Summary: Testimony of a child witness and its admissibility after conducting vior dire; Explanation of Locard's Principle of Exchange and importance of Deoxyribonucleic Asset ("DNA"); Effects of non-submission of buccal swabs of suspect with the PFSA for subsequent DNA comparison with the samples of the victim/deceased as well as non-conducting of DNA comparison of the crime weapon with buccal swabs of the victim/deceased to connect the same with the crime; 709C.M. (Civil) 73824/22 Bashiran Bibi & 3 Others Vs Muhammad Ameen etc Mr. Justice Anwaar Hussain 20- 02- 2025 2025 LHC 897

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Writ Petition under Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?section 17 and 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890--- Mutual voluntarily handing over custody of minor to adoptive parents--- After six years real parents seek restoration of the custody--- Held that in the presence of biological real parents of the minor, the custody of the minor girl cannot be handed over to adopted parents as the welfare of the minor best lies with the real parents. Writ Petition of adoptive parents for custody of minor is dismissed. 707Regular First Appeal (R.F.A) (Final Decree) 66866/24 Province of the Punjab through DC & 2 others Vs Akbari Begum etc Mr. Justice Hassan Nawaz Makhdoom 20- 02- 2025 2025 LHC 1390

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 22.02.2022 passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Cr. A. No. 190 of 2018 and Murder Reference No. 9 of 2018). (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S.154---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 140 & 153--- First Information Report (FIR)---Scope---First Information Report by itself is not a substantive piece of evidence unless its contents are affirmed on oath in witness box by its maker and its maker is subjected to the test of cross-examination--- First Information Report in view of Articles 140 and 153 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, is a previous statement and can only be used for contradicting its maker---Unless FIR is proved through its maker, it cannot be used as a substantive piece of evidence in favour of prosecution's case. Nasar Ali's case AIR 1957 SC 366 and Ghaus Muhammad alias Ghaus and another v. The State 1979 SCMR 155 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129, illustration (g)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103---Qatl-i-amd---Re-appraisal of evidence---Withholding of evidence---Recovery proceedings---Non-associating private witnesses---Accused was convicted and sentenced to death for committing murder of his wife---Validity---At the trial, prosecution did not produce owner of the house as witness, thus, adverse inference was drawn under Article 129(g) of Qanun-e- Shahadat, 1984 to the effect that had the above witness been produced by the prosecution at the trial, he would not have supported the version of the prosecution---Place of occurrence was surrounded by Abadi but investigating officer did not associate any person for the recovery of dead body---Investigating officer did not prepare recovery memo of dead body of deceased and simply made memo of iron box---No private witness of locality was associated to attest alleged iron box---Due to non-association of any private witness of locality to attest, the recovery memo lacked independent corroboration and the same was disbelieved---Judgments of Courts below were against the principles of appreciation of evidence in criminal dispensation of justice and the law settled by Supreme Court---Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused and he was acquitted of the charge---Appeal was allowed. Mst Saima Noreen v. The State 2024 SCMR 1310; Muhammad Ismail v. The State 2017 SCMR 898 and Muhammad Ijaz v. The State 2024 SCMR 1507 rel. (c) Criminal trial--- ----Medical evidence---Scope---Medical evidence is a type of supporting evidence, which may confirm prosecution's version with regard to receipt of injury, nature of injury, kind of weapon used in occurrence but it cannot identify the assailant. Muhammad Hassan and another v. The State and another 2024 SCMR 1427 and Iftikhar Hussain alias Kharoo v. The State 2024 SCMR 1449 rel. Sagheer Ahmad Qadri, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Ms. Chand Bibi, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State. Date of hearing: 20th February, 2025.

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 22.11.2018, passed by the Peshawar High Court, D.I.Khan Bench, D.I.Khan in R.F.A. No. 79-D with C.M. No. 64-D of 2018). Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)--- ----Ss.4 & 23---Acquisition of land---Compensation---Enhancement---Valuation of lands in same vicinity---Respondents/landowners received their compensation without filing any objections---Later other landowners in same vicinity in another award, received enhanced compensation through Referee Court---During execution proceedings of other landowners, respondents filed application before Executing Court to pay them enhanced compensation as well---Appellant/authorities were aggrieved of admitting of application of respondents/landowners for determination during execution proceedings---Validity---Respondents/landowners could claim compensation as per enhanced rate in the light judgment of Supreme Court in case titled Saddaqat Ali Khan through L.R.s and others v. Collector Land Acquisition and others reported as PLD 2010 SC 878, if at the end they were able to establish that nature and vicinity of both the lands i.e. their lands and lands acquired from other landowners was same---Lands of respondents/landowners were acquired way back in year 1995 and they had received compensation there and then whereas lands of other landowners were acquired after lapse of couple of years---Criteria laid down by Supreme Court would not be applicable simpliciter but required some probe---Supreme Court directed Executing Court to decide the matter expeditiously---Appeal was disposed of. Saddaqat Ali Khan through L.Rs and others v. Collector Land Acquisition and others PLD 2010 SC 878 rel. Syed Abid Hussain Shah, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants. Syed Mastan Ali Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents. Date of hearing: 20th February, 2025.

