Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 10-A---- Right to fair trial—Application to victims—Disabled persons—Access to justice— The constitutional guarantee of fair trial under Art. 10-A of the Constitution extends equally to victims as well as the accused, including persons with disabilities—In the present case, the trial court declared the victim, a mentally impaired and non-verbal woman, incompetent to testify without consulting any expert—Held, such determination was procedurally flawed and amounted to denial of the victim's right to access justice—Courts are required to ensure that persons with cognitive or intellectual disabilities are not denied legal redress solely due to their condition—Trial courts must summon forensic psychologists or psychiatrists to assess the capacity of such victims to testify through alternative means, such as gestures or facilitated communication—Judgment of conviction and sentence set aside and case remanded for retrial in accordance with law, ensuring procedural accommodations for the victim's testimony. Cited International Instruments & Standards: • Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), 2006 • Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, Art. 7 & 8 • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, Art. 14 • UN Guidelines on Justice in Matters Involving Child Victims and Witnesses of Crime • Comparative Jurisdictions: U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ----Arts. 3 & 17---- Competency of mentally impaired witness—Duty to conduct voir dire—Role of expert testimony— Where a prosecution witness is alleged to be mentally disabled or non-verbal, courts must not mechanically declare them incompetent to testify—Held, under Articles 3 and 17, witness competency requires judicial satisfaction based on expert input—The trial court erred in ruling out the victim’s testimony without the assistance of a psychiatrist or forensic psychologist—The principle that disability does not imply inability to testify must guide trial courts—Failure to apply this standard vitiated the trial—Remand directed for fresh proceedings after expert assessment under section 540 Cr.P.C. Cited Precedents: • Abdul Waris v. Muhammad Yousaf PLD 1997 SC 366 • Saleem Malik v. PCB PLD 2008 SC 650 (c) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 ----S. 540---- Summoning expert witness—Assessment of mentally impaired victim’s communicative ability—Mandatory before ruling on witness competency— Held, trial court should have exercised powers under S. 540 Cr.P.C. to summon a qualified expert before declaring victim unfit to testify—The absence of such expert assessment rendered the proceedings incomplete and unsafe for conviction—Remand ordered to allow expert evaluation and potential recording of victim’s evidence using appropriate accommodations. (d) Penal Code, 1860 ----Ss. 365-B, 376(3)---- Abduction and rape of mentally impaired woman—Appeal against conviction—Improper exclusion of victim’s testimony—Effect— Accused were convicted under Ss. 365-B and 376(3) PPC based primarily on circumstantial and medical evidence—Victim’s testimony, being the most direct evidence, was excluded on questionable procedural grounds—Held, in cases involving vulnerable victims, evidentiary standards must be balanced with the requirement for procedural inclusivity—Since the exclusion of victim’s testimony was not legally sustainable, conviction set aside and matter remanded for retrial. Disposition: Criminal Appeals allowed—Convictions and sentences of appellants set aside—Case remanded for fresh trial after expert evaluation of victim’s communicative capacity. Criminal Revision dismissed as consequence of remand. Acquittal of co-accused Muhammad Rasheed upheld as unchallenged.

