Summary: Bail granted ---- (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) ----Art. 10-A--- Right to fair trial---Scope---Held, that in criminal proceedings involving multiple accused persons and overlapping FIRs, Anti-Terrorism and Trial Courts must ensure the accused’s access to fair trial under Art. 10-A, including timely provision of case records, exemption from personal appearance where legally warranted, and attention to logistical challenges due to concurrent proceedings. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 497(1)--- Bail---Prohibitory clause---Scope---Interpretation of punishment range---Held, for purposes of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C., the maximum punishment prescribed under the statute is to be considered in determining application of the prohibitory clause; courts cannot base decisions on speculative minimum sentencing or sentencing guidelines. Previous contrary interpretation in Jamal-ud-Din v. State (2012 SCMR 573) and Khuda Bux v. State (2010 SCMR 1160) clarified and departed from. [Ref: Socha Gul v. State (2015 SCMR 1077), ANF v. Qasim Ali (2019 SCMR 1928)] (c) Anti-Money Laundering Act (VII of 2010) ----Ss. 3 & 4--- Money laundering---Bail---Petitioners accused of laundering proceeds of crime through purchase of property and vehicle---Petitioner No. 1 alleged to have acted as frontman and issued cheque for Rs.3.5 million---Cheque not encashed and property documents indicated role of a property dealer---Held, case against both petitioners fell under “further inquiry” per S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.---All predicate offences under FIRs No.03, 05, and 11/2024 arose after the acquisition of properties mentioned in FIR No.02/2024---Prosecution’s reliance on documents already in possession and lack of tampering risk justified grant of post-arrest bail. (d) Interpretation of Statutes ----Statutory construction--- “Punishable” under S. 497, Cr.P.C.---Held, the term “punishable” in prohibitory clause must be interpreted in light of maximum sentence prescribed in law, not minimum threshold---Any contrary approach amounts to prejudging the merits and usurping trial court’s discretion on sentencing. (e) Bail ----Post-arrest bail---Further inquiry---Predicate offences---Held, where accused has already secured bail in all predicate offences from which alleged proceeds of crime were generated, new case under AMLA, based on same allegations, falls within scope of further inquiry---Interim findings or suspicion do not justify continued incarceration absent concrete proof of illegal gains. Disposition: Leave to appeal granted. Petitions converted into appeals and allowed. Petitioners admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 1,000,000/- each with two sureties to satisfaction of trial court.

Summary: (a) Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 ----S. 54---- Jurisdiction of Registrar—Scope and limits—Dispute regarding title to immovable property—Maintainability before Registrar under Section 54 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925—Phrase “touching the business of the society”—Interpretation—Principle— Held, the expression “touching the business of the society” under S.54 of the Act is a jurisdictional prerequisite that determines the Registrar’s authority to entertain a dispute—The term "business" must be narrowly construed to refer only to commercial or operational activities of the society, and not matters extraneous to its authorized functions—Registrar is not empowered to adjudicate on questions of ownership or title to immovable property once such matters are the subject of civil litigation—Arbitration award rendered by Registrar, purporting to decide a title dispute without impleading affected parties and while civil court decree was in existence, held to be void and of no legal effect—Civil courts alone possess jurisdiction over matters of title, ownership, and possession of immovable property—Citing Defence Housing Authority Lahore v. Builders & Developers (Pvt.) Ltd. 2015 SCMR 1799 and Syed Ghulam Moin-ul-Haq Gillani v. Province of Punjab 2021 CLC 1286, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that cooperative disputes falling outside the internal affairs and core business of the society do not fall under S.54—Invocation of arbitration mechanism by petitioner was declared to be mala fide, conducted behind the back of lawful title holders, and contrary to natural justice. Cited Cases: • Defence Housing Authority Lahore v. Builders and Developers (Pvt.) Ltd. 2015 SCMR 1799 • Syed Ghulam Moin-ul-Haq Gillani v. Province of Punjab 2021 CLC 1286 • Deccan Merchants Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Dalichand Jugraj Jain & Ors. [1969] (1) SCR 887 (India) • The National Co-Operative Consumers' Federation Ltd. v. Delhi Administration AIR 1971 Delhi 141 (b) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 10A---- Due process of law—Natural justice—Non-impleadment of necessary parties in arbitration proceedings—Effect— Held, arbitration proceedings initiated under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 by the petitioner were violative of due process as neither the respondent nor his predecessor-in-interest (lawful transferees under registered instruments) were impleaded—The ex parte award adversely affected their vested property rights without affording opportunity of hearing—Violation of Art. 10A of the Constitution—Such omission was indicative of mala fides—Arbitration award and subsequent execution proceedings, including lease deed executed by Nazir, were rightly set aside by the High Court. Cited Cases: • Syed Ghulam Moin-ul-Haq Gillani v. Province of Punjab 2021 CLC 1286 • Deccan Merchants Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Dalichand Jugraj Jain [1969] (1) SCR 887 (c) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ----S. 12(2)---- Fraudulent concealment—Effect of failing to disclose prior litigation in arbitration proceedings—Non-speaking award—Legal consequences— Held, petitioner failed to disclose existence of earlier civil litigation which culminated in a final decree against him—Award was non-speaking, made without reference to validly registered instruments or decrees passed in favor of respondent’s predecessor—Registrar exceeded jurisdiction in issuing such award—It is settled that a civil court decree cannot be nullified by parallel proceedings under a special statute—Petitioner’s conduct in securing such award without disclosing material facts or impleading lawful owners amounted to abuse of legal process—Subsequent lease deed dated 20.04.2019 executed on basis of arbitration award was declared to be of no legal effect. Cited Cases: • Syed Ghulam Moin-ul-Haq Gillani v. Province of Punjab 2021 CLC 1286 • Defence Housing Authority Lahore v. Builders & Developers (Pvt.) Ltd. 2015 SCMR 1799 Disposition: Petition dismissed—Leave to appeal refused—Impugned judgment of the High Court affirmed as well-reasoned and legally sound.