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 17.05.2012, passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in C.R. No. 53 of 2002). Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 54---Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (V of 1962), S. 2-A---Suit for declaration and injunction---Mutation of inheritance---Limited estate---Owner through will---Appellants / plaintiffs claimed share in suit property on the plea that respondents / defendant had become owners on the basis of will executed in favour of their predecessor-in-interest, in year 1934---Suit was decreed in favour of appellants / plaintiffs but Lower Appellate Court and High Court dismissed the suit---Validity---Creation of life interests for enjoyment of usufruct of properties upon death of a male holder were done away with and were subjected to Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962---By virtue of section 2-A of Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962 limited estates had been done away with retrospective application of such provision---Predecessor-in-interest of respondents / defendants became the absolute owner of property in question---Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by High Court---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Mullah's Principles of Mohammaden Law by Mr. Justice Hidayatullah; Dr. Tanzil-ur-Rehman, A Code of Muslim Personal Law, Volume II, page 196; Haider v. Murad PLD 2012 SC 501 and Mst. Farida Khatoon v. Dr. Masood Ahmed Butt 2009 SCMR 464 ref. Sohail Mehmood, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants. Sh. Zamir Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3). Date of hearing: 20th February, 2025.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 9(1), Sr.No.(6)(c)---Possession of narcotic substances---Bail, refusal of---Allegation against the accused-petitioner was that 1060-gram heroin was recovered from his possession---Claim of petitioner was that his arrest by Sub-Inspector, Pakistan Rangers, had vitiated the whole proceedings---Such claim could not be honoured due to two substantive reasons, firstly, with all just legal exceptions, officers of different categories of Pakistan Rangers were also authorized to exercise powers under respective provisions of Customs Act, 1969, in the light of a Notification of year 2010---Secondly, officers of Pakistan Rangers after arrest, search and seizure of narcotics had handed over the accused/petitioner to the local police, which power was available even to every private individual under S.59 of the Cr.P.C.---Thus, no illegality had been observed, particularly when the case had been investigated by the police---Huge quantity of heroin had been recovered from the possession of petitioner with his active knowledge, which could not be termed as an innocent mistake---Nothing was available on record which could prima facie show that Pakistan Rangers had any ill-will or ulterior motive to falsely implicate the petitioner in the case---Apparently, sufficient material was available on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of alleged crime---Bal petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Mst. Fursan v. The State 2022 SCMR 1950 and Noor Khan v. The State 2021 SCMR 1212 rel. Naveed Ahmad Khawaja for Petitioner. Rana Muhammad Imran Anjum, Deputy Prosecutor General with Iqbal SI, Shams SI and Imran ASI for the State. Order Muhammad Amjad Rafiq, J .--- Through this petition, the petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No.1573 dated 01.10.2024 registered under Section 9 (1)-6c of The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at Police Station Hudyara, District Lahore. 2. The allegation as set-out in the crime report is that Pakistan Rangers received a tip off from a stool pigeon about the presence of some suspects at 1.53 kilometers from zero line in village Phatankay adjacent to defence post near the Indian borders, upon which a raiding team approached to the site on single cabin vehicle, which prompted two suspects to flee away whereas present petitioner was captured, from whom two packets containing 530 grams each heroin, total 1060 grams was recovered; sampling was done from each packet. Complaint was forward to the Police Station for registration of FIR through Sepoy Rashid Manzoor. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner being owner in possession of adjacent lands had once resisted the interference into his property rights by the Rangers who retaliated to book the petitioner in this false case, and story was concocted that two co-accused succeeded to run away from the crime scene which is not believable, keeping in view the strength and arms available to the Rangers. Further states that Pakistan Rangers have no authority to arrest and detain the offenders under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (CNSA 1997); however, on the direction of this Court when read the relevant Notification of Federal Government responded that then officer must not be below the rank of an Inspector, whereas in this case, the raiding party was constituted under the supervision of Sub-Inspector. 4. Officers from Pakistan Rangers were carrying a Notification bearing No. S.R.Q. 1090(1)/2010 dated 1st December 2010 issued by Government of Pakistan (Revenue Department) Federal Board of Revenue which entrusted the officers of Pakistan Rangers, Frontier Corps (Baluchistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa including FATA) operating within their respective jurisdiction, the functions of officers of Customs under the provisions of the Customs Act 1969. Such functions shall be limited within 20 kilometers of the international borders. Thus, they claim to inspect any suspected person come within the radius of 20 kilometers. Perusal of such Notification shows that it was ordered to remain in force till the 31st June, 2011 and thereafter it shall be re-issued or extended subject to satisfactory performance of aforesaid departments. Officers of Rangers however, claimed that it is still operative. 5. Arguments heard; record perused. 6. To better appreciate the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is essential to reproduce the Statutory Regulatory Order (S.R.O) issued by the Federal Government vesting powers on officers of Pakistan Rangers to act under section 21 of the CNSA 1997, here it is; CONTROL OF NARCOTIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1997 (Authority to exercise powers and perform functions under Ss. 22, 23, 37(2) and 38) [Gazette of Pakistan, Extraordinary, Part II, 3rd August, 2004] S.R.O. 656(I)/2004, dated 2.8.2004.