Summary: In Maqbool Ahmad Vs Government of Pakistan (1991 SCMR 2063) section 28 of the Limitation Act, 1908 has been declared against injunction of Islam and the cutoff date was 31.08.1991, meaning thereby that after cutoff date no one can claim his right on the basis of prescription for claiming right under prescription one has to get declaratory decree from the competent court of law and that too before the cutoff date 31.08.1991.

Summary: Judicial orders have precedence over administrative orders. If administrative authorities are allowed to reopen cases decided by the court, it will defeat the purpose of litigation & lead to a never ending cycle of disputes. The law seek finality and certainty in disputes and fundamental objective must be upheld at all costs otherwise, such administrative over reach has the potential to create legal chaos and undermine public confidence in the Judicial system.

Summary: While execrating discretion in the matter of granting bail in case registered under section 11-B KP Control of Narcotics Substances Act 2019 before repeal (by way of KP Control of Narcotics Substance (Amendment) Act 2025), one class of accused cannot be differentiated from the other class of accused who are undergoing trial after substitution of Section 11-B KP CNSA through amending Act, at bail stage. Both the classes be treated similarly without any discrimination while exercising discretionary jurisdiction in the matter of grant or refusal of bail

Summary: In absence of description of specific details regarding fraud committed in obtaining a decree or order from civil Court, an application under Section 12(2) CPC would be maintainable.

Summary: The writ petitions were barred by the principle of constructive res judicata. The petitioners had previously challenged the impugned rules in two writ petitions, which were decided on merits by the High Court and the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The court noted that the matter in issue in the present writ petitions was directly and substantially the same as in the previous writ petitions, and that the petitioners had not raised the ground of challenge to the impugned rules in the previous round of litigation. Explanation IV of Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, which provides that any matter that might and ought to have been made a ground of defense or attack in a former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit. The court held that the petitioners were barred from raising the ground of challenge to the impugned rules, as it was not raised in the previous round of litigation.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Criminal Trial — Benefit of Doubt — Delay in Lodging FIR — Admissibility of FIR — Contradictions in Ocular and Medical Evidence ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(i), 148 & 149, Penal Code (XLV of 1860); Ss. 161, 374, 544-A & 382-B, Cr.P.C.; Art. 46, QSO 1984 Trial court convicted Qalab Abbas with death sentence on two counts and Amjad Pervaiz with life imprisonment on two counts under S.302(b) read with S.34, PPC for the murder of two individuals and causing injuries to another. FIR was lodged after a delay of more than 3 hours despite close proximity (4 km) of police station to the place of occurrence and the availability of mobile phone—no plausible explanation was offered for the delay—court held that FIR was recorded after due deliberation. The FIR’s maker (complainant) died before cross-examination, rendering the FIR legally inadmissible for corroborative purposes. Ocular testimony was contradicted by medical evidence and tainted by dishonest improvements made by eyewitnesses to align with medical facts—held, such improvements diminished their credibility and integrity. Court relied on Muhammad Jahangir v. The State (2024 SCMR 1741), Muhammad Ramzan v. The State (2025 SCMR 762), and Muhammad Nasir Butt v. The State (2025 SCMR 662). (b) Criminal Trial — Eyewitness Testimony — Chance Witnesses — Unexplained Presence at Crime Scene ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(i), 148 & 149, Penal Code Eyewitness Mazhar Iqbal was a chance witness with no residence or business in the vicinity of the incident and failed to explain his presence at the scene. Nazim Hussain (PW) also failed to explain convincingly the medical treatment logistics post-incident. Their presence and role were contradicted by the police witnesses and record. No other independent witness from the locality supported the prosecution’s case, despite the incident occurring in a populated area. Held, eyewitnesses were unreliable and not natural witnesses. (c) Criminal Trial — Medical Evidence — Non-Proving of Injuries — Discrepancies in MLCs ----S. 337-F(i), PPC; Ss. 161, 173, Cr.P.C. No MLC or doctor’s testimony was produced to substantiate the alleged firearm injury of witness Mazhar Iqbal—Investigation Officer himself admitted medical evidence did not support injury claim. Furthermore, MLC of injured deceased Tahir Imran did not mention history of alleged assault nor correctly identify the accused, undermining its evidentiary value. (d) Criminal Trial — Recovery of Crime Weapons — Safe Custody and Transmission — Forensic Evidence ----Ss. 173, 374 Cr.P.C. Recovery of Kalashnikovs from appellants allegedly corroborated the prosecution case. However, discrepancies in police testimony regarding chain of custody and delivery dates to PFSA rendered the forensic match of spent shells unreliable. Reliance was placed on Kamal Din alias Kamala v. The State (2018 SCMR 577), which required strict proof of safe custody for reliance on forensic reports. (e) Dying Declaration — Legal Requirements — Police Rules, 1934 — Admissibility ----Art. 46, QSO 1984; R.25.21, Police Rules, 1934 Statement of deceased Tahir Imran recorded under S.161 Cr.P.C. was advanced as dying declaration. However, it was neither recorded in the presence of a magistrate nor attested by a medical officer, and was devoid of endorsement as to mental fitness of the declarant. Held, such statement was inadmissible under settled law and lacked probative value. Court cited Mst. Zahida Bibi v. The State (PLD 2006 SC 255). (f) Criminal Trial — Motive — Failure to Prove — Consequences ----S. 302, PPC Alleged motive for the attack was a quarrel over pipe-laying in the street. Prosecution failed to produce any physical evidence (e.g. construction materials, tools) or testimony from laborers or masons to substantiate motive. No recovery of relevant items was made by the IO. Court held that unproven motive weakened the prosecution’s case, citing Sarfraz v. The State (2023 SCMR 670). (g) Appeal Against Acquittal — Interference by High Court — Scope ----S. 417(2-A), Cr.P.C. Petition for Special Leave to Appeal against acquittal of co-accused Umar Hayat and Faheem Ashraf was dismissed. Court noted that neither had been nominated in FIR (or were involved later via vague roles), nor had any weapons been recovered from them. Prosecution failed to prove any direct or circumstantial evidence justifying reversal of acquittal. Cited Haji Amanullah v. Munir Ahmad (2010 SCMR 222) and Jehangir v. Aminullah (2010 SCMR 491). Disposition: Criminal Appeal No.15460 of 2020 and Criminal Appeal No.15997 of 2020 were allowed; convictions and sentences of Qalab Abbas and Amjad Pervaiz were set aside and they were acquitted of all charges. Murder Reference No.67 of 2020 was answered in the negative; the death sentence of Qalab Abbas was not confirmed. PSLA No.17975 of 2020 was dismissed; acquittal of co-accused Umar Hayat and Faheem Ashraf was upheld.