Summary: ''Scope of obligation incurred under bank guarantees'' ---- (a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 ----S. 9 & S. 22---Suit for recovery---Default of contractual obligation---Banking Court dismissed claim for recovery of commission on guarantee issued by bank on ground that appellant failed to establish breach of contractual obligation---Held, under S.9 of the Ordinance, 2001, default is a condition precedent for maintainability of recovery suit---No evidence produced to show existence or terms of revised guarantee or breach thereof---Plea that charges were excessive or guarantee ineffective could not be entertained in absence of primary or secondary documentary proof---Appeal dismissed in limine. (b) Contract Act, 1872 ----S. 62---Novation of contract---Substitution of original guarantee---Alleged reduction in quantum of guarantee from USD 800,000 to USD 400,000 claimed through correspondence---Held, mere correspondence did not constitute novation---Execution of addendum or revised agreement not proved---No document on record showing substitution of original contractual terms---Appellant failed to establish novation in terms of S.62 of Contract Act. (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ----Arts. 102, 103 & 129(g)---Proof of document---Notice to admit v. notice to produce---Appellant relied on notice to admit contents of revised guarantee without producing primary or admissible secondary evidence---Held, mere service of notice to admit cannot substitute requirement of proving existence and execution of contract---Failure to produce document led to adverse inference under Art. 129(g). (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ----O. XII, R. 4 & R. 8---Notice to admit v. notice to produce---Distinction---Notice to admit does not exempt party from proving contents of document---Held, only notice to produce, when refused, may result in permission to lead secondary evidence or draw adverse inference---Overreliance on notice to admit was misconceived and held inconsequential. **(e) Civil Procedure---Limitation---Claim for recovery of commission charges on expired guarantee instituted four years after expiry---Held, suit was time-barred and barred by law of limitation---Banking Court correctly dismissed the claim on this ground---No illegality or misreading found. **(f) Contractual obligations---Guarantee charges---Validity and enforceability---Guarantee issued by HBL Colombo, backed by counter-guarantee of respondent bank---Commission charges adjusted upfront as per terms of facility offer letter---Appellant failed to produce text of guarantee or raise contemporaneous objection during validity period---Principles of acquiescence and conclusion of transaction applied---Claim barred by limitation and deemed past and closed transaction. **(g) Civil Procedure---Banking litigation---Cause of action---Held, in absence of breach or default, no enforceable cause of action arose under financial law---Suit rightly dismissed for lack of foundational elements necessary to invoke jurisdiction under S. 9 of the Ordinance, 2001. Disposition: Appeal dismissed in limine; findings of the Banking Court upheld; no proof of contractual default or novation established.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: –––Art. 13(a), 199––– Double jeopardy–––Scope–––Maintainability of writ petition–––Petitioner, a retired army officer, challenged notice under S.22(2) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 2017, alleging the Subject House to be benami property–––Petitioner was earlier tried under NAB Ordinance, 1999, convicted by Accountability Court, but subsequently acquitted by the Lahore High Court and the Supreme Court affirmed the acquittal–––Held, principle of double jeopardy under Art.13(a) of the Constitution not attracted–––Offence under NAB Ordinance (holding assets beyond known means) and offence under Benami Transactions Act (holding property as beneficial owner in name of another) are distinct in nature, scope, and legal consequences–––Same act may constitute different offences under different statutes if elements differ–––Petition dismissed. Cited Cases: • PLD 2024 SC 795 • 2014 SCMR 1376 (b) Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 2017: –––Ss. 2(8), 22(2), 3, 4 & 5––– Show cause notice regarding benami property–––Challenge to maintainability–––Petitioner purchased property in 1999 through General Power of Attorney and was issued a show cause notice in 2022 under the Act of 2017, alleging it to be benami property–––Held, the Act of 2017 has prospective application and cannot be applied retrospectively to transactions executed prior to its enactment–––However, initiation of proceedings under S.22(2) based on current possession and beneficial ownership does not per se violate retrospective bar–––Respondent relied on ongoing beneficial use and financial declarations post-enactment–––High Court declined to entertain the writ petition at show cause stage–––Held further, petitioner had effective alternate remedy before Adjudicating Authority under the Act and had failed to avail the same–––Writ petition not maintainable in presence of alternate statutory remedy. ----Cited Cases: • PLD 2022 ISB 371 • PLD 2017 ISB 375 • 2022 SCMR 842 • 2016 SCMR 842 • 2008 SCMR 308 • 1993 SCMR 29 (c) Administrative Law: –––Public functionaries–––Exercise of discretion–––Jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution–––Scope–––Where a statutory forum exists for resolution of disputes, writ jurisdiction ordinarily not exercised–––Petitioner bypassed remedy under Benami Transactions Act, 2017 by approaching High Court directly–––Held, constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to circumvent proper legal channels, particularly where factual determination and adjudication is required–––Petition dismissed as not maintainable.

