Summary: Conviction upheld---(a) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Arts. 199 & 247; Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2018---Jurisdiction of High Court in FATA matters---Scope---Retrospective effect of constitutional amendments---Petitioner challenged his conviction under Regulation 11/40 of the Frontier Crimes Regulations, 1901 (FCR), arguing that after the omission of Article 247 through the 25th Constitutional Amendment, the High Court could exercise jurisdiction over FATA matters---Held, the Twenty-fifth Amendment, which abolished Article 247, has no retrospective effect and cannot be applied to matters decided before its enactment---Convictions and orders passed under the FCR prior to the amendment remained final and beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court at the time of their issuance. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 408---Appeal against conviction---Limitation---Effect of delay---Petitioner filed a delayed appeal against his conviction under Regulation 11/40 of the FCR, claiming violation of fair trial rights---Held, remedies under the FCR were not exhausted in a timely manner, and the petitioner failed to provide a plausible explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal---The appeal was rightly dismissed by the High Court on grounds of limitation, and the petitioner’s subsequent invocation of constitutional jurisdiction was impermissible. (c) Frontier Crimes Regulations, 1901: ----Self-contained mechanism of remedies---Exclusivity of FCR remedies---Petitioner did not avail the appeals and revisions provided under the FCR framework and instead filed a constitutional petition after considerable delay---Held, remedies provided under the FCR must be exhausted before invoking constitutional jurisdiction---High Court cannot act as an appellate forum for cases adjudicated under the FCR unless statutory remedies are shown to be inadequate or ineffective. ----Cited Cases: • Mian Muhammad Yousaf and another v. Lahore Development Authority (PLD 2001 SC 393) • Syed Match Company Ltd. v. Authority Under Payment of Wages Act (2003 SCMR 1493) • Mian Azam Waheed and others v. Collector of Customs (2023 SCMR 1247) • Jameel Qadir v. Government of Balochistan (2023 SCMR 1919) • Muhammad Safeer v. Muhammad Azam (PLD 2024 SC 838) ----Disposition: Petition dismissed, and leave to appeal refused. Conviction and sentence under the FCR upheld due to failure to avail timely remedies and absence of grounds for invoking constitutional jurisdiction.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ---Arts. 246(c), 247(7), 184(3), & 199--- Federal Administered Tribal Areas (FATA)---Jurisdiction of High Courts and Supreme Court---Bar on jurisdiction---Scope---Petitioner was arrested on suspicion of involvement with a terrorist organization and anti-state activities in the Tribal Areas and convicted under the Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901 (FCR). His conviction was upheld at all levels under the FCR framework, including the FATA Tribunal. The petitioner later filed a writ petition under Art. 199 of the Constitution before the Peshawar High Court, which was dismissed due to the jurisdictional bar under Art. 247(7) of the Constitution. Held, the jurisdiction of the High Courts and Supreme Court is expressly barred under Art. 247(7) concerning matters arising from FATA, unless explicitly permitted by law. As the cause of action, subject matter, and parties were entirely within the Tribal Areas, the writ petition was not maintainable. The dismissal of the writ petition by the High Court was deemed appropriate. (b) Criminal law and procedure: ---Conviction under Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901 (FCR)---Scope of judicial review---Petitioner was tried and convicted by the council of elders under FCR provisions, following an investigation by the Kurram Militia. All procedural remedies under the FCR, including appeals to the Commissioner and FATA Tribunal, were exhausted by the petitioner. Held, the FCR framework provided a mechanism consistent with Tribal traditions, and the petitioner's conviction was upheld at all forums within this framework. Once remedies under FCR were exhausted, further challenge under constitutional jurisdiction was barred due to the exclusive governance of Tribal Areas under Art. 247. (c) Judicial precedent: ---Circumstances under which jurisdiction may be exercised---Exceptions to Art. 247(7) bar---Jurisdiction of High Courts or Supreme Court may be invoked in cases where the cause of action, parties, or events occur outside the Tribal Areas. However, in the present case, all aspects were confined to FATA, and no exceptions applied. ----Cited Cases: Mst. Rohaifa v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2014 SC 174 Manzoor Elahi v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1975 SC 66 Muhammad Siddiq v. Government of Pakistan 1981 SCMR 1022 Hidayat Ullah v. Mohammad Youngs PLD 2020 SC 362 ----Disposition: Jail petition dismissed as meritless.

