Summary: (a) Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (VIII of 1890) ----Ss. 17 & 25 Custody of minor—Welfare of minor as paramount consideration—Father residing abroad, not having met the child since birth, seeking custody after mother's remarriage—Scope—Father had neither sought visitation rights nor made any personal effort to meet or support the minor—Application for custody filed five years after birth of minor—Trial Court, Appellate Court, and High Court concurrently dismissed the claim for custody, emphasizing best interests of child—Supreme Court reaffirmed that under Ss. 17 & 25 of the Act, the determining factor in custody matters is the welfare of the minor, encompassing moral, educational, emotional, physical, and psychological well-being—Natural guardianship does not automatically confer entitlement to custody—The concept of welfare is not static and must be evaluated with reference to surrounding facts, including the existing bond between minor and custodial parent—Child’s continued education, emotional security, and consistent caregiving by mother supported finding that welfare lies with mother despite her remarriage—Petition dismissed. Cited Cases: • Khan Muhammad v. Mst. Surayya Bibi 2008 SCMR 480 • Rahimullah Choudhary v. Mrs. Sayeda Helali Begum 1974 SCMR 305 • Feroze Begum v. Muhammad Hussain 1978 SCMR 299 • Mehmood Akhtar v. District Judge, Attock 2004 SCMR 1839 • Tahira v. Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi 1990 SCMR 852 • Mst. Firdous Iqbal v. Shifaat Ali 2000 SCMR 838 • Sardar Hussain v. Mst. Parveen Umer PLD 2004 SC 357 • Mst. Beena v. Raja Muhammad PLD 2020 SC 508 • Munawar Bibi v. Muhammad Amin 1995 SCMR 1206 • Mst. Razia Bibi v. Riaz Ahmad 2004 SCMR 821 • Raja Muhammad Owais v. Mst. Nazia Jabeen 2022 SCMR 2123 • Mst. Shahista Naz v. Muhammad Naeem Ahmed 2004 SCMR 990 • Shabana Naz v. Muhammad Saleem 2014 SCMR 343 (b) Islamic Law ----Custody (Hizanat)---Effect of mother’s remarriage—Scope Mother’s remarriage with a person unrelated to the minor within prohibited degrees does not per se disentitle her from custody—Right of Hizanat under Islamic law is subordinate to welfare of minor and is not forfeited automatically on remarriage—If mother’s custody best serves minor’s welfare, she may retain custody despite remarriage—Reiterated that Islamic jurisprudence recognizes importance of mother-child bond and does not permit disruption unless required by overriding considerations of minor’s welfare—Court cited Islamic traditions and jurisprudence supporting sanctity of motherhood and welfare-centric approach to custody—Petitioner father’s second marriage and continued absence further negated claim to custody. Cited Cases: • Mst. Beena v. Raja Muhammad PLD 2020 SC 508 • Shabana Naz v. Muhammad Saleem 2014 SCMR 343 • Mst. Shahista Naz v. Muhammad Naeem Ahmed 2004 SCMR 990 • Feroze Begum v. Muhammad Hussain 1978 SCMR 299 (c) United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), 1989 ----Arts. 3(1) & 27 International law—Application of “best interests of the child” principle—Pakistan’s ratification of UNCRC without reservation—Binding obligation to prioritize child’s welfare in all judicial and administrative decisions—Welfare includes child’s material, educational, moral, and emotional development—Courts must interpret domestic guardianship law in light of international standards—UNCRC reinforces the welfare-centric approach under Ss. 17 & 25 of Guardian and Wards Act—Father’s absence, lack of effort to bond with minor, and mother's continued care justified denial of custody—Application of UNCRC principles led to confirmation of findings by lower courts. Cited Instruments: • United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), 1989 • Declaration of the Rights of the Child, 1959 • Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, 1979 (d) Civil Procedure ----Concurrent findings of fact---Scope of interference by Supreme Court---Custody disputes Supreme Court will not ordinarily interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts unless judgment is found to be perverse or arbitrary—Findings of all three courts below found to be well-reasoned, consistent with evidence, and in line with settled principles—No illegality or misreading of evidence shown—Petition found devoid of merit and dismissed accordingly—Leave to appeal refused. Cited Cases: • Mst. Firdous Iqbal v. Shifaat Ali 2000 SCMR 838 • Mehmood Akhtar v. District Judge, Attock 2004 SCMR 1839

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 200, 202, 203 & 204—Private complaint—Issuance of process—Scope and judicial duty—Held, before summoning accused, trial court must satisfy itself through examination of complaint and supporting material that prima facie case exists against the accused based on both actus reus and mens rea—Summoning cannot be mechanical or arbitrary—In present case, learned trial court summoned petitioners without cogent material—Held, such summoning amounted to abuse of process and was legally unsustainable—Reliance placed on Ghulam Hyder v. Special Judge Anti-Corruption (P) Hyderabad (2020 MLD 634) and Muhammad Rajar v. The State (PLD 2025 SC 40). (b) Criminal trial—False implication—Mala fide intent—Scope ----Held, that respondent No.2 originally lodged FIR against unknown assailants, but was later implicated as accused following recovery of weapon and incriminating articles—Post bail, she instituted private complaint against petitioners including real brothers and cousin of the deceased who were eyewitnesses in the challan case, without assigning any specific overt act—Court found this to be a mala fide attempt to shift liability and retaliate against prosecution witnesses—Held, such complaint was vexatious, an abuse of legal process, and intended to harass and deter witnesses. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 435 & 439—Revisional jurisdiction—Interference with summoning order—Scope—Held, where trial court exceeds legal bounds in summoning accused without satisfying preconditions of law, revisional court is fully empowered to set aside such order as being without lawful authority—Order summoning petitioners set aside and private complaint dismissed. Disposition: Revision petition allowed. Impugned order of summoning petitioners in private complaint quashed. Private complaint filed by respondent No.2 dismissed for being false, frivolous, and an abuse of process.