Summary: (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997: –––S. 9(c)–––Conviction–––Appreciation of evidence–––Contradiction in prosecution version regarding recovery–––Appellant was convicted for possession of 8 kg Heroin, whereas co-accused was acquitted–––Contradiction between FIR/complaint and recovery memo regarding the location and manner of recovery–––Recovery memo (Ex.PC) stated all 8 packets recovered from trunk of vehicle driven by appellant; whereas FIR and complaint (Ex.PA & Ex.PB) stated 2 packets were recovered from co-accused’s clothing–––Such material inconsistency casts serious doubt on the entire recovery–––Prosecution failed to establish safe custody of narcotics or to associate any private witnesses in the recovery, despite availability–––Investigating Officer was dismissed from service for misconduct, further undermining credibility of investigation–––Held, in narcotics cases, utmost transparency in recovery and chain of custody is essential–––Benefit of doubt given to accused–––Appeal allowed–––Conviction and sentence set aside–––Appellant acquitted. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Samiullah v. The State, 2022 SCMR 998 • Khial Muhammad v. The State, 2024 SCMR 1490 • Muhammad Riaz v. The State, 2024 SCMR 1839 • Subha Sadiq v. The State, 2025 SCMR 50 (b) Criminal trial: –––Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus–––Applicability–––Contradictory prosecution evidence–––When statements of prosecution witnesses contain major discrepancies regarding material facts, entire testimony becomes unreliable–––In the instant case, serious divergence existed between the initial complaint and recovery memo as to from whom and where the contraband was allegedly recovered–––Held, once key parts of the prosecution narrative are proven false, the rest cannot be safely relied upon–––Principle of “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” applied–––Accused entitled to acquittal. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): –––Ss. 103, 157, 342 & 382-B–––Non-association of private witnesses–––Lack of spot investigation–––Statements of accused–––Section 103 Cr.P.C. not complied with–––No credible explanation given for non-inclusion of public witnesses at the time of search and recovery–––Section 157(1), Cr.P.C. mandates spot-based investigation, which appeared missing in the case–––Benefit of doubt arising from violation of legal procedure extended to accused–––Further, Appellant’s statement under S.342 Cr.P.C. was not properly rebutted–––Acquittal upheld. (d) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997: –––S. 32–––Confiscation of vehicle–––Notice to owner–––Failure to comply with mandatory procedure–––Vehicle used in commission of offence was ordered to be confiscated by Trial Court without serving notice to registered owner or verifying ownership–––Held, forfeiture without notice violates mandatory requirements of S.32 CNSA–––Court directed that vehicle shall remain intact until expiry of limitation for appeal or revision, and may only be disposed of in accordance with law after proper notice and determination of ownership.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Scope---Concurrent orders of Rent Controller and Appellate Court closing petitioner’s right to produce evidence for repeated non-compliance---Held, that discretionary constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to circumvent lawful procedural orders where adequate opportunity was granted and the petitioner failed to comply---Mere presence of attorney on date fixed, without filing affidavit or producing evidence, held insufficient to establish readiness---Petition dismissed, being devoid of merit. (b) Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001: ----S. 17---Eviction proceedings---Failure to produce evidence---Petitioner was granted multiple adjournments and warned explicitly of consequences for non-compliance---Rent Controller initially imposed cost; Appellate Court allowed appeal and gave final opportunity to produce evidence on specific date, failing which Rent Controller was permitted to proceed in accordance with law---Petitioner again failed to produce evidence or file affidavit of witness---Held, that direction of Appellate Court was binding, and Rent Controller lawfully exercised discretion in closing right of evidence---No procedural irregularity or denial of fair opportunity established. ----Cited Case: • Moon Enterpriser CNG Station v. SNGPL, 2020 SCMR 300 (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908): ----O.XVII, R.3---Repeated adjournments---Interpretation---Scope of "last opportunity"---Supreme Court jurisprudence clarifies that adjournment granted without objection and without clear warning may not amount to "last opportunity" under O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C.---However, in present case, Rent Controller repeatedly granted adjournments, issued explicit warnings, and imposed costs prior to passing final order---Final direction by Appellate Court to record evidence on fixed date treated as conclusive and binding---Petitioner’s reliance on earlier case law held distinguishable. ----Cited Cases (distinguished): • Syed Tahir Hussain Mehmoodi v. Agha Syed Liaqat Ali, 2014 SCMR 637 • Ghulam Rasool v. Rai Ghulam Mustafa, 1993 SCMR 2026 • Muhammad Umer v. Muhammad Qasim, 1991 SCMR 1232 • Mst. Imtiaz Begum v. Mst. Sultan Jan, 2008 SCMR 1259 ----Disposition: Petition dismissed---Orders of Rent Controller and Appellate Court upheld as legal and within jurisdiction---No procedural illegality or miscarriage of justice found.