Summary: (a) Frontier Crimes Regulations (FCR) — Judicial framework in FATA: --- Regulation 11, Regulation 40, Regulation 48, Regulation 55-A — Legal proceedings under FCR — Role of Political Agents and Council of Elders (Jirga system). The petitioner was convicted under the FCR for alleged involvement in anti-state activities. The proceedings included interrogation by the Kurram Militia, framing of charges by the APA, and a unanimous decision by the Council of Elders affirming guilt. The petitioner was sentenced to 14 years of rigorous imprisonment. The Supreme Court noted that the FCR provided a distinct judicial framework consistent with tribal traditions, where Political Agents exercised combined administrative and judicial authority. (b) Constitutional bar on jurisdiction in tribal areas: --- Art. 247(7), Constitution of Pakistan — Jurisdiction of Superior Courts in FATA matters — Limited scope. The Supreme Court reiterated that under Art. 247(7) of the Constitution, neither the Supreme Court nor the High Court could exercise jurisdiction over matters originating in FATA unless explicitly provided by law. The petitioner's writ petition under Art. 199 was correctly dismissed by the High Court as it lacked jurisdiction. (c) Exceptions to jurisdictional bar under Art. 247(7): --- Circumstances allowing jurisdiction of Superior Courts in FATA matters. The Supreme Court, referencing Mst. Rohaifa v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2014 SC 174), outlined exceptions where jurisdiction could be exercised, such as when the cause of action, location of the offense, or residence of the parties is outside the tribal area. These conditions were not met in the petitioner's case, affirming the dismissal of the writ petition. (d) Exhaustion of remedies under FCR: --- Regulation 48, Regulation 55-A — Exhaustion of available remedies under FCR before seeking constitutional relief. The petitioner exhausted all remedies under the FCR, including appeals to the Commissioner and the FATA Tribunal. Despite dissatisfaction, the lack of further legal recourse within the framework of the FCR rendered his constitutional petition inadmissible. ----Cited Cases: Mst. Rohaifa v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2014 SC 174) Manzoor Elahi v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1975 SC 66) Hidauat Ullah v. Mohammad Yonus (PLD 2020 SC 362) ----Disposition: Petition dismissed. The High Court's dismissal of the writ petition upheld as it was barred under Art. 247(7) of the Constitution.

Summary: ----Quote: Limitation Act had not been earlier extended to erstwhile FATA and cannot be applied before the date of merger i.e. 31.05.2018; but same would have its application thereafter. the Act be given a retrospective effect, however, the law will have its effect from the date of its deemed application after 31. 05.2018 ----Background: A land dispute arose between the parties in Tehsil Pindiali. The respondent claimed ownership of the land, stating that it was purchased 15 years ago, while the petitioners contested this claim. The dispute was initially brought before the Assistant Political Agent (APA), where a jirga (council of elders) was formed to resolve the matter. The jirga ruled in favor of the respondent, a decision that was subsequently upheld by the APA, the Commissioner FCR, and the FATA Tribunal. The petitioners' appeals and review petitions were dismissed at each stage, leading to the current civil revision after the merger of FATA with Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. ----Issues: 1- Whether the execution petition filed by the respondent was time-barred under the Limitation Act of 1908. 2- Whether the judgment and decree were executable without proper identification and description of the disputed property. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court dismissed the civil revision, affirming the decisions of the lower courts. The court held that: The limitation period began with the merger of FATA into Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, making the execution petition timely. The identification of the property by the jirga, which included a representative nominated by the petitioners, was sufficient and unchallenged. The court noted that the procedures followed under the Frontier Crime Regulation (FCR) were different from regular civil procedures, and the lack of detailed property descriptions did not invalidate the execution. The petitioners were provided ample opportunity to contest the identification of the property, and their failure to produce additional evidence at the appropriate time did not warrant the reversal of the lower court's decision. ----Citations/Precedents: National Commission on Status of Women through Chairperson vs. Government of Pakistan (PLD 2019 S.C 218) 25th Constitutional Amendment to the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973