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 25---Equality before law---Departmental penalty---Discrimination---Scope---Appellant, a Deputy Registrar (Procurement), was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for alleged inefficiency and negligence in processing a Framework Contract, resulting in the imposition of minor penalty of withholding of two increments---Allegations were identical against multiple officers, yet one similarly placed officer, namely Mian Ashfaq Ahmad, was exonerated without justification---Held, disparate treatment without plausible explanation constituted violation of the fundamental right to equality under Art. 25 of the Constitution---Where two individuals face identical charges arising out of the same transaction, differential treatment is impermissible---Imposition of penalty on one while absolving the other renders disciplinary proceedings discriminatory and unlawful. Cited Cases: • Mehar Muhammad Nawaz v. Managing Director, Small Business Finance Corporation 2009 SCMR 187 • Engineer Naraindas v. Federation of Pakistan 2002 SCMR 82 • Ejaz Akbar Kasi v. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting PLD 2011 SC 22 • Shafique Ahmad Chaudhry v. Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab 2012 PLC (C.S.) 68 • Quetta Development Authority v. Abdul Basit 2021 SCMR 1313 • Mst. Sughra v. Governor of Punjab 2024 PLC (C.S.) 796 • E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu [1974 SCR (2) 348] • R. (Gallaher Group Ltd.) v. Competition and Markets Authority [2018] UKSC 25 (b) Evidence Law / Service Jurisprudence ----Principle of burden of proof---Departmental proceedings---Scope---Appellant claimed that he received the relevant file on 13.12.2021 and processed it without delay---Further asserted that initiation of the Framework Contract was responsibility of subordinate officers as per correspondence bearing Endst. No. 1766 Gaz. 1/V.Z. Misc. dated 08.02.2000---Held, department failed to rebut these assertions---According to established legal maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (burden lies on him who affirms, not on him who denies), it was incumbent upon the authority to prove the appellant’s negligence---Failure to do so rendered the disciplinary action unsupported by record and unsustainable in law. (c) Service Laws ----Minor penalty---Withholding of increments---Departmental inquiry---Standards of parity and fairness---Scope---Appellant was penalized through imposition of minor penalty based on identical allegations as those faced by his senior colleague who was spared any punishment---Held, disciplinary authorities are bound to act consistently and evenhandedly---Where Inquiry Officer recommended same penalty for multiple officers, selective implementation amounts to arbitrary exercise of discretion---Administrative justice demands equal treatment for similarly situated individuals---Such inconsistency amounts to malice in law and warrants judicial interference. (d) Administration of Justice ----Fairness in disciplinary action---Requirement of consistency---Scope---Equal treatment of similarly placed individuals is a cornerstone of administrative justice---Held, selective enforcement of penalties based on identical factual matrix undermines credibility of inquiry process---Impugned notifications found to be discriminatory and violative of the rule of law. Disposition: Appeal allowed; impugned notifications dated 06.09.2022 and 28.08.2023 set aside.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 10-A, 18, 25 & 27---Withdrawal of appointments---Due process---Merit-based recruitment---Fundamental rights---Scope---Appellants were appointed to BS-17 and BS-18 positions in Lahore High Court without adherence to public advertisement, competitive examination, or objective selection criteria---Appointments were withdrawn within four days---Held, impugned appointments were violative of principles of transparency, fairness, and equal opportunity guaranteed under Arts. 18, 25 & 27 of the Constitution---Appointments made without due process are void ab initio and confer no vested rights---Invocation of Art. 10-A for challenging withdrawal is misplaced where the initial appointment lacked legal legitimacy---Principle of locus poenitentiae does not apply to illegal appointments. Cited Cases: • Sajjad Ahmad Siddiqui v. Pakistan (1975 SCMR 6) • Mushtaq Ahmad Mohal v. Lahore High Court (1997 SCMR 1043) • Mubashir Raza Jaffri v. EOBI (2014 SCMR 949) • Government of Punjab v. Muhammad Imran (2019 SCMR 643) • General Post Office, Islamabad v. Muhammad Jalal PLD 2024 SC 1276 • Imran Hussain v. WAPDA PLD 2010 Lahore 546 (b) Service Law ----Appointments through non-transparent process---Violation of rules---Validity---Appellants’ appointments were made without following service rules regarding advertisement, eligibility, and written examination---Held, appointments made in contravention of statutory procedure are inherently void---No legal right or protection can be claimed for posts obtained in breach of recruitment protocols---Such appointments are liable to be de-notified even if acted upon. Cited Cases: • Ch. Muhammad Akram v. Registrar, IHC PLD 2016 SC 961 • Gul Tez Khan Marwat v. Registrar, PHC PLD 2021 SC 391 • Prabhat Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. AIR 1996 SC 2638 • Norton v. Shelby County (118 U.S. 425, 1886) • Benjamin Leonard MacFoy v. UAC Ltd [1961] 3 All ER 1169 (PC) (c) Administrative Justice ----Equality in disciplinary and service matters---Differential treatment---Scope---Appellants claimed entitlement under the doctrine of locus poenitentiae---Held, doctrine cannot validate appointments that were null from inception---What is void ab initio remains incurably void and cannot mature into legality over time---Reliance on locus poenitentiae misplaced where initial