Summary: A plain reading of the S. 512 Cr.PC indicates that when an accused has absconded and there is no immediate prospect of arrest the Court may examine prosecution witnesses and record their depositions if the offence is punishable by death or life imprisonment. If the accused is later arrested and any such witnesses are unavailable due to death incapacity or difficulty in procuring their attendance the statements recorded under Section 512 Cr.P.C. may be admitted as evidence. In the present case however Section 512 Cr.P.C. does not apply as the petitioner was present when the evidence was recorded and his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. was taken before he absconded. The purpose of Section 512 Cr.P.C. is to preserve witness testimony for cases where the witness may not be available when the accused is brought to trial. There is no clear legal provision addressing whether a trial should be restarted (denovo) if an accused absconds after the conclusion of proceedings but before judgment is delivered. However since the entire evidence was recorded in the petitioner’s presence and only the final judgment remained pending this Court held that granting the accused a second opportunity to cross-examine witnesses through a de novo trial would not serve the interests of justice. Instead any new developments after his re-arrest and the filing of a supplementary challan may be addressed through a supplementary statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C.

Summary: '' Section 5-7 of the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1993 and policy decision---The Chairman, PCBL is not vested with any exclusive power to alienate the properties, assets of the Board through any private treaty or understanding and any alienation of the property/ asserts of the Board by the Chairman in contravention of the above law as well as the policy decision, that has no binding force and same does not create any right enforceable through constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Writ Petition dismissed with heavy cost.'' ------ (a) Constitutional Law – Writ Jurisdiction – Private Treaty for Public Property---Writ petition—Maintainability—Petitioners challenged the dismissal of their claim to purchase shops through private treaty from Punjab Cooperative Board for Liquidation (PCBL)—Held, PCBL properties are public assets and must be alienated in accordance with the prescribed legal framework—Chairman PCBL had no unilateral authority to sell properties through private negotiations—No provision in the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1993, authorizes such transactions—Private agreements without public auction are susceptible to fraud, favoritism, and corruption—Reliance placed on Capital Development Authority v. Ahmed Murtaza (2023 SCMR 61).(b) Public Property – Sale Through Auction – Legal Procedure Mandatory---Public property—Legal framework for disposal—PCBL advertised an auction for shops but failed to receive bids—Petitioners did not participate in auction and instead sought to purchase via private negotiation—Held, sale of public property must follow due process, ensuring transparency and equal opportunity—No legal right accrues to petitioners merely on the basis of negotiations or partial payments—Attempted acquisition through under-the-table settlement is illegal and void.(c) Fraudulent and Collusive Transactions – Effect on Contractual Rights---Fraudulent and collusive agreements—Petitioners deposited a nominal amount claiming right to purchase—No documentary evidence or board approval for sale—Held, fraud vitiates all transactions—An agreement against public policy is void and unenforceable—Even if a Chairman unlawfully makes an offer, the act remains illegal—A fraudulent foundation of ownership claim automatically collapses—Reliance placed on Province of Punjab v. Zulfiqar Ali (2024 SCMR 22).