Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Impact of section 2A of Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application, 1962, on customary laws---The judgment relies on legal provisions such as Section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962, which has a retrospective effect and impacts the inheritance of agricultural land acquired under custom. The court dismissed the appeal, stating that the courts below correctly decided the case based on Section 3 of the Act, but the judgment focuses on the applicability of Section 2-A and concludes that the dispute has lost significance due to this legal provision. The court emphasized that the enforceability of Section 2-A, having a retrospective effect, is a pure question of law.

Summary: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)------S. 302(b)--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Qatl-e-amd--Confessional statement--Quantum of sentence--Confessional statement of appellant confirms that same was recorded without any coercion, pressure torture ofblackmailing rather appellant realized his shamefaced act and due to embarrassment, he immediately agreed torecord his confessional statement--Adverting to defence plea of appellant, suffice to observe here that appellantthroughout trial has failed to take any solid or concrete plea rather simply denied allegations and has brought onrecord that due to some misunderstanding he has been booked in case, but pointation of place occurrence,recovery of certain articles being in use of deceased, disclosure of appellant followed by his confessionalstatement as well as medical evidence are much greater than bald denial of appellant, which cannot be brushedaside in any manner--Admittedly, prosecution has succeeded in proving charge against appellant through direct,circumstantial and medical evidence--No major contradiction or dishonest improvement has been pointed out bydefence counsel in statements of prosecution witnesses--Motive behind murders has also been established asappellant and co-accused were fear of allegations of Siya Kari--Trial Court has discussed and dilated upon eachand every aspect of case and rightly convicted appellant--So far as quantum of sentence i.e. Capital punishmentof death is concerned, Court do not find in agreement ourselves with regard to same--Suffice to observe here thatthree accused persons including appellant have been booked in crime and except appellant, both remainingaccused persons are absconding, hence their pleas are yet to come on record--Besides, deceased out of her freewill and consent had kept illicit relations with appellant and absconding accused thus under these circumstancesawarding of capital punishment to appellant is unwarranted--Appeal was dismissed. [Para 15, 16 & 17] A, C &DPLD 2003 SC 704 and 1995 SCMR 1793.Confession------?For accepting a confession, two essential requirements must be fulfilled; first, that confession was madevoluntarily and was based on true account of facts leading to crime and, second, same was proved at trial.?Admittedly, said two essential requirements have been fulfilled in case in hand as through evidence it has notonly been established that same is voluntarily, but also it was proved at trial.

Summary: Sentence reduced ---- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b) & 376(2)---Qatl-i-amd, rape---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular and medicalevidence---Corroboration---Sentence, reduction in---Accused was charged for committingmurder of two ladies after their rape---Record showed that mother of one of the deceasedlady had brought on record the past relations of the deceased with accused---Medical Officerwho examined the dead bodies of the victims had opined the cause of death as suffocationand strangulation while the private parts of both the deceased showed that they weresubjected to forcible sexual intercourse and raped from both sides---Medical Officer whocarried out the medical examination of the accused had opined that the accused was potentand able to perform act of zina---Besides, the semen samples of the accused were also takenand the same were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination along with theshalwar, qameez and chaddar of deceased as well as a piece of cloth---Forensic ScienceLaboratory issued report and opined that the said articles excluding the chaddar of deceasedwere stained with human sperm---Multiple bruises on the persons of both the deceased wouldreflect not only their sexual assault and brutal murder, but also their attempt to rescuethemselves from the clutches of the culprits---Circumstances established that the prosecutionhad succeeded in proving the charge against the accused---Three accused persons includingthe accused had been booked in the crime---Except the accused, the remaining accusedpersons were absconding, hence their pleas were yet to come on record---One of thedeceased had kept illicit relations with the accused and absconding accused out of her freewill and consent, therefore, awarding of capital punishment to the accused was unwarranted---While upholding the conviction of accused under Ss. 376(2) & 302, P.P.C., his sentence ofdeath was converted into imprisonment for life---Appeal was dismissed with saidmodification.