Summary: Bail granted ---- "Press clipping being explanatory evidence can be considered a relevant material at bail stage" ----- (a) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (Cr.P.C.) – S. 497 —-Bail—Post-arrest bail—Grant of—Further inquiry—Ocular account contradicted by circumstantial evidence—CDR and employment records inconsistent with prosecution version—Held, when documentary evidence including attendance logs and absence of voice transcript in call data records (CDR) casts doubt on involvement of accused, case becomes one of further inquiry—Press clippings suggesting blind murder initially and belated nomination raise doubt—Accused granted bail—Mazhar Ali v. The State (2025 SCMR 318), Zeeshan v. The State (2024 SCMR 1716), Saeed Ahmed v. The State (PLD 2024 SC 1241), followed. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 – Arts. 22, 111 & 112 —-Evidence—Press clippings—Admissibility—Scope—Held, although press clippings are hearsay in nature, they may be considered at bail stage for evaluating existence of further inquiry—Judicial notice of such clippings permissible under Art. 111 if unrebutted, reliable, and explanatory—Wattan Party v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2006 SC 697), PLD 1998 SC 388, and PLD 1976 SC 57 discussed—Banaris Khan v. The State (2015 YLR 2076) and PLD 1982 Lah 141 applied. (c) Criminal Law – Evidence—CDR and forensic linkage —-CDR—Voice transcript not available—Effect—Held, mere CDR without voice record is inconclusive to fix criminal liability—CDR must be formalized and corroborated by other evidence to be admissible—Mst. Saima Noreen v. The State (PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 371 FB) relied upon. (d) Criminal Law – Delay in nomination—Supplementary statement—Falsification concerns —-Supplementary statement recorded ante-dated to give ocular flavour to otherwise blind FIR—Held, where nomination appears after several months and is unsupported by initial records or FIR, belated supplementary statement may be viewed as padding—FIR must be scrutinized in context of surrounding facts including press reports and emergency call records. Disposition: Petitions allowed—Petitioners admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 500,000 each with one surety to satisfaction of trial court—Observations made are tentative and shall not affect the merits of trial.