(d) Contract Law – Absence of a Legally Binding Agreement---Absence of contract—No evidence of acceptance by PCBL or board approval—Petitioners' claim based on an alleged offer from the Chairman—Held, a unilateral deposit of funds does not create enforceable contractual rights—No agreement meeting legal formalities was concluded—Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to enforce an illegal or non-existent contract.(e) Cost for Frivolous Litigation Against Public Institution---Frivolous litigation—Petitioners engaged in protracted litigation since 2002 without legal entitlement—Held, misuse of judicial process warrants imposition of costs—Petitioners burdened with PKR 1,000,000 as special costs, recoverable as arrears of land revenue—Reliance placed on Javed Hameed v. Aman Ullah (2024 SCMR 89).---- Disposition:W.P. No. 14800/2010 & W.P. No. 14799/2010 dismissed – No legal right accrued to petitioners.Special costs of PKR 1,000,000 imposed for frivolous litigation.Observations are limited to this petition and shall not affect future proceedings.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) – S. 540— Summoning of Court Witness—Scope and limitations—Cited eyewitness given up by prosecution—Accused seeking his summoning as Court Witness—Refusal by trial court—Legality.Petitioner/accused sought summoning of Abdul Hayee, a cited eyewitness in the FIR, as a Court Witness under S.540 Cr.P.C., after he was given up by prosecution. Trial Court dismissed the application, observing that two eyewitnesses had already deposed and that Abdul Hayee's testimony was not essential for just decision of the case. Held, S.540 Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to summon any witness if his evidence appears essential, but this power is not to be exercised to aid either party or to delay proceedings—Where other eyewitnesses to the same occurrence have already testified and the witness sought is not an injured or uniquely placed individual, his summoning is not essential. The Court found no exceptional circumstances warranting interference—Petition dismissed.Citations:Saif Khan v. The State (2008 SCMR 849)Mazhar Ali v. The State (2005 SCMR 523)(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) – Ss. 265-F & 540— Right of defence to summon witnesses—Prosecution prerogative in selecting witnesses—Role of trial court—Inquisitorial nature of trial.Held, prosecution is not bound to produce all listed witnesses and may give up any if sufficient evidence is otherwise led—Accused may summon unproduced witnesses in defence—Trial Court has an inquisitorial role only to the extent of ensuring a just decision; it is not required to undertake an independent inquiry or supplement gaps in evidence where the accused has avenues under law to produce a witness in defence. Summoning a given-up witness as Court Witness should not be used as a substitute for defence evidence.(c) Court Practice – Judicial Discretion in Summoning Witnesses— Summoning Court Witnesses—Guiding principle—Whether witness is essential to just decision of case.Test for application of S.540 Cr.P.C. is whether the proposed witness’s testimony is indispensable for adjudication of key facts in issue. Where witness forms part of a group of similarly placed eyewitnesses and others in the group have already deposed, there is no legal compulsion to summon the omitted one, unless his position or injury status confers additional evidentiary value. In present case, Abdul Hayee had no greater evidentiary weight than the other two examined eyewitnesses—Trial Court's refusal to summon him upheld.Disposition:Revision petition dismissed; interim relief recalled.----- Quote: ''If prosecution has produced two eyewitnesses and given-up 3rd eyewitness, whose evidence was of same category/nature and not of higher efficacy like injured, then he cannot be summoned as Court Witness; however, accused can produce him as his Defence Witness, if he opts so.''

