Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Although the witnesses of preemptor have supported the claim of the preemptor that he performed Talab-i-Muwathibat at 05.00 p.m as mentioned in his plaint but are inconsistent with the oral statement of the preemptor that said Talab was performed at about 4 p.m, hence, making of Talb-i-Mutahibat was not proved.

Summary: The sale of property by a bank acting merely in the capacity of an attorney pursuant to a General Power of Attorney (GPA) does not constitute an 'obligation' in terms of Section 2(e) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, hence, the Suit under Section 9 of the Ordinance challenging the said sale deed is not maintainable. 529Crl. Revision- Against Interim Order- PPC 45-25 MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE VS THE STATE ETC. Mr. Justice Ch. Sultan Mahmood 23- 04- 2025 2025 LHC 3828

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act (XXXV of 1973)--- ----Ss. 5A(1)(b) [as amended by Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils (Amendment) Act (XXXV of 2018)] & 9---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 18, 25 & 199---Constitutional petition---Qualification of candidate---Standing at Bar---Enhancement---Vires of law---Intelligible differentia, principle of---Applicability---Petitioner assailed amendment made to S. 5A(1)(b) of Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973, enhancing period of an advocate's standing at the bar for contesting election as a member of a Provincial Bar Council (PBC) on the day of filing nomination papers, to fifteen (15) years---Validity---Key requirement for membership of PBC ensures a certain level of legal knowledge and competence---Such requirement involving a specific number of years of practice at the bar, helps guarantee that elected members have practical understanding of legal system and can effectively represent interests of lawyers across the province---Enhancement of threshold of experience was duly warranted as per functions of PBC stated in S. 9 of Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973---Amendment in question did not bar petitioner or any advocate from practicing law but merely regulated eligibility for membership in a representative professional body, a regulation squarely within the permissible scope of Art. 18 of the Constitution---Provision of Art. 25 of the Constitution mandates equality before law and equal protection of law and reasonable classification is permissible if it is based on intelligible differentia and bears a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved---Classification drawn between advocates having less than fifteen years of standing and those exceeding it, rested on intelligible criterion of professional experience, which had a direct and reasonable nexus with effective performance of the functions of a PBC---High Court declined to interfere in the amendment in question as no element of invidious discrimination was shown by the petitioner---Amendment in question did not offend guarantees enshrined in Constitutional provisions---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Mustafa Impex, Karachi v. The Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Islamabad PLD 2016 SC 808 distinguished. Fazlul Quader Chowdhry and others v. Muhammad Abdul Haque PLD 1963 SC 486; Wattan Party through President v. Federation of Pakistan through Cabinet Committee of Privatization, Islamabad PLD 2006 SC 697; Lahore Development Authority v. Ms. lmrana Tiwana 2015 SCMR 1739; Mumtaz Hussain v. Dr. Nasir Khan and others (2010 SCMR 1254 and Hadayat Ullah v. Federation of Pakistan 2022 SCMR 1691 rel. For Petitioner Ali Azeem Afridi and Muhammad Farooq Malik. For Respondents Sanaullah, Additional Advocate General for Federal Government. Syed Sikandar Hayat Shah, Additional Advocate General for Provincial Government. Noor Alam Khan for Pakistan Bar Council. Date of hearing: 24th April, 2025. (c) to entertain and determine cases of misconduct against advocates on its rolls and to order punishment in such cases;

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 26.06.2023 (19.07.2023) passed by the High Court of Balochistan Quetta in Cr. Appeal. No. 250 of 2023). Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotic substance---Reappraisal of evidence---Safe custody of narcotic and transmission of samples to the laboratory doubtful---Prosecution case was that 1800-grams Methamphetamine (ice) was recovered from the possession of accused---Testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses revealed material gaps and contradictions regarding the safe custody and transmission of the recovered substance from the spot to the Police Station and then samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory---Police Official, who allegedly conveyed the mirasila and case property to the Police Station on the basis of which FIR was registered, was neither cited nor examined as a witness---Non-production of said Police Official was a serious blow to the prosecution's case as in absence of his statement, there was no other evidence to prove safe transmission of the cases property and samples from the spot to the Police Station---Seizing Officer/complainant did not mention in his statement or in his cross-examination the specific act of sending the narcotic to the Police Station or to the Forensic Science Laboratory---Moharrir, admitted that the parcels were handed over to him by the Investigating Officer without the issuance of any receipt and he did not produce Register No.19 on record---Investigating Officer failed to mention the name of the person through whom the samples were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, although the Forensic Science Laboratory Report mentioned his own name---Moharrir also admitted not recording the statements of key persons under Section 161, Cr.P.C., and failed to exhibit any documentary trail evidencing a secure chain of custody of the samples from the spot to the Forensic Science Laboratory---In narcotics cases, due to the severity of punishment involved, the prosecution must establish an unbroken secure and reliable chain of custody of the recovered contraband from the point of seizure to its receipt at the Forensic Laboratory---Any lacuna or discrepancy in that regard rendered the entire process suspect and the report of the Chemical Examiner inadmissible or at the very least unreliable---In the case at hand, the prosecution had manifestly failed to discharge that burden---Unexplained and undocumented transmission of samples, non-examination of key witnesses, failure to produce chain-of-custody registers and contradictory statements of the prosecution witnesses cumulatively casted a serious doubt on the integrity of the evidence---Consequently, the Chemical Examiner's report became unsafe to rely upon and could not be made the sole basis for conviction---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Javed Iqbal v. The State 2023 SCMR 139; Qaiser Khan v. The State 2021 SCMR 363; Mst. Sakina Ramzan v. The State 2021 SCMR 451; Zubair Khan v. The State 2021 SCMR 492; Asif Ali and another v. The State 2024 SCMR 1408 and Abdul Ghani and others v. the State and others 2019 SCMR 608 rel. Mir Aurangzeb, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Ms. Robina Butt, Advocate Supreme Court (State counsel Balochistan) for the State. Date of hearing: 24th April, 2025.

Summary: (Against judgment dated 21.11.2023 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in S.T.R. No. 30 of 2015). Federal Excise Act (VII of 2005)--- ----Ss. 2(8d), 3, 12(12a), 34A, 40 & First Schedule, Table II---Federal Excise Rules, 2005, Rr. 2(mb) & 43A---Term "franchise"---Liability to pay duty---Determination---Respondent/taxpayer entered into various franchise agreements and was providing dutiable services, as set out in Table II of First Schedule to Federal Excise Act, 2005---Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue held that in the relevant year 2012, it was the franchisee(s) who had to pay duty under Federal Excise Act, 2005 and the order was maintained by High Court---Validity---On a proper reading and application of Section 3 of Federal Excise Act, 2005 and Rule 43A of Federal Excise Rules, 2005, the liability to pay excise duty lay on the franchiser (respondent tax payer)---Supreme Court set aside order passed by High Court and the relevant question was answered in affirmative, in favor of authorities---Appeal was allowed. Ahmed Pervaiz, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent. Date of hearing: 24th April, 2025.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 427, 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage of fifty rupees or upwards, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of 45 minutes in lodging the FIR---First Information Report lodged after deliberation and constitution---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant and his friend through firing---According to the prosecution, the occurrence was alleged to have taken place on 21-03-2007 at 06:00 p.m., about 02 kilometers away from Police Station and the same was reported by complainant through application on the basis of which formal FIR was chalked out on 21-03-2007 at 06:45 p.m.---During cross-examination, complainant had stated that Police came at the spot after about 15 minutes of occurrence---Complainant stated that he could not tell that who informed the police regarding the occurrence---Police remained present at the place of occurrence for about 01 hour at the time of first visit---At that time, complainant along with police did not go to the police station and he went there afterwards---Complainant went to police station at about 08:00 pm after departure of the police from place of occurrence---Complainant along with four/five persons went to police station in vehicle, however, many people were already present in police station before their arrival---Complainant remained in the police station for half an hour at that time---During that period complainant and others remained busy in registration of case---In such circumstances, Court was quite confident to hold that the FIR had been lodged after due deliberation and consultation---Appeal against conviction filed by appellants was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 427, 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage of fifty rupees or upwards, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of 12 hours in conducting the postmortem upon the dead body of the deceased---Consequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant and his friend through firing---According to the postmortem report, the autopsy on the dead body of deceased son of complainant was conducted on 22-03-2007 at 06:00 a.m. thus, there was a delay of 12 hours in conducting the autopsy on the dead body of said deceased, after the occurrence---Keeping in view the said gross delay in the post mortem examination, an adverse inference could be drawn that the prosecution witnesses were not present at the time of occurrence and the intervening period had been consumed in fabricating a story after preliminary investigation, otherwise there was no justification of delay for conducting post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased---Appeal against conviction filed by appellants was allowed, in circumstances. Sufyan Nawaz and another v. The State and others 2020 SCMR 192 and Muhammad Adnan and another v. The State and others 2021 SCMR 16 rel. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 427, 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage of fifty rupees or upwards, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence not proved---Chance witnesses, evidence of---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant and his friend through firing---Edifice of prosecution's ocular account was structured upon the statements of complainant/real mother of deceased and real brother of other deceased---Firstly, it was mandatory for the said eye-witnesses to justify their presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time through some cogent reason but they had failed to establish their presence at the relevant time and place of occurrence, rather they were related and chance witnesses---No specific injury was attributed to appellant rather collective role was attributed to the appellant along with his co-accused---If the said witnesses were present at the time and place of occurrence, they should have described the specific injuries caused by the appellant on the bodies of deceased---Appeal against conviction filed by appellants was allowed, in circumstances. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 427, 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage of fifty rupees or upwards, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Dishonest improvements made by witness---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant and his friend through firing---Complainant had made dishonest improvements in her statement before the Trial Court because in the previous trial of co-accused of the appellant, she got recorded her statement wherein she had not nominated the appellant and that fact was duly confronted to her---When the witnesses improved their statements to strengthen the prosecution case and the moment it was concluded that improvements were made deliberately and with mala fide intention, the testimonies of such witnesses become unreliable---Appeal against conviction filed by appellants was allowed, in circumstances. Naveed Asghar and 2 others v. The State PLD 2021 SC 600; Khalid Mehmood and another v. The State 2021 SCMR 810 and Rafaqat Ali v. The State 2022 SCMR 1107 rel. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 427, 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage of fifty rupees or upwards, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Abscondence alone insufficient for conviction---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant and his friend through firing---Abscondence alone was not sufficient to record conviction on a capital charge and it could be used only as a corroboratory and confirmatory in support of ocular account but in the present case, substantive piece of evidence in the shape of ocular account had been disbelieved, therefore, no conviction could be based on abscondence alone---Absconsion of the accused might be relevant qua the guilt or innocence of accused, which was to be decided keeping in view overall facts of the case---Appeal against conviction filed by appellants was allowed, in circumstances. Shahbaz v. The State 2016 SCMR 1763; Muhammad Imran v. The State 2020 SCMR 857; Muhammad Idrees and another v. The State another 2021 SCMR 612 and Pervaiz Khan and another v. The State 2022 SCMR 393 rel. (f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 427, 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage of fifty rupees or upwards, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Co-accused acquitted on the basis of same set of evidence---Effect---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant and his friend through firing---According to the prosecution case, co- accused of the appellant to whom effective role was attributed was acquitted of the charge by the Trial Court while extending the benefit of doubt to him, which fact had also been admitted by the said witnesses during the course of their evidence, as such the eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution were capable of falsehood---Admittedly, no appeal against acquittal of said accused had been filed by the State or the complainant---Once prosecution witnesses were disbelieved with respect to a co-accused then they could not be relied upon with regard to the other co-accused unless they were substantiated by corroboratory evidence coming from independent source and which was unimpeachable in nature but that was not available in the present case---Appeal against conviction filed by appellants was allowed, in circumstances. Rohtas Khan v. The State 2010 SCMR 566 rel. (g) Criminal trial--- ----Medical evidence---Scope---Medical evidence is a type of supporting evidence, which may confirm the prosecution version with regard to receipt of injury, nature of the injury, kind of weapon used in the occurrence but it cannot identify the assailant. Muhammad Hassan and another v. The State 2024 SCMR 1427 rel. (h) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Principle---In case of doubt, the benefit thereof must accrue in favour of the accused as a matter of right and not as of grace. Muhammad Riaz v. Khurram Shahzad and another 2024 SCMR 51; Muhammad Nawaz and another v. The State and others 2024 SCMR 1731; Rehmat Ullah and 2 others v. The State and others 2024 SCMR 1782 and Sikandar Ali alias Bhola v. The State 2025 SCMR 552 rel. Barrister Arhum Tariq Butt (Defence Counsel) for Appellant. Naveed Umar Bhatti, DPG for the State. Complainant in person. Date of hearing: 24th April, 2025. Judgment Muhammad Tariq Nadeem, J .--- Tariq alias Tahru, appellant along with his co-accused Muhammad Shahbaz (since acquitted) was tried by the learned trial court in case FIR No. 284 dated 21-03-2007, under sections 302, 148,149 P.P.C registered at Police Station Satellite Town, Gujranwala and after conclusion of the trial vide judgment dated 29-01-2018, while acquitting co-accused namely Muhammad Shahbaz, convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:- Under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code: Imprisonment for life for committing Qatl-e-Amd of Ali Haider Cheema (deceased) and to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of deceased. Benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C. was also extended in favour of the convict. It is noteworthy that to the extent of murder of Javaid alias Bahadur Shah Zafar, the appellant was acquitted of the charge on the basis of compromise as mentioned in the paragraph No.67 of the impugned judgment. 2. Feeling aggrieved, appellant has filed titled criminal appeal against his conviction and sentence. 3. The prosecution story as given in the judgment of the learned trial court reads as under:- "2. Precisely, Shahnaz Akhtar complainant (PW-10), got registered the FIR (Ex-PF/1) by moving application (Ex-PF) with the submissions that she is resident of Talvandi Musa Khan, that on 21.03.2007, at about 06:00 p.m. she along with her son Ali Haider Cheema son of Imtiaz Ahmad Cheema (deceased) and Javaid alias Bahadur Shah Zafar son of Ghulam Mustafa (deceased), (PW-9) Muhammad Bin Qasim son of Ghulam Mustafa and Pervaiz son of Bashir Ahmad (since dead, so deleted from the list of witnesses on 23.06.2016 after recording the statement of learned ADPP), came to meet her sister at Gala Chaudhary Shah Din Wala, Fareed Town, Chicharwall after sitting in "Applied For" Cultus Car of white colour of her son, that complainant asked her son Ali Haider as ahead the street was narrow, so he de-boarded the complainant as well as Muhammad Bin Qasim and Pervaiz there and turned the car from an adjacent plot towards main road, that when the vehicle reached at the corner of main road, one Mehran Car, which was driven by some unknown person and Jehangir alias Nandi Bhangi, Babar (since POs) and Shahbaz (present in court) were boarded in that car, came in front and stopped the vehicle in front of the vehicle of Ali Haider Cheema (deceased), that simultaneously, a motorcycle-125 upon which Meraj Din (since dead) and Tariq alias Tahru (present in court) armed with Kalashnikov were ridden, that from Mehran car, Jehnagir alias Nandi Bhangi (reportedly murdered), Babar (since PO) and Shahbaz (present in court), who were armed with Kalashnikov, came out and accused Jehangir alias Nandi Bhangi (since PO reportedly murdered) raised lalkara that they would teach a lesson today to Ali Haider Cheema for committing the murder of his brother, that upon this, accused Jehangir alias Nandi Bhand! started firing with his Kalashnikov, that at the same time, from front side accused Babar and Shahbaz also started firing with their Kalashnikovs, that accused Taria alias Tahru, after alighting from the motorcycle, also started firing with his Kalashnikov from driving side, due to which, Ali Haider Cheema sustained firearm injuries at his face, chest and belly whereas, friend of Ali i.e. Javaid alias Bahadur Shah Zafar also sustained firearm injuries at his neck and different parts of his body, that accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence while doing aerial firing, that due to indiscriminate firing of accused persons, Ali Haider Cheema and Javaid succumbed to the injuries at the spot whereas the car was totally damaged due to firing, that the above mentioned accused persons committed the occurrence at the instigation of Manzoor Qadir Bhindr resident of Aroop (since acquitted), hence, this case...." 4. On the last date of hearing i.e. 22-04-2025, the case was adjourned in the presence of learned counsel for the complainant. Today, the complainant has been twice given reasonable time to produce his counsel but she is still making lame excuses, therefore, this Court has left with no option except to decide this appeal in the light of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Deputy Prosecutor General and going through the record with their assistance. 5. The incident in the present case, according to the prosecution, the occurrence was alleged to have taken place on 21-03-2007 at 06:00 p.m. within the area of Galla Ch. Shah Din Wala, about 02 kilometers away from Police Station Sattelite Town, Gujranwala and the same was reported by Shahnaz Akhtar, complainant (PW.10) through application (Exh.PF) on the basis of which formal FIR (Exh.F/1) was chalked out on 21-03-2007 at 06:45 p.m. But during cross-examination Shahnaz Akhtar, complainant (PW.10) has stated as infra:- "....Police came at the spot after about 15 minutes of occurrence. I cannot tell that who informed the police regarding the occurrence. I do not know whether Zahid and Waqas informed the police or not. Police remained present at the place of occurrence for about 1 1/4 hour at the time of first visit. At that time I along with police did not go to the police station and I went there afterwards. I went to police station at about 08:00 PM after departure of the police from place of occurrence. I along with four/five person went to police station in vehicle, however, many people were already present in police station before our arrival. The peoples present there were habitants of Chicharwali and Talwandi Musa Khan. I remained in the police station for half an hour at that time. During that period we remained busy in registration of case...." In the light of above-mentioned reproduced portion of cross-examination of Shahnaz Akhtar, complainant (PW.10), I am quite confident to hold that the FIR has been lodged after due deliberation and consultation. Moreover, learned trial court has also held in paragraph No.19 of the impugned judgement that it cannot be ruled out that the FIR was registered after consultation and deliberation. 6. I have further noted that according to the postmortem report (Exh.PD), the autopsy on the dead body of Ali Haider Cheema was conducted on 22-03-2007 at 06:00 am. thus, there is a delay of 12 hours in conducting the autopsy on the dead body of Ali Haider Cheema, after the occurrence. Keeping in view, the above-mentioned gross delay in the post mortem examination, an adverse inference can be drawn that the prosecution witnesses were not present at the time of occurrence and the intervening period had been consumed in fabricating a story after preliminary investigation, otherwise there was no justification of delay for conducting post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the case titled as "Sufyan Nawaz and another v. The State and others" (2020 SCMR 192), "Muhammad Adnan and another v. the State and others" (2021 SCMR 16). 7. Edifice of prosecution's ocular account is structured upon the statements of Shahnaz Akhtar, complainant (PW.10) and Muhammad Bin Qasim (PW.9), who happened to be the real mother of Ali Haider Cheema (deceased) and real brother of Javed alias Bahadur Shah Zafar (deceased). Firstly, it was mandatory for the above-mentioned eye-witnesses to justify their presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time through some cogent reason but they have failed to establish their presence at the relevant time and place of occurrence, rather they are related and chance witnesses. I have noted that no specific injury is attributed to Tariq alias Tahru, appellant rather collective role is attributed to the appellant along with his co-accused. If the above-mentioned PWs were present at the time and place of occurrence, they should have described the specific injuries caused by the appellant on the bodies of Ali Haider Cheema and Javed alias Bahadur Shah Zafar (deceased). I have further noted that Shahnaz Akhtar, complainant (PW.10) has made dishonest improvements in her statement before the trial court because in the previous trial of co-accused of the appellant, she (PW.10) got recorded her statement (Exh.DD) wherein she had not nominated the appellant and this fact was duly confronted to her. Relevant lines of her dishonest improvements are hereby mentioned below:- "....In my application to the police (Ex-PE), I have recorded that accused Meraj Din was driving the motorcycle (Confronted with Ex-PE where not so recorded). I have recorded in my application Ex-PE that motive of the occurrence is that my son Ali Haider was accused regarding murder of brother of accused Jahangir, in which they have entered into compromise with us after receiving Rs. One Crore (confronted with Ex-PE where not so recorded). In my application Ex-PE I did not mention the registration number of car and motorcycle which were used by the accused persons. My son Ali Haider deceased was accused in a murder case regarding Lali Bhangi deceased. My son in law Sher Afgan and my husband Imtiaz Ali Cheema were also accused in that murder case. Accused Shehbaz was complainant of that case. Accused Shehbaz was not injured PW in that case. Accused Shehbaz is "Behnoi" of Jahangir Nandi. Accused Meraj Din and Babur are also "Behnoi" of accused Jahangir Nandi while accused Tariq is nephew of accused Jahangir Nandi. My son in law Sher Afgan was proclaimed offender in mentioned above case of Lali. My son Ali Haider deceased was convicted in that case and he was sentenced to death. In March 2008 accused Jahangir Nandi was murdered. The case of his murder was registered against my brothers namely Sajjad and Shoukat. After arrest of accused Shehbaz I joined Investigation. Ex-DA is photocopy of my affidavit which was submitted by me regarding accused Shehbaz in the court. On 30.09.2011, I recorded my statement in court regarding accused Shehbaz. Upon photocopy of said statement (Ex-DB) which has been shown to me in court today my photograph along with photograph of my counsel Muhammad Bilal Javaid is present. Upon that statement I had pasted my thumb impression along with my signatures. Upon copy of affidavit Ex-DA my signatures are present. In my affidavit, copy of which is Ex-DA, it was recorded on my behalf that the respectable of the locality had satisfied me that accused Shehbaz is innocent and he did not commit that offence and I nominated him due to misunderstanding. It is incorrect to suggest that in said affidavit I have mentioned that if accused Shehbnaz be acquitted in this case, I have no objection. Compared with Ex-DA where so recorded. Said affidavit was produced in court by Mr. Bilal Jawinda advocate. He is also present in court today..." Likewise, the dishonest improvements made by Muhammad Bin Qasim (PW.9) are also reproduced as under:- "...I recorded my statement to the police when police made it, first visit at place of occurrence. In my statement recorded to the police, I recorded that motorcycle was driven by accused Meraj Din (confronted with Ex-DC where not so recorded). In my statement I have also recorded that police took into possession 58 crime empties of kalashakov (confronted with Ex-DC where not so recorded). In my statement to the police I have recorded that the grudge of the incident was in minds of Tariq alias Taru, due to above mentioned occurrence was committed (confronted with Ex-DC where name of Jahangir is mentioned). I had recorded my statement in court on 02.07.2008, in previous trial of this case. In that statement I recorded date of occurrence as 21.03.2007 (confronted with Ex-DD where not so recorded). In my statement Ex-DD I had recorded that motorcycle was driven by accused Meraj Din (confronted with Ex-DD where not so recorded). In my statement Ex-DD I have recorded the name of accused Tariq alias Tahru as accused in the occurrence (confronted with Ex-DD where not so recorded). In my statement Ex-DD I had recorded that accused Tariq alias Tahru was upon motorcycle. (confronted with Ex-DD where name of accused Tariq alias Tahru is not mentioned in any episode/manner). In my statement Ex-DD I had recorded that police took into possession 58 crime empties of Kalashakov (confronted with Ex-DD where not so recorded)..