Summary: Bail petition filed by Abdul Malik, who was arrested on March 16, 2024, in connection with FIR No. 123 dated March 16, 2024. The petitioner sought bail on the ground of statutory delay in the conclusion of his trial. The court noted that the petitioner`s statutory period of two years would mature on March 16, 2026, and therefore, the petition was premature. The court also observed that the petitioner was charged with offenses under Sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 PPC, and that the charge sheet showed joint liability of the accused, including the petitioner, under these sections. The court held that the petitioner`s case was not covered by the third proviso to Section 497(1) Cr.P.C, which provides for bail after one year of detention, as the petitioner`s case involved offenses carrying a punishment of death or life imprisonment.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898—S. 94—Scope and interpretation—Power of trial court to summon judicial record—Timing and relevance— Under Section 94 Cr.P.C., a trial court has the authority to summon any document or record "whenever" its production is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, or trial. This power is not constrained by the stage of proceedings and may be invoked at any time, provided the court is satisfied that such document or thing is essential for just adjudication. In the present case, summoning the judicial record of FIR No. 501/2021 by the Magistrate trying the complaint case was held to be within jurisdiction and necessary for fair determination of the complaint arising from the same occurrence. Cited Cases: Shakeel Akhtar v. The State (2023 SCMR 1676) Muhammad Asif Ali Usama v. The State (2022 PCr.LJ 59) (b) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898—Ss. 528 & 94—Summoning of record vs. transfer of proceedings—Distinction—Jurisdictional validity— Summoning a judicial record under S. 94 Cr.P.C. does not amount to a transfer of proceedings under S. 528 Cr.P.C. The Court clarified that calling for the record of a case pending before another court does not signify or require a formal transfer, as long as the summoned record serves evidentiary or adjudicative purposes and the summoning court is not assuming jurisdiction over the other case. The petitioner’s objection conflating summoning with transfer was held misconceived. (c) Cross/counter cases—Parallel trials in Magistrate and Sessions Courts—Procedure and precedence— Where two counter cases arise out of the same occurrence but are triable by different courts (e.g., complaint before Magistrate and challan case before Sessions), the trial before the Magistrate must ordinarily await the conclusion of the Sessions trial. The rationale is to avoid conflicting decisions and maintain judicial consistency. However, joint or side-by-side trials are not mandatory and depend on the facts. The Court relied on a series of precedents to reiterate that the Magistrate should not proceed independently while the Sessions case is ongoing. Cited Cases: Muhammad Sadiq v. The State (PLD 1971 SC 713) Khair Din v. Inayat (1974 SCMR 140) Rafaqat Ali v. Hidayat Ali (1986 PCr.LJ 989) Syed Muhammad Hussain Shah v. Abdul Hamid (1981 SCMR 361) Mumtaz v. Mansoor Ahmad (1984 SCMR 221) (d) Adjudicative discretion—Procedural fairness—Neutral role of court in criminal justice— The trial court is a neutral arbiter obligated to ascertain the truth, irrespective of whether the evidence sought benefits the prosecution or the defence. Courts may summon any material, document, or record relevant to the inquiry or trial. Such powers reflect the court’s inquisitorial function, even within an adversarial system, when necessary to do justice. The object of Section 94 Cr.P.C. is to ensure substantive fairness, not to facilitate either party. Disposition: Criminal revision dismissed. Trial court’s act of summoning judicial record upheld as lawful, necessary, and within jurisdiction under S. 94 Cr.P.C. Magisterial proceedings shall await conclusion of Sessions trial in line with precedent.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 – Ss. 6, 7, 9(c); Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 – Art. 122 —Narcotics—Constructive possession—Driver—Presumption of knowledge—Liability for contraband concealed in vehicle Petitioner Ghazi Khan, driver of a truck intercepted during excise police surveillance, was found transporting 30kg of charas concealed in hidden compartments along with heavy illegal arms and explosives. Supreme Court held that a driver has constructive possession and presumed knowledge of contraband in a vehicle under his control. Accused failed to rebut presumption or offer plausible explanation. The act of attempting to flee further affirmed guilty knowledge. Conviction under S. 9(c), CNSA upheld. Cited Cases: • Kashif Ameer v. The State (PLD 2010 SC 1052) • Nazir Ahmed v. The State (2023 SCMR 1299) (b) Evidence—Credibility of official witnesses—Presumption of truth—Absence of animosity Testimony of Excise Police deemed reliable where no mala fide or enmity shown. Accused from different province; no past hostility proved. Held, official witnesses competent and credible absent proven bias. (c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 – S. 9(c); Presumption and burden of proof—Passenger in vehicle—Lack of knowledge or control—Benefit of doubt Petitioner Marzak Khan was seated in passenger seat at time of interception. No evidence linked him to contraband or proved knowledge of hidden narcotics. Held, mere presence in vehicle not sufficient for conviction without possessory control or conscious knowledge. Conviction set aside; petitioner acquitted. Cited Case: • Shahzada v. The State (2010 SCMR 841) (d) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 – Ss. 397, 382-B —Concurrent sentences—Same transaction—Benefit of sentence computation Where multiple convictions arise from same transaction, sentences to run concurrently under S. 397 Cr.P.C. Petitioner Ghazi Khan granted benefit of S. 382-B Cr.P.C. Cited Case: • Shaista Bibi v. Superintendent Central Jail Mach (PLD 2015 SC 15) ----- Disposition: Petition of Ghazi Khan dismissed—Conviction and sentence upheld; leave refused—Sentences to run concurrently; S. 382-B benefit granted Petition of Marzak Khan converted to appeal and allowed—Acquitted of charges and released forthwith

Summary: (a) Limitation Act, 1908 — Inheritance Claims — Time-Barred Suit: ----Ss. 3, 18, 120—Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.—Inheritance—Gift deed—Successor’s right to challenge after predecessor’s silence—Whether limitation applies—Held, the predecessor never challenged the impugned registered gift deed during her lifetime (1981–2009) or subsequent third-party transfers—Successor (petitioner) filed suit in 2015 after 34 years of gift deed and 6 years after predecessor's death—In such circumstances, limitation does apply—Right to inheritance cannot survive where the predecessor acquiesced and did not claim title—No cause to bypass statutory bar under Article 120 of Limitation Act—Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 was proper. ----Cited Cases: • Muhammad Rustam v. Mst. Makhan Jan, 2013 SCMR 299 • PLD 2014 SC 167 (Mst. Grana case) • PLD 2023 SC 362 (Saadat Khan case) • PLD 2022 SC 353 (Salamat Ali case) • 2023 SCMR 1402 (Mst. Faheeman Begum case) (b) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Rejection of Plaint: ----Order VII, Rule 11—Applicability—Scope—Where suit is ex facie time-barred, recording evidence is not required—Limitation need not be treated as a mixed question of law and fact in every case—If delay is apparent from the plaint and no explanation is provided, plaint can be rejected at initial stage. ----Cited Cases: • 2016 SCMR 910 (Agha Syed Mushtaque Ali Shah v. Mst. Bibi Gul Jan) • PLD 2012 SC 247 (Florida Builders case) • 2023 PLC (C.S.) 310 (Saqib Ali case) (c) Civil Law — Inheritance—Waiver and Acquiescence: ----Inheritance claim—Effect of predecessor’s acquiescence—If predecessor failed to assert rights in lifetime, successor cannot revive claim—Mere inheritance title not sufficient to defeat limitation or challenge transactions affecting third-party rights—Inaction for decades estops relief. Cited Cases: • PLD 2011 SC 657 (Lal Khan case) • 2022 SCMR 1558 (Syed Kausar Ali Shah case) • PLD 2023 SC 362 (Saadat Khan case) (d) Presumption of Validity — Registered Gift Deed: ----Registered document—Presumption under QSO Art. 100—Gift deed, more than 30 years old, carries statutory presumption of genuineness—Petitioner failed to rebut presumption—Limitation and estoppel further confirmed validity. (e) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 — Art. 199 — Judicial Review: ----Scope—Revisional court’s decision—High Court’s jurisdiction limited to jurisdictional errors—No interference warranted if subordinate court acted within jurisdiction—Petition under Art. 199 cannot substitute for second appeal or revision. ----Cited Cases: • PLD 1985 SC 131 (Noor Muhammad case) • PLD 1974 SC 139 (Muhammad Hussain Munir case) • PLD 2006 SC 214 (Mst. Mobin Fatima case) ----Disposition: Petition dismissed. Impugned revisional decree upheld. Suit rightly rejected under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. for being time-barred. ---Quote: The questions of limitation, waiver and acquiescence cannot be brushed aside in every claim of inheritance. ? The distinction has to be drawn between a claim of inheritance agitated during the lifetime of the legal heir(s) and the one agitated after death of such legal heir(s)

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) ----S. 48---Execution of decree---Limitation period---Principle of merger---Appellate decree as starting point of limitation---Scope Where an appellate court affirms, reverses, or modifies a trial court’s decree, the doctrine of merger applies, and the operative decree becomes that of the appellate court—In such cases, execution can be sought within six years from the date of the appellate decree under S. 48 CPC—Trial court’s decree merges into the appellate decree regardless of whether the latter affirms or changes the former—Held, fresh execution petition filed after appellate decision was not barred by limitation—High Court rightly applied S. 48 CPC instead of Article 181 of the Limitation Act—Dismissal of execution by the executing court on ground of limitation was incorrect—Petition dismissed. Cited Cases: • Sahibzadi Maharunisa v. Mst. Ghulam Sughran (PLD 2016 SC 358) • Maluvi Abdul Qayyum v. Syed Ali Asghar Shah (1992 SCMR 241) • Nasrullah Khan v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 2013 SC 478) • AIR 1958 SC 868 (Commissioner of Income Tax v. Amritlal Bhogilal & Co) • AIR 2000 SC 2587 (Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala) • AIR 1963 SC 1124 (Collector of Customs v. East India Commercial Co.) (b) Limitation Act, 1908 ----Art. 181---Application not otherwise provided for---Execution of appellate decree---Non-applicability where S. 48 CPC applies---Effect Held, where decree of trial court is affirmed by appellate court, the operative decree is that of appellate court due to principle of merger—Hence, limitation is governed not by Article 181 (3 years) but by S. 48 CPC (6 years)—Fresh execution petition filed after appellate judgment thus falls within limitation—Bar of Article 181 does not apply in such context. (c) Constitutional Jurisdiction ----Art. 185(3)---Leave to appeal---Discretionary relief---Non-interference where no legal or jurisdictional error in High Court’s decision Supreme Court declined to interfere with High Court’s judgment which correctly applied law relating to execution and limitation—No illegality or misapplication of jurisdiction found—Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.

Summary: (a) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (XLIX of 2001) ----Ss. 2(36), 100C, 122(9), 122(5A), 237(1) & SRO No.754(I)/2016 dated 15.08.2016---- **Non-profit organizations---Tax credit---Validity of approval under S.2(36)---Prospective vs. retrospective application of SRO---Scope---**Taxpayer, a welfare society, was denied tax credit on ground that its approval under S.2(36), issued in 2007, had expired in 2010 pursuant to the SRO issued in 2016---Tribunal and High Court upheld taxpayer’s contention that the SRO had no retrospective effect, and that the three-year period introduced therein would commence from the date of issuance of the SRO i.e., 15.08.2016---Supreme Court affirmed the view that the SRO amended Rule 214 of the Income Tax Rules, 2002 by introducing a prospective three-year limitation on approvals granted under Rule 212---Text of the amended rule used the term “subsequent three years”, which clearly indicated prospective application---SRO itself did not contain any clause making it retrospective---Held, settled principle of tax law is that retrospective application must be express and cannot be presumed---Argument that approval expired in 2010 based on retrospective effect of 2016 SRO was misconceived---Taxpayer had valid approval up to August 2019 and was entitled to tax credit for tax year 2019---Civil petition dismissed and leave to appeal refused. Cited Case: • Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Millat Tractors Ltd. 2024 SCMR 700

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 185(3) Maintainability---Petitioner challenged confiscation of trawler under Balochistan Sea Fisheries Ordinance, 1971---Petitioner's claim of lack of knowledge regarding illegal fishing activities carried out on his trawler rejected---Petitioner, as proprietor of the trawler, held responsible for ensuring lawful use of his property---Supreme Court emphasized the principle that constructive knowledge and accountability are attributed to proprietors when their property is used unlawfully---Court observed that economic benefit derived by the petitioner necessitated bearing legal burdens arising from unlawful acts---Petition found devoid of merit and dismissed accordingly. (b) Balochistan Sea Fisheries Ordinance, 1971 ----Ss. 3, 9---Illegal fishing---Confiscation of vessel---Scope and application---Trawler found engaged in illegal fishing with prohibited wire nets within restricted nautical limits without valid license---Confiscation of trawler and prohibited fishing gear held lawful under statutory provisions---Proprietor's ignorance of illegal activity not a valid defense---Presumption of constructive knowledge applied---Court held that confiscation of trawler was consistent with legislative intent to curb illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, which posed threat to marine biodiversity and livelihoods of coastal communities---Petitioner’s claim for release of trawler compared to seeking return of crime instrument by a criminal, and accordingly rejected. (c) Criminal Law ----Constructive knowledge---Liability of owner for acts committed through property---Scope---Where proprietor profits from operations conducted through his property, he cannot escape liability by pleading ignorance---Constructive knowledge principle ensures accountability for acts committed using property under owner’s control---Court applied maxim "Qui sentit commodum, debet et sentire onus" ("He who derives a benefit ought also to bear a burden")---Failure to conduct reasonable checks by owner resulted in attribution of liability for unlawful acts committed aboard the trawler. Cited Legal Maxim: • Qui sentit commodum, debet et sentire onus ("He who derives a benefit ought also to bear a burden.")

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 364, 404, 201, 202 & 109---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act (XXIII of 2013), S. 15---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting a person with the intent that they may be murdered or put in danger of being murdered, dishonest or fraudulent misrepresentation of a will or other document relating to the creation of a posthumous document, causing disappearance of evidence of an offence or for giving false information to screen an offender, intentional omission to give information about an offence by a person legally bound to do so, abetment, possession of illicit weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions in the statements of witnesses---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Scribe of Murasila stated that the appellant was interrogated on suspicion and during interrogation, appellant, confessed his guilt and on his pointation, the dead body was recovered from a forest---At the pointation of appellant, the site plan was prepared by the Investigating Officer---When cross-examined said witness admitted that he could not write and admitted that the Murasila was not in his hand-writing---Similarly, said witness admitted that the injury sheet was also not prepared by him, nor he recorded the statement of accused while interrogating him as suspect---Perusal of cross-examination of said witness revealed that all documents bearing his signatures were not in his hand writing, raising doubts about the authenticity of recovery---Per cross-examination of said witness, his statement under S.161 Cr.P.C. was not recorded by the Investigating Officer though the site plan was prepared by the Investigating Officer at his pointation, however, no specific position had been assigned to the recovered dead body from the spot---Additionally, Head Constable, who accompanied the SHO to the spot, contradicted the prosecution's narrative---According to cross-examination of Head Constable, no other person except him was present when the dead body was recovered, directly negating the claim that the appellant was present or that the body was recovered at his direction---Such contradictions severely undermined the spot proceedings viz-a-viz prosecution's assertion that the dead body was recovered pursuant to the appellant's confession and pointation---Circumstances established that the prosecution, under no circumstance, was able to establish guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Rehmatullah and 2 others v. The State 2024 SCMR 1782 and Naveed Asghar and 2 others v. The State PLD 2021 SC 600 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 364, 404, 201, 202 & 109---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act (XXIII of 2013), S. 15---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting a person with the intent that they may be murdered or put in danger of being murdered, dishonest or fraudulent misrepresentation of a will or other document relating to the creation of a posthumous document, causing disappearance of evidence of an offence or for giving false information to screen an offender, intentional omission to give information about an offence by a person legally bound to do so, abetment, possession of illicit weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Investigative short comings and deficiencies---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Alleged crime weapon was never recovered from the appellant's possession---Investigating Officer admitted that no sketch or proper documentation of the recovery of the pistol and mobile phones was prepared---Failure to verify SIM ownership or examine recipients of calls and messages further weakened the evidentiary value of those items---Investigating Officer also admitted that as per recovery memo. no cut marks were shown on the blood-stained garments of deceased---Said witness admitted that the pistol was not in the name of accused---Several investigative shortcomings and deficiencies were noticed in the statement of Investigating Officer, i.e., delay in sending recovered items to the Forensic Science Laboratory; absence of statements from key witnesses who allegedly received calls or messages from the deceased; lack of verification of mobile phone ownership; no independent witnesses to critical recoveries and absence of a detailed site plan showing the exact location of recovered items---Such shortcomings had casted serious doubts on the integrity and reliability of the prosecution's case---Circumstances established that the prosecution, under no circumstance, was able to establish guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 364, 404, 201, 202 & 109---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act (XXIII of 2013), S. 15---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting a person with the intent that they may be murdered or put in danger of being murdered, dishonest or fraudulent misrepresentation of a will or other document relating to the creation of a posthumous document, causing disappearance of evidence of an offence or for giving false information to screen an offender, intentional omission to give information about an offence by a person legally bound to do so, abetment, possession of illicit weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Medical evidence contradicting prosecution's case---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Medical Officer testified that the dead body was in an advanced state of decomposition, with only a single stab wound on the neck---There was no evidence of firearm injuries, which contradicted the prosecution's claim that the murder weapon was a pistol---During cross-examination, Medical Officer explained that no cut marks were found on the clothes of the deceased---Said witness admitted that he had not observed any other wound except stab wound---Moreover, the alleged crime weapon was never recovered from the appellant's possession---Besides, recovery of weapon had become immaterial in view of the deposition of Medical Officer, who clearly explained that except stab wound, no other wound was found on the dead body of deceased---Circumstances established that the prosecution, under no circumstance, was able to establish guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (d) Criminal trial--- ----Circumstantial evidence---Scope---In cases resting on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be completed and unbroken, and from the dead body of a victim the unbroken chain of events should link that chain to the accused---Any missing link entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt. Rehmat alias Rahman alias Waryam alias Badshah v. The State PLD 1977 SC 515 rel. Barrister Aamir Khan Chamkani for Appellant. Ayub Zaman, A.A.G for the State. Malik Tayeb Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 22nd April, 2025.

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 27.02.2025 of the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench passed in Writ Petition No. 356-A/2022). Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss.8, 42 & 54---Suit for declaration, injunction and possession---Concurrent findings of two courts below---Scope---Wrong appreciation of evidence by courts below alleged---Petitioner was unable to point out as to which part of evidence was misread or ignored---The petitioner filed a civil suit seeking declaration, injunction, and possession, claiming ownership of certain properties transferred to her by her husband on the basis of a gift deed –Trial Court decreed the suit, however, the appellate court partly allowed the appeal inasmuch as the transfer of the house to the petitioner in lieu of dower was upheld, but the judgment regarding the gift deed and a challenge to inheritance mutation was set aside---The revisional court concurred with this finding of the appellate court---The petitioner then filed the present petition for leave to appeal ---It was the case of the petitioner that the first appellate court and the Revisional Court wrongly appreciated the evidence on record---Held: Appellate court discussed the deposition of all witnesses minutely and formed a view which had a dominant consequence as far as the appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court was concerned and maintained by the Revisional Court---The Revisional Court too, though not mandated to re-appraise the evidence, but it did not alter the findings and hence in such view of the matter it was the concurrent findings of the first appellate court and the Revisional Court which were before the Supreme Court---The appellate court and the Revisional Court discussed about the incompleteness of the gift owing to lack of offer, acceptance and delivery of possession in lieu of alleged gift---The petitioner was not able to point out as to which part of the evidence was misread or ignored and had it been read it would not have passed the impugned judgments and the view formed could have been different---Since the petitioner had failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment and also failed to point out any part of evidence which was ignored or misread, the Supreme Court could not interfere in the concurrent findings of the two courts below---Petition having no merit was dismissed and leave was refused, in circumstances. Khalid Rehman Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Anis Muhammad Shahzad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 22nd April, 2025.