- In exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1) of section 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (XXV of 1997), and in supersession of its Notification No.S.R.O. 1134/97, dated 7th July, 1997, the Federal Government is pleased to authorize the members not below the rank of Sub-Inspector or equivalent of the Anti-Narcotics Force, Provincial Excise and Police Departments. Inspector or equivalent of the Customs Department and Subedar or equivalent of Pakistan Rangers (Sindh), Inspector or equivalent of Pakistan Rangers (Punjab), Naib Subedar or equivalent of Pakistan Coast Guards and to the Officers of Maritime Security Agency not below the rank of Chief Petty Officer to exercise the powers and perform the functions under the aforesaid section and sections 22, 23, 37(2) and 38 of the said Act within the areas of their respective jurisdiction. [PLD 2006 Cent. St. 10] Reading and perusal of above Notification reflects that in Punjab, the Inspector or equivalent of Pakistan Rangers can exercise powers under sections 21, 22, 23, 37 (2) and 38 of the CNSA 1997 within their respective jurisdiction. Thus, are authorized to search, seize and arrest any person committing any offence under CNSA 1997. 7. Claim of learned Counsel for the petitioner, that arrest by Sub Inspector Pakistan Rangers has vitiated the whole proceedings, cannot be honoured due to two substantive reasons. Firstly, with all just legal exceptions, officers of different categories of Pakistan Rangers are also authorized to exercise powers under respective provisions of Customs Act, 1969 in the light of Notification of year 2010. Secondly, Officers of Pakistan Rangers after arrest, search and seizure of narcotics have handed over the accused/petitioner to the local police, which power is available even to every private individual under section 59 of the Cr.P.C. Thus, no illegality has been observed, particularly when the case has been investigated by the police. 8. Huge quantity of heroin has been recovered from the possession of petitioner with his active knowledge which cannot be termed as innocent mistake. Nothing is available on record which could prima facie show that Pakistan Rangers have any ill-will or ulterior motive to falsely implicate the petitioner in this case. Apparently, sufficient material is available on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of alleged crime. Therefore, by relying upon the cases reported as "Mst. Fursan v. The State" (2022 SCMR 1950) and "Noor Khan v. The State" (2021 SCMR 1212), this petition is dismissed. JK/M-143/L Petition dismisse

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 449, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, grievous hurt committed by a person who knows or has reason to believe that the hurt will cause the death of the person against whom the act is committed, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of eight days in lodging the FIR---Consequential---Accused were charged that they entered into the house of complainant, caused injuries to the inmates and also committed murder of the nephew of complainant---Complainant/maternal uncle of the deceased get the FIR lodged at 06:30 a.m. on 08.12.2020---Per the FIR, the alleged incident occurred on 02.12.2020 at 12:00 noon in the village---Incident was reported to the police with eight days delay---Complainant admitted in the complaint that the policemen arrived at the place of occurrence---Officials of the rescue 1122 service shifted deceased to the hospital in an injured condition, rather than the policemen who came to the scene and inquired into the incident verbally and took notes---Such notes were not made part of the record---Neither Investigating Officer collected the records of police helpline and rescue-1122 service during the investigation nor did he associate them in the investigation so that it could be revealed what statement the complainant had given on the place of occurrence or what report the police had made on the police helpline or rescue 1122 service---First Information Report was lodged with considerable delay, for which the prosecution's explanation was not plausible---Witnesses' conduct in keeping quiet and not reporting the matter immediately was most unnatural when police were with them soon after the incident and remained with them till the death of deceased at hospital---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 449, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, grievous hurt committed by a person who knows or has reason to believe that the hurt will cause the death of the person against whom the act is committed, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Depositions of witnesses and documentary evidence--- Confliction---Accused were charged that they entered into the house of complainant, caused injuries to the inmates and also committed murder of the nephew of complainant---Deposition of Investigating Officer conflicted with documentary evidence---Investigating Officer deposed that after receiving the copy of the FIR at 06:50 a.m. he proceeded to hospital, whereas the death certificate revealed that the dead body was received by Investigating Officer and his mobile number and CNIC number was also written under his signatures---In the deposition of the Investigating Officer, he mentioned that he received FIR at about 6.50 a.m. and thereafter, he proceeded to hospital and prepared the inquest report---In column No. 3 of the inquest report, the date and time of receiving death information was mentioned as 2:00 a.m. on 08.12.2020---Had the inquest report been prepared after registration of FIR and the Investigating Officer had received its copy, then he would have mentioned the FIR number and its detail in the inquest report at the time of preparing the inquest report---Investigating Officer was not in a position to mention the number of FIR which was lodged on 08.12.2020 at 6:30 a.m.---Same was the position of postmortem report wherein the time of receiving of the dead body was mentioned as 05:00 a.m. and police documents were received at 11:40 a.m. on 08.12.2020---Similarly, the time, i.e., 11:40 a.m. on 08.12.2020, was mentioned on the application for postmortem examination of the dead body of deceased---Had he received the FIR, the Investigating Officer would have mentioned the particulars of FIR on the face of the inquest report---Entire prosecution evidence and circumstances showed that there had been some wrangling about the time of the case's registration---Thus, there were serious doubts regarding the prosecution story's genuineness, including the offenders' names and eye-witnesses---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 449, 148 & 149---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Qatl-i-amd, grievous hurt committed by a person who knows or has reason to believe that the hurt will cause the death of the person against whom the act is committed, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Injured witnesses not produced in Court---Effect---Accused were charged that they entered into the house of complainant, caused injuries to the inmates and also committed murder of the nephew of complainant---Admittedly, the injured were not