act violates law. Cited Cases: • Director, Social Welfare v. Sadullah Khan 1996 SCMR 1350 • Mst. Basharat Jehan v. DG, FGEI 2015 SCMR 1418 • Qazi Nazam-ud-Din v. Secretary Finance 2011 PLC (C.S.) 49 • Muhammad Shahab v. Govt. of KPK 2013 PLC (C.S.) 712 • Pakistan Railways v. Muhammad Aslam 2024 SCMR 97 (d) Judicial Review of High Court Administration ----Rule 26, Lahore High Court Establishment Rules, 1973---Scope of discretion---Held, discretionary powers of Chief Justice under Rule 26 are not absolute and cannot override mandatory recruitment procedures under Rule 7---Any appointment or promotion bypassing eligible candidates without transparent evaluation violates established service law principles---Even administrative orders of Chief Justices are subject to legality and fairness. Cited Cases: • Tanveer Ahad Khan v. Registrar, LHC PLD 2013 Lahore 386 • Engineer Naraindas v. Federation of Pakistan 2002 SCMR 82 • Quetta Development Authority v. Abdul Basit 2021 SCMR 1313 • Musa Wazir v. NWFP Public Service Commission 1993 SCMR 1124 (e) Connected Appeal---Promotion / Upgradation ----Service Appeal No.16 of 2025---Promotion grievance---Right to make representation---Held, connected appellant’s claim for regular/time-scale promotion not adjudicated on merits---He may approach competent authority via fresh representation to be decided strictly under law. Disposition: Service Appeals No.01/Litig/HR-I/2021, 2 & 3/Litig/HR-I/2021 dismissed. Service Appeal No.16 of 2025 disposed of with direction to submit representation.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 203––Dismissal of complaint––Scope and stage of proceedings––Maintainability of special leave to appeal––Appellant’s private complaint under S. 200, Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge at the preliminary stage due to non-appearance and non-compliance with court orders for recording cursory statement––Held, at the stage of S. 203 Cr.P.C., where no process has been issued under S. 204 Cr.P.C. and the accused has not been summoned, the dismissal of the complaint does not amount to acquittal––Hence, no appeal under S. 417(2-A), Cr.P.C. lies––Petition for special leave to appeal was held not maintainable. ----Cited Cases: • Muhammad Jawad Hamid v. Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif 2019 PCr.LJ 665 (Lahore) • Azmat Bibi v. Asifa Riaz PLD 2002 SC 687 (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 403––Second complaint after dismissal––Bar of double jeopardy––Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 13––Held, dismissal of a private complaint at preliminary stage under S. 203 Cr.P.C. does not attract the bar under S. 403 Cr.P.C. or Art. 13 of the Constitution––Dismissal of complaint does not amount to acquittal; hence, does not preclude filing of a second complaint––A fresh complaint can be filed before the same court if supported by new facts or material not available earlier, or if earlier dismissal was based on incomplete record or misreading––Appellant may, if so advised, file second complaint before appropriate forum. ----Cited Cases: • Zahoor v. Said-ul-Abrar 2003 SCMR 59 • Azmat Bibi v. Asifa Riaz PLD 2002 SC 687 • Muhammad Akram v. Haji Mir Aziz Ahmed 2000 PCr.LJ 489 • Saeed Ahmed v. Abdul Shakoor 2005 PCr.LJ 1631 • Abdul Majid v. MD. Mansur Ali 1969 PCr.LJ 692 (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----Ss. 200, 203 & 204––Distinction in procedural stages––Issuance of process––Effect of non-recording of cursory statement––Where complaint is dismissed before recording of cursory statement and prior to issuance of summons under S. 204 Cr.P.C., Court may lawfully dismiss it under S. 203 Cr.P.C.––Use of phrase “if any” in S. 203 allows dismissal without recording cursory statement if justified––Such dismissal not a bar to reinstitution of complaint––Impugned order was found consistent with law; appeal dismissed. ----Disposition: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal dismissed as not maintainable––Held, dismissal under S. 203 Cr.P.C. at preliminary stage did not amount to acquittal––Appellant may file second complaint if so advised, in accordance with law. "PSLA against Acquittal from charge of S. 500 PPC, leaved through a private complaint."

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Art. 199 Family Law—Maintenance—Concurrent findings of facts—Scope of judicial review—Petitioner assailed concurrent judgments and decrees of Family Court and Appellate Court granting maintenance allowance to wife from date of marriage—Plea taken that wife had left matrimonial home in 2017 and was not entitled to maintenance from 2015—Held, Petitioner despite knowledge of proceedings failed to appear and was rightly proceeded ex parte—Real brother of Petitioner had appeared and contested the suit, which proved constructive knowledge—Courts below passed well-reasoned judgments based on evidence—No illegality, jurisdictional error, or violation of law established—Writ jurisdiction under Art.199 not intended to re-appraise facts or disturb concurrent findings—Petition dismissed. (b) Family Courts Act, 1964: ----S. 9(6) & 9(7) Ex parte decree—Service and limitation—Scope—Petitioner claimed non-service of ex parte decree and sought to challenge it after lapse of time—Held, Petitioner was served through substituted service and his brother, acting as attorney, had already contested proceedings—Failure to offer sufficient cause for delay in seeking setting aside of ex parte decree fatal—Purpose of S. 9(7) is to prevent delay in execution of decrees involving rights of women and children—Petitioner failed to demonstrate any procedural irregularity or prejudice—Family Courts Act designed to ensure expeditious disposal—Mere delay or failure to appear not enough to invalidate proceedings. (c) Family Law—Maintenance of Wife: ----Scope—Entitlement—Period—Respondent/wife was granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 20,000 per month from date of marriage till subsistence of marriage—Plea that marriage had ended in 2016 or that Respondent had left home in 2017—Held, no divorce certificate or cogent evidence was produced—Assertions made by Petitioner lacked evidentiary support and were not raised in original proceedings—Findings of Trial Court and Appellate Court upheld—Petitioner cannot be allowed to raise factual disputes in constitutional jurisdiction. ----Disposition: Writ Petition dismissed for lack of merit; concurrent findings of Family Court and Appellate Court upheld.