Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XXI, R. 89---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Sale of surety's property in execution of decree---Vested/ valuable rights in favour of auction purchaser, accrual of---Scope---Once the auction sale is confirmed, the auction purchaser cannot be divested of the property, and a Constitutional petition is not maintainable to challenge the concluded sale proceedings---Facts of the case in brevity were that the petitioner, acting as a surety for the execution of a decree passed in favour of respondent No.1 (decree holder) against respondent No.2 (judgment debtor), sought the release of his property under Order XXI, Rule 89, C.P.C., however, the property had already been sold in auction and the sale was confirmed---The Trial Court dismissed petitioner's application for release of property and such dismissal was upheld by the district court/ appellate court---Petitioner, through a Constitutional petition under Art. 199 of the Constitution challenged the vires of the said orders---Core point for consideration by the High Court was as to "Whether the petitioner, acting as a surety, could seek release of property under Order XXI Rule 89, C.P.C., after the auction sale of the property was confirmed?"---Held: Once a sale was confirmed in favour of the successful bidder and subsequently sale certificate was also issued then at a belated stage the auction purchaser could not be deprived of the auctioned property because he gained valuable rights upon confirmation of the sale, including the right to possess the property, transfer of ownership, and protection against subsequent claims that were not based on fraud or irregularity---High Court emphasized that such rights were generally protected by law, including the C.P.C., and were subject to the terms and conditions of the auction---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Hudaybia Textile Mills Ltd. v. Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. PLD 1987 SC 512 rel. Faysal Bank Limited v. Haris Steel Industry (Pvt.) Limited 2023 CLD 44 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XXI, Rr .89, 90 & 91---Execution of decree---Auction sale---Vested third party rights in favour of auction purchaser, accrual of---Scope---The vested/third party rights accrue in favour of a bidder when the auction-sale become complete i.e. when the court confirms the auction sale---However, such vested rights are defeatable and would not take away the right of the mortgagor/judgment debtor to redeem his property if he brings his case within the parameters of Order XII, Rule 89, 91 or 91 of C.P.C.---However, position of the auction purchaser is different when the court confirms the auction sale in favour of the auction purchaser---Once sale has been effected, a third party interest intervenes which cannot be disregarded. Hudaybia Textile Mills Ltd. v. Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. PLD 1987 SC 512 rel. Faysal Bank Limited v. Haris Steel Industry (Pvt.) Limited 2023 CLD 44 ref. Shabbir Ahmad Mirza for Petitioner. Ch. Wasim Sultan Doga for Respondent No. 3.

Summary: (a)Averments in the plaint must be read as a whole to determine whether they disclose a cause of action or whether the suit is barred under any law, including a bar created due to the lapse of the limitation period. At the stage of exercising power under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., if the averments in the plaint ex facie do not disclose a cause of action, or if on a plain reading the suit appears to be barred under any law, the plaint can be rejected. (b)Limitation was not merely a technicality. Court could not allow the law of limitation to be bypassed. Court would not come to the rescue of persons who slept over their rights. Under section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1908, it was the bounden duty of every court to take notice of the question of limitation even if not raised in defense by the contesting party. Incompetent, frivolous and time barred suits are liable to be buried from their inception and even in such circumstances it is duty of the court, without there being an application to invoke the provisions of O. VII, R.11, C.P.C., so that the other may not be dragged in such litigation and to save the precious time of the court. (c)The High Courts must not exercise their constitutional jurisdiction to interfere with the discretion exercised by lower courts unless the same suffers from jurisdictional, factual, or legal errors. In other words, such interference is justified only where the impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction, is based on misreading or non-reading of evidence, or is otherwise not in accordance with the law. If none of these errors is present, the High Courts must refrain from interfering with the findings of the lower courts merely because they would have reached a different conclusion on the controversy.

Summary: Custody dispute between the petitioner (mother) and the respondent (father) over their two minor children. The father had filed a petition under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, seeking custody of the minors, which was granted by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court. 1. The welfare of the minors is the paramount consideration in cases of custody of a minor, and it includes physical, emotional, educational, moral, and psychological aspects. 2. The mother`s remarriage to a stranger (the brother of her previous husband) has introduced strained familial relations and criminal allegations, which affects the overall well-being of the minors. 3. The father, being in the military service, has demonstrated the ability to provide a secure and stable environment to his children.

Summary: Accused/Petitioner habitual offender offence for which accused/ petitioner charged does not hit prohibitory clause of Sec. 497 CrPC. Not entitled to bail.

Summary: Admittedly and as is evident from the record in the present case chars weighing 1024 grams was recovered. But it is noted with great concern that a person on seeing the police party still have the contrabands in trouser fold, why he did not threw away just to save his skin? Furthermore, in the absence of Forensic Science Laboratory report, how it would be determined that the recovered contraband was charas or otherwise? These are big question marks, and resolution thereof could be made during the trial. There is no confession or admission on the part of accused/ petitioner.

