Summary: Acquittal granted----(a) Criminal Law—Circumstantial Evidence—Standard of Proof: ----Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 468, 471; Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17(4); Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act, 2013, Ss. 15 & 19; Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 71. Accused was charged and convicted under various provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code, the Hudood Ordinance, and the Arms Act for murder, forgery, and illegal possession of arms. The case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including last-seen testimony, call data records, identification parade, and recoveries. The Federal Shariat Court held that circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain pointing unequivocally towards the guilt of the accused. Any missing link in the chain renders the evidence unreliable. In the instant case, serious discrepancies were noted in the collection, presentation, and corroboration of circumstantial evidence. Delays in recording witness statements, failure to follow protocols in the identification parade, contradictions in call data records, and absence of credible corroboration undermined the prosecution's case. Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof in criminal cases. -----Cited Cases: Ibrahim and others v. The State (2009 SCMR 407) Imran alias Dully and another v. The State and others (2015 SCMR 155) Hashim Qasim and another v. The State (2017 SCMR 986) Yasin alias Ghulam Mustafa v. The State (2008 SCMR 336) (b) Criminal Law—Hearsay Evidence—Admissibility: ----Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 71. The supplementary statement of a witness implicating the accused was deemed inadmissible as it amounted to hearsay. The witness admitted that his knowledge about the accused's involvement was derived from information provided by investigation officials. Hearsay evidence, unless corroborated by direct evidence, cannot be relied upon for conviction. The court emphasized that only direct evidence, as stipulated under Article 71 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, is admissible. ----Cited Cases: Muhammad Azam and another v. Khalid Mehmood and another (2013 PCr.LJ 36) Sajjan Solangi v. The State (2019 SCMR 872) (c) Criminal Law—Identification Parade—Legal Requirements: ----Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 161, 164; Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 40. Identification parade proceedings were marred by procedural irregularities, including the accused being exposed to witnesses prior to the parade, absence of details regarding dummies, and failure to verify police custody duration. The Magistrate failed to record essential findings and verify compliance with prescribed procedures. The court held that such irregularities render the identification parade unreliable. -----Cited Cases: Muhammad Ayaz and others v. The State (2011 SCMR 769) Imran Ashraf and 7 others v. The State (2001 SCMR 424) (d) Criminal Law—Recovery Evidence—Admissibility and Corroboration: ----Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 161, 164; Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 40. Recovery of incriminating articles, including the weapon of offence and vehicle, failed to meet the required standard of proof. Evidence of recovery was not corroborated by credible witnesses, and procedural flaws were evident. Moreover, forensic analysis of the weapon and empties raised doubts due to irregularities in their handling and documentation. ----Cited Cases: Mian Khalid Perviz v. The State through Special Prosecutor ANF and another (2021 SCMR 522) Muhammad Tasaweer v. Hafiz Zulkarnain and 2 others (PLD 2009 SC 53) (e) Investigation by Unauthorized Officer—Validity: ----Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Police Act, 2017, S. 26(3). The investigation was conducted by an officer (Head Constable) who lacked the requisite legal authority to investigate a murder case. Under the Police Act, cases of murder must be investigated by an officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector. The investigation by an unauthorized officer vitiated the credibility of the prosecution's case. (f) Criminal Law—Benefit of Doubt—Acquittal: ----General Principles of Criminal Law. The court reiterated the principle that benefit of doubt must always be extended to the accused as a matter of right and not as a concession. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and multiple inconsistencies created significant doubts. Consequently, the appellant was acquitted. ----Cited Cases: Maqsood Ahmad v. The State and others (2017 MLD 1415) Mukhtiar Hussain v. The State (2017 MLD 745) Pirzada alias Peer v. The State (2017 PCr.LJ 605) ----Disposition: Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentences set aside. Appellant acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order dated January 9, 2024, by a Judicial Magistrate, which accepted the police case-cancellation report. The petitioner alleges deception by the respondents, leading to the registration of FIR No.1781/2023 under sections 420, 468, and 471 PPC at Police Station Ferozwala, District Sheikhupura. The petitioner claims he entered into an agreement to sell one acre of land, receiving partial payment, but later discovered that the agreement covered his entire land without his consent. The police recommended the case for cancellation, stating it was a civil dispute, which the Magistrate accepted without proper notice to the petitioner. ----Issues: 1- Whether the Magistrate erred in agreeing with the case-cancellation report without properly notifying the complainant/petitioner. 