Summary: (a) Criminal Law – Murder & Attempted Murder:---- Penal Code (Pakistan) (PPC), Sections 302(b), 302(c), 324Nature of Offense – Sudden provocation – Applicability of Section 302(c), PPC.Appellant was convicted under Section 302(b), PPC for the murder of his wife’s grandfather and under Section 324, PPC for attempting to kill his wife’s brother—Incident occurred at a hospital, where the appellant, upon learning about his wife’s miscarriage, stabbed the victims—Trial Court sentenced him to life imprisonment under Section 302(b), PPC—Held, the act was committed in the heat of passion without premeditation, falling within Exception 4 to former Section 300, PPC—Applying judicial precedents, conviction was altered from 302(b), PPC to 302(c), PPC—Sentence reduced to 12 years rigorous imprisonment.----Cited Cases:Muhammad Ajmal v. The State (2022 SCMR 88)Muhammad Salim v. Muhammad Aslam (1983 SCMR 53)(b) Flaws in Investigation – Impact on Prosecution Case:---- Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), Sections 173, 342Defective investigation – Absence of site plan, medico-legal reports, and bloodstained evidence.Investigating Officer failed to prepare the crime scene plan, collect blood samples, or produce medical reports of the injured—However, due to recent merger of FATA into Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, procedural flaws were attributed to lack of familiarity with CrPC procedures—Held, prosecution successfully proved guilt through eyewitnesses, and investigative lapses did not materially affect the case.----Cited Cases:Rahim Ullah v. The State (1985 PCr.LJ 463)(c) Standard of Proof in Cases from Newly Merged Tribal Areas:---- FATA Interim Governance Regulation, 2018 & CrPCEyewitness credibility in FATA cases – Leniency in evaluating procedural irregularities.Trial conducted under regular CrPC procedures, but evidence presented by witnesses from erstwhile FATA was considered with a lenient standard due to their unfamiliarity with legal complexities—Held, statements of witnesses were consistent, confidence-inspiring, and sufficient to sustain conviction despite minor contradictions.(d) Eyewitness Testimony & Direct Evidence:---- Law of Evidence (Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984), Art. 129(g)Reliability of prosecution witnesses – Close relatives as credible witnesses.Eyewitnesses included appellant’s wife and brother-in-law, along with a neutral medical professional (nurse)—Their testimony was consistent and corroborated by the immediate arrest of the accused at the crime scene with the weapon—Held, close relatives’ testimony is admissible and not easily disregarded unless mala fides are established—Appellant’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.----Cited Cases:Abdur Rehman v. The State (1998 SCMR 1778)Aqil v. The State (2023 SCMR 831)(e) Absence of Postmortem Report & Medical Evidence:---- Law of Evidence (Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984)Effect of missing medical reports – Role of corroborative evidence.No postmortem report was conducted on the deceased, and no medico-legal certificate was produced for the injured witness—However, an OPD slip confirmed a stab wound on a non-vital body part (thigh)—Held, absence of postmortem does not vitiate conviction when ocular evidence is strong and consistent.---Cited Cases:Aqil v. The State (2023 SCMR 831)Zard Ullah Khan v. The State (1998 MLD 855)(f) Nature of Injury & Reduction in Sentence:---- PPC, Sections 302(c), 304Single non-fatal stab wound – Absence of repeated blows – Applicability of lesser offense.Deceased sustained a single stab wound on the upper thigh, a non-vital area—Appellant did not strike multiple times despite having the opportunity—Held, the case falls under Section 302(c), PPC, rather than 302(b), PPC—Sentence reduced to 12 years rigorous imprisonment from life imprisonment.----Cited Cases:Muhammad Salim v. Muhammad Aslam (1983 SCMR 53)The State v. Muhammad Hanif (1992 SCMR 2047)(g) Application of Section 302(c), PPC Instead of 302(b):---- PPC, Section 302(c)Sudden provocation & heat of passion – Lack of premeditation.Appellant acted impulsively in emotional distress—There was no premeditation, no undue advantage taken, and no excessive cruelty—Held, case falls within Exception 4 of former Section 300, PPC, making it culpable homicide not amounting to murder (302(c), PPC).----Cited Cases:Muhammad Ajmal v. The State (2022 SCMR 88)(h) Modification of Conviction & Sentences:---- PPC, Sections 302(c), 324Appeal partially allowed – Conviction modified.Conviction under Section 302(b), PPC converted to Section 302(c), PPC—Life imprisonment reduced to 12 years RI.Conviction under Section 324, PPC maintained but sentence reduced from 10 years to 5 years RI.Fine & compensation amounts upheld.Sentences to run concurrently—Benefit of Section 382-B, CrPC retained.----Disposition:Appeal dismissed with modification in conviction and sentence—Appellant to serve 12 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 302(c), PPC.

