Summary: (a) Balochistan Sea Fisheries Ordinance (IX of 1971)--- ----Ss. 3 & 9---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185 (3)---Illicit fishing---Constructive knowledge, principle of---Applicability---Fishing trawler, confiscation of---Petitioner sought release of his trawler and other fishing equipment on the plea that illegal fishing activity was done by his employees without his knowledge---Validity---Despite assertion of ignorance by petitioner, there was overwhelming evidence of illicit fishing on his vessel and the same was insufficient to absolve him of liability---Even if petitioner did not possess actual knowledge of certain facts or information, he was presumed to be aware of them as proprietor of the trawler---Such presumption was based on the fact that information was reasonably accessible to him and that he should have been aware of the facts in the light of his position, duty and circumstances---Petitioner was responsible for illegal actions of his employees as proprietor of trawler as a result of his failure to conduct reasonable background checks---Constructive knowledge was a critical legal principle that guaranteed accountability by assuming knowledge in a situation where it was reasonable to anticipate awareness---Petitioner did not file any application for release of trawler in question on superdari at trial stage, and likely was awaiting the outcome of trial at that time---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. (b) Maxim--- ----Qui sentit commodum, debet et sentire onus---Meaning---He who derives a benefit ought also to bear a burden. Raja Muhammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Syed Pervaiz Bukhari, State Counsel. Date of hearing: 14th April, 2025.

Summary: Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)--- ----Ss. 7 & 25---Custody of minor---Determining factors---Welfare of minor---Economic conditions- --Scope---Petitioner/father of two minors sons remained unsuccessful in getting their custody---Held, that petitioner was settled abroad and had filed petition under section 25 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 through special attorney who appeared as petitioner's witness---Such fact also showed petitioner's lack of affection and love as well as care for the minors---Petitioner neither joined proceedings during pendency of petition before Trial Court nor bothered to appear before Lower Appellate Court---There was nothing on record to suggest that respondent /mother was not taking care of minors in a proper way or that she was not getting them educated so as to make them useful citizens---Respondent /mother of minors did not enter into second marital bond for the sake of her children and welfare of minors was with respondent /mother---Poverty could not be considered a valid ground for disentitling respondent/ mother from custody of minors---Paramount consideration for Court in making order under section 7 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 of appointment of guardian of minor is that it should be satisfied that the order is for welfare of minor---Although father is a natural guardian of his minor children, yet court has to be satisfied while appointing father as a guardian that welfare of minor lies in the fact that he be appointed as a guardian and the custody of minor be delivered accordingly---Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by High Court---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused. Khan Muhammad v. Mst. Surayya Bibi and others 2008 SCMR 480; Mehmood Akhtar v. District Judge, Attock and 2 others 2004 SCMR 1839; Mst. Talat Nasira v. Mst. Munawar Sultana and 2 others 1985 SCMR 1367; Mst. Rubia Jilani v. Zahoor Akhtar Raja and 2 others 1991 SCMR 1834; Mst. Firdous Iqbal v. Shifaat Ali and others 2000 SCMR 838; Mst. Razia Bibi v. Riaz Ahmad and another 2004 SCMR 821; Shabana Naz v. Muhammad Saleem 2014 SCMR 343 and Raja Muhammad Owais v. Mst. Nazia Jabeen and others 2022 SCMR 2123 rel. Haji Muhammad Zahir Shah, Advocate-on-Record assisted by Shah Faisal Najafi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (via video-link from Peshawar). Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 22nd November, 2024.

