Summary: Section 9-D KP CNSA, 2019.i. Recovery of contraband from residential house.ii. Independent witness mandatory requirement under Section 31 of KP CNSA.iii. In case of search of dwelling house strict observance of Section 103 Cr.PC is required.iv. Impact of other criminal record against accused is not relevant (2017 SCMR 279). Bail allowed.

Summary: Custody of Minor

Summary: 1. Due to the prevalent tendency in the society, where the male legal heirs are all-out to deprive female legal heirs, the Courts of law must administer more care and caution to protect the rights of female legal heirs as per Shariah and law of the land and to discourage and disapprove the self design tactics of such male legal heir.2. In a case where the parties are co-shares and derived their interest from a common predecessor, then lenient and flexible approach is to be adopted by a Court and strict adherence and principle of law as like a dispute between the persons who are not the legal heirs, are to be avoided.3. Parties to the lis are bound to adhere and comply the commitment/ compromise made between the legal heirs before a Court of law, which has acted upon by the one party, whereas refused subsequently by another party.4. While dealing with the lis between the co-sharers, hyper technicalities should be avoided by a Court of law and it will proceed to achieve the object and purpose of the compromise/ settlement made between the legal heirs before a Court of law.5. Where a person has challenged the order and judgment of a Court of law, then for issuance of writ of certiorari against such order and judgment, he has to establish excess of jurisdiction or improperexercise of jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction of such Court, so as to warrant the interference of the High Court in a constitutional jurisdiction.

Summary: Background: This appeal concerns two criminal appeals arising from the same incident and involves the common question of law and facts. The appellant, Mst. Nida Begum, was convicted of murdering her husband, Muhammad Sohail, and sentenced to 14 years' imprisonment along with payment of Diyat. The complainant, Zohaib Nazir, sought enhancement of the sentence. The appeals challenge the judgment of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court dated 5.10.2020. ----Issues: 1- Whether the prosecution's evidence was credible and consistent enough to uphold the conviction of Mst. Nida Begum. 2- Whether the contradictions and discrepancies in the prosecution's case warranted the acquittal of the appellant. 3- Whether the investigation was conducted properly and fairly. 4- Whether the sentence should be enhanced based on the evidence presented. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The prosecution's case was primarily based on the alleged motive of a domestic dispute, which was contradicted by the complainant and other witnesses. The complainant, Zohaib Nazir, refuted the existence of any such dispute in his court statement, negating the motive presented in the FIR. The complainant's statements were inconsistent. Initially, he claimed to witness the shooting, but later denied seeing the police or the accused firing the shots. This discrepancy raises serious doubts about the reliability of his testimony. The Forensic Science Laboratory report indicated that two different pistols were used in the murder, contradicting the prosecution's claim that only one pistol was involved. This inconsistency further undermines the credibility of the prosecution's evidence. Major contradictions were found in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, the investigating officer, and the recovery witnesses. These discrepancies create serious doubts about the prosecution's version of events. The prosecution failed to provide concrete evidence of the motive, and the statements of the complainant and other witnesses were inconsistent and contradictory. The investigation was found to be poorly conducted with significant negligence. The investigating officers did not follow proper procedures, leading to further doubts about the authenticity and reliability of the evidence. The discrepancies in the recovery of the crime weapon and the failure to investigate the source of the second bullet are significant lapses in the investigation. The request for sentence enhancement by the complainant was not supported by consistent and reliable evidence. The contradictions in the prosecution's case and the flawed investigation do not justify an enhancement of the sentence. ----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Khalid & another vs. State & another (2018 SCR 356) Abbas Ali vs. The State (1998, P.Cr. LJ 943) Astam Khan vs. The State (1995 P.Cr.LJ 459) Noor Muhammad vs. The State and another (2010 SCMR 97) Ali Bux and others vs. The State (2018 SCMR 354) Zaffar Ali Shah vs. Pervez Musharraf (PLD 2000 SC 869) Muhammad Sadiq vs. The State (2017 SCMR 144)