Summary: Acquittal ----- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 354 & 452 — Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898), Ss. 544-A, 382-B & 374 Murder, criminal trespass, and assault with intent to outrage modesty — Allegation of fatal assault by petitioner with a Danda, followed by trespass and physical assault upon women — Initial FIR registered under Ss. 324, 354 & 452, PPC; subsequently converted to S. 302 PPC after victim’s death — Conviction recorded by Trial Court under all charges; sentence of death under S. 302(b), PPC altered to life imprisonment by High Court — Supreme Court found multiple material doubts in the prosecution’s case — Discrepancy between complainant's statement about accomplices and absence of co-accused — Delay of over 13 hours in lodging FIR without plausible explanation — Medical evidence found inconsistent with prosecution's version of injury and manner — Prosecution failed to prove chain of events conclusively — Conviction set aside and benefit of doubt extended — Petitioner acquitted of all charges. Disposition: Appeal allowed — Judgment of High Court set aside — Petitioner acquitted of all charges under Ss. 302(b), 354 & 452, PPC — To be released if not required in any other case. (b) Criminal Trial — Appreciation of Evidence — Delay in FIR — Credibility of Witnesses Delay of 13 hours and 20 minutes in FIR without sufficient justification — Supplementary statement used to introduce two eyewitnesses whose names were not in original FIR — Such delay and subsequent additions deemed to cast serious doubt on the prosecution’s version — Supreme Court observed that if the witnesses had actually been present, their names would have been disclosed at the earliest — Testimony of complainant held to be hearsay in parts, weakening its evidentiary value — Introduction of key witnesses after substantial delay found to affect reliability and truthfulness of entire narrative. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Hassan v. The State 2024 SCMR 1427 • Tariq Parvez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345 • Muhammad Akram v. The State 2009 SCMR 230 • Muhammad Imran v. The State 2020 SCMR 857 (c) Criminal Trial — Motive — Vague and Unsubstantiated Motive Weakening Prosecution Case Prosecution claimed dispute over house as motive — No documentary evidence or independent testimony produced to substantiate existence or intensity of dispute — Mere assertion of motive unsupported by credible material held insufficient — High Court also noted absence of corroboration — Inconsistent or vague motive considered inadequate to support conviction. Held: Failure to prove motive casts doubt on prosecution's narrative — Where motive is set up but not established, benefit must go to accused.

