Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC) ----Ss. 164(2), 364 & 173 --- Confessional/statement under S. 164—Magistrate’s duty to promptly forward to the trial Court—Failure to do so is a procedural irregularity that cannot prejudice the complainant or foreclose recording of the Magistrate’s testimony—Trial Court erred in refusing to examine PW-18 (then SDM who recorded S. 164 statement) solely because the statement was not before the Court prior to S. 242 proceedings—High Court also erred in upholding that refusal. Court directed that an inquiry be initiated into non-compliance with S. 164(2) and recurrence of such lapses by Magistrates; High Court to issue system-level directions and training to ensure timely compliance. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC) ----S. 540 --- Summoning material witness—Scope and duty—Court’s powers under S. 540 are wide and two-fold (“may” and “shall”); if evidence appears essential to a just decision, the Court must summon/examine or re-call the witness even at a late stage—Trial Court ought to have summoned PW-18 notwithstanding earlier procedural orders; adherence to technicalities cannot defeat the quest for truth in a murder trial. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC) ----S. 242 --- Accused’s examination—Where earlier proceedings overlooked an essential prosecution statement, the Trial Court may consider re-recording the S. 242 Cr.PC statement, if necessary to secure the ends of justice. (d) Constitution / Administration of Justice --- ----Right to fair trial (principles reaffirmed) Fair trial is a foundational guarantee; Courts must ensure all relevant evidence is brought on record and that parties receive a meaningful opportunity to examine and cross-examine—Procedural lapses by public functionaries (e.g., delayed forwarding of a S. 164 statement) cannot be visited upon a victim/complainant—Justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. (e) High Court—Inherent Powers ----S. 561-A, Cr.PC --- Inherent jurisdiction—Not contingent on a party’s application; may be exercised suo motu to prevent abuse of process and to secure substantial justice—High Court’s dismissal of revision on the ground that the Trial Court’s order dated 23-06-2023 had attained “finality” reflected non-exercise of the inherent power where intervention was warranted. (f) Practice & Procedure ----Non-communication of order; reconsideration Order dated 23-06-2023 was passed in the complainant’s absence and not communicated; such circumstances furnished cogent grounds for reconsideration rather than rigid adherence to the prior order. Cited Cases: — Disposition: Revision accepted; orders of the High Court (22-04-2024) and District Criminal Court, Haveli/Kahutta (including orders dated 23-06-2023 and 20-12-2023 to the relevant extent) set aside; Trial Court directed to summon and record the statement of PW-18 (Syed Asif Gardezi). Trial Court may also consider re-recording the accused’s S. 242 statement if needed to meet the ends of justice. Copy of the judgment to the learned Chief Justice of the High Court through Registrar for action in terms of paras 8–9 (inquiry and systemic directions).

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----Ss. 242, 243, 265-C & 265-E---Guilty plea---Procedure---Safeguards---Duty of trial court---Accused convicted for offences under Ss. 11F(2) and 11N of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 based on his plea of guilty---Appellate Court found that trial court failed to comply with mandatory safeguards under Cr.P.C. including supply of documents, proper framing and explanation of charge, assessment of voluntariness, and satisfaction of judicial conscience---Accused was not given the required 7-day period post-supply of documents as per S. 265-C Cr.P.C., nor was the charge explained in his native language---Held, recording of plea must be preceded by judicial inquiry to ensure voluntariness and awareness of consequences, especially in terrorism cases---Failure to do so amounts to denial of fair trial and renders conviction unsustainable. Cited cases: • Shera v. The State 1991 PCr.LJ 365 • Younas Khan v. The State 2003 PCr.LJ 1684 • Liaqat Ali v. The State 1994 PCr.LJ 2434 • Nusrat Mai v. The State 1997 MLD 2869 (b) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Art. 10A---Right to fair trial---Scope---Guilty plea in serious criminal cases---Constitutional right to due process---Accused was convicted without proper legal assistance, despite expressing financial inability to hire counsel---No legal aid provided by trial court as required under S. 19(8) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Conviction based solely on plea recorded while accused remained in police custody without independent legal consultation---Held, violation of Art. 10A of the Constitution---Court must ensure that waiver of fair trial rights is informed, voluntary, and not obtained under duress---Impugned conviction set aside and case remanded. Cited cases: • Boshi Ahmad v. Additional District Judge, Hafizabad PLD 2024 SC 67 • University of Dacca v. Zakir Ahmad PLD 1965 SC 90 (c) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997): ----Ss. 