Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (On appeal against the judgment dated 17.09.2019 passed by the learned Peshawar High Court, Mingora Bench (Dar-ul-Qaza), Swat in Criminal Appeal No. 271-M of 2017 and Murder References Nos. 6 and 7 of 2017). (a) Criminal trial--- ----Confession, retraction of---Conviction---Scope---Conviction and sentence can be awarded to the accused on the basis of his/her retracted judicial confession, provided that the said judicial confession is corroborated by some independent evidence. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 404 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, dishonestly misappropriating property possessed by a deceased person at the time of his death, common intention---Re-appraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Medical evidence insufficient for conviction---Accused were charged for committing murder of the paternal uncle of the complainant---Appellants stated in their retracted judicial confessions that before the occurrence, sleeping pills were administered to deceased, whereupon he became sleepy and then both the appellants committed his murder---According to the medical evidence brought on the record through Medical Officer, the contents of the stomach of the deceased were obtained through a syringe and the same were sent to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory but perusal of Forensic Science Laboratory Report showed that no drug was detected in the said contents---It was alleged by prosecutor that the retracted judicial confessions of the appellants were corroborated by the recovery of Churri, at the pointing out of appellant, as well as by the recovery of blood stained dupatta and nara (belt), recovered at the pointing out of female appellant and the same was further corroborated by the Forensic Science Laboratory Report, which showed that the said articles were stained with human blood having the same blood group---However, the prosecution had not brought on the record that what was the blood group of deceased, therefore by merely mentioning that the said articles were of the same blood group by itself was not sufficient to connect the appellants with the alleged offence---No proper postmortem examination on the dead-body of the deceased was conducted in this case and the prosecution case was based on external medical examination on the dead-body of the deceased---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond the shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 404 & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Qatl-i-amd, dishonestly misappropriating property possessed by a deceased person at the time of his death, common intention---Re-appraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Material witnesses not produced for evidence---Adverse presumption against the prosecution case---Accused were charged for committing murder of the paternal uncle of the complainant---Record showed that during judicial confession of female appellant two children of the said appellant from her husband/deceased, aged about 12/13 years and about 8/9 years, were living in the same house, where the occurrence took place---Even in the site plan of the place of occurrence, the presence of two children of said female appellant and her husband/deceased was shown at point No. 2 but none from them was produced in the witness box by the prosecution---Said two children of female appellant and the deceased were the most natural witnesses of the occurrence because they were sleeping in the same room, where the occurrence took place but they were not produced in the witness box, therefore, an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, could validly be drawn against the prosecution that had the said witnesses been produced in the evidence, they would not have supported the prosecution case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond the shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Lal Khan v. The State 2006 SCMR 1846; Riaz Ahmed v. The State 2010 SMCR 846; Abdul Qadeer v. The State 2024 SCMR 1146 and Riasat Alam v. The State 2024 SCMR 1224 rel. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 404 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, dishonestly misappropriating property possessed by a deceased person at the time of his death, common intention---Re-appraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the paternal uncle of the complainant---Insofar as the motive of inter-se illicit relationship between both the appellants was concerned, no prosecution witness had stated that they had ever seen the appellants in any objectionable condition or even talking to each other---Moreover, female appellant was living with deceased as his wife till the time of his death---Admittedly there was no litigation or a family suit between female appellant and her husband/deceased---Therefore, the motive as alleged by the prosecution had not been proved in this case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond the shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (e) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Principle---If there was a single circumstance, which created doubt in the prosecution case then the same would be sufficient to acquit the accused. Rizwan Ejaz, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in Cr. A. No. 154 of 2023). M. Arshad Hussain Yousafzai, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in Cr. A. No. 155 of 2023). Syed Kosar Ali Shah, Additional Advocate General, KPK for the State. Musa Khan in person for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 29th April, 2025.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of 02 hours and 25 minutes in lodging the FIR---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing and causing firearm injuries to his friend---Incident took place on 28.12.2019 at about 2:15 p.m.---Though FIR in that case was registered within 02 hours & 25 minutes of the incident---Said aspect was canvassed as the strong point of prosecution but the perusal of record shed doubt upon the acclaimed time of imparting information of crime to police---In that regard, firstly it was noticed that after the incident Investigating Officer visited the spot, prepared inquest report and in its column No. 3 mentioned only the date of incident as 28.12.2019 and did not describe the time of occurrence---Said fact was admitted by Investigating Officer during his cross-examination---Thus, it could conveniently be held that by the time the inquest report was prepared by the Investigating Officer, the time of incident was not known to him---Such facts gave indication that the FIR was not registered at the time mentioned in the relevant column---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of 08-hours in conducting autopsy upon the dead body of the deceased---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing and causing firearm injuries to his friend---Despite the information of crime having been conveyed to police before 4:40 p.m. still the autopsy of deceased was conducted at 9:45 p.m.---Intervening duration of about 8-hours between the time of incident and autopsy remained unexplained---Medical Officer, who performed autopsy upon the body of deceased, in his examination-in-chief stated that the police papers were received by him at 9:30 p.m.---Unexplained delay in submission of police papers to the Medical Officer and holding autopsy was always considered fatal for the prosecution case and led to conclude that the story of the prosecution was cooked up after procuring the attendance of false eye-witnesses---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Muhammad Ilyas v. Muhammad Abid alias Billa 2017 SCMR 54 rel. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of complainant at the spot not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing and causing firearm injuries to his friend---As per complaint, complainant narrated the tale of incident in a way to give impression that he along with witnesses had seen the occurrence but nowhere mentioned that he was not present at the spot and whatever he narrated in the complaint was on the asking of someone---Perusal of record showed that eye-witness in his examination-in-chief stated that the deceased and the injured were shifted to THQ Hospital where complainant reached and the entire occurrence was narrated to him---Occurrence took place at 2:15 p.m. and FIR was chalked out at 4:40 p.m. and what precluded witness and other eye-witnesses from reporting the matter directly to police regarding a broad daylight occurrence, made the prosecution case highly doubtful---Moreover, the name of a person from whom the complainant got drafted the complaint was not found---Neither the scriber of the complaint was produced before Investigating Officer nor at trial stage to prove that he drafted the complaint at the dictation of complainant---Admittedly, complainant died prior to recoding of his evidence before the Court, though, in such circumstances, FIR could be brought on record through secondary evidence, yet it could not be termed as a corroboratory piece of evidence keeping in view the non-appearance of the complainant, who did not appear in the witness box and was not subjected to cross-examination---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Ghaus Muhammad alias Ghausa and another v. The State 1979 SCMR 579 and Muhammad Ramzan v. The State 2025 SCMR 762 rel. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Non-availability of justification for the presence of witnesses at the time and place of occurrence---Chance witnesses--- Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing and causing firearm injuries to his friend---In the present case, both the eye-witnesses were residents of a place situated at a distance of 15/16 kilometers from the place of occurrence---Said fact was admitted by eye-witness during his cross-examination---Moreover, both the eye-witnesses while appearing before the Trial Court had failed to give any plausible explanation for their presence at the spot, rather simply claimed to be in the company of deceased and uttered not a single word for their reason of being so---Presence of both the eye-witnesses at the spot, in the manner they claimed, made them chance witnesses and their deposition suspected evidence---Thus, the depositions of eye-witnesses were to be discarded from consideration---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Naveed Asghar and 2 others v. The State PLD 2021 SC 600; Mst. Mir Zaldi v. Ghazi Khan and others 2020 SCMR 319 and Muhammad Ashraf alias Acchu v. The State 2019 SCMR 652 rel. (e) Criminal trial--- ----Dishonest improvements made by witness---Scope---Witness who polluted his evidence through dishonest improvements indeed compromised his own integrity which rendered him unworthy of any credence. Sardar Bibi and another v. Munir Ahmed and others 2017 SCMR 344 and Muhammad Nasir Butt and 2 others v. The State and others 2025 SCMR 662 rel. (f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Injured not produced for evidence---Effect---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing and causing firearm injuries to his friend--- Depositions of both the eye-witnesses were falsified from the fact that as per prosecution case during the incident friend of deceased received a firearm injury at the right heel allegedly caused by acquitted accused---Admittedly, as per FIR the occurrence took place on 28.12.2019 at 2:15 p.m., however no Medico-Legal Certificate of that injured was available on the record---According to the statement of Medical Officer, he on 29.12.2019 at about 10:00 a.m. after conducting medico legal examination of the injured issued Medico-Legal Certificate and noted a lacerated wound on the edge of heel of right side of foot---However, said injured did not appear before the Trial Court in support of the injury received by him and to explain delay in conducting his medical examination despite receiving firearm injury---No attempt on part of the prosecution to call injured as Court witness was oozing from the perusal of record---Legitimate inference which could be drawn from the withholding of such important piece of evidence was in accordance with Art.129 Illustration (g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, which was to the effect that had injured appeared in the witness box, he would not have supported case of prosecution---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Muhammad Rafique and others v. The State and others 2010 SCMR 385 rel. (g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Non-recovery of motorcycle from witnesses---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing and causing firearm injuries to his friend---Perusal of complaint revealed that deceased, injured and another person were going to the house of their friend while riding on two motorcycles---However during investigation only one motorcycle belonging to deceased was taken into possession, whereas no description of any of the motorcycles, upon which the witnesses were riding, was provided---Investigating Officer had not taken into possession the motorcycle of the witnesses in order to verify the contents of complaint to connect the accused with the alleged offence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (h) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive, not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing and causing firearm injuries to his friend---As per contents of FIR, the motive behind the occurrence statedly was that on 28.12.2019 at about 1:00 p.m. a vituperative language was exchanged between friend of deceased and the accused on mobile phone---Although both the eye-witnesses while appearing before the Trial Court deposed in line with the motive, however the same was not attributed to the appellants---In fact the motive was ascribed against friend of deceased who was not given even a scratch by the appellants---Moreover, in the complaint the complainant did not mention the name of the accused with whom friend of deceased exchanged abusive language on mobile phone---Besides that, during investigation the complainant party did not adduce any evidence in support of the motive---In such circumstances, the motive set out in the FIR remained unproved---Moreover, once the motive was set up by the prosecution and same was not proved, the prosecution would suffer---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Sarfraz and another v. The State 2023 SCMR 670 rel. (i) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapon of offence and crime empties---Inconsequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing and causing firearm injuries to his friend--- Insofar as the recovery of .30 bore pistols at the instance of appellants was concerned, it was observed that on his first visit at the place of occurrence on the eventful day Investigating Officer took into possession four crime empties of .30 bore pistol through recovery memo---Forensic Science Agency Report revealed that the pistols recovered from the appellants were examined and found to be in mechanical operating condition, however it was opined by the expert of Forensic Science Agency that because of differences in individual characteristics the cartridge cases could not have been fired in the pistols---Thus, the recovery of pistols at the instance of appellants was inconsequential and was of no use to the prosecution for considering it a corroborative piece of evidence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Umer Hayat v. The State PLD 1995 SC 526 rel. (j) Criminal trial--- ----Medical evidence---Scope---Medical evidence leads to tell the cause of death but does not provide the detail about the actual culprit. Mursal Kazmi alias Qamar Shah and another v. The State 2009 SCMR 1410 rel. (k) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417(2-A)---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss. 5 & 29(2)---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Limitation, condonation of---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing and causing firearm injuries to his friend---Appeal against acquittal of two accused was filed---Notable that along with the appeal, the applicant also filed an application under S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, as the same was barred by time---Evident from the record that the impugned judgment was passed on 24.08.2021, and the applicant applied for its certified copies on 08.09.2021--- Certified copies were delivered to the applicant on 14.09.2021, who filed the appeal in this Court on 08.05.2023---Appellant had not explained the sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal---Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, provided the time limit for filing an appeal against acquittal was 30 days under S.417 (2-A), Cr.P.C.---Therefore, an application for condonation of delay under S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, was not maintainable due to the bar contained in S.29(2)(a) and (b) of the Limitation Act 1908---In view of particular limitation of thirty days prescribed by the statute, the provision of S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, had lost its applicability in the issue---Lapse of time was, in a criminal matter, sufficient to protect a person who had been acquitted against the other judicial process---Appeal against acquittal being time barred was dismissed, in circumstances. Abdul Khaliq Safrani and Muhammad Irfan Malik for Appellants. Ch. Muhammad Rasib Khan Kahana for the Complainant. Muhammad Akhlaq, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State. Date of hearing: 29th April, 2025. Judgment Abher Gul Khan, J .--- Muhammad Ejaz alias Mithoo Shah and Muhammad Zulqarnain alias Zulli (appellants) along with two others, namely, Aamir Shahzad alias Asif and Mulazim Hussain involved with case FIR No.523/2019 dated 28.12.2019 registered under Sections 302, 324, 148 and 149 P.P.C at Police Station Bhera District Sargodha, were tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhalwal, District Sargodha. Trial Court vide judgment dated 24.08.2021 while acquitting accused Aamir Shahzad alias Asif and Mulazim Hussain convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:- 1. Muhmmad Ejaz alias Mithoo Shah (appellant) Under Section 302(b) P.P.C to suffer death sentence as ta'zir. He was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- in terms of Section 544-A, Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of deceased which was ordered to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. 2. Muhammad Zulqarnain alias Zulli (appellant) Under Section 302(b) P.P.C to suffer imprisonment for life as ta'zir. He was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- in terms of Section 544-A, Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of deceased which was ordered to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C., however, was extended to him. Challenging their conviction and sentence, Muhammad Ejaz alias Mithoo Shah and Muhammad Zulqarnain alias Zulli (appellants) filed two separate appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal No.57018 of 2021 and Criminal Appeal No.57020 of 2021 respectively, whereas Syed Muhammad Sibtain Shah (complainant) filed Criminal Appeal No.32181 of 2023 against the acquittal of Aamir Shahzad alias Asif and Mulazim Hussain (respondents Nos.1 and 2) and Criminal Revision No.32182 of 2023 for enhancement of sentence of Zulqarnain alias Zulli (respondent No.2). Likewise, trial court forwarded a reference which was numbered as Murder Reference No.146 of 2021 under Section 374 Cr.P.C. to seek confirmation or rejection of the death sentence imposed on the convict, Muhammad Ejaz alias Mithoo Shah. All the matters are being decided through this single judgment. 2. Precisely stated the facts of the prosecution case as unfolded by Syed Muhammad Sibtain Shah in FIR (Exh.PM/1), chalked out on the basis of his written complaint (Exh.PM) are that on 28.12.2019 at about 02:15 p.m., Rizwan Haider (son of the complainant) and his friends Mudassar Abbas, Zia-ur-Rehman and Jani were going on two motorcycles to the house of Mudassar Abbas. When they reached at Noor Khanewala Nala near the Dera of Muhammad Khan, accused Ejaz Shah alias Mithoo Shah armed with pistol, Zulqarnain alias Zulli armed with pistol 30-bore, Aamir Shahzad alias Asif armed with rifle .44 bore and Mulazim Hussain armed with pistol along with two unknown accused, who were ambushed in the water channel (Nala), emerged there. Accused Zulqarnain exhorted to stop the motorcycles and made a fire shot with his pistol hitting on the right shin of Rizwan Haider. The second fire shot made by accused Ejaz Shah alias Mithoo Shah with his pistol hit Rizwan Haider at his back near left shoulder, whereas the fire shot made by accused Mulazim Hussain hit at the right heel of Zia-ur-Rehman. On hearing the sound of firing, Mazhar Hussain Shah and Syed Tehzeeb-ul-Husnain Shah, who were also behind them on their motorcycles arrived at the spot and witnessed the occurrence, upon which all the accused decamped therefrom. Motive behind the occurrence, as stated by the complainant, was that on the fateful day at about 01:00 p.m. an altercation took place between Mudassar Abbas and the accused through a mobile phone call. 3. On 28.12.2019 Syed Muhammad Sibtain Shah (complainant) presented an application (Ex.PM) before Fida Muhammad, ASI (PW.7) at Police Station Bhera, on the basis of which he got composed the FIR (Exh.PM/1) through computer operator. On the same day, Rana Muhammad Yousaf, SI/IO (PW.11) visited the place of occurrence, prepared inquest report (Exh.PF), drafted application (Exh.PE) for postmortem examination and handed over the dead body of Rizwan Haider to Husnain Ali, 854/C (PW.3) for escorting the same to mortuary of THQ Hospital, Bhera for autopsy. He prepared the rough site plan of the place of occurrence (Exh.PT), collected the blood stained earth from the place of murder of the deceased and secured the same through recovery memo. Exh.PN. He further collected four crime empties of .30 bore pistol (P.11/1-4) through memo. Exh.PP and took into possession motorcycle bearing No.1723-GTL through recovery memo. Exh.PQ. On 29.12.2019 injured Zia-ur-Rehman joined the investigation and he prepared his injury statement (Exh.PH) and got conducted the medical examination of injured through Husnain Ali 854/C (PW.3). He arrested all the four accused on 21.01.2020. On 31.01.2020, accused Muhammad Ejaz alias Mithoo Shah made disclosure and got recovered pistol .30 bore (P.12) which was secured vide recovery memo. Exh.PR. Accused Mulazim Hussain also got recovered pistol .30 bore (P.14) which was taken into possession through memo. Exh.PR. Accused Zulqarnain got recovered pistol .30-bore (P.8) (P.9/1-2) which was seized vide memo. Exh.PK, whereas, accused Aamir Shahzad alias Asif got recovered rifle .8 mm (P.10) which too was secured through memo. Exh.PL. After complying with all the codal formalities Investigating Officer submitted report under Section 173 Cr.P.C against accused through concerned SHO. 4. During trial, prosecution in order to prove its case against the appellants and their co-accused produced Dr. Fawad Munawar (PW.4) and Dr. Shahid Mehmood Sial (PW.5) who furnished the medical evidence, Mazhar Hussain Shah (PW.8) and Tehzeeb-ul-Husnain (PW.9) entered appearance in the witness box as witnesses of ocular account. Investigating Officer Rana Muhammad Yousaf, S.I. was examined as PW.11 and the remaining PWs were more or less formal who acted according to the law to aid and support the investigation. 5. Dr. Shahid Mehmood (PW.5) on 28.12.2019 at about 09:45 p.m. conducted the autopsy of Rizwan Haider and noted the following injuries:- (i). A firearm wound of entrance 1 cm x 1 cm on left side of backside, 4 cm from midline with blackening. (ii). A firearm wound of entrance 1 cm x 1 cm on posterior aspect of right leg, 14.5 cm from lateral malleolus. (iii). A firearm wound of exit 2.5 cm x 1 cm on outer aspect of right left, 14.5 cm from medial malleolus. (iv). A firearm wound of entrance 1 cm x 1 cm on right foot, 3 cm from lateral malleolus. (v). A firearm wound of exit 2.5 cm x 1 cm, 2 cm away from wound of entry. In his opinion, death in this case occurred due to shock and hemorrhage because of collective effect of all the injuries, which were ante-mortem, caused by firearm and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The doctor described the probable time elapsed between injuries and death as immediate and between death and postmortem about eight hours. Dr. Shahid Mehmood Sial (PW.5) on 29.12.2019 at about 10:00 a.m. medically examined Aziz-ul-Rehman (injured) and noted the following injury:- A lacerated wound of 2 cm x 1 cm on the edge of heel of right side of foot about 11 cm from medial malleolus. No gun powder seen. Dr. Fawad Munawar (PW.4) on 01.02.2020 examined the injured Zia-ur-Rehman and after removing the foreign body from his injury issued MLC (Exh.PC). 6. After the conclusion of prosecution evidence, Muhammad Ejaz alias Mithoo Shah and Muhammad Zulqarnain alias Zulli (appellants) were examined under section 342 Cr.P.C. during which they were asked the questions arising out of the prosecution evidence but they denied almost all those questions while pleading their innocence and false implication with the case. Appellants neither opted to appear as of their own witness under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. nor produced any evidence in their defence. On the conclusion of trial, both the appellants were convicted and sentenced as afore-stated, hence the instant criminal appeals, criminal revision and murder reference. 7. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that the FIR in this case was registered with a considerable delay but while tampering with the record it was looked to be chalked out promptly. The eye-witnesses who appeared before the trial court in support of the ocular account are chance witnesses, thus their statements cannot be relied upon for maintaining the convictions awarded to the appellants. The eye-witnesses made dishonest improvements in order to bring the case of the prosecution in line with the medical evidence. The medical evidence contradicts the ocular account. The recovery of pistols affected at the instance of the appellants was foisted upon them just to strengthen the weak prosecution case. The motive set out in the FIR remained unproved throughout the trial. In these circumstances, learned counsel argued that the convictions and sentences awarded to the appellants are liable to be set-aside warranting their clean acquittal. 8. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General well assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the matter was reported to the police within a reasonable time. The eye-witnesses properly explained their presence at the spot and they while appearing before the trial court narrated the stance of the prosecution in a very natural manner. The medical evidence is in line with the ocular account. The prosecution also sought corroboration from the recovery of pistols at the instance of the appellants as well as duly proved motive. It was thus prayed that the convictions and sentences awarded to the appellants be maintained. 9. We have gone through the case file, heard pro and contra arguments of the learned counsel for the parties well assisted by the Deputy Prosecutor General, and perused the record. 10. It divulges from the scrutiny of record that the case in hand is arising out of an incident which took place on 28.12.2019 at about 2:15 p.m. at Noor Khanewala Nala, near the Dera of Muhammad Khan situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Bhera. During the incident allegedly Zulqarnain (appellant) fired a pistol shot which hit at the right shin of Rizwan Haider, whereas the fire shot made by Ejaz Shah alias Mithoo Shah (appellant) from his pistol landed at the back of Rizwan Haider (deceased), who after the receipt of injuries fell on the ground and took his last breath. We have also observed that Mulazim Hussain (since acquitted) also fired a shot from his pistol which hit at the right heel of Zia-ur-Rehman (injured). In the wake of facts mentioned hereinabove we have observed that though FIR in this case was registered within 02-hours and 25-minutes of the incident and this aspect is canvassed before us as the strong point of prosecution but the perusal of record sheds doubt upon the acclaimed time of imparting information of crime to police. In this regard, firstly it is noticed that after the incident Investigating Officer, namely Rana Muhammad Yousaf SI (PW.11) visited the spot, prepared inquest report (Exh.PF) and in its column No.3 mentioned only the date of incident as 28.12.2019 and did not describe the time of occurrence. This fact was admitted by Rana Muhammad Yousaf SI (PW.11) during his cross-examination with the following words:- "Column No.3 of the inquest report is meant for mentioning the date and time when the information regarding the death is received. In inquest report Ex.PF in column No.3 I have only mentioned the date and no time is mentioned." From above, it can conveniently be held that by the time the inquest report was prepared by the Investigating Officer, the time of incident was not known to him. Secondly, it is observed that despite the information of crime having been conveyed to police before 4:40 p.m. still the autopsy of deceased was conducted at 9:45 p.m. The intervening duration of about 8-hours between the time of incident and autopsy since remained unexplained, thus gives an indication that the FIR was not registered at the time mentioned in the relevant column. Furthermore, Dr. Shahid Mehmood Sial (PW.5) who performed autopsy upon the body of Rizwan Haider (deceased) in his examination-in-chief stated that the police papers were received by him at 9:30 p.m. The unexplained delay in submission of police papers to the Medical Officer and holding autopsy is always considered fatal for the prosecution case and leads us to conclude that the story of the prosecution was cooked up after procuring the attendance of false eye-witnesses. Reliance in this context may be placed upon the case reported as Muhammad Ilyas v. Muhammad Abid alias Billa (2017 SCMR 54) wherein the Supreme Court of Pakistan held as under:- "Post-mortem examination of the dead body of Muhammad Shahbaz deceased had been conducted after nine hours of the incident which again was a factor pointing towards a possibility that the time had been consumed by the local police and complainant party in procuring and planting eye-witnesses and cooking up a story for the prosecution." 11. In addition to above, as per complaint (Exh.PM) Syed Muhammad Sibtain Shah (complainant) narrated the tale of incident in a way to give impression that he along with PWs Mazhar Hussain Shah and Syed Tehzeeb-ul-Husnain saw the occurrence but nowhere mentioned that he was not present at the spot and whatever he narrated in the complaint was on the asking of someone. Perusal of record further shows that Mazhar Hussain Shah (PW.8) in his examination-in-chief stated that the deceased and the injured were shifted to THQ Hospital Bhera where Syed Muhammad Sibtain Shah (complainant) reached and the entire occurrence was narrated to him. The occurrence took place at 2:15 p.m. and FIR was chalked out at 4:40 p.m. and what precluded Mazhar Hussain Shah (PW.8) and other eye-witnesses from reporting the matter directly to police regarding a broad daylight occurrence, makes the prosecution case highly doubtful. Moreover despite careful scrutiny of record we failed to find out the name of a person from whom the complainant got drafted the complaint. Neither the scriber of the complaint was produced before Rana Muhammad Yousaf SI/Investigating Officer (PW.11) nor at trial stage to prove that he drafted the complaint at the dictation of complainant. Admittedly complainant Syed Muhammad Sibtain Shah died prior to recoding of his evidence before the Court, though, in such circumstances, FIR could be brought on record through secondary evidence, yet it could not be termed as a corroboratory piece of evidence keeping in view the non-appearance of the complainant, who did not appear in the witness box and was not subjected to cross-examination. While holding so, we rely upon the case reported as Ghaus Muhammad alias Ghausa and another v. The State (1979 SCMR 579) wherein the Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that:- "The maker of the FIR has died. It cannot be used as corroboration of the testimony of another person, namely, Nur Muhammad P.W. At best the prosecution can use it for showing that the name of Nur Muhammad is mentioned in the FIR but that by itself would not advance the prosecution case." Further reference on the subject can also be made to the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as Muhammad Ramzan v. The State (2025 SCMR 762) wherein it is held that: "It is settled law that FIR by itself is not a substantive piece of evidence unless its contents are affirmed on oath in the witness box by its maker and its maker is subjected to the test of cross-examination. In view of Articles 140 and 153 of the QSO, FIR being a previous statement can only be used for contradicting its maker but unless the same is not proved through its maker, cannot be used as a substantive piece of evidence in favour of the prosecution's case." 12. As stated above the complainant died prior to recording of his statement before the Court, so the ocular account in this case was furnished by Mazhar Hussain Shah (PW.8) and Syed Tehzeeb-ul-Husnain (PW.9), out of them the former was the maternal uncle of deceased whereas the latter was not related to deceased, rather was from his brotherhood. While examining the evidence of eye-witnesses in a case of homicide the question of foremost importance relates to their acclaimed presence at the spot. In the instant case, we have straightaway observed that both the PWs were residents of Nabi Shah Bala situated at a distance of 15/16 kilometers from the place of occurrence whereas the incident took place at Noor Khanewala Nala, near the Dera of Muhammad Khan. This fact was admitted by Mazhar Hussain Shah (PW.8) during his cross-examination, a relevant portion of which is reproduced hereunder:- "I and Tehzeeb-ul-Husnain PW are residents of Nabi Shah Bala which is at a distance of 15/16 kilometers from the place of occurrence. The place of occurrence is situated within the jurisdiction of PS Bhera whereas our village falls within the limits of PS Saddar Bhalwal." Moreover, both the eye-witnesses while appearing before the trial court have failed to give any plausible explanation for their presence at the spot, rather simply claimed to be in the company of deceased and uttered not a single word for their reason of being so. The presence of both the PWs at the spot, in the manner they claimed, makes them chance witnesses and their depositions suspect evidence. As a necessary corollary, the depositions of Mazhar Hussain Shah (PW.8) and Syed Tehzeeb-ul-Husnain (PW.9) are to be discarded from consideration. In the case reported as Naveed Asghar and 2 others v. The State (PLD 2021 SC 600), the Supreme Court of Pakistan, while dealing with the evidence of a chance witness, held as under: - "?..chance witness: a witness who in view of his place of residence or occupation and in the ordinary course of events is not supposed to be present at the place of the occurrence but claims to be there by chance. Testimony of such witness requires cautious scrutiny and is not accepted unless he gives satisfactory explanation of his presence at or near the place of occurrence at the relevant time...". Further reference in this regard is made to the cases reported as Mst.Mir Zalai v. Ghazi Khan and others (2020 SCMR 319) and Muhammad Ashraf alias Acchu v. The State (2019 SCMR 652). 13. There is yet another factor which cast doubt about the truth of story advanced by both the eye-witnesses. Mazhar Hussain Shah (PW.8) and Tehzeeb-ul-Husnain Shah (PW.9) during evidence stated that they were going to village Bathunni to inspect a tractor. Both the PWs further stated that they shifted the dead body and injured to THQ Hospital Bhera, Sibtain Shah complainant came to THQ Hospital and thereafter they informed him about the occurrence. However, when they were confronted with their police statements (Exh.DA and Exh.DB

Summary: Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)--- ----Ss.133, Explanation to [as amended through Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 2024]---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), S. 47---Remedy of appeal, availability of---Scope---Date of commencement of Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 2024, determination of---Remedy of appeal, being a substantial-cum-vested right, when available at the commencement of the lis, would continue to be available throughout the career of the litigation, till same is concluded upon exhausting the remedies available in the statute, at the commencement of the lis or during its pendency, unless the amending or repealing Act, as the case may be, either expressly or by necessary implication / intendment curtails remedy of appeal---In the present matter, no effort was required for ascertaining status of availability or otherwise of the remedy of appeal by necessary implication / intendment, when the Explanation inserted through Finance Act, 2024 sufficiently addressed the question, conspicuously and explicitly---In terms of the Explanation to S.133 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, remedy of filing of reference application, subject to the limits of pecuniary jurisdiction prescribed, is available against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) communicated after the date of commencement of Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 2024 ('the Amendment Act'), notwithstanding pendency of the proceedings before the Commissioner (Appeals), prior to the commencement of the Amendment Act---For the purposes of present controversy the Amendment Act shall commence from the date of commencement of the Amendment Act, when assent was extended by the President, which was 3rd of May, 2024---Thus, the issues-in-hand stood settled---Pertinently, the determination qua date of commencement of the Amendment Act and issue of availability of remedy of reference application is also valid for the purposes of remedy in terms of S. 47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, for the reason that subsection (2) of S. 47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, makes application of the provisions of S. 133 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and rules made thereunder, mutatis mutandis, to the reference application under the Sales Tax Act, 1990---Determination of the issue through present order was without prejudice to the individual grievances of the applicants, which may be raised in the context of their respective reference application(s) and facts involved---High Court directed that Reference applications shall be placed before respective Division Benches, assigned with the task of hearing Tax Reference Application(s)---References were disposed of. Muhammad Ishaq v. The State PLD 1956 SC 256 and Idrees Ahmad and others v. Hafiz Fida Ahmad Khan and 4 others PLD 1985 SC 376 ref. Muhammad Mohsin Nazir for Applicant. Hafiz Muhammad Idrees for Applicant (S.T.R No.21 of 2024). Malik Itaat Hussain Awan and Manzoor Hussain for Respondent-department along with Yousuf Khan, Section Officer, IR (Legal) H.Q. RTO, Rawalpindi.

Summary: (Against judgment dated 04.03.2024 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in C.R. No.79723 of 2022). Arbitration Act (X of 1940)--- ----Ss. 14, 17, 30, 33 & 39---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 74---Arbitration---Award made rule of Court---Objections against award---Trial Court inviting evidence without deciding the objections ---Dispute between the parties arose and was related to a contract executed on 01.11.2017 and was referred to arbitration by a two-member arbitral tribunal, which rendered the award on 02.07.2021---On 07.07.2021, the arbitrators filed the award before the Civil Court---On 01.09.2021, the petitioner filed objections for setting aside the said award---On 23.11.2022, Civil Court framed the issues and required the parties to submit the list of witnesses for the production of evidence---Said orders were assailed before the High Court by filing a revision petition, which was allowed by setting aside the orders dated 23.11.2022 passed by the Civil Court and case was remanded to the Civil Court for decision afresh on the basis of available record---Validity---Arbitrators were entitled to regulate their own procedure and were not governed by the strict procedure prescribed by the C.P.C. and the rules regarding evidence contained in the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Arbitrators decided the disputes based on evidence presented during arbitration proceedings---Arbitrators were under no obligation to frame issues as provided in the C.P.C.---Court recorded fresh evidence, disregarding the procedural safeguards in arbitration, such as the arbitrator's exclusive jurisdiction to assess evidence and apply the law-- -Said fact might lead to inconsistent outcomes and procedural unfairness---If the Court frames issues and records evidence after objections to an award were filed, parties might use this as an opportunity to re-litigate the entire dispute, leading to multiple proceedings on the same issues besides undermining both the legislative intent and the integrity of the arbitral process---Said multiplicity undermined the arbitrator's role in providing a one-time binding decision---Possibility of a trial after the award has been filed in Court creates uncertainty about the finality and enforceability of awards, that discourages the parties from opting for arbitration, defeating the legislative intent to promote arbitration as a preferred mode of dispute resolution---Framing of issues, recording of evidence and hearing arguments post the filing of the award in the Court is bound to increase litigation costs for parties and add to the already heavy workload of Courts---Said fact again defeats the purpose of arbitration as an economical and efficient alternative dispute resolution mechanism---Recording of evidence and conducting a trial effectively converts the Court into an appellate or fact-finding forum, which would be contrary to the statutory scheme envisaged by the Act, 1940---In the case in hand, the sole reason given by the Civil Court for framing the issues was that the contentions raised through the objections formed a factual controversy, which could not be determined without the recording of evidence---Perusal of the issues framed by the Civil Court showed that they were generalized in nature, they lacked specificity and the necessity for framing such issues could not be discovered in the impugned order---Therefore, the High Court did not commit any illegality by setting aside the order dated 23.11.2022 and remanding the matter to the Civil Court with the direction to decide the petitioner's objections to the award dated 02.07.2021 on the basis of the available record---Leave to appeal was declined and the petition was consequently dismissed. Messrs Joint Ventures Kocks K.G./RIST v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1996 SC 108; Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation v. Mustafa Sons (Pvt.) Ltd. PLD 2003 SC 301; Mian Corporation v. Lever Brothers of Pakistan Ltd. PLD 2006 SC 169; Federation of Pakistan v. Joint Ventures Kocks K.G./RIST PLD 2011 SC 506; Gerry's International v. Aeroflot Russian Airlines 2018 SCMR 662 and Chairman, WAPDA v. Messrs Syed Bhais Private Limited 2011 CLC 841 rel. Jawad Mahmood Pasha, Advocate Supreme Court along with Amin Gondal and Asim Tasneem, DCPs (all via video link (Lahore)) for Petitioner. Syed Tassadaq Mustafa Naqvi, Advocate High Court for Respondent. Date of hearing: 29th April, 2025.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 497 & 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 408---Pre-arrest bail, confirmation of---Allegations against the petitioner/accused were that he committed criminal breach of trust by misappropriating a large sum of collected installments---Perusal of the crime report revealed that no details of the customers from whom the installments were allegedly received by the petitioner had been provided, nor had any specific date, time, or place of the alleged entrustment of the amount been mentioned in the FIR---First condition under S.405 ,P.P.C., involved three key elements, entrustment, dominion, and property---Entrustment refers to the transfer of possession for a specific purpose without conferring ownership---Dominion implied control or authority over the property---Term property was used broadly and should not be confined to movable assets alone---However, the presence of "entrustment" and "dominion" must be assessed in the context of the relationship between the parties and the nature of the property allegedly misappropriated---Notably, a breach of trust could only occur if the property belonged to someone other than the accused---Ingredients necessary to constitute an offence under S.408, P.P.C., were not reflected in the contents of the crime report---Master-servant relationship between the complainant and the petitioner and the question of whether any entrustment of property actually took place, were factual issues that could only be determined after recording of evidence during the trial---Offence under S.408, P.P.C., carried a maximum punishment of seven years, which did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497 Cr.P.C.---Prima facie, it appeared that rather than pursuing a civil proceedings for rendition of accounts, the complainant had sought to give a criminal colour to what essentially seemed to be a civil and contractual dispute---Petitioner had already joined the investigation---Possibility that the complainant's allegation was tainted with mala fide intent and ulterior-motive could not be ruled out---Pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief and may be granted where the petitioner shows that the accusation has been made with mala fide intent, ulterior motives or to cause humiliation and disgrace and where irreparable harm may have resulted from arrest---In the present case, considering the nature of allegations, the absence of clear evidence of entrustment, lack of employment details and the apparent civil nature of the dispute, the petitioner had successfully made a prima facie case of mala fide on the part of the complainant---Considering the nature of the offence and the facts and circumstances of the case, denial of pre-arrest bail would not serve the ends of justice and would run contrary to the intent and spirit of the law---Not the object of the law to unnecessarily retrain the liberty of a person where no useful purpose will be served by his arrest and detention---Based on a tentative assessment of the material presently available on record, the case against the petitioner also fell within the purview of further inquiry as contemplated under the law---Pre-arrest bail may be granted not only on the basis of mala fide or ulterior motives, but also where the accusation necessitates further investigation---Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner was confirmed, in circumstances. Khair Muhammad and another v. The State through P.G. Punjab and another 2021 SCMR 130; Khalil Ahmed Soomro v. The State PLD 2017 SC 730; Muhammad Ramzan v. Zafar Ullah and another 1986 SCMR 1380; Salman Mushtaq v. The State 2024 SCMR 14; Ahtisham Ali v. The State 2023 SCMR 975; Fahad Hussain v. The State 2023 SCMR 364; Gulshan Ali Solangi v. The State 2020 SCMR 249; Muhammad Sadiq v. The State 2015 SCMR 1394; Rana Muhammad Arshad v. Muhammad Rafique PLD 2009 SC 427 and Saeed Ahmed and another v. The State PLD 2024 SC 1241 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 497 & 498---Bail order---Observations of the Court---Scope--- Findings arrived at by the Court in the bail are tentative in nature and shall not prejudice the trial, which shall be conducted independently on its own merits. Qazi Khalil-ur-Rehman along with the Petitioner. Naeem Akbar, Deputy Prosecutor General along with Hafeez, ASI for the State. Syed Hassan Abbas for the Complainant. Order Malik Javaid Iqbal Wains, J.--- By filing this petition under Section 498 Cr.P.C, the petitioner, Danish Riaz Dar, seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.249, registered on 03.03.2025 under Section 408 P.P.C at Police Station RA Bazar, District Rawalpindi. 2. The allegation against the petitioner, as per the contents of the First Information Report, is that he, being employed at Daar Electronics and assigned the duty to recover instalments from customers, committed criminal breach of trust by misappropriating a large sum of collected instalments. It was further alleged that the petitioner received an amount from the complainant as credit but failed to return the same. Hence, this case. 3. Arguments heard. Record perused. 4. Perusal of the crime report reveals that no details of the customers from whom the instalments were allegedly received by the petitioner have been provided, nor have any specific date, time, or place of the alleged entrustment of the amount been mentioned in the FIR. The concept of trust envisages that one person (the settlor), while relying on another (the trustee) and reposing special confidence in him, entrusts property or assets to him. There is a fiduciary relationship between the two in law. In this context, Section 405 P.P.C defines criminal breach of trust as follows: "405. Criminal breach of trust.- Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property, in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits criminal breach of trust." The necessary ingredients of criminal breach of trust under the above provision are, (i) the accused must be entrusted with property or dominion over it, and (ii) he must have dishonestly misappropriated the property or converted it to his own use, or disposed of it in violation of the trust. The general punishment is provided under Section 406 P.P.C, whereas aggravated forms of the offence are addressed under Sections 407 to 409 P.P.C. 5. The first condition under Section 405 P.P.C involves three key elements, entrustment, dominion, and property. "Entrustment" refers to the transfer of possession for a specific purpose without conferring ownership. "Dominion" implies control or authority over the property. The term "property" is used broadly and should not be confined to movable assets alone. However, the presence of "entrustment" and "dominion" must be assessed in the context of the relationship between the parties and the nature of the property allegedly misappropriated. Notably, a breach of trust can only occur if the property belongs to someone other than the accused. 6. The ingredients necessary to constitute an offence under Section 408 P.P.C are not reflected in the contents of the crime report. A master-servant relationship between the complainant and the petitioner, and the question of whether any entrustment of property actually took place, are factual issues that can only be determined after recording of evidence during the trial. This becomes particularly relevant in light of FIR No.768/2022, dated 17.11.2022, registered under Section 489-F P.P.C against someone else, wherein it was asserted that the petitioner had partnership with the complainant in the Daar electronics. In these circumstances, the petitioner's case clearly falls within the ambit of further inquiry. 7. The offence under Section 408 P.P.C carries a maximum punishment of seven years, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Prima facie, it appears that rather than pursuing a civil proceedings for rendition of accounts, the complainant has sought to give a criminal colour to what essentially seems to be a civil and contractual dispute. 8. The petitioner has already joined the investigation. The possibility that the complainant's allegation is tainted with mala fide intent and ulterior motive cannot be ruled out. 9. It is a settled principle of law that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief and may be granted where the petitioner can show that the accusation has been made with mala fide intent, ulterior motives, or to cause humiliation and disgrace, and where irreparable harm may result from arrest. In the present case, considering the nature of allegations, the absence of clear evidence of entrustment, lack of employment details, and the apparent civil nature of the dispute, the petitioner has successfully made a prima facie case of mala fide on the part of the complainant. 10. Considering the nature of the offence and the facts and circumstances of the case, denial of pre-arrest bail would not serve the ends of justice and would run contrary to the intent and spirit of the law. Reliance in this regard is placed on authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Khair Muhammad and another v. The State through P.G. Punjab and another (2021 SCMR 130), Khalil Ahmed Soomro v. The State (PLD 2017 SC 730), and Muhammad Ramzan v. Zafar Ullah and another (1986 SCMR 1380). 11. It is not the object of the law to unnecessarily restrain the liberty of a person where no useful purpose would be served by his arrest and detention. In view of the legal principles laid down by the superior courts regarding confirmation of pre-arrest bail, the petitioner has made out a case for exercise of such discretion in his favour. 12. Based on a tentative assessment of the material presently available on record, the case against the petitioner also falls within the purview of further inquiry as contemplated under the law. It is well-settled that pre-arrest bail may be granted not only on the basis of mala fide or ulterior motives, but also where the accusation necessitates further investigation. In this regard, reliance is placed on a consistent line of judgments including Salman Mushtaq v. The State (2024 SCMR 14), Ahtisham Ali v. The State (2023 SCMR 975), Fahad Hussain v. The State (2023 SCMR 364), Gulshan Ali Solangi v. The State (2020 SCMR 249), Muhammad Sadiq v. The State (2015 SCMR 1394) and Rana Muhammad Arshad v. Muhammad Rafique (PLD 2009 SC 427), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan confirmed pre-arrest bail in view of tentative assessment indicating the need for further investigation. Reference in support is also made to the judgment reported as Saeed Ahmed and another v. The State (PLD 2024 SC 1241). 13. Consequently, this pre-arrest bail petition is allowed. The ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is hereby confirmed, subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.500,000/- (Rupees Five Hundred Thousand only), with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. 14. It is clarified that the above findings arrived at by this Court are tentative in nature and shall not prejudice the trial, which shall be conducted independently on its own merits. JK/D-5/L Petition allowed.

Summary: (Against judgment dated 04.03.2024 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in C.R. No.79723 of 2022). Arbitration Act (X of 1940)--- ----Ss. 14, 17, 30, 33 & 39---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 74---Arbitration---Award made rule of Court---Objections against award---Trial Court inviting evidence without deciding the objections ---Dispute between the parties arose and was related to a contract executed on 01.11.2017 and was referred to arbitration by a two-member arbitral tribunal, which rendered the award on 02.07.2021---On 07.07.2021, the arbitrators filed the award before the Civil Court---On 01.09.2021, the petitioner filed objections for setting aside the said award---On 23.11.2022, Civil Court framed the issues and required the parties to submit the list of witnesses for the production of evidence---Said orders were assailed before the High Court by filing a revision petition, which was allowed by setting aside the orders dated 23.11.2022 passed by the Civil Court and case was remanded to the Civil Court for decision afresh on the basis of available record---Validity---Arbitrators were entitled to regulate their own procedure and were not governed by the strict procedure prescribed by the C.P.C. and the rules regarding evidence contained in the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Arbitrators decided the disputes based on evidence presented during arbitration proceedings---Arbitrators were under no obligation to frame issues as provided in the C.P.C.---Court recorded fresh evidence, disregarding the procedural safeguards in arbitration, such as the arbitrator's exclusive jurisdiction to assess evidence and apply the law-- -Said fact might lead to inconsistent outcomes and procedural unfairness---If the Court frames issues and records evidence after objections to an award were filed, parties might use this as an opportunity to re-litigate the entire dispute, leading to multiple proceedings on the same issues besides undermining both the legislative intent and the integrity of the arbitral process---Said multiplicity undermined the arbitrator's role in providing a one-time binding decision---Possibility of a trial after the award has been filed in Court creates uncertainty about the finality and enforceability of awards, that discourages the parties from opting for arbitration, defeating the legislative intent to promote arbitration as a preferred mode of dispute resolution---Framing of issues, recording of evidence and hearing arguments post the filing of the award in the Court is bound to increase litigation costs for parties and add to the already heavy workload of Courts---Said fact again defeats the purpose of arbitration as an economical and efficient alternative dispute resolution mechanism---Recording of evidence and conducting a trial effectively converts the Court into an appellate or fact-finding forum, which would be contrary to the statutory scheme envisaged by the Act, 1940---In the case in hand, the sole reason given by the Civil Court for framing the issues was that the contentions raised through the objections formed a factual controversy, which could not be determined without the recording of evidence---Perusal of the issues framed by the Civil Court showed that they were generalized in nature, they lacked specificity and the necessity for framing such issues could not be discovered in the impugned order---Therefore, the High Court did not commit any illegality by setting aside the order dated 23.11.2022 and remanding the matter to the Civil Court with the direction to decide the petitioner's objections to the award dated 02.07.2021 on the basis of the available record---Leave to appeal was declined and the petition was consequently dismissed. Messrs Joint Ventures Kocks K.G./RIST v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1996 SC 108; Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation v. Mustafa Sons (Pvt.) Ltd. PLD 2003 SC 301; Mian Corporation v. Lever Brothers of Pakistan Ltd. PLD 2006 SC 169; Federation of Pakistan v. Joint Ventures Kocks K.G./RIST PLD 2011 SC 506; Gerry's International v. Aeroflot Russian Airlines 2018 SCMR 662 and Chairman, WAPDA v. Messrs Syed Bhais Private Limited 2011 CLC 841 rel. Jawad Mahmood Pasha, Advocate Supreme Court along with Amin Gondal and Asim Tasneem, DCPs (all via video link (Lahore)) for Petitioner. Syed Tassadaq Mustafa Naqvi, Advocate High Court for Respondent. Date of hearing: 29th April, 2025.