Summary: Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)--- ----S. 372---Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), S. 7(3)---Three divorces in one sitting---Divorce, finality of---Death of husband during Iddah period---Respondent/widow of deceased was deprived in succession certificate issued by Trial Court on the ground that she had been divorced by her husband---High Court set aside the judgment passed by Trial Court and declared respondent as widow of deceased who had died during the period of Iddah---Validity---Legislative intent in section 7(3) of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 is to discourage hasty divorces requiring a cooling-off period which is consistent with Islamic principles---Far from being repugnant to the Islamic Injunctions, provision of section 7(3) of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 is in harmony with the Quranic commandment found in Surah Al Baqrah, which enjoins a period of waiting and reflection before the finality of divorce---Islam has permitted dissolution of marriage in cases of necessity---This is a course strongly discouraged and disapproved in principle and the Quran prescribes a structured procedure for when divorce becomes final and absolute, which necessarily includes observance of Iddah, that is, a waiting period a woman must observe following the death of her spouse or a divorce---Iddah is not merely symbolic but serves a substantive purpose, for it allows for reflection, potential reconciliation and possible retraction of pronouncement of divorce---Recognizing Talaq-e-Biddat as immediately effective undermines such essential safeguard, depriving husband of opportunity to revisit a hasty decision and standing in clear conflict with the Quranic injunctions governing sanctity and dissolution of marriage---Written talaq pronounced by deceased husband had not become final in accordance with the injunctions of the Holy Quran nor did it fully comply with the mandatory statutory period under section 7(3) of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961---Respondent continued to remain lawful widow of her deceased husband and was entitled to inherit his estate---Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by High Court---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Surah Al Baqra (2:226-232) and Sura -Al-Talaq (65:1) and Mst. Rehmat Bibi v. Mst. Sharifan Bibi and others 1988 SCMR 1812 rel. Asghar Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 9th April, 2025.

Summary: Dowry and Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Act (XLII of 1976)--- ----Ss. 2(a), 2(e) & 5---Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S.5---Gifts and presents---Recovery---Bride and groom, proprietary status of---Suit for recovery of dowery and maintenance---Appellant/groom was aggrieved of judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below without distinguishing dowry articles and presents---Validity---All property given to bride as dowry, bridal gifts, or presents vests absolutely in her---Use of the phrase "shall vest absolutely" confers exclusive and unqualified proprietary rights upon bride, thereby barring any adverse claim by husband or his relatives---Subsequent part "and her interest in property however derived shall hereafter not be restrictive, conditional or limited" acts as a safeguard to protect bride's proprietary autonomy from customary or familial encumbrances---Such absolute vesting of rights in the bride remains unaffected by any subsequent separation or divorce, thereby reinforcing her enduring and independent entitlement to such property---Legislative intent underpinning section 5 of Dowry and Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Act, 1976 is to secure independent proprietary status of bride and to shield her from dispossession, particularly in the event of marital breakdown--- Purposive interpretation of provision of section 5 of Dowry and Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Act, 1976 necessarily confines the scope of recoverable property to that which is demonstrably intended for the bride---Accordingly, items gifted to the groom or his relatives, unless clearly shown to be intended for the bridge's use or held in trust for her benefit, fall outside the protective ambit of Dowry and Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Act, 1976---Consequently, presents given to groom's family cannot be claimed by bride under Dowry and Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Act, 1976 unless it is clearly established that those were intended solely for her use or benefit---List provided by respondent/ bride showed that certain items, given to the family of appellant/groom, fell outside the scope of dowry and bridal gifts and were passed as "presents", as defined under Dowry and Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Act, 1976---Such items could not be decreed in favour of respondent/bride---Supreme Court modified the judgment passed by High Court to exclude such items, while the suit decreed in favour of respondent/bride to the extent of remaining items was