provide for the right of appeal without surrender—Appeals filed by legal representatives or relatives of absconding convicts were deemed incompetent and dismissed. ----Cited Cases: • Chan Shah v. Crown PLD 1956 FC 43 • Gul Hassan v. State PLD 1969 SC 89 • Miraj Begum v. Ejaz Anwar PLD 1982 SC 294 • Hayat Bakhsh v. State 1982 SCMR 623 • Haq Nawaz v. State 1999 PCr.LJ 1381 • Benazir Bhutto v. State 1999 SCMR 1619 • Mehharam Ali v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1998 SC 1445 ----Disposition: Appeals filed by absconding convicts through legal representatives or relatives were held to be incompetent and were accordingly dismissed.