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----S. 115—Revision—Concurrent findings of subordinate Courts—Doctrine of election—Invocation of Civil Court jurisdiction after exhausting statutory remedies—ImpermissibilityAppellants, after filing declarations under MLR 115 and pursuing appellate remedies under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1977, challenged the resumption of excess land before the Civil Court through suits for declaration and possession. Supreme Court held that once statutory remedies under the Land Reforms Act had been fully exhausted, a subsequent attempt to invoke the jurisdiction of Civil Court on the same cause of action was barred under the doctrine of election. A litigant must elect one of the available legal remedies and cannot pursue parallel or successive recourses for the same grievance. Revisional Court rightly reversed the judgments of the Civil Courts, which had entertained barred claims—Appeals dismissed.Cited Case:• Trading Corporation of Pakistan v. Devan Sugar Mills Ltd. PLD 2018 SC 828(b) Land Reforms Regulation, 1977 (Act II of 1977)—S. 6 & S. 9—Declaration of excess land—Effect of failure to surrender—Self-executory provisions—Vesting of land in Government—Retrospective applicability—ScopeUnder S. 6 of the 1977 Act, any transfer or encumbrance of land by a holder exceeding prescribed land limits was void, and such land vested in the State. The appellants failed to appear before the Deputy Land Commissioner, leading to resumption of excess land. Supreme Court held that the relevant provisions of the 1977 Act were self-executory and operated automatically once landholdings in excess were established. The Court further held that the landmark Qazalbash Waqf case applied prospectively, and actions for land resumption taken prior to 23.03.1990 were unaffected. There was no jurisdictional defect in the Deputy Land Commissioner’s orders, and subsequent suits were a collateral challenge to valid executive action—No relief granted.Cited Case:• Government of Pakistan v. Qazalbash Waqf 1993 SCMR 1697(c) Land Reforms—Possession suits—Claim of part ownership without specific performance—Plea of oral payment—No legal title or enforceable right—EffectRespondents in Civil Court claimed rights in resumed land on the basis of alleged payments made to the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants. Supreme Court held that even if such payment had occurred, mere contribution of consideration without a registered transfer or specific performance did not vest any title in law. In absence of a suit for specific performance or refund of amount, no legal claim could be enforced. Revisional Court rightly disregarded oral and unsubstantiated claims—Ownership remained validly with declarants prior to resumption.(d) Constitutional jurisdiction—Alternative remedy—Civil suit—Jurisdictional bar—Land reforms adjudicationWhere a statutory framework under special legislation provides appellate and review mechanisms, Civil Courts are excluded from entertaining disputes on the same subject unless jurisdictional defect, mala fide, or fraud is shown. Appellants failed to demonstrate any such ground. The bar was properly invoked by the High Court. Revisional Court’s intervention under S. 115 CPC was justified, as the judgments of the lower Courts suffered from material legal error by entertaining claims barred by election and jurisdiction.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 201 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offender, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of thirty hours in lodging the FIR---Consequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the daughter of complainant---According to the prosecution, the occurrence in this case took place on 17.05.2021 at 06.30 pm---Distance between the police station and the place of occurrence was approximately 08 to 09 kilometers---However, there was an unexplained delay of more than thirty hours in reporting the crime to the police---Notably, there were material inconsistencies and contradictions in the statements of both the eye-witnesses, complainant and his wife---While testifying before the Trial Court, neither of those ocular witnesses provided any explanation regarding the delay---On the contrary, the complainant stated that they remained at RHC throughout the night until the following day when the Woman Medical Officer arrived at 11:00 am---Despite that prolonged period, the complainant did not make any effort to lodge the FIR---Thus, it was found that said inordinate delay in setting the machinery of law into motion raised serious doubts regarding the veracity of the prosecution's version---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Altaf Hussain v. The State 2019 SCMR 274 and Mehmood Ahmed and others v. The State and another 1995 SCMR 127 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 201 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offender, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Material witnesses not produced---Accused were charged for committing murder of the daughter of complainant---Prosecution failed to produce husband of deceased as a witness, despite his statement under S.161, Cr.P.C., being recorded on 19.05.2021, after the registration of the FIR---In that statement, the complainant accused the appellants of murdering his daughter due to family conflicts---However, it was significant that husband of deceased, in his S.161 Cr.P.C. statement recorded the day after the FIR was registered, did not claim that his wife had been murdered or that the appellants were responsible for her death---Record also contained the statements under S.161, Cr.P.C., of wife of accused and wife of brother of accused, who stated that they had informed husband of deceased about death of his wife---Strangely, the prosecution failed to present those two female witnesses, despite their presence at the house where the incident took place---Absence of said witnesses created a missing link in the chain of circumstances necessary to connect the appellants to the alleged offense---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 201 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offender, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt------Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the