Summary: Background:M/s Taj Wood Board Mills (Pvt) Ltd, M/s Al-Mashood Oil & Ghee Industries (Pvt) Ltd, and M/s Bara Ghee Mills (Pvt) Ltd ("Petitioners"), private companies operating in the erstwhile Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (PATA), challenged the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 09.02.2022. The grievance arose from the change in the constitutional status of FATA and PATA following the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, leading to the extension of fiscal and tax laws to these areas, and the subsequent issuance of various orders and circulars by the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) regulating imports and transhipment procedures.----Issues:1. Whether the Peshawar High Court correctly upheld the legality of Circular No. 1 of 2021 and its conditions, excluding condition v.2. Whether the preferential treatment provided under CGO No. 8 of 2021 to bulk-importing edible oil manufacturers is justifiable and non-discriminatory.-----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Legality of Circular No. 1 of 2021:The Supreme Court reviewed the Peshawar High Court's judgment, which upheld the legality of Circular No. 1 of 2021, excluding condition v, which was deemed ultra vires Sections 177 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and Section 25 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The Court concurred that the audit provision in condition V was illegal as it introduced a parallel system not envisioned by the existing legislative framework.2. Preferential Treatment Under CGO No. 8 of 2021:The petitioners contended that the preferential treatment for bulk-importing edible oil manufacturers under CGO No. 8 of 2021 was discriminatory. The Supreme Court referred to its earlier judgment in M/s AK Tariq Foundry Etc. v. Government of Pakistan, which struck down similar discriminatory classifications under the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The Court held that the preferential treatment in CGO No. 8 of 2021 lacked a rational basis and violated the equality clause of Article 25 of the Constitution. Therefore, the discriminatory provisions of CGO No. 8 of 2021 were also struck down.The Supreme Court converted the petitions into appeals and allowed them, setting aside the discriminatory provisions of CGO No. 8 of 2021 and upholding the legality of Circular No. 1 of 2021, excluding condition v.----Citations/Precedents:Hyderabad Development Authority v Karam Khan Shoro (1985 SCMR 45)Established the importance of compliance with procedural requirements under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.Land Acquisition Collector, National Highway Authority, Lahore v Javed Malik (2009 SCMR 634)Affirmed that provisions limiting compensation cannot be invoked without strict compliance with procedural requirements.Malik Nasim Ahmad Aheer v WAPDA (PLD 2004 SC 897)Highlighted the necessity for courts to adhere to claimed compensation if procedural notices are served.Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad v Gul Muhammad (PLD 2005 SC 311)Reinforced the principle that compensation cannot exceed the claimed amount when procedural notices are duly served.M/s AK Tariq Foundry Etc. v. Government of Pakistan (Civil Petitions No. 159 to 178 of 2023)Struck down discriminatory classifications under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, violating Article 25 of the Constitution. This precedent was pivotal in the present case for addressing the issue of discriminatory treatment in CGO No. 8 of 2021.

Summary: Background: The petitioner sought declaratory reliefs regarding income tax exemptions applicable to the erstwhile Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (PATA) after their merger with Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. The petitioner, a government carriage contractor, claimed that income from their carriage business within the territorial limits of the former PATA should be exempt from income tax and not subject to withholding tax under Section 153 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, based on SRO No. 1213(1)/2018. ----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner’s income from the carriage business within the former PATA is exempt from income tax. 2- Whether payments made to the petitioner by the Food Department are subject to withholding tax under Section 153 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. 3- Whether the petitioner is required to provide an exemption certificate under Section 159 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, to avail the exemption. 4- Whether any tax deducted under Section 153 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, is liable to be refunded to the petitioner. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ---Income Tax Exemption: The court held that the petitioner's income from the carriage business within the former PATA is exempt from income tax as per SRO No. 1213(1)/2018, which provides tax relief to residents of the erstwhile PATA for a specified period. This exemption applies from 1st June 2018 to 30th June 2023. ---Withholding Tax: The court declared that payments made to the petitioner by the Food Department are not subject to withholding tax under Section 153 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The exemption provided under SRO No. 1213(1)/2018 covers the deduction or collection of withholding tax for residents of the former PATA. ---Exemption Certificate: The court stated that the petitioner is not required to provide an exemption certificate under Section 159 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, to avail the exemption. The provisions of Division III of Part V of Chapter X, including Section 159, do not apply to individuals or entities domiciled in the former PATA during the exemption period. Tax Refund: The court ruled that any tax deducted under Section 153 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, from the petitioner during the exemption period is liable to be refunded. The petitioner is entitled to a refund of any taxes collected in violation of the exemption granted under SRO No. 1213(1)/2018. ----Citations/Precedents: Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 SRO No. 1213(1)/2018 dated 05.10.2018 Second Schedule, Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, Part IV, Clause 110

Summary: Thus, keeping in view the law laid down, as stated above, that whileinterpreting a taxing statute must first be given their ordinary and natural meaningand in case of exemption, the person claiming exemption, it should establish thatits case squarely falls under the provision of exemption. The history of extensionof tax laws to the erstwhile FATA the immunity claimed by the residents of thearea and the clear language of SRO 1213(1)/2018 dated 05.10.2018 would clearlysuggest that the said exemption was/is applicable to those individuals/domiciledin erstwhile FATA, companies and associations of persons resident in the saidarea, their income prior to 25 th amendment was immune from payment of incometax could only claim the said exemption and any company or individual not beingthe resident of erstwhile FATA who have subsequently established their office inFATA after 25 th Amendment in the Constitution are not entitled to the exemptionin terms of SRO 1213(1)/2018 dated 05.10.2018.