--------------------------------------------------------------------I have recorded that I have no objection regarding acquittal of accused Shehbaz in this case (confronted with Ex-DD where it is so recorded). Volunteer that at that time accused Shahbaz assured us that he shall be PW in our case. It is incorrect to suggest that my volunteer portion is false. It is incorrect to suggest that in said affidavit I have recorded that respectables have satisfied us regarding innocence of accused Shehbaz (confronted with Ex-DD where it is so recorded). I have recorded in my statement dated 30.09.2011 before the court that accused Shehbaz had not committed murder of Ali Haider and Javaid alias Bahadar Shah and I have nominated him in my statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. on the basis of suspicion and I am fully satisfied that the present accused Muhammad Shehbaz is innocent and not involved in this case...." There is no cavil to the proposition that when the witnesses improve their statements to strengthen the prosecution case and the moment it is concluded that improvements were made deliberately and with mala fide intention, the testimonies of such witnesses become unreliable. The Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed in a plethora of judgments that the witnesses who made dishonest improvements in their statements on material aspects of the case in order to fill the lacunas of the prosecution case or to bring their statements in line with other prosecution evidence are not worthy of reliance. Reliance is placed upon the case laws titled as "Naveed Asghar and 2 others v. The State" (PLD 2021 SC 600), "Khalid Mehmood and another v. The State" (2021 SCMR 810) and "Rafaqat Ali v. The State" (2022 SCMR 1107). 8. I have also noticed that according to the prosecution case, co-accused of the appellant namely Shahbaz to whom effective role was attributed was acquitted of the charge by the learned trial court while extending the benefit of doubt to him, which fact has also been admitted by the supra-mentioned PWs during the course of their evidence, as such the eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution were capable of falsehood. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General has frankly admitted that no appeal against acquittal of said accused has been filed by the State or the complainant. It is a trite principle of law and justice that once prosecution witnesses are disbelieved with respect to a co-accused then, they cannot be relied upon with regard to the other co-accused unless they are substantiated by corroboratory evidence coming from independent source and shall be unimpeachable in nature but that is not available in the present case. Reliance is placed on "Shahbaz v. The State" (2016 SCMR 1763), "Muhammad Imran v. The State" (2020 SCMR 857), "Muhammad Idrees and another v. the State and another" (2021 SCMR 612) and "Pervaiz Khan and another v. The State (2022 SCMR 393), 9. So far as the contention of learned Deputy Prosecutor General that the appellant remained fugitive from law for a considerable period which is also a proof that he had committed the occurrence is concerned, it is noteworthy that the law is by now well settled that the abscondence alone is not sufficient to record conviction on a capital charge and it can be used only as a corroboratory and confirmatory in support of ocular account but in the present case, substantive piece of evidence in the shape of ocular account has been disbelieved, therefore, no conviction can be based on abscondence alone. The absconsion of the accused may be relevant qua the guilt or innocence of accused, which is to be decided keeping in view overall facts of the case. In this respect, I fortify my view from the esteemed judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan "Rohtas Khan v. The State" (2010 SCMR 566) wherein Para 12 of the judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan observed as under:- "12.... The learned High Court gave importance to the abscondence of the appellant. No doubt it is a relevant fact but it can be used as a corroborative piece of evidence, which cannot be read in isolation but it has to be read along with substantive piece of evidence. This Court in the case of Asadullah v. Muhammad Ali, PLD 1971 SC 41 observed that both corroborative and ocular evidence are to be read together and not in isolation. As regards abscondence this Court in the case of Rasool Muhammad v. Asal Muhammad, 1995 SCMR 1373 observed that abscondence is only a suspicion circumstance. In the case of Muhammad Sadiq v. Najeeb Ali, 1995 SCMR 1632 this Court observed that abscondence itself has no value in the absence of any other evidence. It was also held in the case of Muhammad Khan v. State, 1999 SCMR 1220 that abscondence of the accused can never remedy the defects in the prosecution case. In the case of Gul Khan v. State, 1999 SCMR 304 it was observed that abscondence per se is not sufficient to prove the guilt but can be taken as a corroborative piece of evidence. In the cases of Muhammad Arshad v. Qasim Ali, 1992 SCMR 814, Pir Badshah v. State 1985 SCMR 2070 and Amir Gul v. State 1981 SCMR 182, it was observed that conviction and abscondence alone cannot be sustained. In the present case, substantive piece of evidence in the shape of ocular account has been disbelieved, therefore, no conviction can be based on abscondence alone." 10. With regard to the medical evidence of the prosecution is concerned, it is by now well settled that medical evidence is a type of supporting evidence, which may confirm the prosecution version with regard to receipt of injury, nature of the injury, kind of weapon used in the occurrence but it could not identify the assailant. Reference in this context may be made to the case of "Muhammad Hassan and another v. The State and another" (2024 SCMR 1427). 11. The motive alleged by the prosecution was that of grudge of murder of one Lali brother of co-accused Jahangir alias Nandi and Ali Haider (deceased) son of complainant was accused regarding said murder along with other co-accused. I have noted that motive was not directly attributed to the appellant rather assigned to co-accused Jahangir alias Nandi (since murder). Shahnaz Akhtar, complainant (PW.10) has stated in her cross-examination as infra:- "....In mentioned above murder case of Lali, on the asking of complainant/accused Shehbaz, accused Sher Afgan of that case appeared before the court where accused of this case Shehbaz got recorded his statement regarding the acquittal of Sher Afgan. Afterwards, accused Sher Afan was acquitted in that case..." I have also observed that learned trial court has held in paragraph No.59 of impugned judgment that although motive is not directly attributed to accused Tariq alis Tahru but it is an admitted fact that he is nephew of accused Jahangir alias Nandi (since murdered). So, due to his close relationship with Jahangir alias Nandi, motive is proved. I am of the view that the learned trial court has given its verdict merely on filmsy ground which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 12. The responsibility to prove its case beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt squarely lies with the prosecution and if it fails to successfully discharge it, the only result can be the extension of benefit of doubt to the accused person and it is, by now, established proposition that multiple doubts are not required in this regard, even a single circumstance creating doubt in a prudent mind is sufficient and the nutshell of the whole discussion is that the prosecution case is not free from doubt. It is an axiomatic principle of law that in case of doubt, the benefit thereof must accrue in favour of the accused as a matter of right and not as of grace. Reliance is placed upon the following case laws titled as "Muhammad Riaz v. Khurram Shahzad and another" (2024 SCMR 51) "Muhammad Nawaz and another v. The State and others" (2024 SCMR 1731), "Rehmat Ullah and 2 others v. The State and others" (2024 SCMR 1782) and "Sikandar Ali alias Bhola v. The State" (2025 SCMR 552). 13. For the foregoing reasons, Criminal Appeal No.177507 of 2018 is accepted, resultantly the conviction and sentence of Tariq alias Tahru, appellant is set-aside and he is acquitted of the charge while extending the benefit of doubt in his favour. He is on bail by way of suspension of his sentence; his surety stands discharged. JK/T-8/L Appeal allowed.

Summary: (Against judgment dated 21.11.2023 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in S.T.R. No. 30 of 2015). Federal Excise Act (VII of 2005)--- ----Ss. 2(8d), 3, 12(12a), 34A, 40 & First Schedule, Table II---Federal Excise Rules, 2005, Rr. 2(mb) & 43A---Term "franchise"---Liability to pay duty---Determination---Respondent/taxpayer entered into various franchise agreements and was providing dutiable services, as set out in Table II of First Schedule to Federal Excise Act, 2005---Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue held that in the relevant year 2012, it was the franchisee(s) who had to pay duty under Federal Excise Act, 2005 and the order was maintained by High Court---Validity---On a proper reading and application of Section 3 of Federal Excise Act, 2005 and Rule 43A of Federal Excise Rules, 2005, the liability to pay excise duty lay on the franchiser (respondent tax payer)---Supreme Court set aside order passed by High Court and the relevant question was answered in affirmative, in favor of authorities---Appeal was allowed. Ahmed Pervaiz, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent. Date of hearing: 24th April, 2025.