daughter of complainant---According to the FIR, the complainant was in “K” when he was informed of the incident---Complainant then traveled with his wife and picked up his son-in-law before arriving at the appellants' house around midnight---However, wife of complainant contradicted that by claiming that she received the phone call from husband of deceased---Significantly, when husband of deceased informed the complainant and his wife about death of deceased, he did not allege that she had been murdered---Similarly, wives of brothers of appellant, who informed husband of deceased of death of deceased, did not claim that it was a homicide---In fact, the statements of said witnesses under S.161, Cr.P.C., indicated that appellant took deceased to the hospital for treatment---Furthermore, while the complainant and his wife claimed that they observed marks of violence on body of deceased and thus became certain that she had been murdered, no other evidence on record supported that assertion---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 201 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offender, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the daughter of complainant---Prosecution advanced the motive that the deceased had informed her parents via phone that the appellants mistreated her and that she feared they would kill her---To corroborate that, the complainant stated that his sister-in-law had submitted an application alleging deceased's maltreatment at the hands of the appellants---However, complainant failed to produce that application and also did not produce copy during investigation to the police---Additionally, a witness, during her testimony, did not corroborate the claim that she had filed such application---Neither the complainant produced independent evidence in that regard, nor did the Investigating Officer made any effort to collect oral or documentary evidence supporting the alleged motive---While the absence of motive alone was not the sole determining factor in assessing the veracity of the prosecution's case, it became crucial when the entire case was built upon the existence of such a motive---In the present case, since the prosecution failed to establish the alleged motive, it must bear the consequences of that failure---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Nawab Khan v. The State and 2 others 2024 YLR 457; Rafaat Shah v. The State 2022 PCr.LJ Note 39 Bal; Muhammad Ali v. The State 2017 SCMR 1468 and Muhammad Ilyas v. Ishfaq alias Munshi and others 2022 YLR 1620 rel. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 201 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offender, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of 22 hours in conducting the postmortem examination upon the dead body of the deceased---Consequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the daughter of complainant---Dead body was shifted to RHC on the same night---According to the complainant's testimony, the Woman Medical Officer was unavailable and they waited until 11:00 am on 18.05.2021 for the post- mortem examination at Hospital---Wife of complainant stated that they arrived at the deceased's house around midnight and, within 15-20 minutes, transported the body in a vehicle to RHC, accompanied by two witnesses---Said witnesses reached the hospital within another 15-20 minutes and remained there the entire night due to the absence of a Woman Medical Officer---However, the testimony of Investigating Officer contradicted that version---Investigating Officer stated that upon receiving information from complainant regarding alleged murder of deceased, he departed from Police Station at 01:00 am and arrived at RHC within five minutes---According to the Investigating Officer, Woman Medical Officer was already present at the hospital---Investigating Officer further deposed that his entire investigation at RHC took approximately 15-20 minutes and that the deceased's clothes were handed over to him by her husband---Investigating Officer's statement directly contradicted the complainant's assertion that the Woman Medical Officer was unavailable throughout the night---Furthermore, despite the body being brought to RHC at 11:00 am on 18.05.2021, there was still an unexplained delay of over 22 hours before conducting the post-mortem---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Muhammad Rafique v. The State 2014 SCMR 1698 rel. (f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 201 & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offender, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Withholding material witness---Adverse presumption---Accused were charged for committing murder of the daughter of complainant---Complainant and his wife appeared to be interested witnesses as they concealed the presence of wife of appellant and wife of his brother---Police records indicated that the statements of said witnesses under S.161, Cr.P.C., recorded on 13.10.2021, confirmed their presence at the house during the incident---Said witnesses stated that they heard commotion, found deceased lying beside a cot and witnessed appellant taking her for treatment, but she had already passed away---Said witnesses also informed husband of deceased of her death via phone---To establish an unbroken chain of events, the prosecution was obligated to examine said two ladies, who had firsthand knowledge of the circumstances surrounding death of deceased---Prosecutor's opinion dated 15.10.2021, referenced in the police file, also noted that said two witnesses had initially withheld crucial information and attempted to shield the offenders---Prosecutor recommended placing the names of said witnesses in Column No. 02 of the charge sheet---However, the record revealed that this recommendation was implemented, nor were they produced before the Trial Court to testify---Such an omission warranted an adverse inference under Art.129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984---Moreover, wife of complainant, during her testimony, denied seeing her other daughter, at the scene, whereas other female witness testified that her daughter was indeed present---Such contradiction further reinforced the prosecution's failure to produce the best available evidence---Under Art.129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, when a party withheld crucial evidence, it was presumed that such evidence would have