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877): ----S. 12---Suit for specific performance---Agreement to sell---Marginal witnesses---Requirement of proof---Petitioners (legal heirs) sought specific performance on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell allegedly executed in 1997---Vendor Abdul Hameed had purportedly delivered possession after receiving full sale consideration---Petitioners failed to produce marginal witnesses or prove their death/unavailability, nor sought permission of court to lead secondary evidence through family members---Held, per Article 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, written agreements must be proved through attesting witnesses unless exempted by legal exception---Failure to comply with evidentiary rules rendered the document unproved and claim untenable. Cited Case: • Sheikh Muhammad Muneer v. Mst. Feezan PLD 2021 SC 538 (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908): ----Art. 113---Specific performance---Limitation period---Date of agreement and performance---Predecessor-in-interest filed suit 13 years after execution of agreement to sell, without any contractual stipulation linking performance to vendor's later acquisition of proprietary rights---Held, suit filed after 3-year limitation period under Art. 113 was time-barred---Lack of action during lifetime of vendor cast further doubt on petitioners' claim. (c) Registration Act (XVI of 1908): ----S. 17---Unregistered agreement to sell---Evidentiary weight---Held, documents conveying interest in immovable property over Rs.100 require compulsory registration---Unregistered sale agreement lacking corroboration by reliable evidence or valid stamp issuance deemed legally inconsequential---Stamp papers procured by unrelated third party (Abdul Rashid) without proof of agency or linkage to vendor rendered the agreement dubious. Cited Cases: • Govt. of Sindh v. Muhammad Shafi PLD 2015 SC 380 • Kaniz Fatima v. Tamizul Haque 2024 YLR 890 (d) Evidence Act / Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984: ----Arts. 79, 117---Proof of written document---Onus to prove claim---Petitioners failed to prove issuance of stamp papers by vendor and did not establish link between vendor and the person shown in the stamp register---Declared own witness hostile without impeaching credibility---Held, burden under Art. 117 to prove legal entitlement through unimpeachable evidence remained undischarged. (e) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908): ----Revision---Concurrent findings---Interference by High Court---Scope---Held, concurrent findings of fact by trial and appellate courts cannot be disturbed in revisional jurisdiction unless perverse, arbitrary, or based on misreading/non-reading of evidence---No such defect found in instant case. Cited Cases: • Haji Muhammad Younas v. Mst. Farukh Sultan 2022 SCMR 1282 • Muhammad Idrees v. Muhammad Pervaiz 2010 SCMR 5 (f) Pleadings and Evidence: ----Principle---Evidence beyond pleadings---Inadmissibility---Petitioner’s witness (PW-3) introduced new facts not pleaded in plaint---Held, evidence inconsistent with pleadings cannot be considered while adjudicating disputes---Findings based on established principle that pleadings determine admissibility of evidence. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Wali Khan v. Gul Sarwar Khan PLD 2010 SC 695 • Karam Elahi v. Muhammad Ashraf 2013 YLR 2347

Summary: (a) Criminal Law – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence – Principles reiterated: Where prosecution relies solely on circumstantial evidence, each link in the chain must be established beyond reasonable doubt. In the instant case, crucial elements including motive, last seen evidence, and recoveries failed to meet the evidentiary threshold. No independent corroboration was offered for last seen testimony, and the time of death was not medically established to connect it with the alleged departure of the deceased. —Held: Benefit of doubt is to be extended where circumstantial evidence is fractured. [Cited: PLD 2019 SC 64 (Asia Bibi); 1995 SCMR 1345 (Tariq Pervaiz); PLD 2002 SC 1048 (Ayub Masih)] (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 – Article 40 – Scope and evidentiary limits The Court comprehensively examined Article 40 of QSO, distinguishing between "discovery" and mere "recovery". It reaffirmed that only that portion of custodial disclosure leading directly to the discovery of a new fact is admissible. Procedural lapses—such as absence of departure entries, unsigned statements, and lack of attestation by independent witnesses—render the recoveries unreliable. —Held: The safeguards under Article 40 QSO and procedural law must be strictly followed to render evidence admissible. [Cited: 2021 SCMR 873 (Ahmed Omar Sheikh); 2024 SCMR 1773 (Zafar Ali Abbasi); 1995 SCMR 1293 (Yaqub Shah)] (c) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 – Sections 103, 161, 173 – Investigative shortcomings: The Court condemned systemic investigative failures, including unsigned disclosure statements, absence of independent mashirs, and lack of prompt documentation. It noted that such practices undermine due process and erode public trust in the justice system. —Direction issued: IGs of Police and Prosecutor Generals across provinces instructed to implement mandatory procedural safeguards for custodial recoveries and ensure transparency in investigation. —Legislative recommendation: Statutory amendments urged to codify requirements for admissible custodial disclosures. (d) Last seen evidence – Requirement for corroboration – Delay in reporting: The alleged last seen testimony of close relatives (father and maternal uncle) lacked corroboration. There was also unexplained delay in reporting and no scientific determination of time of death to match the last seen timeline. —Held: In absence of independent corroboration, such evidence cannot be the sole basis for conviction. [Cited: PLD 2018 SC 813 (Muhammad Abid); 2017 SCMR 2026 (Fayyaz Ahmad); 2007 SCMR 486 (Akbar Ali)] (e) Appeal against acquittal – Principle of reinforced presumption of innocence: Appeal challenging acquittal of co-accused was dismissed. The Court reiterated that findings of acquittal are afforded greater weight and cannot be reversed unless perverse or contrary to law. [Cited: 2024 SCMR 51 (Muhammad Riaz v. Khurram Shehzad)] ----Disposition: Criminal Petition No. 532 of 2018 converted into appeal and allowed; conviction of Zunair Younas set aside; acquitted. Criminal Petition No. 444-L of 2018 (seeking enhancement of sentence) dismissed as infructuous. Criminal Petition No. 445-L of 2018 (challenging acquittal of co-accused) dismissed.