Summary: (a) Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000)--- ----Ss.118 & 124(2)---Insurance policy---Claim of policy holder---Recovery of insurance claim for loss of crops and livestock due to calamity/natural disaster---Respondent No.1 obtained a loan from a bank by mortgaging his agricultural land and the loan was compulsorily insured by the appellant company as per State Bank of Pakistan's directives---In September 2014, a severe flood devastated the area destroying crops, livestock, and house of respondent No.1---The area was officially declared a calamity-hit zone by the Government of Punjab---Respondent No.1 filed a claim for insurance compensation for loss of crops and livestock under the insurance policy---Insurance Tribunal granted respondent No.1 Rs. 131,000 for loss of Kharif 2014 crop; liquidated damages at 5% per annum from October 2014; and, directed the bank to adjust the said insurance claim amount in the account of borrower / respondent No.1---Being dissatisfied with the Tribunal's decision appellant (insurance company) instituted the present appeal---The controversy involved in the present matterwas centered upon the issue as to "whether the respondent No.1/policy holder was entitled to recover claim of loss of crops and livestock/sheep loan under insurance policy amounting to Rs.2,62,000/- along with liquidated damages on the basis of insurance policy"---Held: As per the agreement, in case of large scale catastrophe / calamity, appellant company would indemnify the insured up to 300% of the premium collected for Rabi and Kharif separately, based on 100% premium---The area where land of the respondent No.1 (policy holder) was located, was declared as calamity affected area, as such, the claim of the respondent No.1 (policy holder) was fully covered in the policy---Respondent No.1 (policy holder) availed loan facility from respondent No.2/bank by mortgaging his land---The loan was compulsorily insured with the appellant company---The area where the land of the respondent No.1 (policy holder) was situated, was badly affected by flood upon which it was declared calamity hit area---The meager amount of insurance claim of Rs.1,31,000/- of the insured / respondent No.1 (policy holder) was pending against the appellant company and it was legal right of the respondent No.1 (policy holder) to recover the same---No illegality or material irregularity, misreading and non-reading of evidence in the impugned judgment passed by the insurance tribunal was pointed out---Appeal being devoid of any merits was dismissed, in circumstance. (b) Qanun-e-Shahdat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 72---Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000), Ss.118 & 124(2)---Document---Proof---Producing document in the statement of counsel---Principle---Exceptions---Insurance claim---Recovery of claim of loss of crops and livestock---Objection raised by counsel for the appellant (insurance company) that the documents were produced by counsel of the respondent No.1 (policy holder) as such those documents could not be considered---Validity---The documents under question pertained to the record of the appellant company as well as that of respondent No.2 (bank) which had not been controverted by the appellant company through convincing evidence---Further, the other documents pertained to public record which were prepared, maintained and issued by the government and same had presumption of correctness, which official documents were per se admissible in evidence and even validity or veracity of said instruments were not under question in the present lis as such it did not have any effect on the case of the respondent No.1 (policy holder) and even the High Court had jurisdiction to take judicial notice of such public documents---Thus, the argument of counsel for the appellant being devoid of any force was repelled---No illegality or material irregularity, misreading and non-reading of evidence in the impugned judgment passed by the insurance tribunal was pointed out---Appeal being devoid of any merits was dismissed, in circumstance. (c) Appeal--- ----Departments---Departments should not file appeals/ revisions as a matter of routine resulting into wastage of public time and money. Pakistan through Chairman FBR and others v. Hazrat Hussain and others 2018 SCMR 939 rel. Ahmad Farooq for Appellant. Munir Ahmed Khan Sadhana for Respondent No.1. Saifullah Maan for Respondent No.2. Date of hearing: 29th April, 2025.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (1908) ----O.I, R.10; O.XXII, R.4; S.27—Impleadment of legal representatives—Suit partly against deceased defendant—Right to sue surviving—Scope. Petitioner assailed orders of trial and revisional courts allowing plaintiffs to implead legal heirs of one defendant who had died prior to institution of the suit for declaration and cancellation of sale and gift deeds—Held, though a suit against a sole dead defendant is a nullity, where there are multiple defendants and the right to sue survives, impleadment of the deceased’s legal heirs is permissible under O.I, R.10 C.P.C.—Cause of action remained alive against other defendants; therefore, the suit was not void in its entirety—Addition of legal representatives was a curative step and not contrary to law. (b) — Misdescription or non-joinder of parties — Curability. Misdescription or omission of necessary parties is a curable defect even at appellate stage; where a plaintiff bona fide institutes a suit against a deceased person due to lack of knowledge, legal heirs may be added at any stage to ensure complete adjudication—The court’s power under O.I, R.10 C.P.C. extends to adding any party necessary for effectual and just disposal of the matter. (c) Doctrine — Actio personalis moritur cum persona — Application limited. The doctrine applies only to purely personal actions (e.g. torts or matters concerning personal status); actions involving proprietary or pecuniary rights survive against legal heirs—Thus, liability or benefit connected with property rights devolves upon heirs by operation of law. (d) Civil Revision & Writ Jurisdiction — Interference — Limits. No jurisdictional or legal defect found in concurrent orders of courts below—Discretion exercised to allow impleadment under O.I, R.10 C.P.C. was proper, regular, and supported by law—High Court declined to interfere under constitutional jurisdiction. Cited cases: • Tazeem Bibi v. Muhammad Khalid (2005 SCR 347) • Khan Muhammad Khan v. Saif Ali (PLJ 2000 SC AJK 216) • PLD 2009 SC 183; PLD 2003 Lah. 615; PLD 1971 SC 82. Disposition — Writ petition dismissed; concurrent orders of District Judge (01.11.2023) and Senior Civil Judge (04.08.2023) maintained; impleadment of legal representatives upheld; no order as to costs. Approved for reporting.