produced as witnesses during the trial--- Fact of the accused persons, including the appellant, beating the family members of the complainant and eye-witness had not been proved---Injured witnesses were not produced in Court and the prosecution could not provide evidence regarding their injuries, which showed that the prosecution's story was false---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 449, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, grievous hurt committed by a person who knows or has reason to believe that the hurt will cause the death of the person against whom the act is committed, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Piece of brick recovered from the spot not produced in Court---Effect---Accused were charged that they entered into the house of complainant, caused injuries to the inmates and also committed murder of the nephew of complainant--- Allegedly, a piece of blood-stained brick was recovered on 30.12.2020---Production of the recovered piece of blood-stained brick was necessary to corroborate the expert report with the recovery---However, there was no evidence on record that the brick was produced before the trial Court---Prosecution could not show any evidence on record that the piece of blood-stained brick was produced in the Court, which created serious infirmity and doubt about the existence of the piece of brick---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (e) Appeal against acquittal--- ----Double presumption of innocence---Scope---When a Court of competent jurisdiction acquits an accused person, double presumption of innocence is attached to his case. Muhammad Usman Bhatti for Appellants. Muhammad Akhlaq, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State. Malik Muhammad Riaz Awan for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 20th February, 2025. Judgment Aalia Neelum, C.J .--- Zafar Iqbal alias Ilam Din son of Munchi Ghulam Muhammad, Caste Ansari, resident of Dost Pura, District Kasur, the appellant was involved in case FIR No.1030 of 2020, dated 08.12.2020, registered under Sections 302, 449, 148, 149 P.P.C, at Police Station, Saddar, District Kasur and was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur. The trial court seized with the matter in terms of the judgment dated 31.03.2022 and convicted the appellant under section 302(b) P.P.C and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 14 years with the direction to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased and in case of default in payment thereof, he would further undergo six months S.I. The compensation amount would be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. The benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C. was also extended in favour of the appellant. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, Zafar Iqbal alias Ilam Din, the appellant has assailed his conviction by filing Crl. Appeal No.27878-J of 2022, It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant also filed Crl. Rev. No.27876 of 2022, qua enhancement of sentence awarded to the appellant, Zafar Iqbal alias Ilam Din and Crl. Appeal No.27874 of 2022 against the acquittal of respondents Nos.2 to 5. All the matters arising out of the same judgment of the trial court are being disposed of through consolidated judgment. 3. The prosecution story as alleged in the FIR (Ex. PE) lodged on the application (Ex.PA) of Muhammad Rafique (PW-1)-the complainant is that on 02.12.2020. at 12:00 p.m. (Noon), the accused, Amanat Ali etc were beating complainant's minor son, Shahzad alias Masmar with clubs and sotas, and in order to save his life, Shahzad alias Masmar ran into his house. The accused persons also trespassed the house of the complainant. Thereafter, the accused, Iqbal alias Yahya raised lalkara that complainant's son had plucked a sugarcane from their fields, so he would not be spared alive, whereupon, the complainant's wife, Mst. Seema Bibi came forward to rescue her son but she was also handled in a bad manner. In the meantime, sister's son of complainant, Bilal, aged abut 32/33 years, (since dead) came over there and tried to top the scuffle, whereupon the accused-Zafar Iqbal alias Ilam Din gave a brick blow on the left side of head of Bilal (since dead), who fell down. After that, the accused-Javed started inflicting "Dang" blows to Bilal (since dead) in the said condition and when Mst.Ruqiya Bibi and Mst. Seema Bibi came forward to save Bilal (since dead), the accused persons, Amanat and Liaqat Ali alias Ali gave "Dang" blows to both the ladies. On hue and cry, Muhammd Ashraf, Muhammad Nawaz and Muhammad Akram along with others, arrived over there and rescued the victims from the accused persons. In the meanwhile, someone called police through 15, whereupon local police and ambulance 1122 arrived at the spot, and shifted the victims to D.H.Q Hospital, Kasur. Due to serious condition, Bilal (since dead) was referred to Lahore General Hospital, Lahore, who succumbed to the injuries on 08.12.2020 at about 02:00 a.m. 4. After registration of the case, the investigation of this case was conducted by Muhammad Zafar Ullah, S.I. (PW-7) and Ghulam Muhammad, S.I (PW-9), who, having found the appellant guilty, prepared a challan under section 173 Cr.P.C. and sent the same to the court of competent jurisdiction while placing the names of all accused persons in Column No.3 of the challan. On 02.08.2021, the trial court formally charge-sheeted the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its version, the prosecution produced as many as nine (09) witnesses. 5. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 342 of Cr.P.C., wherein neither he opted to appear as his own witness in terms of Section 340 (2) Cr.P.C. nor to produce any evidence in his defence. In response to a particular question that why this case was against him and why the PWs had deposed against him, the appellant-Zafar Iqbal alias Ilam Din, made the following depositions: - "I am innocent. Having no connection with the alleged occurrence, I along with my other close family members including my real brother, his son, one my first cousin and one close relative, have been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant on the account of some previous grudge. The complainant has done this just to extort money by blackmailing. As matter of record, it is stated that deceased died while working as mason at Rahmey Wala Khoo accidently." 6. After recording evidence and evaluating the evidence available on record in the light of the arguments advanced by both sides, the trial court found the prosecution version proved beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt, which resulted in the appellant's conviction in the afore-stated terms. 7. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have minutely perused the record on the file. 8. In the case, Muhammad Rafique (PW-1), the maternal uncle of the deceased Bilal, got lodged the FIR at 06:30 a.m. on 08.12.2020. Per the FIR, the alleged incident occurred on 02.12.2020 at 12:00 noon in the village of Dost Pura Tehsil and District Kasur, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Police Station Saddar Kasur. The incident was reported to the police with 8 (eight) days delay. It is admitted by Muhammad Rafique (PW-1)-complainant, during cross-examination that: - "---I have six sons and two daughters-The age of my eldest son Shafiq might be 30/32 years. My youngest child is the age of about 9/10-months. My three sons are above the age of 18 years---At the time of occurrence, only female inmates were present in my house---PW Ashraf is father of deceased Bilal. Akram PW is real brother of deceased Bilal. PW Roqiyya is real sister of deceased Bilal---". Muhammad Ashraf (PW-2)-eye-witness and father of deceased Bilal, deposed during cross-examination that: - "---It is correct that we did not move application for registration of FIR from the day of occurrence till the death of deceased Bilal. Volunteers that we remained busy in the treatment of the victim---Police also accompanied us from place of occurrence to DHQ hospital, Kasur and then to Lahore General Hospital, Lahore. Police was well conversant with the whole occurrence during the said period---It took about one hour and forty five minutes in shifting the victim to Lahore General Hospital, Lahore starting from our journey from the place of occurrence. I did not move application during the said period to the police for registration of FIR, volunteers that our primary concern was to provide medical treatment to the victim---" Muhammad Rafique (PW-1)-complainant deposed during examination-in-chief that: - "---Someone called police and the ambulance. Police put injured Bilal in the ambulance and took him to DHQ Hospital, Kasur. Due to precarious condition, injured Bilal was referred to Lahore General Hospital, Lahore. Bilal injured remain admitted to General Hospital for six days and on the sixth day, he succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. The deceased was brought to DHQ Hospital, Kasur. I moved an application Ex.PA to the Police Station Saddar, Kasur for registration of FIR---" During cross-examination, Muhammad Rafique (PW-1)-complainant, deposed that: - "---I do not know who called police on 15-emergency number. 4/5 policemen arrived at the place of occurrence. I did not move application for registration of FIR to the said policemen at the place of occurrence. Volunteers that they verbally inquired from me and took notes. I did not move application to the police for registration of FIR from the day of occurrence till death of the victim. Volunteers that we remained busy in the treatment of the victim in the hospital. It is correct that no such application during the above said period was moved to the police for the registration of FIR from my sons or any other relative--" Muhammad Rafique (PW-1)-the complainant admitted in the complaint (Ex.PA) that the policemen arrived at the place of occurrence. Officials of the rescue of 1122 shifted Bilal to the hospital in an injured condition, rather than the policemen who came to the scene, inquired into the incident verbally, and took notices. Such notices were not made part of the record. Neither did the Muhammad Zafarullah S.I. (PW-7)-investigating officer collect the records of 15-call and rescue-1122 during the investigation, nor did he associate them in the investigation so that it could be revealed what statement Muhammad Rafiq (PW-1)-the complainant had given on the place of occurrence or what report the police had made on the 15-call or rescue-1122. Muhammad Zafarullah S.I. (PW-7)-investigating officer deposed during cross-examination that: - "---I did not record the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C of the doctor who treated the victim. During my investigation I asked from the doctors, whether the victim made any statement to them but they told that the victim remain unconscious during the whole time till his death---I have not recorded the said statement of the doctor. The police file does not bear any such statement of the doctor. I did not obtain the operation notes from the doctor---" Muhammad Zafarullah S.I. (PW-7)-investigating officer deposed during cross-examination that: - "---It is correct that we received information about the occurrence on 02.12.2020. Volunteers that no one from the complainant approached police for initiating proceedings at the Police Station. Police also visited place of occurrence on 02.12.2020. We ourselves did nto initiae proceedings about the occurrence as the same were to be initiated on the application of the complainant---I did not myself visit place of occurrence on 02.12.2020 but some other police officer, therefore, I can not tell whether he secured/cordoned the scene of occurrence or not. I did not record statement of the said police officer during my investigation---" The first information report was lodged with considerable delay, for which the prosecution's explanation is not plausible. The witnesses' conduct in keeping quiet and not reporting the matter immediately is most unnatural when police were with them soon after the incident and remained with them till the death of Bilal at General Hospital, Lahore. Muhammad Rafique (PW-1)-complainant deposed during cross-examination that: - "---I, Ashraf, Akram, Irfan and other family members also came to DHQ Hospital, Kasur when dead body of Bilal was shifted there from General Hospital, Lahore. Dead body was shifted on ambulance. After arrival of dead body at DHQ Hospital, Kasur, I went to the Police Station for registration of FIR---It took about one hour in registration of FIR after leaving the dead body at DHQ Hospital, Kasur---" He (PW-1) denied the suggestion that police had accompanied them while shifting the dead body from General Hospital Lahore. Muhammad Rafique (PW-1)-complainant deposed during cross-examination that: - "---It is incorrect to suggest that police did not accompany us while shifting the dead body to DHQ Hospital, Kasur from General Hospital Lahore because the FIR was got registered after shifting the dead body to DHQ Hospital, Kasur-" Contrary to the deposition of Muhammad Rafique (PW-1)-complainant, Muhammad Ashraf (PW-2)-eye-witness, deposed during cross-examination that: "---I, Rafiq, Akram along with police shifted deceased Bilal from General hospital Lahore to DHQ Hospital, Kasur. Rafiq went to the Police Station for registration of FIR, after we brought dead body to DHQ Hospital, Kasur---" Muhammad Zafarullah S.I. (PW-7)-investigating officer deposed during examination-in-chief that: - "----On 08.12.2020, I was posted at Police Station Saddar, Kasur as Sub Inspector. I along with Ghulam Nabi 306/C and Ghulam Qadir constable were on patrolling duty in the area. I received FIR and complainant of this case sent by Shabbir Hussain