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b) & 376(2)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 40---Qatl-i-amd, rape---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Disclosure by accused---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of two ladies after their rape---Accused had disclosed that he had past illicit relations with the deceased lady and he used to call thedeceased in a garden situated backside of her house and committed zina with her on manyoccasions, on the day of occurrence deceased was called on backside ground of her house,who along with her cousin/ deceased came over there---As per plan both were taken to thebaitak of absconding accused---Accused along with absconding accused committed zina withthem for twelve days, whereafter, accused along with absconding accused consulted that ifthe deceased were left alive, the allegations of siya kari would be levelled against them, assuch, they planned to commit their murder---Accused thus confirmed that he had provided allthe information of the crime in detail---Accused disclosed the name of his co-accomplicesand the place of occurrence, which facts earlier were not in the knowledge of theprosecution---Accused in the said disclosure had also disclosed the manner in which thedeceased were picked in a vehicle and were taken to the place of occurrence---Accused hadalso brought on record the manner in which the deceased were murdered by strangulation andsuch fact had also been corroborated by medical evidence---Nothing had come on record thatthe disclosure of the accused was the result of coercion, undue influence rather the facts andcircumstances of the case would disclose that the same was voluntary, thus the disclosure ofthe accused was admissible---While upholding the conviction of accused under Ss. 376(2) &302, P.P.C., his sentence of death was converted into imprisonment for life---Appeal wasdismissed with said modification.Muhammad Amjad v. The State PLD 2003 SC 704 and Zakir Khan and others v. TheState 1995 SCMR 1793 rel.(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b) & 376(2)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.164---Qatl-i-amd, rape---Appreciation of evidence---Sentences reduction in---Confessional statement of accused---Scope---Confessional statement of the accused was recorded under S. 164, Cr.P.C. by theJudicial Magistrate---Judicial Magistrate had fulfilled all the legal requirements for recordingconfessional statement---Contents of such confession had fully been corroborated by thedisclosure of the accused---Perusal of confessional statement of the accused confirmed thatthe same was recorded without any coercion, pressure, torture or blackmailing rather theaccused realized his shamefaced act and due to embarrassment, he immediately agreed torecord his confessional statement---Confessional statement was thus recorded in accordancewith law, voluntarily and truly without any fear or torture---While upholding the convictionof accused under Ss. 376(2) & 302, P.P.C., his sentence of death was converted intoimprisonment for life---Appeal was dismissed with said modification.Hashim Qasim v. The State 2017 SCMR 986 rel.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302(b)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Qatl-i-amd---Power to recordstatements and confessions---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Mitigatingcircumstances---Circumstantial evidence---Recovery of weapon---Retracted confession---Scope---Accused persons were alleged to have murdered the deceased---Held; no directevidence of the crime in question was available and the prosecution case was structured uponcircumstantial pieces of evidence i.e. disclosures of accused persons along with recovery ofcrime weapon, corroborated by positive report of Forensic Science Laboratory and judicialconfession of accused persons recorded by Judicial Magistrate under S. 164, Cr.P.C.---Testimony of Judicial Magistrate revealed that confessional statements of accused personswere voluntary and true and the procedural defect, if any, in recording the statements stoodremoved by the question put by the Magistrate to the accused to the effect that they were notbound to make any statement and if a confessional statement was made by them, the samecould be used against them as evidence---Accused did not directly or indirectly take the pleabefore the Trial Court at any stage that the confessions were involuntary---Accused, though,had retracted their confessions, but the same could be relied upon, because the eventsdisclosed by them for the purpose of commission of crime in their confessional statementsincluding the manner adopted by them was fully corroborated by prosecution evidenceavailable on record---Motive for killing the deceased indicated that their confessions werevoluntary and true and the same could not be discarded for the sole reason of having beenrecorded after six/seven days in view of the facts and circumstances of the case---Crimeweapon was recovered in pursuance of the disclosures made by the accused persons and thepistol along with the empties secured from the place of occurrence were sent for the report ofBallistic Expert---Report of Ballistic Expert showed that the crime empties were fired fromthe same pistol---Circumstances highlighted excluded every hypothesis of the innocence ofaccused persons and thus the Trial Court had rightly relied upon circumstantial evidence---No space existed to entertain any hypothesis of innocence, guilty verdict called for nointerference---High Court, while attending to the sentence of death passed against one of theaccused, observed that though all the other formalities required by the law vis-a-visrecording confessional statements under S. 164, Cr.P.C. were duly complied with, yet the same were recorded after a delay of six/seven days---Such delay was an irregularity notvitiating the confessional statement itself but put the court to caution---Offence in questionwas seemingly committed by the accused under the influence of absconding co-accused onaccount of his liasion with her---Alteration of death penalty into imprisonment for life was aconscionable wage, in circumstances---Penalty of death awarded to the accused was alteredinto imprisonment for life.