been unfavorable to its case---Additionally, although the prosecution recorded statement of husband of deceased under S.161, Cr.P.C., on 19.05.2021, but he was not produced before the Trial Court for testimony---Said deliberate withholding of evidence further strengthened the presumption that the prosecution intentionally avoided presenting witnesses whose statements could undermine its case---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Bakhtzada v. The State 2013 YLR 230; Siraj v. The State and another 2013 YLR 684; Muhammad Riaz and others v. The State 2024 SCMR 1839; Muhammad Khan and another v. The State 1999 SCMR 1220; Muhammad Mansha v. The State 2018 SCMR 772 and Wajahat v. Gul Daraz and another 2019 SCMR 1451 ref. Riaz Ahmed v. The State 2010 SCMR 846; Khalid alias Khalidi and 2 others v. The State 2012 SCMR 327 and Lal Khan v. The State 2006 SCMR 1846 rel. (g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 201 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offender, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Defective investigation---Accused were charged for committing murder of the daughter of complainant---During cross-examination, Investigating Officer admitted that he did not record the statement of sister of the deceased and voluntarily stated that she initially supported the complainant's version but later changed her stance due to pressure---However, that assertion by the Investing Officer was not corroborated by his own investigation, as the police record did not include the police diary entry dated 13.10.2021, which purportedly contained the S.161 Cr.P.C. statements of sisters of deceased---Absence of that critical record casted serious doubt on the credibility of the investigation and effectively discredited the Investigating Officer's testimony---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Sajid v. The State and another 2023 PCr.LJ 19 rel. Moulvi Iqbal Haider for Appellants. Shahzado Saleem, Additional P.G Sindh for respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Haji Qalander Bux Laghari for Respondent No. 2. Date of hearing: 4th March, 2025. Amjad Ali Bohio, J .--- This appeal impugns judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge-I/MCTC, Mirpurkhas in case bearing Crime No. 51/2021, registered at Police Station Naukot, involving charges under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C.) against the appellants, Ali Haider and Mst. Mumtaz alias Gudi. Through the impugned judgment dated 06.03.2023, appellants were convicted And sentenced as follows:

Summary: (a) Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act (XII of 2011)--- ----Ss. 3 & 4---Services rendered by flying club---Taxable service---Scope---Economic activity---Scope---Record revealed that the Commissioner (Appeals) got the appellant's premises surveyed through Survey and Development Wing (S&D) which found that the appellant was providing on-ground and flying courses to its members starting from the most basic flight training course, then to achieve firstly a Private Pilot's License (PPL) within a time span of 8 months, during which the participants must complete a minimum of 40 hours of flying---Once a Private Pilot's License (PPL) is secured, the participants move to the next step towards becoming a professional pilot by acquiring a Commercial Pilot's License (CPL), which takes approximately 10 months after completing 110 hours flight---After obtaining Commercial Pilot's License the participants may move on to obtaining an Instrument Rating, which (rating) allows the participants to fly aircraft under Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) and they can fly in challenging conditions--- Appellant's entire economic activity is skill-based training coupled with practical application, equipping individuals with specific skills and competencies needed for a particular job or task through hands-on experience, practical exercises, and real-world application, which prepares the participant to obtain a professional license from the Civil Aviation Authority, who may pursue their career in such specified field, therefore, the same cannot be treated as mere educational training---Thus, the appellant's economic activity falls within the definition of taxable service, requiring its registration under the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011---Appeal, filed by flying club, was dismissed, in circumstances. (b) Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act (XII of 2011)--- ----Ss. 24, 24B & 43, Table, Serial No.1---Non-registration before providing taxable services---Penalty, imposition of---Scope---Appellant sought waiver of penalty imposed in terms of Serial No.1 of the Table under S. 43 of Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011 (‘the Act, 2011’)---Held: Provision of Serial No.1 of the Table under section 43 of the Act 2011 shows that penalty deals with two situations i.e. “not-getting registered voluntarily” and “being registered compulsorily” provided under Ss. 24 and 24B, respectively---It is clear from the wordings of statute that penalties provided in the first part (in column (2)) are applicable to single situation i.e. “not-getting registered voluntarily” and officer has discretion to impose a penalty either of Rs.10,000/- or five per cent of the amount of sales tax---However, the penalty provided in second part is applicable to twin situations i.e. "non-compliance of notice (requiring the taxpayer get registered voluntarily)" or "when an order has been passed making the taxpayer registered compulsorily", wherein the law prescribes minimum penalty of Rs.100,000/---In such circumstances it would be appropriate that the appellant must be registered under S. 24 of the Act, 2011---Situations mentioned at serial No.1 (in column (2)) are interconnected---In case a person, liable to be so registered, does not get himself registered the assessing officer issues a notice requiring such person to get himself registered voluntarily---In case such person responds to such notice positively and get himself registered, the assessing officer after considering the existence of mens-rea behind non-registration prior to providing taxable services, may impose either of the penalties i.e. Rs.10,000/- or five per cent of the amount of sales tax---However, in case of non-compliance of the notice (asking the person to get registered voluntarily), the assessing officer is liable to register said person compulsorily and also impose a penalty of Rs.100,000/-.