Naib Moharrar, for investigation. I was informed that dead body of one Bilal was lying in Lahore General Hospital, Lahore. I along with other police officials reached at Lahore General Hospital, Lahore. I prepared inquest report Ex.PH, application for postmortem Ex.PJ, injuries statement Ex.PK---" Muhammad Zafarullah S.I. (PW-7)-investigating officer deposed during cross-examination that: - "----I received copy of FIR at 6:50 am. It takes about 45 minutes to travel from Kasur to Lahore General Hospital---" The deposition of Muhammad Zafarullah (PW-7) conflicts with documentary evidence. Muhammad Zafarullah (PW-7)-the investigating officer deposed that after receiving the copy of the FIR (Ex. PE) at 06:50 a.m. proceeded to General Hospital Lahore, whereas the death certificate available on page No. 135 of the paper book revealed that the dead body was received by him (PW-7) and his mobile number 0301-4003014 and CNIC No. 35201-3817709-3 was also written under his signatures. Ghulam Nabi 306/C (PW-8), who escorted the dead body of Bilal, deposed during examination-in-chief that: - "---On 08.12.2020, I was posted at Police Station Saddar, Kasur. Zafar Ullah, SI/IO of the case handed over to me dead body of deceased Bilal. I along with Ashraf son of Shah Muhammad and Nawaz son of Suleman escorted the dead body from General Hospital, Lahore to DHQ Hospital, Kasur for postmortem---" Ghulam Nabi 306/C (PW-8) deposed during cross-examination that: - "---I received phone call at 02:00 am, on 08.12.2020 and arrived at Lahore General Hospital, Lahore at about 03:30 am---We arrived at DHQ Hospital, Kasur at 05:00 am, with the dead body---" Muhammad Zafarullah S.I. (PW-7)-investigating officer deposed during cross-examination that: - "----As per column No.3 of inquest report Ex.PH, the time of gaining knowledge about occurrence is 02:00 am. I arrived at Lahore General hospital, Lahore at about 07:30 am. It is incorrect to suggest that I arrived at Lahore General hospital, Lahore at about 03:00 am. It is incorrect to suggest that I gained knowledge of death of the deceased at 02:00 am, where-after I remained with the complainant party for the purpose of deliberations and consultations to involve the innocent persons---" 9. The documentary evidence contradicted the oral testimony of Muhammad Zafarullah S.I. (PW-7)-the investigating officer, and Muhammad Rafique (PW-1)-the complainant, regarding when FIR (Ex. PE) was chalked out. It is in the deposition of Muhammad Zafarullah S.I. (PW-7)-the investigating officer, that he received FIR (Ex. PE) at about 6.50 a.m. and thereafter, he proceeded to General Hospital Lahore and prepared the inquest report (Ex. PH). In column No. 3 of the inquest report (Ex. PH), the date and time of receiving death information is mentioned as 2:00 a.m. on 08.12.2020. Had the inquest report (Ex. PH) been prepared after registration of FIR (Ex. PE) and the Investigating Officer had received its copy, then he would have mentioned the FIR number and its detai l in the inquest report at the time of preparing the inquest report, the Investigating Officer was not in a position to mention the number of FIR which was lodged on 08.12.2020 at 6:30 a.m. and same is the position of postmortem report (Exh.PG) wherein the time of receiving of the dead body was mentioned 05:00 a.m. and police documents were received at 11:40 a.m on 08.12.2020. Similarly, the time, i.e., 11:40 a.m. on 08.12.2020, is mentioned on the application for postmortem examination of the dead body of Muhammad Bilal (Ex. PJ). Had he received the FIR, the Investigating Officer would have mentioned the particulars of FIR on the face of the inquest report (Ex. PH). It appears that FIR has been delayed. In the light of the entire prosecution evidence and circumstances, they influenced the court's mind that there had been some wrangling about the time of the case's registration. This breeds serious doubts regarding the prosecution story's genuineness, including the offenders' names and eye-witnesses. 10. There is another aspect of the case, Muhammad Zafarullah S.I. (PW-7)-the investigating officer deposed during cross-examination that: - "----It is correct that accused Amanat and Zafar Iqbal are real brothers and accused Yahya is first cousin of them---" Muhammad Rafique (PW-1)-the complainant deposed during cross-examination that: "---Mudassar is younger brother of accused Yahya. It is incorrect to suggest that in the past, I inflicted head injury to said Mudassar with the hatchet. Amjad is real brother of accused Javed---Accused Yahya and Zafar Iqbal are first cousins inter-se. Accused Amanat and Zafar Iqbal are real brothers. Accused Ali is son of accused Amanat. Accused Javed is not a close relative of co-accused persons---" It is admitted that the injured were not produced as witnesses during the trial. Muhammad Rafique (PW-1)-the complainant deposed during cross-examination that: "---The injured females were medically examined but MLCs were not issued because there were no visible injuries on their persons. I have not produced any receipt of hospital as to medical examination of the said females to the police or in this court---We did not get medical examination of my son Shahzad @ Masmar---" Muhammad Ashraf (PW-2) deposed during cross-examination that: "----We got medical examination of Seeman Bibi in the DHQ Hospital, Kasur. We did not get medical examination of my daughter Roqiya as she had young children at home and she got her treatment locally---" The fact that the accused persons, including the appellant, gave a beating to the family members of Muhammad Rafique (PW-1)-the complainant, and Muhammad Ashraf (PW-2) has not been proved. The injured witnesses were not produced in court, and the prosecution could not provide evidence regarding their injuries, which shows that the prosecution's story is false. Having scrutinized the evidence on record, I am not satisfied that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. In any event, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. 11. Insofar as the alleged recovery of a piece of blood-stained brick from the soiling at Kot Ansarian Dost Pura on 30.12.2020 is concerned, in any case, the burden lies upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond the reasonable doubt. Production of the recovered piece of blood-stained brick is necessary to corroborate the expert report with the recovery. There is no evidence on record that the brick was produced before the learned trial court. The learned DPG cannot show any evidence on record that the piece of blood-stained brick was produced in the court, which creates serious infirmity and doubt about the existence of the piece of brick. The irresistible conclusion that emerges from scanning, perusing, and dissecting the prosecution evidence is that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 12. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 27878-J of 2022 is accepted. Conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial court vide judgment dated 31.03.2022 is set aside as a consequence whereof, Zafar Iqbal alias Ilam Din son of Munchi Ghulam Muhammad, appellant is ordered to be acquitted of the charge in case FIR No.1030 of 2020, dated 08.12.2020, offences under Sections 302, 449, 148, 149 P.P.C., registered at Police Station, Saddar, District Kasur is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any criminal case. 13. So far as Criminal Revision No. 27876 of 2022, filed by the complainant, namely Muhammad Rafiq for enhancement of sentence awarded by the learned trial court to respondent No.1 i.e. Zafar Iqbal alias Ilam Din is concerned, for the reasons afore-stated, the same is devoid of any legal force, which is accordingly dismissed. 14. So far as the appeal against acquittal No.27874 of 2022 seeking the conviction of respondents Nos. 2 to 5 per law is concerned, I have noted that as the role of respondents Nos. 2 to 5, i.e.(2) Amanat Ali son of Munchi Ghulam Muhammad, (3) Muhammad Javaid son of Muhammad Din, (4) Liaqat Ali alias Ali son of Amanat Ali, (5) Muhammad Iqbal alias Yahya son of Muhammad Yaqoob is concerned, there is no conflict or contradiction in the findings of the learned trial court about the role of the respondents Nos. 2 to 5. For what has been discussed above in the light of prosecution and documentary evidence, the acquittal of respondents Nos. 2 to 5 does not suffer from any illegality to call for this Court's interference with the impugned judgment. I have also taken note of the settled principle of criminal jurisprudence, which states that unless it can be shown that the lower court's judgment is perverse or that it is completely illegal, No other conclusion can be drawn except the guilt of the accused or misreading or non-reading of evidence, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Even otherwise, when a court of competent jurisdiction acquits the accused persons, the double presumption of innocence is attached to his case. The acquittal order cannot be interfered with, whereby an accused earns double presumption of innocence as held in "Muhammad Mansha Kausar v. Muhammad Ashgar and others" (2003 SCMR 477). In this case, the prosecution has not been able to bring on record adequate incriminating evidence against respondents Nos. 2 to 5, which connects them with the alleged crime. The learned trial Judge has advanced valid and plausible reasons for recording acquittal in favour of respondents Nos.2 to 5. The judgment of acquittal does not call for any interference. Consequently, I find no merit in this appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 27874 of 2022, which is hereby dismissed as being without merits. JK/Z-3/L Order accordingly.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Arts. 77, 260 & Fourth Schedule, Federal Legislative List Serial Nos. 47 & 48---Tax, imposing of---Scope---Tax on income defined in Art. 260 of the Constitution includes a tax in the nature of an excess profits tax or a business profits tax etc.---Fourth Schedule to the Constitution enumerated Federal Legislative List and Entries 47 and 48 thereof befall the taxes on income and on corporations squarely within the exclusive domain of Federal Parliament---Tax to be levied, under Art. 77 of the Constitution is required to be levied for the purposes of Federation by or under the authority of an Act of Parliament---Constitution specifically empowers the Parliament to levy a tax on excess profits upon corporations by or under the authority of sub-Constitutional legislation. (b) Interpretation of statutes--- ----Retrospective effect---Scope---When legislature gives retrospective effect to a law, either by express provision or by necessary implication, no protection can be afforded to vested rights contrary to the law. (c) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)--- ----S. 99-D---Notification SRO 1588(I) of 2023, dated 21-11-2023---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Windfall tax, vires of---Scope---Petitioner / taxpayer assailed levy of tax on windfall gains---Validity---Tax under Art. 77 of the Constitution is levied under the authority of Parliament---Executive authority of Federation as stipulated under Art. 97 of the Constitution, extends to matters with respect to which the Parliament has the power to make laws; including exercise of rights, authority and jurisdiction---Delegation is contemplated to achieve the object of statute and test to determine validity thereof is to see whether it amounts to abdication of the function of the Legislature---Essential functions of legislature i.e. promulgation, modification, repeal etc. are envisaged to be exercised by the Legislature only---No exercise of such power by Federal Government is manifested from SRO 1588(I) of 2023, dated 21-11-2023--- Petitioner / taxpayer under the doctrine of impermissible excessive legislative authority remained unable to be fall within the confines of SRO 1588(I) of 2023, dated 21-11-2023---Petitioner / taxpayer failed to substantiate imposition of windfall tax---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. DCIR v. Digicom Trading C.A. 2019 of 2016; CIR v. Jahangir Khan Tareen 2022 SCMR 92; Dr. Seema Irfan and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2019 Sindh 516; Deputy Commissioner Income Tax / Wealth Tax Faisalabad v. Punjab Beverage Company (Private) Limited 2007 PTD 1347; Pakistan v. Qazi Ziauddin PLD 1962 SC 440; Lt. Col. N M A Khan v. Controller of Estate Duty PLD 1961 SC 119; Usmania Glass v. Sales Tax Officer Chittagong PLD 1971 SC 205; CIT v. Eli Lilly 2009 SCMR 1279; Lahore Development Authority v. Imrana Tiwana 2015 SCMR 1739; Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Mekotex (Private) Limited PLD 2025 SC 1168; Army Welfare Trust Sugar Mills Limited v. Federation of Pakistan 1992 SCMR 1652; Sapphire Textile Mills v. Federation of Pakistan 2021 PTD 971; Hadayatullah v. Pakistan 2022 SCMR 1691; Hakimsons Impex v. Federation of Pakistan 2024 PTD 451 / PLD 2024 Sindh 132; Impex v. Government of Pakistan PLD 2016 SC 808; Zaibtun Textile Mills Limited v. Central Board of Revenue PLD 1983 SC 358; Elahi Cotton Mills Limited v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1997 SC 582 and Shahtaj Sugar Mills v. Government of Pakistan 2024 SCMR 1656 rel. Muhammad Farogh Naseem, Khalid Jawed Khan, Qazi Umair Ali, Lubna Pervez, Mariam Salahuddin, Shahrukh Farogh Naseem, Sagar Ladhani, Abdul Rehman Adeed, Saima Anjum, Pooja Kalpana, M. Umer Akhund, Uzair Qadir Shoro, Syed Muhammad Aijaz and Muhammad Imran Khan for Petitioners. Shahzaib Masud, Ahmed Mujtaba and Saqib Soomro for the Federal Board of Revenue. Zia-ul-Haq Makhdoom and Mirza Nasar Ahmed, Additional Attorney General for Respondents. Kashif Nazeer and Alizeh Bashir, Assistant Attorney Generals for Respondents. Dates of hearing: 18th and 20th February, 2025.