Summary: (a) Punjab Essential Articles (Control) Act, 1973 —-S. 3—Punjab Fertilizers (Control) Order, 1973—Notified Order—Regulatory framework—Validity—Held, the Control Order qualifies as a valid Notified Order under S.3 of the Punjab Essential Articles (Control) Act, 1973—The Control Order regulates production, distribution, sale, testing, and penal consequences of fertilizer handling—Argument that the Control Order lacks independent penal authority in the absence of a specific notification rejected—Control Orders once notified hold binding legislative force and may be enforced without repeated notifications. (b) Constitutional Law —-Art. 10-A—Due process—Manufacturer’s right to hearing—Sampling and testing of fertilizers—Held, where penal or criminal proceedings are ultimately initiated against manufacturers based on test reports of fertilizer samples collected from dealers or distributors, the exclusion of manufacturers from the sampling and testing process violates the principle of audi alteram partem—Authorities directed to associate manufacturers during sampling and provide fair opportunity to contest test reports—Failure to do so renders the process susceptible to judicial interference. (c) Federal v. Provincial Jurisdiction —-Pakistan Standards and Quality Control Authority Act, 1996—Punjab Fertilizers (Control) Order, 1973—Dual regulatory framework—Imported fertilizers—Held, presence of PSQCA and PNAC certification at the federal level does not oust or negate the authority of the Provincial Government under the Control Order—Federal and provincial mechanisms function in distinct yet complementary spheres—Quality assurance at import stage falls under PSQCA; local distribution, storage, and resale remain subject to provincial oversight—Both frameworks jointly ensure market regulation and consumer safety. (d) Evidence—Sample testing—Procedure —-S. 22, Punjab Fertilizers (Control) Order, 1973—Test reports—Appeals—Reference laboratory—Held, departmental failure to use the third sealed portion (retained by dealer/distributor) for re-testing during appeals undermines the fairness of the appellate process—Directions issued that appellate re-testing be based on third part of sample, not department-retained one—Authorities also required to dispatch samples within time prescribed by SOPs, and reasons for any delay must be documented. (e) Fertilizer quality control—Right to appeal—Procedural safeguards —-Regulatory practice—Delay in criminal proceedings—Held, officials admitted that penal action is deferred until after expiry of appeal period—Court directed this internal practice to be formalized—Sample testing alone not sufficient to hold manufacturer liable unless procedural fairness and notice are afforded—Mere batch number or assumption of origin insufficient for criminal implication without associating the manufacturer. Disposition: Petitions disposed of—Respondents directed to reconsider each petitioner’s case individually and to proceed strictly in accordance with law, ensuring compliance with the procedural safeguards set out in the judgment—No adverse action to be taken until such reassessment is completed.

Summary: Bail granted ---- (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 185(3) Maintainability---Post-arrest bail---Grant of leave to appeal---Petitioner challenged High Court’s refusal to grant post-arrest bail in murder case---Occurrence involved cross-versions lodged by both parties regarding same incident---Supreme Court held that in cases involving cross-versions, bail is granted as a rule on the ground of further inquiry, while refusal is an exception---Prima facie both versions were antithetical, arising from the same transaction involving common date, time, location, motive, and parties---Determination of the actual aggressor requires recording of evidence at trial, thus entitling petitioner to bail---Petition converted into appeal and allowed accordingly---Petitioner granted post-arrest bail. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 497 & 498---Bail---Cross-version cases---Scope and principle---Where counter-versions exist in respect of same occurrence, it is a settled principle that bail should ordinarily be granted because the question of aggressor or aggressed party is to be determined during trial upon appreciation of evidence---Mere number or severity of injuries cannot conclusively determine liability at bail stage---Denial of bail in such cases constitutes an exception---Prolonged incarceration without substantial progress of trial strengthens the case for bail on constitutional grounds of fair and expeditious trial. Cited Cases: • Fazal Muhammad v. Ali Ahmed (1976 SCMR 391) • Shafiqan v. Hashim Ali (1972 SCMR 682) • Khalid Mehmood v. Muhammad Kashif Rasool (2013 SCMR 1415) • Khizar Hayat v. The State (2024 SCMR 1605)

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)--- ----Ss. 153, 161 & Second Schedule, Pt. IV, Cl. 45A---Deduction of withholding tax---Withholding tax agent---Payments under multiple heads---Exemption of reduced rate---Exemption clause being in favour of the Department---Scope---Appeal was filed by the Department against order passed by Commissioner Inland Revenue-Appeals/CIR(A) whereby the tax liability (of Rs. 1,973,470/-) created under S. 161 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 by the Officer Inland Revenue/OIR against the Company (engaged in the business of Tanning and Processing of Leather, as a withholding agent) was deleted---Held: The CIR(A) wrongly held / interpreted that as per Cl. 45A of Part IV of Second Schedule of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, 1% of tax deduction was applicable to the company (Respondent/Taxpayer) under all heads and even a deduction was required to be made---Such interpretation was incorrect as the said Cl. 45A related to sales/supply but payments under various heads had no nexus with the sales and supplies of the taxpayer---Clause 45A clearly provides that benefit of rate of 1% of services provided to the