2- Whether the police and Magistrate followed the correct legal procedures in recommending and accepting the case-cancellation report. 3- Whether the petitioner has the option for change of investigation and subsequent legal remedies. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ---Issue No.1: Notice to the Complainant The court found that the Magistrate failed to ensure proper notice was given to the complainant before agreeing with the case-cancellation report. As per Section 173 of the Cr.P.C and Rule 25.57 of the Police Rules, 1934, the complainant must be informed of the investigation's outcome. The impugned order claimed the complainant did not appear, but the court noted this should not adversely affect the complainant's case. ---Issue No.2: Legal Procedures for Case-Cancellation The court examined the procedures under Rule 24.7 of the Police Rules, 1934, and found that the police followed the correct process in recommending the case for cancellation, identifying the matter as a civil dispute. The court also referenced the High Court Rules & Orders (1931), which outline the grounds for case cancellation. It was emphasized that the Magistrate acts administratively, not judicially, in agreeing with a cancellation report but must still ensure fairness and due process. ---Issue No.3: Change of Investigation and Legal Remedies The court acknowledged the petitioner's pending application for change of investigation. The police can consider such applications, and a senior officer can direct reinvestigation with the Magistrate's permission. If declined, the complainant can pursue alternate remedies, such as private prosecution, as highlighted in "BAHADUR AND ANOTHER Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER" (PLD 1985 Supreme Court 62). -----Citations/Precedents: "BAHADUR AND ANOTHER Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER" (PLD 1985 Supreme Court 62) "WAZIR Versus THE STATE" (PLD 1962 (W.P.) Lahore 405) "DIN MUHAMMAD SHAKIR alias D.M. SHAKIR versus D.S.P., ICHHRA, LAHORE" (PLD 1977 Lahore 180) "MEHDI HUSSAIN SHAH Versus Malik KHIZER HAYAT KHAN AND ANOTHER" (1983 P Cr. L J 1601) "ASGHAR ALI Versus THE STATE" (1983 P Cr. L J 2187) ----Quote: After cancellation of FIR, police can reinvestigate the case but with the permission of concerned Magistrate.

Summary: Bail granted ---Background:The petitioner, Ch. Pervaiz Elahi, filed a petition under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, seeking post-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 09/2023 dated 03.06.2023. The FIR was registered under sections 420, 468, 471, 161, 162, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, along with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, at Police Station ACE, Lahore. The allegations involved the petitioner heading a departmental selection committee meeting on 09.08.2021, where it was claimed that the results of a written examination were altered through forgery. The petitioner had previously been conditionally granted bail, which was later revoked, leading to the current petition after a previous dismissal.-----Issues:Whether the petitioner, being an eighty-year-old citizen, is entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of age and other mitigating factors.Whether the prosecution has provided sufficient evidence to justify the denial of bail under the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C.Whether the alleged forgery dated 09.08.2021 can be substantiated when the results were published by Open Testing Service on 29.07.2021.Whether the recovery of Rs. 4,100,000/- and a laptop provides reasonable grounds for the petitioner's involvement in the alleged crimes.Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court granted the petitioner's request for post-arrest bail, finding that the case required further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt. The court noted several critical points:The FIR's allegations appeared implausible as the results were published before the alleged date of forgery.The prosecution did not provide specific details about the currency notes recovered, undermining the recovery's evidentiary value.The prosecution failed to explain the two-year delay in lodging the FIR.The court emphasized that bail should not be withheld as a form of punishment and cited the Supreme Court's stance that bail can be granted if reasonable grounds to believe the accused's guilt are not sufficiently established.----Citations/Precedents:Alam Khan and Others Versus The State (2022 P Cr. LJ 338)Mehboob Hassan Versus Akhtar Islam and Others (2024 SCMR 757)Imtiaz Ahmed and another Versus The State (PLD 1997 Supreme Court 545)Mst. Bashiran Bibi Versus Nisar Ahmad Khan and Others (PLD 1990 Supreme Court 83)Salman Mushtaq and Others Versus The State through P.G. Punjab and another (2024 SCMR 14)Zaigham Ashraf Versus The State and Others (2016 SCMR 18)Tariq Bashir and 5 Others Versus The State (PLD 1995 Supreme Court 34)Manzoor and 4 Others Versus The State (PLD 1972 Supreme Court 81)Chairman, National Accountability Bureau through P.G., NAB Versus Nisar Ahmed Pathan and Others (PLD 2022 Supreme Court 475)Khalid Saigol Versus The State (PLD 1962 Supreme Court 495)Husnain Mustafa Versus The State and another (2019 SCMR 1914)