Summary: (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 —- S. 9(c) —- Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10-A Right to fair trial — Safe custody and transmission of narcotics sample — Delay in dispatching sample — Failure to establish chain of custody — Effect — Prosecution alleged that 1280 grams of charas were recovered from the accused, with a 64-gram sample sent for chemical analysis — Delay of 15 days in sending sample to PFSA, and unexplained delay in depositing the remaining contraband in the Malkhana — Held, no evidence was presented to establish secure custody or safe transmission of the recovered substance or its sample — In absence of such foundational proof, benefit of doubt must go to the accused — Conviction under S. 9(c), CNSA could not be sustained — Reliance placed on Amjad Ali v. The State (2012 SCMR 577) and Ikramullah v. The State (2015 SCMR 1002). Disposition: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted. (b) Constitution of Pakistan —- Art. 10-A —- Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 Fair investigation — Bias — Complainant and Investigating Officer being the same person — Legal permissibility and implications — Inspector Naeem Zia acted as both complainant and Investigating Officer — Held, while not expressly barred under CNSA, 1997, such dual role undermines impartiality and fairness in trial — Accused’s right to cross-examine an independent investigator was denied — Petitioner specifically alleged bias and personal animosity — Failure to assign investigation to independent officer rendered the process defective — Supreme Court reiterated that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done, particularly under laws like CNSA that reverse the burden of proof — Where prejudice is pleaded, dual role of complainant-cum-IO must be avoided and justified on record. Cited Cases: • Ikramuddin Rajput v. IGP Sindh (2024 SCMR 510) • Ashiq alias Kaloo v. The State (1989 P Cr. LJ 601) (c) Police Rules, 1934 —- R. 25.2(3) Duties of Investigating Officer —- Obligation to discover truth —- Prohibition against premature commitment to prosecution narrative — Held, under R. 25.2(3), I.O. must act objectively to find the truth and arrest actual offender — Must not commit to prosecution's version prematurely — In present case, the same officer who lodged complaint also supervised recovery, recorded witness statements, prepared site plan, filed report, and supervised dispatch to Chemical Examiner — Such defective investigation was likely to contaminate justice process and offend human rights — Superior officers must ensure investigations are impartial and legal. Judicial Observation: Defective or biased investigations undermine fairness and violate Art. 10-A; emphasis laid on constitutional due process and safeguards in narcotics trials. (d) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 —- S. 342 Statement of accused — Allegation of animosity against Investigating Officer — Evidentiary value — Accused in his statement under S. 342 Cr.P.C. alleged that police had falsely implicated him due to a financial dispute over unpaid food services — Allegations went unrefuted by prosecution — Held, once accused pleads prejudice, it is incumbent upon prosecution to dispel that apprehension through fair and transparent investigation — Failure to do so entitles accused to benefit of doubt. Final Disposition: Petition converted to appeal and allowed. Conviction and sentence under S. 9(c), CNSA, 1997 set aside. Accused acquitted and ordered to be released if not required in any other case.

Summary: Acquittal granted --- (a) National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 (XVIII of 1999) ----S. 9(a)(iii), (vi) & (xii), S. 10 ----Corruption and corrupt practices---- Misuse of authority ---- Essential ingredients ---- Mens rea and actus reus ---- Mere procedural irregularities not constituting offence ---- Conviction of petitioner (Deputy Director (Budget & Finance)/DDO, PTB) by Trial Court and High Court set aside ---- Benefit of doubt extended ---- Held, prosecution failed to prove that petitioner derived illegal gain, facilitated embezzlement, or acted with dishonest intent ---- Departmental inquiries and fact-finding committee exonerated petitioner ---- Prosecution witnesses’ testimonies contradictory and not confidence inspiring ---- Petition converted into appeal and allowed ---- Petitioner acquitted. Court observed that the prosecution failed to establish mens rea (guilty mind) or actus reus (guilty act) against the petitioner. His omissions, at most, amounted to procedural irregularities or administrative lapses and did not qualify as “misuse of authority” under S.9(a)(vi) NAO, 1999. The record revealed absence of evidence of illegal enrichment or undue benefit. Departmental inquiries and final fact-finding reports held cashier Aleem Mehmood solely responsible for embezzlement of PTB funds. Mere procedural improprieties could not form basis for criminal conviction. (b) National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 (XVIII of 1999) ----S. 14(d)---- Burden of proof---- Requirement for prosecution to establish a reasonable case of misuse of authority before presumption of guilt can arise against accused---- Held, principle of criminal jurisprudence that initial onus rests upon prosecution not displaced by NAB Ordinance---- Prosecution failed to discharge burden. Court held that the prosecution neither produced wealth statements, bank accounts, assets, or tax documents of petitioner nor proved that he, his family, or associates benefitted from alleged acts. Without evidence of illegal gain or connivance, the presumption of guilt under S.14(d) could not be invoked. (c) Criminal law ----Burden of proof---- Benefit of doubt ---- Petitioner exonerated where prosecution case based on conjectures, contradictions, and unsupported allegations ---- Held, benefit of doubt always goes to accused if reasonable doubt arises regarding prosecution’s case. Court emphasized that since contradictions existed in depositions of prosecution witnesses and primary responsibility for embezzlement was established against cashier A.M, the petitioner was entitled to acquittal. Cited Cases Wahid Bakhsh Baloch v. The State 2014 SCMR 985 M. Anwar Saifullah Khan v. State PLD 2002 Lahore 458 The State and others v. M. Idrees Ghauri and others 2008 SCMR 1118 Mansur-ul-Haque’s case PLD 2008 SC 166 The State v. Anwar Saifullah Khan PLD 2016 SC 276 Disposition Petition converted into appeal and allowed. Conviction and sentence recorded by Trial Court and High Court set aside. Petitioner Sardar Hussain acquitted by extending benefit of doubt.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending