Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 561-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471---Constitution ofPakistan, Art. 13--- Cheating by personation, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery ofproperty, forgery for valuable security, forgery for purpose of cheating, using as genuine aforged document---Petition for quashing of FIR---Double jeopardy---Scope---Petitionersought quashing of FIR lodged against him on the grounds that the complainant registeredFIR against the petitioner with the allegation that the petitioner had managed to manipulate aforged mutation in respect of disputed property about which both the parties claimedownership---Investigation was carried out and challan was filed---Petitioner was acquitted ofthe charge after trial---Complainant for the same alleged act had succeeded to registeranother FIR, therefore, petitioner filed petition for quashment of the said FIR---Validity---Record showed that the petitioner had filed a declaratory suit against the father ofcomplainant, which was finally decided and decree was assailed but appeal was dismissed---Petitioner was prosecuted for producing the abstract of false mutation entries and during thetrial he produced photocopy of the purported agreement in his defence---Said forgedMutation entry was based on agreement, therefore, dragging the petitioner in the impugnedFIR was not only a unique example of exploitation, but also amounted to mockery of law---Present was a fit case falling within the definition of "double jeopardy", which was againstthe principles of law and the stipulation contained in Art.13 of the Constitution---Complainant had lodged the subsequent FIR but no proceedings in respect of alreadyadjudicated allegation could be re-prosecuted in the second FIR---Petition for quashing ofFIR was accepted, in circumstances.Nazir Ahmad v. Capital City Police Officer, Lahore and another 2011 SCMR 484;The State through Collector of Customs v. Nasim Amin Butt and others 2011 SCMR 1083and Muhammad Nadeem Anwar v. Securities and Exchange, Commission of Pakistanthrough Director NBFs Deptt: Islamabad 2014 SCMR 1376 rel.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Service Law: ----Policy guidelines---Four-year intervening period for re-appointment as Trade Officer---Validity. The petitioner challenged the requirement of a four-year intervening period for re-appointment as Trade Officer in Pakistan’s Missions abroad, arguing that it violated the Establishment Division’s Office Memorandum (O.M.) dated 16.02.2016, which prescribed a three-year gap. Held, that the Commerce Division had the exclusive authority under Rule 3(3) read with Schedule-II of the Rules of Business, 1973, to formulate policies for selection and appointment of Trade Officers. The said policy, approved by the Prime Minister, did not require concurrence from the Establishment Division. Policy guidelines are within the executive's domain, and courts exercise judicial restraint unless they violate fundamental rights or statutory provisions. -----Cited Cases: Azra Jamali v. Federation of Pakistan (2017 PLC (CS) 533) Farzand Ali v. Province of West Pakistan (PLD 1970 SC 98) Government of Pakistan v. Zamir Ahmed Khan (PLD 1975 SC 667) Re: Suo Moto Case No.10 of 2007 (PLD 2008 SC 673) (b) Constitutional Jurisdiction: ----Judicial restraint in policy matters---Scope of interference. Courts cannot interfere in policy matters unless the policy: Violates fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Contradicts statutory provisions. Is arbitrary or smacks of favoritism. Held, that the four-year intervening period introduced in the Policy Guidelines for Selection, Appointment and Posting of Trade Officers did not violate the petitioner’s fundamental rights or any statutory provision, and was a valid exercise of executive authority. -----Cited Cases: Watan Party v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2006 SC 697) Dr. Akhtar Hussain v. Federation of Pakistan (2012 SCMR 455) Dossani Travels (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Travels Shop (Pvt.) Ltd. (2013 SCMR 1749) (c) Authority of Commerce Division: ----Selection of Trade Officers---Rules of Business, 1973. The Commerce Division has exclusive jurisdiction for the selection of Trade Officers under Rule 3(3) read with serial No.10 of Schedule-II of the Rules of Business, 1973. Approval of the policy guidelines by the Prime Minister was a valid exercise of authority, and concurrence of the Establishment Division was not required. (d) Foreign Postings: ----Eligibility criteria---Policy amendments and judicial review. The petitioner contended that the four-year condition was introduced post-advertisement to exclude candidates. Held, policy changes, even if introduced later, remain valid if they are lawful and approved by the competent authority. Courts will not review the appropriateness or correctness of policy decisions unless they are arbitrary or violate constitutional rights.

Summary: Motive.... dying declaration... it is a legal requirement that fitness certificate should have been requested and doctor should have endoresed murasila as to ability of the deceased to give such statement.delay of ten days in sending pistol and empties to FSL.Benefit of doubt.

Summary: When law requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all. Any deviation in procedure in relevant statute amounts to incurable illegality.

