Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 103--- Recovery proceedings---Associating of witnesses---Scope---Provision of S.103,Cr.P.C. enjoins officer or other person, who wants to make search of a place, to call uponbefore making the search, two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality to attend andwitness the search---Purpose of the same is to prevent chicaneries of police.(b) Explosive Substances Act (XI of 1908)-------S.5---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Explosive substance, recovery of---Appreciation of evidence---Complainant as investigation officer---Benefit of doubt---Accused was arrested for recovery of explosive substance from him---Complainant himselfwas investigation officer and his investigation was biased and a mockery---Though policeofficer was not prohibited under law to be a complainant if he was a witness to commissionof an offence and also to be an investigation officer, so long as it did not in any wayprejudiced the accused person---Court was required to appraise evidence produced byprosecution as a whole and to form opinion after evaluating the same---Seizing officerexcluded independent persons to act as witnesses of arrest and recovery and to choose two ofhis subordinates to act as attesting witnesses---Contradictions existed among statements ofwitnesses and investigation was by an officer who was not competent to do so---Expertreport was issued by a person not notified by Provincial or Federal Government and seizingofficer himself acted as investigation officer---High Court set aside conviction and sentenceawarded to accused and acquitted him of the charge---Appeal was allowed in circumstances.The State v. Bashir and others PLD 1997 SC 408 rel.

Summary: (a) Criminal Trial-------Administration of justice---Courts of law were not to sit entirely unconcerned during theproceedings, nor was a court, holding a criminal trial expected to leave it to the contestants todo what they liked---Main purpose of the entire judicial proceedings was to find out truth,arrive at a correct decision; and to see that no innocent person was punished, merely becauseof certain technical omission (s) on his part; or on the part of his counsel---In case of capitalpunishment, accused must be given reasonable opportunity of rebutting the evidence sobrought on record---Intentional or unintentional lapse on the part of complainant, prosecutioncounsel or defence counsel was not to be allowed to stand in the way of justice, because ithad a bearing on the determination of guilt or innocence of accused---Such a power underArt.161, Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and S.540, Cr.P.C. had been given to criminal court for thesafe administration of justice---Fair and free administration of justice was primary andessentially an obligation cast on the courts of law constituted for the purpose.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302(b)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.360---Qatl-e-amd---Appreciation ofevidence---Administration of justice---Trial of the case had been conducted in violation of thesettled principles of law, resulting in miscarriage of justice in a careless and ridiculousmanner---Accused persons had been deprived of their fundamental rights to be defended by aproper counsel---Such practice, would not only shake the confidence of general public, butwould also damage the noble profession of law in the eye of community---Statement of theprosecution witness had been recorded in violation of S.360, Cr.P.C., object of which was toobtain an accurate record from the witness of what he really meant to say; and to give him anopportunity of correcting the words which the court or his clerk had taken down---Before a deposition was closed, the evidence must be read over to the witness enabling him to protecthimself against any inaccuracy in the words taken down from his lips---Serious prejudice hadbeen caused to accused, resulting in grave miscarriage of justice---Presiding Officer wasrequired to record the evidence in his own hand; and if it was not possible for him, then itshould be taken down by the clerk/reader from direct dictation of the Presiding Judge---Not asingle bit of tangible evidence was available on record, in the present case, to connectaccused with the commission of alleged offence---Eye-witnesses had not uttered a singleword against one accused--Appeal up to the extent of said one accused was allowed and hewas acquitted of the charge and ordered to be released forthwith---Impugned judgment wasset aside and case was remanded to the Trial Court for retrial of other accused.