11F(2), 11N & 19(8)---Membership of proscribed organization---Collection of funds---Right to counsel---Accused pleaded guilty to collecting donations for proscribed organization "Jaish-e-Muhammad"---No evidence on record confirming voluntary nature of plea---Trial court failed to provide court-appointed counsel despite request and mandatory provision under S. 19(8) of ATA---Held, convictions under terrorism laws require heightened procedural safeguards and strict judicial scrutiny---Plea not voluntarily made nor supported by corroborative evidence---Conviction set aside, case remanded. (d) Criminal trial: ----Plea of guilty---Voluntariness---Judicial obligation to verify voluntariness---Recording of plea without proper inquiry into reasons or corroborative facts---Accused cited poverty and mental distress as reasons for pleading guilty---Appellate Court held such plea could not substitute judicial satisfaction---Guilty plea must reflect clear admission of essential elements of offence and be corroborated by facts on record---Held, appellate intervention warranted where conviction is obtained in violation of due process safeguards. Cited case: • Raza v. The State PLD 2020 SC 523 ----Disposition: Appeal allowed; conviction set aside; case remanded to ATC for trial in accordance with law. ''Criminal Appeal. Held: A magistrate or Session Judge (including Anti-Terrorism court) must ensure that an accused person pleading guilty fully understands the nature of the charge and its consequences. While the court seized of the matter may in its discretion convict the accused upon a guilty plea it should not ordinarily record such a conviction solely on the basis of lea of guilty in cases involving heinous offences such as murder or terrorism. When recording a conviction based on a guilty plea te court must ensure that the preconditions for recording a confession (sections 164 and 364 Cr.P.C) regarding the voluntary nature of the plea are satisfied. (Conviction set aside case remanded).''

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ---- Ss. 173 & 561-A – Counter FIRs – Investigation must consider both versions – No automatic exclusion of subsequent FIR – Trial Court justified in entertaining both cases Petitioners sought quashment of trial proceedings, arguing that once an FIR (No. 55 of 2003) resulted in a report under S. 173, Cr.P.C., it was unlawful for the prosecution to file another challan based on FIR No. 56 of 2003. Held, where counter cases arise from the same incident, each party presents its own version, blaming the other as the aggressor. Police must investigate both cases independently, and if both disclose cognizable offences, the prosecution must file separate reports under S. 173, Cr.P.C.. A subsequent report does not become redundant merely because an earlier one exists; instead, the Trial Court is required to consider both versions before reaching a conclusion. If, upon investigation, one version is found to be false, proceedings under S. 182, P.P.C. for false reporting can be initiated. The trial of both cases simultaneously is legally justified. ----Cited Cases: PLD 1963 AJ&K 33 (The State v. Muhammad Yaqoob) PLD 1987 SC (AJ&K) 65 (Ibrar Hussain Shah v. The State) (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ---- Ss. 242, 243 & 244 – Framing of charge – Consideration of all prosecution material – Charge-sheet not confined to FIR and police report Petitioners objected that the Trial Court framed charges incorporating facts not found in the FIR or report under S. 173, Cr.P.C., particularly allegations that they were called to the scene by another individual and that the dispute related to a pathway. Held, while an FIR and police report are primary documents, the Trial Court is required under S. 265-D, Cr.P.C., to consider all prosecution evidence, including witness statements under S. 161, Cr.P.C., site plans, and recovery memos when framing charges. Since statements of some witnesses supported the facts included in the charge-sheet, the charge was lawfully framed. Mere incorporation of evidentiary details in a charge does not prejudice the accused, as they still retain the right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses and present a defense. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ---- Defective charge – Impact on trial – Conviction cannot be sustained on defective framing of charge, but charge alone does not vitiate trial Petitioners relied on PLD 1963 AJ&K 33 and PLD 1987 SC (AJ&K) 65, arguing that the charge was defective as it included facts not directly supported by the FIR. Held, these precedents were not applicable, as the petitioners had not been convicted but merely charged. A charge under S. 242, Cr.P.C., serves to inform the accused of allegations, enabling them to prepare a defense. Any defect in the charge does not vitiate the trial unless it results in wrongful conviction or prejudices the accused’s defense. Since the petitioners had denied the charges, the burden shifted to the prosecution to prove them, and the accused retained full rights to challenge the evidence. ----Disposition: Petition dismissed; trial proceedings to continue.