Summary: UN Privileges Act, 1948.5th Schedule of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.Article 247 (repealed) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.A.Norwegian Refugees Council was not found to be a privileged organization under the United Nations privileges Act, 1948, and therefore, not found exempt from payment of sales tax under 5th Schedule of the Sales Tax Act 1990.B.Immunity from payment of sales tax was area specific under repealed Article 247 of the Constitution and same could only be acailed by residents of Ex-FATA or Ex-PATA when the persons used to reside or carried on business in said area.

Summary: Background:M/s A.K Tariq Foundry and other petitioners, who are registered limited companies, partnerships, and sole proprietors with manufacturing units in the erstwhile Provincial Administered Tribal Area (PATA) and Federal Administered Tribal Area (FATA), challenged the imposition of sales tax on their electricity supply post the 25th Constitutional Amendment. This amendment merged FATA and PATA into Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, thus extending the federal fiscal and tax regimes to these areas. The petitioners contested the discriminatory treatment and exclusions under Entry No. 152 of the Sixth Schedule to the Sales Tax Act, 1990, which exempted certain industries from sales tax on electricity supply while excluding steel, ghee, and cooking oil industries, and industries established after May 31, 2018.---Issues:1. Whether the exclusion of certain industries from the sales tax exemption under Entry No. 152 of the Sixth Schedule to the Sales Tax Act, 1990, violates Articles 18 and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan.2. Whether the legislative classification and sub-classification for tax exemption purposes are constitutionally permissible.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Exclusion from Sales Tax Exemption:The Court examined whether the exclusion of steel, ghee, and cooking oil industries, as well as industries established after May 31, 2018, from the sales tax exemption on electricity supply violated the principles of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in Articles 18 and 25 of the Constitution.The Court held that the exclusion of industries established after May 31, 2018, created an unreasonable classification. Industries established before and after this date operated in the same market and faced similar conditions. Therefore, denying tax exemptions based solely on the establishment date was discriminatory and violated Article 25.Legislative Classification and Sub-Classification:The Court recognized that while the legislature has the authority to classify and differentiate between various classes of taxpayers, such classification must be based on an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the objective sought to be achieved.The Court found that the exclusion of steel, ghee, and cooking oil industries from the tax exemption was not arbitrary or unreasonable. These industries were treated as a separate class, and the differentiation was deemed constitutionally valid as it did not constitute discriminatory treatment under the established legal principles.The Court declared Entry No. 152 of the Sixth Schedule to the Sales Tax Act, 1990, as ultra vires to the extent that it discriminated against industries based on their establishment date. However, the exclusion of steel, ghee, and cooking oil industries from the tax exemption was upheld.----Citations/Precedents:Commissioner of Income Tax, Peshawar Vs. Gul Cooking Oil and Vegetable Ghee (Pvt) Ltd (2008 PTD 169)Affirmed the exemption of FATA and PATA industries from income tax and sales tax before the 25th Constitutional Amendment.Taj Packages Company (Pvt). Ltd Vs. Government of Pakistan (2016 PTD 203)Confirmed the immunity of goods imported for consumption in FATA from sales tax.Pakistan through Chairman FBR Vs. Hazrat Hussain (2018 SCMR 939)Reiterated the exemption of FATA industries from federal taxes.M/s Lucky Cement Ltd Vs. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (2022 SCMR 1961)Discussed the principles of non-discrimination and equality in the context of tax laws.Pakcom Ltd Vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2011 SC 44)Highlighted the principles of equal protection under the law.Messrs Elahi Cotton Mills LTD Vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1997 SC 582)Elaborated on the legislative authority to classify for tax purposes and the constitutional limits on such classification.