maintained---Appeal was allowed. Fawad Ishaq v. Mrs. Mahreen Mansoor PLD 2020 SC 269; Dawlance United Refrigeration v. Muhammad Asim PLD 2016 Lahore 425; Muhammad Arshad v. Additional District Judge 2015 CLC 463; Mussarat Iqbal Niazi v. Judge, Family Court 2013 CLC 276; Abdul Sattar v. Chairman Railways 2011 YLR 1033; Gul Sher v. Maryam Sultana 2011 YLR 1000; Najeeb Ullah v. Makhdoom Akhtar 2009 YLR 1823; Shahnaz Begum v. Muhammad Shafi PLD 2004 Lahore 290; Ghulam Rasool v. Judge, Family Court 1991 CLC 1696; Masud Sarwar v. Farah Deeba 1988 CLC 1546; Muhammad Khalid Karim v. Saadia Yaqoob PLD 2012 SC 66; Syed Mukhtar Hussain v. Saba Imtiaz PLD 2011 SC 260; Ejaz Naseem v. Fareeha Ahmad 2009 SCMR 484; Muhammad Akram v. Hajra Bibi PLD 2007 Lah. 515; Taimoor Aslam Satti v. Alia Bibi 2016 YLR 765; Shamim Akhtar v. District Judge 2016 MLD 242; Nomail Zia v. Adnan Riaz 2014 CLC 87; Article 23. Provision as to property. Every citizen shall have the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property in any part of Pakistan, subject to the Constitution and any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the public interest. See Pakcom Limited v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2011 SC 44; Article 24. Protection of property rights. (1) No person shall be deprived of his property save in accordance with law. (2) ... (3) ... (4) ...See Farhan Aslam v. Nuzba Shaheen 2021 SCMR 179; Article 25. Equality of citizens. (1) All citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law; (2) There shall be no discrimination on the basis of sex; (3) Nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the protection of women and children. See Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Syed Sadiq Shah 2021 SCMR 747; Article 35. Protection of family. The State shall protect the marriage, the family, the mother and the child. See Farhan Aslam v. Nuzba Shaheen 2021 SCMR 179 and Haseen Ullah v. Naheed Begum PLD 2022 SC 686 rel. Ch. Zulfiqar Ali Dhudi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (through V.L. Lahore Registry). Maqsood ul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents. Assisted by: Umer A. Ranjha, Judicial Law Clerk. Date of hearing: 15th April, 2025.

Summary: (a) Co-operative Societies Act (VII of 1925)--- ----S. 54---Registrar---Jurisdiction---Not all disputes arising between a society and its members, officers, or employees fall within the ambit of section 54 of Co-operative Societies Act, 1925. (b) Co-operative Societies Act (VII of 1925)--- ----S. 54---Registrar---Powers---Jurisdiction of Civil Court---Powers of Registrar can in no case exceed the powers of Civil Courts under Civil Procedure Code, 1908. (c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 54---Co-operative Societies Act (VII of 1925), S.54---Suit for declaration and injunction---Ownership right, determination of---Phrase "touching the business of the society"---Registrar, jurisdiction of---Dispute between the parties was with regard to ownership of suit property---Predecessor-in-interest of respondent filed suit which was decreed in his favour---Petitioner/defendant sought ex-parte award in his favour by invoking jurisdiction of Registrar Co-operative Societies-- -Award in favour of petitioner/defendant was set aside by High Court---Validity---Award made by Registrar was void, as dispute between parties was not "touching the business of the society" within the meaning of section 54 of Co-operative Societies Act, 1925---Registrar had no authority to determine title or ownership of disputed property when valid judgment passed by a competent Court of law was already in existence and no appeal had been preferred by petitioner/defendant---Requirement that dispute must be one "touching the business of the society" goes to the very root of the jurisdiction of Registrar or the arbitrators acting under section 54 of Co-operative Societies Act, 1925-- -Award by Registrar under Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 could not directly or indirectly adversely affect or overrule a civil Court's judgment and decree---Arbitration proceedings were initiated in a manner that contravened established legal principles, and award passed therein could not override a final judicial determination by a competent civil Court---High Court was justified in setting aside arbitration award and subsequent lease deed executed in favour of petitioner/defendant---Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by High Court which was well-reasoned and had considered all material aspects of the case---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Ghulam Moin-ul-Haq Gillani v. Province of Punjab and others 2021 CLC 1286; Deccan Merchants Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Dalichand Jugraj Jain and others (1969) (1) SCR 887; Defence Housing Authority Lahore v. Builders and Developers (Pvt.) Ltd. 2015 SCMR 1799 and The National Co-Operative Consumers' Federation Ltd., New Delhi v. Delhi Administration, Delhi and others AIR 1971 Delhi 141 ref. Syed Shahenshah Hussain, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 21st March, 2025.