Summary: Acquittal granted---The appellant was convicted under various sections, including Section 449 PPC and Section 365-A PPC, as well as Section 7 (e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The appellant was sentenced to death with forfeiture of property in favor of the state. The judgment discussed the prosecution's case, including details of the alleged abduction of an American citizen, and the arguments presented by both the appellant's counsel and the Deputy Prosecutor General. The judgment ultimately concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the appellant. The court highlighted various deficiencies and inconsistencies in the evidence, such as issues related to identification, the lack of supporting reports, and the unreliability of certain witnesses. As a result, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence against the appellant. The appellant was acquitted of the charges and ordered to be released from jail if not required in any other case.

Summary: Acquittal granted---The court appeared to have evaluated the evidence presented in a criminal case under 302 PPC involving the appellant, Ijaz son of Allah Rakha, and other co-accused. The court expressed skepticism about the credibility of key witnesses, highlighting inconsistencies and contradictions in their statements. The judges noted that the witnesses' accounts lacked independent corroboration and were compromised, leading to a loss of trust in their testimony. The court also scrutinized the prompt reporting of the incident to the police, casting doubt on the authenticity of the oral statement that led to the filing of the FIR. Additionally, the court questioned the reliability of the recovery of a weapon from the appellant, citing a violation of procedural rules. Regarding the alleged motive for the crime, the court found it unreasonable and unsupported by sufficient details. It emphasized the absence of independent witnesses to validate the claimed motive. The court further emphasized that motive and recovery are only corroborative evidence and lose their significance if the primary eyewitness accounts are deemed unreliable. The medical evidence was deemed inconclusive in identifying the culprit, and, considering the overall circumstances, the court expressed serious doubts about the appellant's involvement. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting Ijaz son of Allah Rakha.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 193, 194 & 195---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 195 & 561-A---Offencesagainst public justice, giving or fabricating false evidence---Quashing of proceedings---Petitioners assailed order of Trial Court whereby while acquitting the accused persons,directed the Magistrate under S. 195, Cr.P.C. to initiate proceedings against the prosecutionwitnesses for giving false evidence and commission of offence under Ss. 193, 194 & 195,P.P.C.---Principle falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus had gradually encouraged and emboldenedwitnesses appearing in trials of criminal cases to indulge in falsehood and lies and making itmore and more difficult for the courts to discover truth and dispense justice---Said principlewas not to be applied to criminal cases in Pakistan as it was formed as a result of taking intoaccount extraneous and practical considerations, rather than legal and jurisprudential, and thesaid view was not in accord with the Islamic provisions on the subject besides militatingagainst the criminal law, according to which deposing falsely in a court and commission ofperjury entailed serious penal consequences---Trial Court had rightly directed for initiatingproceedings under S. 195, Cr.P.C.---Petition for quashing the proceedings before Magistratewas dismissed.PLD 2019 SC 527 fol.(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 561-A---Inherent powers of High Court---Alternate remedy---Scope---Provisions of S.561-A, Cr.P.C. cannot be used to override the express provision of law---Inherentjurisdiction of the court under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. is additional---When other remedy isavailable with the aggrieved person, the question to invoke the inherent power of High Courtunder S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. does not arise.Khalid Iftikhar v. The State PLD 1997 SC 275 ref.(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 561-A--- Inherent powers of High Court--- Quashing of proceedings--- Abuse ofprocess of court---Scope---Powers under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent abuseof the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice---Such powers cannot be exercisedmechanically or in every case where there is an allegation of false implication or of theevidence being false---Exercise of such powers cannot further the ends of justice, if anexercise is undertaken at pre-trial stage to determine whether the prosecution evidence, likelyto come on record, is true or false.Khalid Iftikhar v. The State PLD 1997 SC 275 ref.Asif Ali Zardari's case 1994 SCMR 798 rel.(d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 561-A---Inherent powers of High Court---Quashing of proceedings---Scope---Quashing of proceedings at an early stage gives an impression of stifling of criminalprosecutions, by exercise of an extraordinary power which is given for the dispensation ofcomplete justice, in the forms provided by law.Khalid Iftikhar v. The State PLD 1997 SC 275 ref.Raja Haq Nawaz v. Muhammad Afzal and others PLD 1967 SC 354 rel.(e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 561-A---Inherent powers of High Court---Quashing of criminal proceedings---Scope---Determination of the guilt or innocence of an accused depends on totality of facts andcircumstances revealed during the trial and when such a stage had not reached, application ofquashing of proceedings was liable to be rejected.

Summary: Summary pending