Summary: Bail cancelled ---- ''Person who is not advocate but poses so, commits fraud with entire legal system of the country.'' --- Background:Muhammad Rafie filed a petition challenging the validity of the order dated 02.11.2023, issued by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, granting pre-arrest bail to Ghaneem Aabir (respondent No.1/accused). The case arose from F.I.R. No.847/2023, registered under Sections 420, 468, 471 PPC read with Section 58 of the Legal Practitioners and Bars Councils Act, 1973 at Police Station: Civil Lines, Lahore.The petitioner alleged that Ghaneem Aabir posed as an advocate without proper legal credentials and defrauded the public.----Issues:Legality of the pre-arrest bail granted to respondent No.1.Allegations of posing as an advocate without legal justification and defrauding the public.-----Holding:After considering the arguments and examining the available record, the court found sufficient evidence to establish that respondent No.1 had posed as an advocate without proper legal credentials and had defrauded the public. The court cited relevant precedents and legal principles to support its decision to set aside the impugned order granting pre-arrest bail. The order granting bail was deemed perverse, capricious, arbitrary, and not sustainable in the eyes of the law. The impugned order granting pre-arrest bail to respondent No.1 was set aside, and the bail granted was recalled. The court directed the Station House Officer, Police Station: Civil Lines, District Lahore to proceed in accordance with the law. The observations made in the order were clarified to be tentative and strictly confined to the disposal of the instant bail petition.----Citations/Precedents:Ahtisham Ali vs The State (2023 S C M R 975)Muhammad Rafique vs The State and others (P L D 2022 Supreme Court 694)Amir Faraz vs The State (2023 SCMR 308)

Summary: Background: The criminal appeals stem from a judgment by the Ehtesab Court No.1, Muzaffarabad, dated 22.07.2023. The main appellant was convicted under sections 420, 468, 467, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and sentenced to seven years of imprisonment for each offense, alongside a fine and an order to repay Rs. 17,60,579 received as salary. Co-accused, Aftab Aziz and Manzoor Hussain Awan, were acquitted due to insufficient evidence proving their mens rea. ----Issues: 1- Whether the judgment of the Ehtesab Court complied with the mandatory requirements under section 367 Cr.PC, particularly regarding specifying sentences for distinct offenses. 2- Whether the Ehtesab Court properly addressed objections about the reference’s validity, including its preparation and approval as per the Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001. 3- Whether the acquittal of co-accused Aftab Aziz and Manzoor Hussain Awan was justified in light of their alleged involvement in the promotion of Muhammad Taufeeq Kiani based on a forged degree. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Judgment Compliance with Section 367 Cr.PC: The Ehtesab Court failed to comply with section 367 Cr.PC by not specifying separate sentences for each distinct offense. This non-compliance rendered the judgment anomalous and legally infirm. Validity of Reference: The Ehtesab Court did not adequately address objections regarding the reference’s preparation and approval as per section 21 of the Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001, nor did it resolve the issue of the reference being time-barred. Acquittal of Co-Accused: The Ehtesab Court acquitted Aftab Aziz and Manzoor Hussain Awan without considering the possibility of convicting them under offenses proven through evidence, even if not mentioned in the reference. This oversight indicated a failure to properly appreciate the evidence and apply relevant legal principles. The High Court found that the Ehtesab Court's judgment lacked detailed reasoning and proper discussion of evidence, failing to address the core issues raised by the parties. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case to the Ehtesab Court for a fresh decision, directing it to properly appreciate the evidence and address all objections within three months. ----Citations/Precedents: 1991 P Cr.L J 2272: Emphasized the necessity of specifying separate sentences for each offense under section 367 Cr.PC. 2016 SCMR 1190: Reinforced that a court must clearly award separate sentences for distinct offenses, and failing to do so renders the judgment illegal. 2012 MLD 633: Highlighted that a judgment must discuss evidence, provide reasons for decisions, and address all points raised during arguments to avoid being deemed incomplete or flawed.