Summary: Per Jamal Khan Mandokhail, J.; Amin-ud-Din Khan, Naeem Akhter Afghan, Shakeel Ahmad and Aamer Farooq, JJ., agreeing (a) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 10A---Right to fair trial and due process of law---Right of appeal---Imposing of unreasonable conditions---Effect---Unreasonable conditions attached to an appeal would likely be ones that are not justified, disproportionate or infringe upon fundamental rights or legal process---Unreasonable condition can make it impossible or unfairly difficult to exercise the right to appeal. (b) Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (VII of 1947)--- ----S. 23-C(4)---Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal Rules, 1998, R.8---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10A---Right of appeal---Condition of deposit of penalty amount---Petitioner/Authority was aggrieved of setting aside of provisions of section 23-C(4) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and Rule 8 of Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal Rules, 1998 by High Court declaring them as unconstitutional-- -Validity---Directing a party to deposit total amount of subject matter, before admission of his appeal is unreasonable, resulting into preventing that party from exercising its right of appeal, which violates its fundamental right of fair trial and due process, guaranteed by Article 10A of the Constitution---Such condition may not only deprive a party from its fundamental right of challenging a decision of executive authority before an independent and impartial higher forum but may also give a license to powerful executive to misuse its authority---Condition of depositing of fine amount imposed by section 23-C(4) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 is so excessive and unreasonable that it would amount to denial of right to appeal, which violates Article 10A of the Constitution, hence, it cannot sustain---Supreme Court declined to interfere in the impugned judgment passed by High Court as there was no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional defect in the judgment---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Khan Asfandyar Wali v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2001 SC 607; Federation of Pakistan's case PLD 1988 SC 202; Ministry of Defense's case PLD 1989 SC 6 and Messrs Eastern Rice Syndicate's case PLD 1959 SC (Pak) 364 rel. Per Shakeel Ahmed, J.: (c) Legislation--- ----Legislature, powers of---Scope---Legislature is sovereign within its domain of law-making but such sovereignty is not unfettered- --Legislature cannot enact any provision whatsoever which is inconsistent with, or violative of fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution---Any such provision must be tested on the touchstone of Constitutionality and struck down if found to be inconsistent with fundamental rights. (d) Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (VII of 1947)--- ----Ss. 23-C(4) & 23J---Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal Rules, 1998, R.8---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10A---Right of appeal---Condition of deposit of penalty amount---Petitioner/Authority was aggrieved of setting aside of provisions of section 23-C (4) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and Rule 8 of Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal Rules, 1998 by High Court declaring them as unconstitutional---Validity---Full mechanism for the recovery of sums due to the Government has been provided in section 23J of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947---In the light of such enforcement measures already available to the State, imposition of additional precondition of depositing penalty amount or furnishing security equivalent thereto under section 23-C(4) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 at appellate stage is wholly disproportionate and oppressive and does not serve to further any legitimate Governmental interest that is not already safeguarded under section 23-J of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947---Provisions of section 23-C(4) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, as well as Rule 8 of Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal Rules, 1988, which mandate a financial precondition for filing an appeal, constitute an unreasonable and unconstitutional restriction on the fundamental right of access to justice---Such provision disproportionately affects individuals with limited financials means, effectively denying them the opportunity to challenge adverse decisions---High Court had rightly declared section 23-C(4) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, as well as Rule 8 of Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal Rules, 1988, (to the extent that said Rule makes the receipt of an appeal subject to compliance with section 23-C(4) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947), as unconstitutional/ultra vires of the Constitution and had rightly struck down the provisions---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Shaikh Riaz-ul-Haq v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2013 SC 501; Commissioner of Income Tax, Peshawar Zone, Peshawar v. Messrs Siemen A.G PLD 1991 SC 368; Surah An-Nisa (4:59); Federation of Pakistan v. Public at Large PLD 1988 SC 202; Pakistan v. General Public PLD 1989 SC 6; Messrs Chenab Cement Product (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Banking Tribunal, Lahore PLD 1996 Lah. 672 and Khan Asfandyar Wali v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2001 SC 607 rel. Faisal Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court and Dr. Muhammad Usman, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Rana Asadullah Khan, Addl. AGP for Respondent No. 1 Waqas Ahmad Mir, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 8. Respondents Nos. 2-7 not represented. Date of hearing: 20th March, 2025.