---Word "shall" used with the penalty (in column (2)) makes it directory in nature, therefore, no discretion can be exercised by the assessing officer in case the taxpayer does not comply with the notice---In the present case , vide show-cause notice the assessing officer required the appellant to get himself registered, which was not responded positively---Having no other alternative the assessing officer registered the appellant compulsorily---Thus, in such circumstances, imposition of penalty amounting to Rs.100,000/- in terms of serial No.1 of the Table under section 43 of the Act, 2011 was justified---Appellate Tribunal Sindh Revenue Board maintained the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals)---Appeal, filed by flying club, was dismissed, in circumstances. Usman Shaikh, ITP for Apppellant. Ms. Shazmeena Abbas, AC (UNIT-25). Javed Akhtar, Departmental Representative. Date of hearing: 10th March, 2025.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 336-B, 338 & 201---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Qatl-i-amd, causing hurt with a corrosive substance, 'isqat-i-haml', causing disappearance of evidence of an offence or giving false information to screen an offender, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Withholding material evidence---Effect---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/daughter of complainant along with her unborn child by causing hurt with corrosive substance---Prosecution claimed that burn injuries were caused on the person of the deceased on 08.07.2015, while the first medical report available on record was dated 10.07.2015, after a delay of two days---Complainant deposed that the deceased was taken to hospital, where the doctor refused to provide treatment to her, so the deceased, in then injured condition, was taken back to the house of the appellant, whereas son-in-law of complainant testified that doctor gave some emergency treatment and asked to take her home, thus, they brought victim to home---Not only was the deposition of son-in-law of complainant contradictory to the complainant, but neither said doctor was made a witness in this case to prove the factum of medical treatment of the deceased in injured condition, nor was the record of said clinic/hospital brought on record, which at once attracted illustration (g) of Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, in-so-far as had the prosecution produced said person and material, the same would not have supported the prosecution case---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Muhammad Anwar v. The State 2025 SCMR 45; Riasat Ali v. The State 2024 SCMR 1224 and Riaz Ahmed v. The State 2010 SCMR 846 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 336-B, 338 & 201---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qatl-i-amd, causing hurt with a corrosive substance, 'isqat-i-haml', causing disappearance of evidence of an offence or giving false information to screen an offender, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Possibility of false implication---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/daughter of complainant along with her unborn child by causing hurt with corrosive substance---Record showed that the witnesses did not attempt to apprehend the appellant despite outnumbering him while he was not armed with any deadly weapon, nor did they chase after him---One of the witnesses took the deceased in injured condition back to the house of the appellant, which fact was conceded by the complainant in his cross-examination as well---Likewise, witnesses did not get any medical treatment administered on the then injured nor did they take her to any other hospital---Such fact did not appeal to a prudent mind that the father and brother of the victim did not attempt to save the life of the deceased at the time of occurrence---No first aid was rendered by said witnesses according to material available on record and no attempt was made by them to shift the deceased in injured condition to a hospital or send for a doctor or any local medical practitioner---On the contrary, after life-threatening occurrence, they opted to take the victim back to the house of her perpetrator and that too on the same day---Conduct of the witnesses as deposed by them was opposed to the common course of natural events and inevitably tremors the whole edifice of the prosecution case and reasonably hypothesized their absence at the scene of the crime, therefore, High Court had no doubt in its mind that the prosecution case against the appellant was doubtful and possibility of false implication could not be ruled out---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Mst. Rukhsana Begum v. Sajjad 2017 SCMR 596; Pathan v. The State 2015 SCMR 315 and Imran alias Mani v. The State 2024 SCMR 1811; Zafar Ali Abbasi v. Zafar Ali Abbasi 2024 SCMR 1773 and Abid Hussain v. The State 2024 SCMR 1608 rel. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 336-B, 338 & 201---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qatl-i-amd, causing hurt with a corrosive substance, 'isqat-i-haml', causing disappearance of evidence of an offence or giving false information to screen an offender, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of witnesses at the spot not proved---Chance witnesses, evidence of---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/daughter of complainant along with her unborn child by causing hurt with corrosive substance---Investigating Officer deposed that prosecution witnesses were not residents of the place of occurrence, which was situated within the limit of police station of the occurrence, but complainant resided at other Tehsil---In order to justify their presence, prosecution witnesses claimed that they went to the place of occurrence on the date of commission of offence to give "eidi" to the deceased---Admittedly, neither the day of occurrence was Eid, nor was it remotely close to Eid---Therefore, prosecution witnesses were, at best, chance witnesses---Under the law, presumption arose against their presence at the scene of the crime, unless a plausible explanation had been rendered by justifying their presence---Where no explanation had been tendered, his/her testimony would fall within the category of suspect evidence and could not be accepted without a pinch of salt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Mst. Sughra Begum v. Qaiser Pervez 2015 SCMR 1142 rel. (d) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 46---Dying declaration---Scope---Dying declaration could even be made before a private person, and if it is proved that it is free from influence and the persons before whom such dying declaration is made are examined, then it would become a substantive piece of evidence---In absence thereof, dying declaration requires close scrutiny and is considered a weak kind of evidence due to not being cross-examined. Majeed v. The State 2010 SCMR 55; Mst.Zahida Bibi v. The State PLD 2006 SC 255; Tahir Khan v. The State 2011 SCMR 646 and Farman Ahmad v. Muhammad Inayat 2007 SCMR 1825 rel. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 336-B, 338 & 201---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 46---Police Rules, 1934, R.25.21---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 161, 162 & 342---Qatl-i-amd, causing hurt with a corrosive substance, 'isqat-i-haml', causing disappearance of evidence of an offence or giving false information to screen an offender, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Dying declaration, recording of---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/daughter of complainant along with her unborn child by causing hurt with corrosive substance---In the present lis, the deceased, in injured condition, was taken to the hospital under police docket after registration of FIR, as opposed to the claim of complainant that the deceased was taken by him---At the hospital, Medical Officer observed that the deceased was found conscious, well oriented to time, space and person---Police Officer filed an application to the Medical Officer for recording the statement of the then injured, since deceased---In the meantime, the deceased in injured condition was referred to the Burn Unit, of the Hospital---Investigating Officer reached the hospital and recorded statement of deceased in injured condition under S.161, Cr.P.C. and procured her thumb impression on her statement which was in his hand and bore his signatures---Investigating Officer read over statement of injured to her and she admitted it correct and affixed her thumb impressions thereon and his signatures, were on it---Paramount to observe here that neither the Investigating Officer nor the Medical Officer intimated the nearest Magistrate---Further, Investigating Officer handed over the application to Medical Officer, who permitted recording the dying declaration, however, Medical Officer did not depose in her examination-in-chief about granting permission to record the dying declaration or receipt of said application---Even otherwise, other criteria of R.25.21 of the Police Rules, 1934 had also not been followed, because while recording the statement, the Medical Officer was not associated with it nor was it verified by any official of the hospital that the statement was actually made by the deceased---There was nothing on record to ensure that the so-called dying declaration was made in the presence of Medical Officials who could verify the same---On the contrary, said statement was made in the presence of prosecution witnesses, due to which it could not be stated with certainty that it was not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination---Additionally, the Investigating Officer himself admitted that the "statement of deceased in injured condition" brought on record was a statement under S.161 of Cr.P.C---Since it was mere statement under S.161 of Cr.P.C. of the deceased, it could not be exhibited by the prosecution and only the defence could use it in terms of S.162 of the Cr.P.C. as well as Art.140 of Qanun-e-Shahadat to contradict and confront the witnesses in the manner provided therein and even otherwise, due to being signed by the deceased, it was not in consonance with S.162 of the Cr.P.C, an incurable defect and an illegality which vitiated the statement in its entirety---Dying declaration was not put to the appellant in his statement under S.342 of the Cr.P.C, therefore, even if the same was made in accordance with the law, the same could not have been considered as a piece of evidence against the appellant---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Qaiser Abbas v. The State 2025 PCr.LJ 311; Muhammad Mumtaz v. The State 1997 SCMR 1011; Din Muhammad v. The Crown 1969 SCMR 777 and Hafeez Ahmed v. The State and others 2025 LHC 752 rel. (f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 336-B, 338 & 201---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qatl-i-amd, causing hurt with a corrosive substance, 'isqat-i-haml', causing disappearance of evidence of an offence or giving false information to screen an offender, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recoveries of incriminating material---Inconsequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/daughter of complainant along with her unborn child by causing hurt with corrosive substance---Recoveries made from the appellant and forensic report were of no evidentiary value as the Investigating Officer conceded that he neither took the same into possession, nor did he record the statement of Moharrar regarding the handing over of cylinder and burner for keeping in safe custody---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (g) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Principle---To extend the benefit of doubt it is not necessary that there should be so many circumstances---One circumstance is sufficient to discharge and bring suspicion in the mind of the Court that the prosecution has fabricated the evidence to procure conviction and the Court can come forward for the rescue of the accused persons. Hussain v. The State 2022 SCMR 1567; Kashif Ali v. The State 2022 SCMR 1515; Mst. Asia Bibi v. The State PLD 2019 SC 64; Abdul Jabbar v. The State 2019 SCMR 129; Muhammad Mansha v. The State 2018 SCMR 772; Tariq Pervaiz v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345 and Daniel Boind (Muslim Name Saifullah) v. The State 1992 SCMR 196 rel. Amna Javed Hashmi for Appellant. Ansar Yaseen, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State. Rana Muhammad Asif Saeed for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 20th March, 2025. (v) In order to prove such declaration the person by whom it was recorded should be examined.