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302(b)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of1984), Art. 39---Qatl-i-amd---Appeal against acquittal---Confession by accused while incustody of police not to be proved against him---Appreciation of evidence---Extra-judicialconfession---Exculpatory confession---Scope---Accused along with others was alleged tohave murdered the deceased---No evidence was available against the accused except hisextra-judicial confession recorded during police custody, which was also exculpatory innature, therefore, the Trial Court had rightly acquitted him of the charge---Appeal againstacquittal, being without merit, was dismissed.(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Circumstantial evidence--- Scope---Every circumstance, in cases based on circumstantial evidence, was to be linked with eachother and it should form such a continuous chain that its one end touches the dead body andthe other to the neck of the accused, but if the chain link is missing then its benefit must goto the accused.(d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 164---Power to record statements and confession---Retracted confession---Corroborative evidence--- Scope---Retracted confession either judicial or extra-judicial iffound to be truthful and confidence inspiring and also qualifies the test of voluntariness, canbe used for conviction without looking for any other sort of corroboration---Though it is notprudent to base conviction in a criminal case only on the strength of retracted confessionwithout independent corroboration and necessary particulars and the court is under obligationto inquire into all the material points and surrounding circumstances to satisfy itselfregarding the voluntariness of confession but it is not an inflexible rule that the retractedconfession cannot be made the basis of conviction without independent corroboration ratherthe rule of corroboration is rule of abundant caution which is insisted only to exclude anypossibility of doubt qua the guilt of a person---Retracted confession can be legally taken intoconsideration against the maker if the confession is found to be true and voluntary and canalso be used as a sole evidence for conviction without any corroboration, if the court issatisfied about its voluntary character and truthfulness.(e) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)-------Arts. 38, 39 & 40---Confession to police officer not to be proved---Confession by accused while in police custody---Information received from accused to be proved---Scope---Confession made by accused person, while he is in police custody, is not admissible,however, if something related to the case is recovered or any fact is discovered inconsequence of information conveyed by accused person, then the information so receivedwould be admissible in evidence within the purview of Art. 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat,1984 because then the presumption would be towards its truthfulness but if nothing inconsequence of the disclosure is recovered or discovered then the information so received byitself would not be admissible.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVIIof 1997), S. 7---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Act ofterrorism---Application for cancellation of bail---Implication of accused throughsupplementary statement---Absconsion of accused--- Further inquiry--- Scope---Complainantsought cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to accused on the ground that the accused hadbeen an absconder and that bail had been granted in wrong exercise of discretion by the TrialCourt---Held; nothing was available on record to show that the accused was aware about hisimplication--Accused was not nominated in the FIR with any role but he was subsequentlyimplicated by the complainant in supplementary statement, with improved version of theoccurrence---Confirmation of ad-interim pre-arrest bail of the accused by the Trial Court inview of the scope of further inquiry could not be termed as illegal or in wrong exercise ofdiscretion as apart from mala fide and arrest for ulterior motives such as humiliation andunjustified harassment, scope of further inquiry could also be made a basis forgrant/confirmation of pre-arrest bail, primarily depending upon the facts and circumstancesof each case---Allegation of abusing or misusing the concession of bail by the accused wasnot supported by affidavit of any witness---Application for cancellation of pre-arrest bail wasdismissed.Meeran Bux v. State PLD 1989 SC 347 rel.(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 497---Bail---Principles---Scope---Grant or refusal of bail in criminal cases primarilydepends upon the facts and circumstances of the case and no hard and fast rule can be laiddown in that regard.Jamal-ud-Din's case 1985 SCMR 1949 rel.(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 498---Pre-arrest bail---Further inquiry---Scope---Scope of further inquiry could also bemade a basis for grant/confirmation of pre-arrest bail, primarily depending upon the facts andcircumstances of each case.Meeran Bux v. State PLD 1989 SC 347 rel.

Summary: Drugs Act (XXXI of 1976)-------Ss. 23, 32 & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 561-A---Quashing of criminalproceedings---Sale of spurious and substandard drug---Offences by companies---Liability ofdistributor---No possibility of conviction---Scope---Drug Inspector recovered substandarddrug from a medical store, who produced purchase bill issued by manufacturer/Agents---Saleinvoice revealed that the substandard drug was sold to the petitioners by the manufacturer---Admittedly, the substandard drug was manufactured by a private limited company, whichwas a person in its own rights within the meaning of Ss. 23, 32 & 34 of Drugs Act, 1976---No prosecution was launched against the company who had manufactured the seized drug---Petitioners, in the absence of company, its directors, agents, employers and warrantors, couldnot be prosecuted as the liability of the manufacturer of the drug and his agent fordistribution thereof was co-extensive under S. 32(3) of Drugs Act, 1976---Petitioners werenot manufacturers of the seized drug nor were the agents or warrantors of the manufacturerfor distribution thereof; they could not be held liable for contravention of S. 23 of Drugs Act,1976---Trial Court had failed to appreciate that there was no possibility of conviction even ifthe remaining prosecution witnesses were also examined---Proceedings pending against thepetitioners before the Drug Court were quashed and they were acquitted of the charge.Fazal Elahi v. State 1985 PCr.LJ 268 ref.Superintendent of Police, Federal Investigation Authority v. Akhtar Hussain BhuttaPLD 1978 SC 193 rel.

Summary: Drugs Act (XXXI of 1976)-------Ss. 7 & 23---Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act (XXI of 2012), S. 23---Alternative Medicines and Health Products (Enlistment) Rules, 2014, Rr. 2(1)(xxxi),2(1)(xxxiii) & 2(1)(lxiii)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 561-A---Quashing ofproceedings---Registration of drugs---Sale of unregistered drug---'Food supplements'---'Healthproducts'---'Nutritional supplements'---Scope---Drug Inspector took samples of syrupmanufactured by petitioners, chemical analysis of which revealed that it was notsubstandard---Provincial Quality Control Board granted sanction to the Drug Inspector to filea complaint before the Drug Court for contravention of Ss.23(1)(a)(vii), 27(1)(a) & 34 ofDrugs Act, 1976---Petitioners sought their acquittal on the ground that the sample syrup wasa non-drug and was a food supplement---Central Licensing and Drugs Regulation Board hadexempted food supplements from S. 7 of the Drugs Act, 1976 for the purpose of registration---Matter pertaining to enlistment of the food supplements, dietary supplements, healthsupplements and nutraceuticals which fell within the jurisdiction of Drug RegulatoryAuthority of Pakistan and the same could not be dealt with under the provisions of the DrugsAct, 1976---Provincial Quality Control Board had no jurisdiction to sanction prosecution tothe Drug Inspector against the petitioners for non-registration of the sample syrup---Proceedings pending before the Drug Court were quashed and the petitioners were acquittedof the charge.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S.10---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration and permanentinjunction---Defendants prayed for the stay of suit filed by plaintiffs on the ground that theyhad earlier filed a suit against the plaintiffs for declaration and permanent injunction---Validity---Most of the parties in both the suits were same, however, khasra numbers given byboth the parties in their suits were different---Matter in issue in both the suits was not thesame---Cause of action and relief claimed in both the suits were different, therefore, theprovisions of S. 10, C.P.C. were not applicable---Constitutional petition was dismissed.(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S.10---Stay of Suit---Scope---Section 10, C.P.C. provides that the matter should bedirectly and substantially in issue in both the suits---Subject matter of all the suits should bethe same and if the subject matter is different, the provisions of S.10, C.P.C., would not beattracted.(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S.10---Stay of suit---Scope---Four conditions must be fulfilled in order to attract S. 10,C.P.C., namely (a) the matter in issue in both the suits must be directly and substantially thesame; (b) the previously instituted suit must be pending in a court of competent jurisdiction;(c) the court before which the previous suit is pending must be competent to grant the reliefin the subsequent suit and (d) both the suits must be between the same parties or theirrepresentatives, and the parties must be litigating in both the suits under the same title.

Summary: Acquittal granted---Background:In this case, Sufyan Nawaz was convicted by the trial court under section 302(b)/34 PPC (Pakistan Penal Code) for his alleged involvement in the death of Kabeer Ahmad. The incident occurred during a land dispute, and Sufyan Nawaz was accused of mounting an assault on the complainant's side, resulting in Kabeer Ahmad's death. However, the Lahore High Court, on appeal, converted Sufyan Nawaz's death sentence into life imprisonment.---Issues:Whether the prosecution's case against Sufyan Nawaz was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.Whether there were discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence that cast doubt on the guilt of the accused.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against Sufyan Nawaz beyond a reasonable doubt. There were discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence, including inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the delay in conducting the autopsy. Additionally, the motive alleged by the prosecution was disbelieved by the lower courts. Therefore, Sufyan Nawaz's conviction and sentence were set aside, and he was acquitted of the charges.