Summary: (a) Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)-------S.13---Eviction petition---Bona fide personal need of landlord---Scope---Tenantchallenged order passed by Rent Controller whereby he was directed to hand over vacantpossession of the demised premises---Validity---Burden to prove that need of landlord wasbona fide rather than mala fide was on the landlord---Landlord had tried to eject 22 tenantssimultaneously on the ground of personal bona fide use---Landlord had not obtainedpermission from Municipal Committee for re-construction or for alteration in the building---Landlord's brothers could not start business in 22 shops which were admittedly separateunits---Landlord's brothers were admittedly independent, they had settled their businessabroad and rarely visit Pakistan---Names of the brothers, for whom the shops were required,were not mentioned in the eviction application---Property was mutated in the name oflandlord's father but he had not filed the eviction application---Appeal was accepted,impugned judgment was set aside and the eviction application was dismissed, incircumstances.Syed Abdul Rauf v. Abdul Sattar 1997 SCMR 1169 and Mahmood Khan v. NasimaKhatoon 1982 CLC 1807 ref.Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chander and others AIR 1988 SC 1422 and Siddalingamma andanother v. Mamtha Shenoy AIR 2001 SC 2896 rel.(b) Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)-------S.13---Eviction petition---Bona fide personal need of landlord---Scope---Landlord has asuperior right of possession and use of his property as against the tenant, but it has equallybeen settled that the tenant may not be deprived of his legal business and may not be shuntedout from the said premises on mere assertion of the landlord.(c) Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)------S. 13---Eviction petition---Good faith---Scope---Term 'good faith' is prime and essential ingredient of ejectment of the tenant---Mala fide intention of landlord for ejectment on theground of personal need can only be ascertained if it is proved that landlord in fact is not'needy' rather is 'greedy' and he only desires to enhance the rent according to his own willand wants to rent it out to another person on much higher rent.(d) Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)-------S.13---Eviction petition---Scope---Tenant cannot be evicted on mere wish, convenience,whim and fancy of the landlord.Abdullah and others v. Yahya Bakhtiar PLD 2001 SC 158 rel.

Summary: Bail granted---Background:In Criminal Petition No. 234 of 2020, brothers Asfand Yar Khan and Salman Khan sought admission to bail after being implicated as accused in a homicide case. The case was registered on August 17, 2019, at Police Station Paharipura, Peshawar, following the murder of Sumera Safdar and her driver Inaam Lag. The incident occurred while they were en route to attend court proceedings related to a previous case of murderous assault in District Courts, Peshawar. The motive for the crime was attributed to a property dispute and ongoing legal disputes between the parties involved.---Issues:Whether the petitioners' omission from the initial crime report warranted their release on bail.Whether the petitioners' case fell within the purview of subsection 2 of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which allows for bail under certain circumstances.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The petitioners were not named in the original crime report and were only implicated through supplementary statements by witnesses. The fact that all witnesses were unanimous in identifying only five accused, excluding the petitioners, raised questions about their involvement in the crime. This omission was deemed intriguing and supported the petitioners' case for bail.The Court converted the criminal petition into an appeal and granted bail to the petitioners. They were ordered to be released upon furnishing bonds of Rs. 500,000 each with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial court or Duty Judge.---Citations/Precedents:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, section 497(2)

Summary: Background:The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa appealed against a judgment of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal, which modified the penalty imposed on Shahid, a police constable, from dismissal to withholding of increments for a period of two years due to unauthorized absence from duty.---Issues:Whether the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to modify the penalty imposed by the department.Whether the penalty modification was justified.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by modifying the penalty imposed by the department. The respondent's unauthorized absence from duty for six months and three days was a serious offense, and the penalty of dismissal was appropriate.The Court found that the Tribunal's decision to modify the penalty lacked legal basis and was arbitrary. It emphasized that in a disciplined force, such as the police department, prolonged unauthorized absence cannot be tolerated. Therefore, the Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment, reinstating the original penalty of dismissal from service.