sectors mentioned therein---Whereas the CIR(A) brought all payments of the taxpayer under the umbrella of the clause 45A ; which , pertinently, is an exemption provision and is to be construed strictly in favour of the Department---Had there been intention of legislature to give benefit of such reduced rate in all payments, the words ‘local sales’, ‘supplies’, and "services" would not have been specifically mentioned in the said Cl. 45A---Even otherwise, if two interpretations are possible, one going in favour of the Department is to be adopted---Hence, ruling of CIR(A) giving blanket exemption of reduced rate of 1% on deduction of withholding tax against payments under all heads even beyond sales, supplies or services was not justified---Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue set-aside the impugned order passed by the CIR(A) modifying the original order to the effect that charge of tax imposed by OIR on five heads (Purchases, Salaries-Administrative, Cost of Sale, Packing Expenses and Vehicle Running Expenses) was modified while charge on two heads (Addition in fixed Assets and Otherwise Expenses) was restored/upheld---Appeal, filed by the Department , was partly allowed accordingly. Collector of Customs v. M/s Fitter Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. 2020 SCMR 1157; 2012 PTD 713; 1992 SCMR 1652 and PLD 1988 SC 370 ref. (b) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)--- ----Ss. 161(1) & 161(1B)---Failure to collect/deduct tax---Payment during proceedings---Recovery---Scope---Appeal was filed by the Department against order passed by Commissioner Inland Revenue-Appeals/CIR(A) whereby the tax liability (of Rs.1,973,470/-) under seven heads, from Purchases to other expenses, created under S. 161 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 by the Officer Inland Revenue/OIR against the Company, as a withholding agent, was deleted---Reason given by the CIR(A) to delete the tax liability was that section 161 (1B) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (‘the Ordinance 2001’) is very clear that if the person from whom purchases have been made is a registered NTN holder, no principle liability can be recovered from the said person for non deduction of tax and only surcharge can be recovered under S. 161 (1B) of the Ordinance, 2001---Validity---Provision of S. 161 (1B) of the Ordinance, 2001 has no nexus with the present preposition---Section 161 (1B) provides that where at the time of recovery of tax under subsection (1) of S. 161 of the Ordinance, 2001 it is established that the tax was to be deducted from the payment made to the person or collected from a person has meanwhile been paid by that person, no recovery shall be made from the person who failed to collect or deduct the tax but the said person shall be liable to pay default surcharge from the date he failed to collect or deduct the tax---Neither the taxpayer ever claimed that tax was paid by the person from whom it was liable to be deducted nor any proof of payment had been placed on record---Submission of taxpayer / respondent was misconceived that if the taxpayer did not collect or deduct tax then the Department should have collected from the person it was liable to be deducted---It is the duty of the taxpayer being withholding agent to deduct and deposit withholding tax and S. 161(1B) is only applicable if the withholding agent does not deduct/deposit tax but subsequently the person from whom tax was to be deducted paid and deposited the same in the government exchequer ; which , certainly, was not the case in hand---Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue set-aside the impugned order passed by the CIR(A) modifying the original order to the effect that charge of tax imposed by OIR on five heads was modified while charge on two heads was restored/upheld---Appeal, filed by the Department, was partly allowed accordingly. (c) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)--- ----S. 161---Deduction of withholding tax---Payments under multiple heads---Exemption of reduced rate---Entitlement---Appeal was filed by the Department against order passed by Commissioner Inland Revenue-Appeals/CIR(A) whereby the tax liability (of Rs. 1,973,470/- ) created under S. 161 of the Income Tax Ordinance , 2001 by the Officer Inland Revenue/OIR against the Taxpayer /Company (engaged in the business of Tanning and Processing of Leather, as a withholding agent) was deleted by holding that the OIR should have identified the specific default on the part of the taxpayer/ Company---Validity---Record revealed that Respondent was confronted qua non-deduction against payments under as many as eighteen Heads ( such as ‘Purchases’, ‘Addition in Fixed Assets’, ‘Salaries/wages’, ‘Salaries-Cost of Sales’, ‘Salaries -Administrative ’ , ‘ Directors remunerations’, ‘Cost of Sales’, ‘Administrative expenses’, ‘Forwarding and Commission’, ‘Packing expenses’, ‘Travelling Staff’, ‘Travelling Director’, ‘Vehicle running expenses’, ‘Stationary/Printing / Photocopies’, ‘Legal and Professional Charges’, ‘Auditors Remuneration’, ‘Other expenses’, ‘Default surcharge’)---In the present case, the OIR, after examining the explanation/evidence produced by the respondent (taxpayer/withholding agent), vacated the charge under many heads which showed that the explanation/evidence was properly thrashed out and where the non-deduction was established on the part of the taxpayer tax was charged---Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue set-aside the impugned order passed by the CIR(A) modifying the original order to the effect that charge of tax imposed by OIR on five heads (Purchases, Salaries-Administrative, Cost of Sale, Packing Expenses and Vehicle Running Expenses) was modified while charge on two heads (Addition in fixed Assets and Otherwise Expenses) was restored/upheld---Appeal, filed by the Department, was partly allowed accordingly. Abdul Basit DR for Appellant. Ali Latif for Respondent. Date of hearing: 15th April, 2025.

Summary: Summary pending