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. to quash FIR No. 17/2023 dated 19.12.2023, registered under sections 467/468, 471/477-A, 34/409-APC and 5(2) PCA at Police Station Anti Corruption Muzaffarabad. The petitioner argued that an earlier FIR No. 153/2020 had already been registered regarding the same occurrence and facts, making the subsequent FIR unjustified. ----Issues: 1- Whether the registration of a subsequent FIR No. 17/2023 for the same occurrence is justified. 2- Whether local police have jurisdiction to investigate public servants involved in scheduled offences. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome --Justification for Subsequent FIR: The court found that the two FIRs were distinct in nature and scope. The first FIR No. 153/2020 was registered against private persons by local police, while the second FIR No. 17/2023 was registered by the Anti-Corruption Establishment against public servants after an inquiry revealed their involvement in fraud and corruption. The court held that the Anti-Corruption Establishment is competent to investigate public servants in scheduled offences, which local police cannot do. The second FIR was thus justified and necessary for the proper investigation of the offences involving public servants. --Jurisdiction of Local Police: The court reiterated that local police do not have jurisdiction to register or investigate cases against public servants in scheduled offences. Such investigations fall within the exclusive purview of the Anti-Corruption Establishment. Citing precedents (PLJ 1998 Lahore 1651, PLJ 2018 AJK 105, and 2000 UC 580), the court emphasized that the Anti-Corruption Establishment was the appropriate authority to handle the investigation against the public servants involved in this case. The petition to quash FIR No. 17/2023 was dismissed, upholding the registration of the FIR by the Anti-Corruption Establishment. The court found that there was no illegality in the registration of the second FIR as it was necessary to investigate the involvement of public servants in the alleged offences. ----Citations/Precedents: PLJ 1998 Lahore 1651 PLJ 2018 AJK 105 2000 UC 580

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 561-A, 265-K & 249-A—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 365-B, 494, 496-A, 420, 468, 471, 109 & 34— —Acquittal—Scope of inherent jurisdiction—Petition for acquittal during trial—Maintainability— Petitioners sought acquittal under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. after rejection of earlier application under S.265-K, Cr.P.C.—Held, final challan had been submitted, charge was framed, and trial was underway with prosecution witnesses yet to be examined—Main accused were absconding and recovery of vehicle used in commission of alleged offence had been effected from petitioners’ premises—Court observed that criminal trials should ordinarily proceed to conclusion on merits, and extraordinary jurisdiction under Ss. 265-K or 561-A should not be invoked when trial has commenced—Preemptive acquittal of some accused may prejudice the prosecution case against absconding co-accused—Petition dismissed. Principle: Where trial has commenced, the Court should refrain from short-circuiting proceedings through premature acquittal under inherent or statutory provisions. (b) Criminal Trial—Multiple accused—Effect of acquitting some accused during trial—Prejudice to prosecution— Two co-accused had absconded and their trial was yet to be conducted—Held, in cases involving multiple accused, allowing acquittal of some accused at an early stage could adversely affect prosecution of others—Prosecution had listed around 20 witnesses—Premature acquittal would obstruct evaluation of collective liability under Ss.34 & 109, P.P.C.—Court must adopt cautious approach in such cases. Principle: Acquittal of one accused during pendency of trial may prejudice case of co-accused, particularly when trial is incomplete and evidence is yet to be recorded. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 561-A—Scope—When not to be invoked— S.561-A, Cr.P.C. confers inherent powers to secure ends of justice or prevent abuse of process—However, such powers are not a substitute for trial and must be exercised sparingly—Held, where factual controversy exists and trial is in progress, accused must be tried in accordance with law—Assessment of guilt or innocence should be left to trial court after full evidence is led. Held, petition under S.561-A dismissed as misconceived. Petition dismissed.

Summary: Bail granted ---- Facts:The petitioner's son, Furqan Saeed, was accused of committing fraud while employed at the complainant's factory, causing a loss of Rs.700,00,000/-. The petitioner was implicated through a supplementary statement recorded three months after the FIR was lodged.---Procedural History:The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail from the Lahore High Court, which was denied. The denial was then appealed to the Supreme Court of Pakistan.----Issues:Whether the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case against the actual facts and circumstances.Whether the principal accused's grant of post-arrest bail by a competent court should influence the decision regarding the petitioner's pre-arrest bail.----Holding:The Supreme Court allowed the petition, set aside the Lahore High Court's order, and confirmed the ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner.---Rationale:The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner was implicated based on a supplementary statement made significantly after the FIR, with no specific dates for the alleged fraudulent transactions. The Court noted that other accused had been granted bail, and consistency in bail decisions warranted similar treatment for the petitioner. The Court found that the petitioner's liberty could not be curtailed without exceptional reasons and that mere involvement in another case of a similar nature does not disentitle an accused from bail if they have a prima facie case on merits.