Summary: (a) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ----S. 17---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 79---Financial liability document---Proof---Failure to produce two attesting witnesses---Principle---At least two attesting witnesses have been mandated under Article 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, who must be produced to establish execution of financial documents or those about future obligations---In matters of family law such as dower, such requirement is exempted under section 17 of Family Courts Act, 1964---Family Court's jurisdiction leans towards an inquisitorial approach designed to encourage amicable settlements while maintaining a focus on financial context---Evidentiary requirements to prove existence and validity of a financial deed are significantly less stringent than those encountered in traditional civil litigation. (b) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ----Ss. 5 & 17---Suit for recovery of dower amount---Dower deed---Proof---Suit was filed by respondent/plaintiff who was widow of deceased brother of petitioners/defendants, to recover her articles as per dower deed---Suit and appeal filed by respondent/plaintiff were dismissed by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court respectively for not producing two attesting witnesses---High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction decreed the suit in favour of respondent/ plaintiff---Validity---To meet burden of proof regarding execution of dower deed duly attested by two witnesses, it was sufficient for respondent/plaintiff to present original document (dower deed) during Court proceedings and one of two attesting witnesses, along with the testimony from persons who were present at the time of its execution---Statement of such witnesses not only confirmed execution of dower deed but also provided relevant context or information surrounding its execution---Respondent/plaintiff had successfully proved execution of dower deed and once execution of dower deed was proved, non-rebuttable presumption had arisen regarding amount of dower specified in that document---Such presumption held significant legal weight as it confirmed agreed-upon financial settlement between both the parties---Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by High Court as it had acted appropriately in revisiting matters and ensuring that principles of law were correctly applied---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused. Kishori Lal v. Chunni Lal 31 All 116 and Mahunt Shatrugan Das v. Bawa Sham Das and others AIR 1938 PC 59 rel. (c) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199(1)(a)(ii)---Family cases---Authority of High Court to over turn decisions of Family Court or Fist Appellate Court---Writ of certiorari---Scope---Where a Family Court or First Appellate Court has reached a conclusion that stems from a clear misinterpretation of statutory provision, or has acted in ignorance or disregard of law, or based its judgment on legally unsound reasoning, such erroneous conclusions are subject to correction through an order of certiorari as outlined in Article 199(1)(a)(ii) of the Constitution. Muhammad Asif, Advocate Supreme Court (via video link from Branch Registry Peshawar) for Petitioner. Obaidullah Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court (via video link from Branch Registry Peshawar for Respondent No.1. Date of hearing: 31st January, 2025.

Summary: ----R. 25.2(3)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 13(b)---DNA test---Witness against himself, principle of---Applicability---DNA test of accused person does not offend Art. 13(b) of the Constitution---DNA collection in criminal cases is analogous to police practice of taking photographs or collecting fingerprints of accused and it accomplishes the same function more effectively---Such test is not testimonial because investigator - or Court - draws its own conclusions---By providing sample for test, accused does not impart any information based on his own knowledge and does not become a witness against himself, violating Art. 13(b) of the Constitution. Salman Akram Raja and another v. Government of Punjab and others 2013 SCMR 203; Ali Haider alias Papu v. Jameel Hussain and others PLD 2021 SC 362; Smt. Selvi and others v. State of Karnataka AIR 2010 SC 1974; Schmerber v. California 384 U.S. 757 (1966); Boling v. Romer 101 F.3d 1336, 1340 (10th Cir. 1996); Maryland v. King 569 U.S. 435 (2013); M. P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra and others AIR 1954 SC 300; State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad AIR 1961 SC 1808; Nandini Satpathy v. Dani (P.L.) and another AIR 1978 SC 1025; Ritesh Sinha v. State of U.P. AIR 2013 SC 1132; Gautam Kundu v. State of West Bengal AIR 1993 SC 2295; Syed Ikram Gardezi v. The State and another 1980 PCr.LJ 941; Alpha Insurance Company Limited and others v. United Insurance Company of Pakistan Limited and another 1996 SCMR 1668; Abdul Latif Aassi v. The State 1999 MLD 1069 = 2001 PCr.LJ 548 and Muhammad Nawaz v. Additional District and Sessions Judge and others PLD 2023 SC 461 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 94---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 24, 40, 59 & 164---High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, Vol. III, Chapter,1-E, R.2---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302--- Qatl-i-amd---DNA Test---Terms "whenever" and "thing"---Scope---Filling in lacuna in prosecution case---During recording of prosecution evidence, complainant filed application for DNA test of accused for comparison with samples of deceased kept at Punjab Forensic Science Agency---Trial Court allowed the application filed by complainant---Validity---Extensive powers have been given under S. 94, Cr.P.C. to the Court---Effect of word "whenever" used in S. 94, Cr.P.C. is that Court can exercise that authority at any stage of trial---Language of S. 94, Cr.P.C. is general and it includes an accused person---Term "things" used in S. 94, Cr.P.C. and Art. 161 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 must be given a broad meaning and understood to signify anything connected with the offence which may serve interest of justice---High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Trial Court as the order would not allow prosecution to fill lacunae in its case, which was based entirely on circumstantial evidence---DNA test of accused would help the court to make a correct decision---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances. Om Prakash Sharma v. CBI, Delhi AIR 2000 SC 2335; Abdul Latif Aassi v. The State 1999 MLD 1069 : 2001 PCr.LJ 548 and Zahira Habibullah H. Sheikh and another v. State of Gujarat and others AIR 2004 SC 3114 rel. (c) Punjab Forensic Science Agency Act (XIII of 2007)--- ----S. 2(1)(g)---Forensic material---DNA sample---Scope---Term "forensic material" under S. 2(1)(g) of Punjab Forensic Science Agency Act, 2007 means a document, material, equipment, impression, or any other object connected with commission of offence, a civil cause or any other proceedings---Such description fully covers a DNA sample. Muhammad Nawaz for Petitioner. Rai Asif Mehmood, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State. Mudassar Naveed Chatha and Muhammad Waqas for Respondent No.3. Date of hearing: 17th February, 2023.

Summary: ----S. 5, Sched.---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Dower, claim of---Concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below---Respondent/widow claimed to be owner of house given to her in lieu of her dower money (Haq Mehr)---Petitioners/sons of deceased contended that Kabeen Nama was a forged document and their father had divorced respondent in his life time---Validity---Family matters were quasi judicial proceedings and findings arrived at by Family Court and Lower Appellate Court must not be overturned, more particularly in Constitutional petition, unless the findings arrived at by the fora below were found to be arbitrary, perverse, in violation of law or if error was so obvious that it would not be acceptable---High Court declined to interfere in concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below in favour of respondent/widow, as the same did not suffer from any error of law and facts---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Arif Fareed v. Bibi Sara 2023 SCMR 413; M. Hamad Hassan v. Mst. Isma Bukhari 2023 SCMR 1434 and Mst. Tayyebaa Ambareen and another v. Shafaqat Ali Kiyani and another 2023 SCMR 246 rel. Muhammad Saleem Lashari, Salman Langove and Umar Babar for Petitioners. Habib-ur-Rehman Qambrani for Respondents Nos.1 to 4. Date of hearing: 6th November, 2023.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5---Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978, Rr. 90 & 91---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Non-filing of appeal---Condonation of delay---Jail authorities, responsibility of---Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to death on three counts and no Jail Appeal was filed by him despite being in jail for more than thirteen years before filing of appeal before Supreme Court---Validity---Superintendent of Jail should have obtained and forwarded appeal as he was under obligation to facilitate petitioner/convict in filing of appeal within the period of limitation as prescribed under Rule 91 of Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978---Technicalities should not hamper Court of justice---Powers regarding condonation under section 5 of Limitation Act, 1908 should be liberally exercised to ensure administration of justice in its true spirit---Supreme Court condoned the delay of more than thirteen years caused in filing of Jail Appeal against death sentence on three counts---Application was allowed. Muhammad Bakhsh alias Muhammadi v. The State 1985 SCMR 72; Muhammad Nawaz v. The State PLD 2002 SC 287 and Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. The State PLD 2009 SC 814 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S.302 (b)---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Triple murder---Death sentence on three counts---Principle of expectancy of life---Motive not proved---Plea of substitution---Accused was convicted and sentenced to death on three counts for committing triple murder---Plea raised by accused was that it was a blind murder---Validity---Both the eye-witnesses had plausibly explained their presence with deceased at the spot at the time of occurrence---Presence of complainant with three deceased out of whom one was his brother and remaining two were his wife and daughter respectively, was quite natural and appealable---In villages such close relatives do associate and accompany each other to market/bazaar for purchase of household articles---Substitution of real culprits, especially in cases where eye-witnesses lost their kith and kins before their own eyes was a rare phenomenon---Once motive is set up by prosecution, but thereafter fails to prove the same, then prosecution must suffer the consequences and not the defense---Supreme Court declined to interfere in conviction of accused recorded by two Courts below under section 302(b), P.P.C. but converted death sentence into imprisonment for life on three counts as prosecution failed to prove motive and there were minor discrepancies in evidence coupled with long incarceration of accused, since his arrest including his period in death cell---Appeal was dismissed. Allah Ditta v. The State PLD 2002 SC 52; Muhammad Iqbal v. The State PLD 2001 SC 222; Asfandiyar v. The State and others 2021 SCMR 2009; Muhammad Abbas and another v. The State 2023 SCMR 487; Azhar Hussain and another v. The State and others 2022 SCMR 1907; Shamsher Ahmad and another v. The State and others 2022 SCMR 1931; Aman Ullah v. The State 2023 SCMR 723; Imran Mehmood v. The State 2023 SCMR 795; Amir Muhammad Khan v. The State 2023 SCMR 566; Taiamal Hussain Shah v. The State and another 2022 SCMR 1567; Liaqat Ali and another v. The State and others 2021 SCMR 780; Najaf Ali Shah v. The State 2021 SCMR 736; Khalid Mehmood and others v. The State and others 2021 SCMR 810; Ansar Ahmad Khan Barki's case 1993 SCMR 1660 and Falak Sher's case 1999 SCMR 2432 rel. (c) Criminal trial--- ----Evidence---Ocular evidence and medical evidence---Preference---Where ocular evidence is found trustworthy and confidence inspiring, the same is given preference over medical evidence---Ocular account alone is sufficient to sustain conviction of an accused. Muhammad Iqbal v. The State 1996 SCMR 908; Naeem Akhtar v. The State PLD 2003 SC 396; Faisal Mehmood v. The State 2010 SCMR 1025 and Muhammad Ilyas v. The State 2011 SCMR 460 rel. Rizwan Ejaz, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Azhar Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court for Complainant. Irfan Zia, APG for the State. Date of hearing: 17th February, 2025.