Summary: The appellant, Mian Khalid Perviz, was charged under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (CNSA), for the alleged possession of 12 kilograms of charas (a narcotic substance) concealed in a vehicle.The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 9(c) of the CNSA and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,00,000/- (one million) and one year of simple imprisonment in default. The conviction and sentence were upheld by the Division Bench of the Islamabad High Court.The appellant was granted leave to appeal on the grounds that his defense evidence was not adequately considered in the lower courts. However, upon re-appraisal of the entire evidence, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution had successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense evidence presented, including call data records and vehicle tracking data, did not sufficiently challenge the prosecution's evidence.The Court noted several inconsistencies and doubts in the defense evidence, and it was unconvinced by the appellant's claims of abduction and conspiracy by the ANF (Anti-Narcotics Force). The Court highlighted that the defense evidence lacked credibility and failed to rebut the prosecution's case effectively.Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as it lacked merit, upholding the appellant's conviction and sentence under the CNSA.

Summary: The appellant, Mian Khalid Perviz, was charged under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (CNSA), for the alleged possession of 12 kilograms of charas (a narcotic substance) concealed in a vehicle.The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 9(c) of the CNSA and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,00,000/- (one million) and one year of simple imprisonment in default. The conviction and sentence were upheld by the Division Bench of the Islamabad High Court.The appellant was granted leave to appeal on the grounds that his defense evidence was not adequately considered in the lower courts. However, upon re-appraisal of the entire evidence, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution had successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense evidence presented, including call data records and vehicle tracking data, did not sufficiently challenge the prosecution's evidence.The Court noted several inconsistencies and doubts in the defense evidence, and it was unconvinced by the appellant's claims of abduction and conspiracy by the ANF (Anti-Narcotics Force). The Court highlighted that the defense evidence lacked credibility and failed to rebut the prosecution's case effectively.Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as it lacked merit, upholding the appellant's conviction and sentence under the CNSA.

Summary: The appellant, Mian Khalid Perviz, was charged under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (CNSA), for the alleged possession of 12 kilograms of charas (a narcotic substance) concealed in a vehicle.The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 9(c) of the CNSA and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,00,000/- (one million) and one year of simple imprisonment in default. The conviction and sentence were upheld by the Division Bench of the Islamabad High Court.The appellant was granted leave to appeal on the grounds that his defense evidence was not adequately considered in the lower courts. However, upon re-appraisal of the entire evidence, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution had successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense evidence presented, including call data records and vehicle tracking data, did not sufficiently challenge the prosecution's evidence.The Court noted several inconsistencies and doubts in the defense evidence, and it was unconvinced by the appellant's claims of abduction and conspiracy by the ANF (Anti-Narcotics Force). The Court highlighted that the defense evidence lacked credibility and failed to rebut the prosecution's case effectively.Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as it lacked merit, upholding the appellant's conviction and sentence under the CNSA.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 151---Inherent powers of Court---Scope---Consolidation of suits was prerogative,which was to be exercised on the dictate of the justice to avoid contradictory judgments andfor better administration of justice---Though no provision for consolidation of civil suits wasprovided in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 but the Court could consolidate different suits toavoid conflict of judgments if the parties in the suits were the same and the cause of actionwas common---Parties, in the present case, had filed separate suits against each other beforethe Trial Court about the same property---Admittedly, subject-matter of the two suits, wasthe same and if the suits would have been adjudicated separately there was likelihood ofconflicting judgments subject matter of the suits being the same it was proper in the interestof justice that they (suits) be consolidated---Despite the fact that the two suits were atdifferent stages of adjudication, they should be heard together---No illegality or infirmitywas found in the impugned orders and the judgments passed by both the Courts below---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.Zahid Zaman Khan v. Khan Afsar PLD 2016 SC 409 and Muhammad Yaqoob v.Behram Khan 2006 SCMR 1262 ref.(b) Administration of justice-------Consolidation of the suits---Consolidation of suits was to be ordered to avoidcontradictory judgments and for better administration of justice.

Summary: National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)-------S. 9(a)(vi)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 245, 249-A & 265-K---Misuse ofauthority---Appeal against acquittal---Evidence, non-recording of---Right to produceevidence---Accused persons were acquitted by Trial Court in exercise of S. 265-K, Cr.P.C.prior to recording of any prosecution evidence---Validity---No bar of limitation existed totrial or stage of proceedings for filing an application for acquittal of accused but proprietyrequired that fair opportunity should be provided to prosecution to prove its case byproducing evidence---Matter was to be decided on merits as envisaged under S. 245, Cr.P.C.after providing proper opportunity to prosecution for producing its evidence and recordingstatements of accused persons under S. 342, Cr.P.C.---High Court directed that in cases ofcorruption and misappropriation of public money, Courts were required to act with extremecare and caution in deciding such cases and should not proceeded hastily in acquittingaccused persons involved therein either under S. 248-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C. as the case could---Trial Court was to provide prosecution every possible opportunity to prove its case andestablish guilt of accused after full-fledged trial---High Court set aside judgment of acquittaland remanded the matter to Trial Court for decision afresh after recording of evidence---Appeal was allowed accordingly.The State through Advocate General, Sindh High Court of Karachi v. Raja AbdulRehman 2005 SCMR 1544 rel.