---Judgment:The petition was converted into an appeal, which was allowed. The petitioner's pre-arrest bail was confirmed.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, a police officer, was the investigating officer in a case related to the misappropriation of a tractor, registered under FIR No. 570/2019 at Police Station Gogera under sections 420/468/471 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The complainant, dissatisfied with the investigation, filed an application under Section 22-A(6) Cr.P.C. before the Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-officio Justice of the Peace (JOP), requesting the transfer of the investigation and the initiation of proceedings under Article 155(1)(c) of the Police Order, 2002 against the petitioner for defective investigation. The JOP ordered the transfer of the investigation and directed the SHO to register an FIR against the petitioner under Article 155(1)(c) of the Police Order, 2002. The petitioner challenged the JOP's order, arguing that he had already been exonerated in a departmental inquiry and that the order for registering the FIR amounted to double jeopardy. -----Issues: 1- Was the direction for registration of an FIR under Article 155(1)(c) of the Police Order, 2002 against the petitioner valid? 2- Should the petitioner face criminal prosecution for a defective investigation despite already being exonerated in a departmental inquiry? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that while the JOP's order to transfer the investigation was valid, the direction to register an FIR under Article 155(1)(c) of the Police Order, 2002 was not warranted. The court explained that defective investigation under Sections 166(2) and 186(2) of the PPC is a non-cognizable offense, and the ex-officio JOP should not have ordered the registration of an FIR. The court directed that any action for defective investigation must proceed in accordance with the provisions of Section 155 of the Cr.P.C., which requires permission from a Magistrate before investigating a non-cognizable offense. Additionally, the court emphasized that departmental action or reference to the Anti-Corruption Establishment could be initiated if the allegations warranted further investigation. The petition was disposed of with instructions to the SHO to enter the information in the relevant register and proceed in accordance with the law, including seeking the Magistrate’s permission for further investigation if necessary. -----Citations/Precedents: Mian Khan and others v. Inspector General of Police Punjab and others (PLD 2002 Lahore 619) Khizer Hayat and others v. Inspector General of Police (Punjab), Lahore and others (PLD 2005 Lahore 470) Zulfiqar v. Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Lahore and 2 others (2021 P Cr. L J 1779) Sindh High Court Bar Association v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 879) Haider Ali and another v. DPO Chakwal and others (2015 SCMR 1724) Mubashir Ahmed v. SHO Police Station Saddar, Gujranwala and 4 others (2007 P Cr. L J 384)

Summary: Acquittal granted----(a) Criminal Law—Control of Narcotic Substances: —S. 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Burden of proof—Failure to establish appellant’s knowledge of narcotics in consignment—Effect. The prosecution failed to prove that the appellant had knowledge of the presence of heroin in the consignment booked through his logistics company. The investigating officer admitted that no evidence linked the appellant to the smuggling attempt, and prosecution witnesses did not support the charge. In the absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, conviction under S. 9(c) was unsustainable. Reliance was placed on Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345) and Muhammad Mansha v. The State (2018 SCMR 772). (b) Criminal Trial—Acquittal from ancillary offenses: —Ss. 420, 468, 471, PPC—Prosecution’s failure to appeal acquittal—Effect. The trial court acquitted the appellant of forgery and fraud charges under Ss. 420, 468, and 471, PPC. The prosecution did not challenge this acquittal, reinforcing the appellant’s defense that he had no role in preparing false documents for the consignment. In the absence of a prosecution appeal, reliance on these allegations to uphold a conviction under S. 9(c) CNSA was legally flawed. (c) Chain of Custody—Failure to Establish Safe Transmission of Narcotics: —Impact on conviction. The prosecution failed to establish how the seized narcotics were transmitted from the crime scene to the forensic laboratory. Contradictions in prosecution testimony, including uncertainty regarding the origin of the consignment and the involvement of a third party (Tanveer Irshad), raised serious doubts about the integrity of the evidence. Relying on Qaiser Khan v. The State (2021 SCMR 363), the Court held that failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody is fatal to the prosecution’s case. (d) Judicial Approach to Prosecution Evidence: —Prosecution witnesses contradicting their own statements—Legal consequences. The investigating officer (PW-3) and other witnesses admitted that the appellant cooperated with the investigation and had no direct involvement in smuggling. Despite this, the trial court convicted him based on conjecture rather than concrete evidence. The High Court ruled that findings based on presumptions rather than facts violate the principle of criminal jurisprudence, requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt. (e) Criminal Justice Principles: —Burden of Proof—Standard for acquittal. It is a fundamental principle of criminal law that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court reaffirmed that even a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal, as enunciated in Muhammad Akram v. The State (2009 SCMR 230). Given the contradictions in the prosecution’s case, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt. ----Disposition: Appeal accepted. Conviction and sentence under S. 9(c) CNSA, 1997, set aside. Appellant acquitted and released.