Summary: Punjab Province Workers' Plots Allotment Regulations, 1976--- ----Regln. No.9(ii)---Punjab Workers Welfare Board Housing Scheme Policy, 2002, Cls. 3.18 & 3.19---Allotment of plot to employee of Labour Department ---Allottee, entitlement of --- Alienation of such plot , bar on---Labour Department assailed concurrent ex-parte findings whereby claim of plaintiff (buyer) was decreed regarding agreement / purchase of plot having been allotted to employee of Labour Department (defendant/seller)--- Validity --- Admittedly , the allotment of plot-in-question was cancelled after issuing notice to the allottee--- As per Regln. No.9(ii) of the Punjab Province Workers' Plots Allotment Regulations, 1976 , the allottee shall not be entitled to sublet, mortgage, or sell the plot and any infringement will render the allottee and/or his lessee / mortgager/ purchaser or both liable to ejectment from the plot-in-question and cancellation of the allotment ---Punjab Workers' Welfare Board Housing Scheme Policy 2002 (' the Policy ') was later introduced and as per cl. 3.18 of the Policy, the authority is competent to cancel the allotment , against which ( cancellation ) , remedy of an appeal is provided in cl. 3.19 of the Policy ---Plot-in-question was cancelled but no appeal was filed by allottee --- When the defendant had no title, no effective decree could be passed and this material and legal fact was not considered by the courts below and on the basis of concealment of fact and fraud the decree was obtained ---Allotment order was produced /exhibited but cancellation order was not produced--- Admittedly , the suit-property was public property and while passing the ex-parte decree/order it was the duty of the court to keep its eyes open with regard to legal and factual aspects involved in suit with the object to protect public interest and public property being its ultimate custodian ---Furthermore, the respondent /plaintiff had not arrayed the Province of the Punjab as party in the suit and in the absence of a necessary party, no effective decree or order could be passed---As the decisions of the lower courts below suffered from blatant non-reading of record as well as mis-application of law, the same were not sustainable in the eyes of law and were liable to be set-aside---High Court set-aside impugned judgments and decrees passed by the both the Courts below and matter was remanded to the Trial Court to implead the Province of the Punjab as party in the lis, obtain written statement from defendants and then decide the matter on merits--- Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. Provincial Government through Collector, Kohat and another v. Shabbir Hussain PLD 2005 SC 337; Mst. Maqbool Begum and others v. Gullan and others PLD 1982 SC 46; Province of Punjab through Secretary Excise and Taxation Department, Lahore and others v. Murree Brewery Company Ltd (MBCL) and another 2021 SCMR 305 and Nazim-ud-Din and others v. Sheikh Zia-Ul-Qamar and others 2016 SCMR 24 ref. Muhammad Younas Bhullar for Petitioner. Ch. Umar Hayat Kamran Rajoka for Respondent No. 1. Date of hearing: 20th February, 2025. Judgment Ch. Muhammad Iqbal, J .--- Through this petition, the petitioner has challenged the vires of ex-parte judgment and decree dated 30.11.2022, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Faisalabad whereby suit for possession through specific performance filed by respondent No.1 (Akbar Ali) was decreed and also assailed the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2024, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Faisalabad who dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. 2. Brief facts of the case as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that respondent No.1 filed a suit for recovery of possession through specific performance on the basis of written agreement to sell dated 12.12.2005 and contended that he purchased plot No.2728 measuring 3-Marlas situated in Tipu Sultan Colony Jaranwala Road, Khurianwala Faisalabad after payment of Rs.1,00,000/-through respondent No.2/Muhammad Mansha. The property was allotted to respondent No.2 by the petitioner's department whereas respondent No.1 stated that he purchased the same on the basis of agreement to sell and paid all consideration. Ex-parte proceedings were initiated against the petitioner department and whereafter after recording the evidence, suit was decreed of respondent No.1 vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.2022. Against the said decree, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 31.01.2024. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Arguments heard and record perused. 4. Admittedly, plot No.2728 was allotted to Muhammad Mansha in which notice was issued on 10.07.2004 to Muhammad Mansha for cancellation and on 24.12.2005 the plot was cancelled. Moreover, as per Regulation No.9(ii) of the Punjab Province Workers' Plots Allotment Regulations, 1976, the allottee shall not be entitled to sublet, mortgage, or sell the plot and any infringement will render the allottee and/or his lessee/mortgager /purchaser or both liable to ejectment from the said plot and cancellation of the allotment. For ready reference regulation No.9 (ii) of the Regulations ibid is reproduced as under:- "ii. The allottee shall not be entitled to sublet, mortgage, or sell the plot. Any infringement will render the allottee and/or his lessee/mortgager/purchaser or both liable to ejectment from the said plot and cancellation of the allotment." Whereafter Housing Scheme Policy 2002 was introduced and as per clause 3.18 of the Policy, the authority is competent to cancel the allotment. For ready reference, clause 3.18 of the Policy 2002 is reproduced as under:- "3.18 Cancellation of allotment of plot/house/flat.- (a) The Competent Authority, may, after notice of show cause to the defaulter for a period of not less than 10 days, order the cancellation of the lease or revoke, tenancy or deed of allotment or title as the case may be in case he decides that the allottee has committed breach of the term and condition of allotment. If such a breach is rectifiable, the defaulter may be given a period not exceeding one month to rectify such breach. (b) The Competent Authority shall also be empowered to forfeit in favour of the Board, the amount deposited by the worker for the allotment of the housing units." Against which, remedy of an appeal is provided in clause3.19 of the Policy ibid which is reproduced as under:- "3.19 Appeals. (a) Any person aggrieved of the order passed by the Competent Authority regarding allotment or its cancellation may file appeal with the Appellate Authority within 20 days of the impugned order. (b) The order passed by the Appellate Authority shall be final and shall not be called in question in any forum." The plot was cancelled on 24.12.2005 but no appeal was filed by Muhammad Mansha. When Muhammad Mansha has no title, as such no effective decree could be passed and this material and legal fact are not considered by the courts below and on the basis of concealment of fact and fraud the decree was obtained by respondent No.1. The allotment order dated 04.04.1997 was produced as Exh.P3 but cancellation order was not produced. Admittedly the suit property is public property and while passing the ex-parte decree/order it is the duty of the court to keep its eyes open with regard to legal and factual aspects involved in suit with the object to protect public interest and public property being its ultimate custodian. Reliance is placed on the case cited as Provincial Government through Collector, Kohat and another v. Shabbir Hussain (PLD 2005 SC 337). 5. Furthermore, the respondent No.1 has not arrayed the Province of the Punjab as party in the suit and it is settled law that in the absence of a necessary party, no effective decree or order can be passed. Reliance in this regard is placed on cases cited as Mst. Maqbool Begum and others v. Gullan and others (PLD 1982 SC 46) and Province of Punjab through Secretary Excise and Taxation Department, Lahore and others v. Murree Brewery Company Ltd (MBCL) and another (2021 SCMR 305). 6. As the decisions of the lower courts below suffer from blatant non-reading of record as well as mis-application of law, as such the same are not sustainable in the eyes of law and are liable to be set-aside. Reliance is placed on the case titled as Nazim-ud-Din and others v. Sheikh Zia-Ul-Qamar and others (2016 SCMR 24). 7. In view of above, this writ petition is hereby allowed. Judgment and decree dated 30.11.2022, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Faisalabad and judgment and decree dated 31.01.2024, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Faisalabad are hereby set aside and matter is remanded to the trial court to implead the Province of the Punjab as party in the lis, obtain written statement from defendants and then decided the matter on merits afresh after framing the issues and recording the evidence of both the parties. MQ/D-4/L Petition allowed.