Summary: (a) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)-------S.5, Sched.---Suit for recovery of dowry articles---Scope---Petitioner assailed judgmentsand decrees passed by courts below whereby respondent's suit for recovery of dowry articlesand maintenance was allowed---Validity---Fact that dowry articles were brought byrespondent with her at the house of petitioner had been proved---Gold (Jewellery) receiptswere produced and exhibited through representative of the jeweler's shop---Objection thatgold receipts pertained to the date before the solemnization of the marriage was not worthyof credit as it was normal practice that often the parents purchased gold ornaments for theirchildren early for upcoming marriage---Respondent had successfully proved the claim,entitling her for the relief sought pursuant to maintenance and dowry articles as concluded bythe Family Judge, endorsed by the appellate court as well---Constitutional petition wasdismissed.(b) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art.199---Constitutional jurisdiction---Writ of certiorari---Scope---While adjudicating aconstitutional petition of writ of certiorari, High Court shall exercise jurisdiction sparinglyand seldom, particularly, when there are concurrent findings of facts rendered by thesubordinate courts in original jurisdiction as well as exercising appellate jurisdiction.(c) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art.199---Constitutional jurisdiction---Findings of fact---Scope---Constitutionaljurisdiction is an extraordinary jurisdiction, thus, High Court can neither substitute theevidence recorded by the trial court nor can render opinion regarding quality and advocacy ofthe evidence as appraisal of the evidence is the task of the trial court, however, the appellatecourt may see and do reappraisal of the evidence, if the evidence is grossly mis-read, foundto be inconsistent with the testimony of the other witnesses or the evidence is found to beshocking and contrary to the pleadings---If the trial and appellate courts after thrashing thefactual controversy arrive at the conclusion, then the high Courts are always reluctant tointerfere while exercising jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution, unless compelling reasons are shown, such as mis-reading and non-reading of the evidence visible on record.Haji Wajdad v. Provincial Government 2020 SCMR 2046 rel.(d) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)-------S.17---Provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 not toapply---Scope---Bare reading of S.17 of the Family Courts Act, 1964, clearly heralds the barcontained under Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, in stircto sensu as the spirit and design of theFamily Courts Act, 1964, is to expeditiously settle and dispose of the family disputes andredress the grievances of the spouse swiftly, avoiding unnecessary technicalities impedingthe course of justice.Shafiq Sultan v. Asma Firdous and others 2017 SCMR 393 rel.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S.12(2), O.VI, R. 4 & O. I, R. 8---Bar to further suit---Particulars to be given wherenecessary---Plea of fraud and misrepresentation---Burden of proof---Scope---Respondentsfiled a suit for declaration and permanent injunction within the scope of O.I, R.8, C.P.C., onbehalf of three tribes---Suit was decreed---Petitioner filed application under S.12(2), C.P.C.,alleging fraud as well as misrepresentation and lack of knowledge regarding the decree---Application was concurrently dismissed---Validity---Since provision of S. 12(2), C.P.C., wasinvoked by the petitioner so the entire burden to prove fraud and misrepresentation was uponhis shoulder---Necessary particulars constituting fraud and misrepresentation had not beenmentioned in detail within the scope of O.VI, R.4, C.P.C.---Proper publication was made inthe suit prior to proceeding with the case---Petitioner had tried to justify delay of 17 years infiling the application by pleading lack of knowledge but it was admitted that the petitioner'suncle was party to the judgment and decree---Petitioner had neither filed any revenue recordnor had he relied upon any document which could justify his locus standi to file applicationunder S. 12(2), C.P.C.---Constitutional petition was dismissed. ---- This application was aimed at setting aside a judgment and decree issued on 29th February 2000. The underlying lawsuit had been filed in a representative capacity under Order I, Rule 8, C.P.C. by individuals belonging to different tribes against members of other tribes. Noor Khan alleged that the judgment and decree had been obtained through fraud and misrepresentation. However, the Court pointed out that the burden of proving these allegations rested entirely on him and that he had not provided sufficient and specific details as required by Order VI, Rule 4, C.P.C.The Court also noted that proper publication in the newspaper had been carried out before proceeding with the case, indicating that the legal requirements for a representative suit had been met. Noor Khan's attempt to justify the 17-year delay in filing the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. by claiming a lack of knowledge was undermined when it was revealed that his uncle was a party to the judgment and decree. Furthermore, Noor Khan failed to meet the criteria of an aggrieved person, as he had not presented any revenue record or relied on any documents to establish his standing to file the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. The Court cited the Happy Family Associate v. Pakistan International Trading Company case (PLD 2006 SC 226), which emphasized that section 12(2) and section 151, C.P.C., should not be used as substitutes for regular appeal, revision, or review and should not be resorted to unnecessarily to frustrate decrees or their execution. Given these considerations, the Constitutional petition filed by Noor Khan was found to lack merit and was consequently dismissed by the Court.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (A) Criminal Trial – Burden of Proof • Prosecution’s Case: Prosecution must prove its case independently; benefit of doubt goes to the accused if prosecution evidence is weak or doubtful. Defense need not establish innocence but may cast doubt to secure acquittal. (B)Criminal Trial – Motive • Failure to Prove Motive: If the prosecution sets up a motive and fails to establish it, the prosecution suffers the consequence, not the defense. (C) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) Sections 161, 162(2), 164, & Evidence Act (1 of 1872), Section 32(1) • Admissibility of Statement: A lost dying declaration recorded by a Magistrate is admissible under certain circumstances, but its evidentiary value may be limited if doubts exist. (D) Harassment at Workplace Act, 2010 Sections 3(2), 4(1)(c), & 6(3) • Inquiry Procedure: Inquiry committee found guilty of procedural irregularities, including denial of cross-examination and failure to provide statements. The appellate forum set aside the penalty imposed on the accused, reinstating him while emphasizing adherence to procedural requirements.