Summary: PLJ 2020 SC (AJK) 56 [Shariat Appellate Jurisdiction] Present Ch Muhammad Ibrahim Zia CJ and Raja Saeed Akram Khan J ABDUL QAYYUM and 2 others - - Convict - Appellants versus STATE through Advocate - General of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Muzaffarabad and 12 others - - Respondents Crl A No 16 of 2018 decided on 1532019 (On appeal from the judgment of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court dated 2672018 in Criminal Appeals Nos 236 and 242 of 2017) Circumstantial evidence - - - - - - Two golden principles of law firstly in case of circumstantial evidence must be inter - linked to make out a single unbroken chain and secondly benefit of a slightest doubt shaking roots of case must be extended to accused we appreciated whole record of case [P 63] A Azad Penal Code - - - - - - S 302 (b) - - Conviction and sentence - - Challenge to - - Case of circumstantial evidence - - Motive - - Political rivalry - - Strong evidence - - Confessional statement - - In case of circumstantial evidence motive plays a vital role and once motive is established it is duty of prosecution under law to prove same whereas in case in hand in view of afore - stated facts motive appears to be shrouded in mystery - - After going through statements it appears that complainant reticulated a net to strengthen case by making dishonest improvement but other star - witnesses did not support story narrated by him - - Such a glaring contradiction in statements of star - witnesses makes prosecution story highly doubtful but unfortunately Courts below overlooked same - - If it is admitted as correct that investigation was entrusted to other officer on 14092013 even then a question arises that when investigating officer who initially investigated case failed to find out any evidence against convicts within a reasonable time how other investigating officer in a couple of days collected all material against them - - From record it transpires that there are many other dentslaws and contradictions in prosecution case however as we have arrived at conclusion that prosecution failed to prove even main pillars of its story without reasonable doubtful therefore there is no need to discuss other dentsflaws and contradictions - - In view of facts and circumstances discussed in preceding paragraphs we are of considered view that in case in hand neither links of chain of evidence are interconnected nor prosecution succeeded to prove case beyond reasonable doubt thus in such scenario acquittal of convicts is requirement of law - - Case law referred to by learned Advocate - General is not applicable in case in hand being discernible facts and circumstances therefore no need to discuss same - - Before parting with judgment we may observe here that investigation is backbone of every Criminal Justice System - - Prosecution is responsible to prove guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and accused is presumed to be innocent and cannot be convicted in absence of trustworthy confidence inspiring evidence - - This high standard of proof can only be achieved if evidence is property collected secured and documented at stage of investigation - - Its importance can be estimated from fact that any evidence either not collected by investigating officer or not collected in accordance with prescribed law and rules can directly affect result of litigation - - Officials who indulge in dishonest and mal - - investigations at one hand create obstacles in way of justice and on other hand are stigma on performance of police department - - Department should have tried to get rid from such like black sheeps - - We with heavy - heart observe that in spite of fact that in a number of cases inefficiency and mal - investigation of police officials brought into notice of high - ups but they did not take it seriously and no action has been taken against such officials which is very unfortunate - - In case in hand dishonest investigation is obvious from record and it is not difficult to form an opinion that who is responsible for such illegal practice but for sake of justice we once again throw ball in Court of concerned authorities ie Chief Secretary and Inspector General of Police with direction to conduct an inquiry through some independenthonest senior officer not below rank of DIG and Inspector General of Police shall also supervise proceedings against investigating officers who investigated case while suspending them if they are in service - - Concerned authorities after fixing liability and taking action against delinquent investigating officer shall submit report before this Court through Registrar within a period of 3 months positively from communication of judgment of this Courts [Pp 65 70 71 72] B D E F G H Criminal Procedure Code 1898 (V of 1898) - - - - - - S 164 - - Confirmed statement - - Principal - - Held It is also well settled principle of law that statement under Section 164 CrPC when retracted by deposer then strong corroboration and extra - ordinary care is required for awarding conviction on basis of such statement whereas in instant case situation is quite otherwise as neither strong corroboration is available nor Courts below took extra - ordinary care while relying upon statements [P 67] C 2016 SCR 1467 ref Barrister Humayun Nawaz Khan and Ch Ghulam Nabi Advocates for Appellants Sardar Karam Dad Khan Advocate - General and Raja Muhammad Arif Rathore Advocate for RespondentsJudgement Result:Appeal accepted

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Principle of Vicarious liability could be looked into even at Bail Stage, if from the FIR, accused appeared to have acted in Pre-concert or shared to Community of intention with his Co-Accused who caused this heinous unnatural Act, Since petitioner has shared common intention with co-Accused thus the Supra Principle will attract.