Summary: Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)-------Ss.12 & 25---Custody of minor---Interim custody, right of---Scope---Guardian Court,jurisdiction of---Father of minor had passed away---Guardian Court granted interim custodyof minor girl (aged 08 years) to the mother---Paternal grandparents invoked constitutionaljurisdiction of High Court against the said order---Held, that under S.12(1) of the Guardiansand Wards Act, 1890, the Guardian Judge was empowered to make interlocutory orders forproduction of minor and interim protection of his person and his property---Said power couldeven be exercised in the absence of an urgency---Company of grandfather obviously couldnot be a substitute of the mother---Custody of minor could not be allowed to shuttle betweenthe parties---Once the Guardian Judge had exercised its jurisdiction in granting interimcustody, the same was to be allowed to stay, unless there were compelling circumstances tochange the custody---Order of temporary custody of the minor being interim in nature wouldbe subject to the decision in the (main) guardian application under S.25 of Guardians andWards Act, 1890---Same could be varied, altered or rescinded by taking notice of allsubsequent events and welfare of minor---No illegality or infirmity was found in theimpugned order and judgment passed by the Guardian Court granting interim custody ofminor girl to mother---High Court , however, directed the Trial Court to pass an appropriateorder for production and visitation of minor to the grand-parents without disturbing herstudies---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Summary: Sentence Reduced --- Background:On June 4, 2013, Afzul-ur-Rehman, driving an explosive-laden truck, was intercepted by the police near Banda District Kark at 17:20 PM. The vehicle was found to contain a significant amount of high-intensity explosives, detonators, and a hand grenade. Rehman, along with Niaz Muhammad (later acquitted), was taken into custody. Two days later, Rehman made a confessional statement before a Magistrate, detailing his recruitment under false pretenses and his subsequent realization and refusal to carry out a suicide attack. Despite retracting his confession at trial, he was convicted and sentenced by the trial court and the conviction was upheld by the Peshawar High Court, albeit with Niaz Muhammad being acquitted.-----Issues:The primary issues addressed in the appeal were:The validity of the appellant's retracted confession and its impact on his guilt.The effect of the voluntary surrender of the appellant on his culpability.The appropriateness of the sentences under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997, in light of the appellant's actions to prevent a potential catastrophe.The comparison of the appellant's case with the acquitted co-accused and its implications on the appellant's conviction.----Holding/Reasoning:The Supreme Court of Pakistan acknowledged the established facts of the case, including the interception of the truck, the appellant's arrest, and the substantial evidence of his involvement in the transportation of explosives. The Court noted the appellant's change of heart, which ultimately prevented a major disaster, as a mitigating factor. However, it held that this change of heart, while reducing the gravity of his actions, did not absolve him of culpability.The Court differentiated between the appellant's actions and his initial intent, finding him guilty but considering his subsequent actions as grounds for a reduced sentence. The conviction under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, was maintained, but the sentence was reduced to the minimum of seven years R.I., inclusive of the pre-trial period. The conviction and sentence under the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997, were set aside. The directions regarding the forfeiture of the appellant's property remained unchanged.----Citations/Precedents:The judgment referenced the case of Ghulam Hussain Vs. The State (PLD 2020 SC 61), which presumably relates to the interpretation of the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997, and its applicability to cases similar to the appellant's. This precedent likely influenced the decision to set aside the conviction and sentence under the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997.

Summary: Background:Several individuals filed review petitions seeking to challenge a judgment dated 04.05.2018 issued by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The petitioners were not parties to the original case and did not have any direct claim to the disputed property. They sought to contest the binding nature of the legal principles established in the 2018 judgment, particularly concerning future actions by revenue authorities related to their properties.---Issues:Whether the review petitions filed by individuals not party to the original case are maintainable.Whether the legal principles established in the 2018 judgment should bind revenue authorities in future actions regarding the properties of the review petitioners.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Maintainability of Review Petitions: The court held that the review petitions were not maintainable. It reasoned that the law established by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts in Pakistan under Article 189 of the Constitution. Nullifying the legal principles established in the 2018 judgment would violate Article 189 and effectively replace the majority judgment with the minority one. The purpose of Article 189 is to prevent future litigation on questions of law decided by the Supreme Court until revisited by a larger bench. Therefore, the court dismissed the review petitions.---Citations/Precedents:Article 189 of the Constitution of Pakistan: Significance: Establishes the binding nature of Supreme Court decisions on all courts in Pakistan.

Summary: Acquittal granted---Background:Appellant convicted for the murder of Waris Ali.Initially sentenced to death, later commuted to life imprisonment.Appeal filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench.----Issues:Whether the prosecution provided sufficient evidence to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.Whether the acquittal of the appellant's sons impacts the credibility of the prosecution's case.Whether the circumstances surrounding the incident support the appellant's claim of accidental shooting.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.Lack of motive and conflicting evidence regarding the distance between the appellant and the deceased raised doubts.Recovery of two shotguns and absence of significant crime scene marks questioned the prosecution's narrative.Discrepancies in the investigation, including contradictory statements, weakened the case.The court concluded insufficient evidence and acquitted the appellant.Ordered the appellant's release unless detained in another case.

Summary: Summary pending