Summary: Effect of non-production of complaint bearer in a case under Control of Narcotic Substances Act (CNSA), 1997Acquittal granted----(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997:----S. 9(c)—Possession of narcotics—Benefit of doubt—Acquittal—Prosecution alleged recovery of 1100 grams of heroin from appellant during a raid conducted based on spy information—Key prosecution witness, Head Constable Muhammad Ali Adil, who conveyed FIR and initiated investigation, neither cited in the list of witnesses nor examined—Non-recording of statement under S. 161 Cr.P.C. held fatal—Absence of sample bearer from witness box also rendered recovery doubtful—Failure to produce white shopping bag used for concealment of narcotics further cast doubt—Held, prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt—Appellant acquitted as matter of right, not concession.Minhaj Khan v. The State 2019 SCMR 326; Muhammad Akram v. The State 2009 SCMR 230; Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345 ref.(b) Criminal trial----Benefit of doubt—Scope—Even a single infirmity in prosecution evidence is sufficient for acquittal—Appellant not required to prove innocence or create multiple doubts—Any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused—Failure to associate or examine material witness undermined prosecution’s case—Held, burden lies on prosecution to establish guilt beyond shadow of doubt.Muhammad Akram v. The State 2009 SCMR 230; Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345 ref.(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----S. 161—Statement of witness—Failure to record statement of key prosecution witness—Effect—Head Constable who conveyed FIR to duty officer and initiated further investigation was neither examined nor his statement recorded under S. 161 Cr.P.C.—Held, such omission amounts to withholding of best available evidence and weakens the prosecution case—No explanation given for non-production.----Disposition:Appeal accepted—Conviction and sentence set aside—Appellant Mst. Bisma alias Sana acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Summary: When medical evidence totally negates ocular account then it makes the prosecution story improbable on the one hand, whereas on the other hand also reflects that actual facts have been suppressed or at least not known to the prosecution.(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) — S. 302(b); Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — S. 342; Qanun-e-Shahadat (X of 1984) — Art. 129(g); Constitution of Pakistan — Art. 10-A:Appreciation of evidence — Acquittal on benefit of doubt — Allegation against the accused/appellant was that he entered the shop of the complainant and fatally shot the complainant’s father in retaliation for a divorce notice sent to the accused’s sister — Prosecution relied on eyewitnesses (PW-10 and PW-11), who were closely related to the deceased — Delay in lodging FIR, inconsistency between ocular and medical evidence, and contradictions in witness statements created reasonable doubt — Medical officer noted rigor mortis fully developed and multiple firearm injuries inconsistent with the prosecution's ocular version, which alleged only one shot — Inquest report failed to mention key eyewitnesses and gave contradictory time of death — No convincing explanation provided by the prosecution regarding the inconsistencies — Presence of witnesses at the crime scene was doubtful and not independently substantiated — Held, where prosecution evidence suffers from material contradictions and fails to inspire confidence, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused as a matter of right and not grace — Conviction and sentence set aside, and accused acquitted.----Cited Cases:• Muhammad Akram v. The State 2009 SCMR 230• Barkat Ali v. Muhammad Asif and others 2007 SCMR 1812• Rasool Muhammad v. Asal Muhammad and another PLJ 1995 SC 477(b) Criminal trial — Motive — Divorce-related grudge cited as motive by prosecution — Prosecution failed to prove motive through independent or documentary evidence — Mere assertion of strained relations due to divorce notice insufficient — Held, motive being a double-edged sword can also be a reason for false implication — Failure to prove motive weakens prosecution’s case and cannot substitute for lack of corroborative evidence — Accused entitled to acquittal on this ground as well.(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — Ss. 161, 173 & 544-A; Constitution of Pakistan — Art. 4, 9 & 10-ADefective investigation — Contradictions in FIR registration time, medical evidence, and inquest report — Investigating officer received information at different times as per record — Failure to mention all eyewitnesses in inquest report created doubt regarding presence of witnesses — Recovery of weapon (pistol and bullets) was inconsequential as forensic report merely confirmed mechanical functionality without ballistic match — Held, such discrepancies in investigative procedure cast serious doubt on prosecution’s version — Accused acquitted on benefit of doubt.(d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — S. 439:Revision petition for enhancement of sentence — Complainant sought enhancement of life imprisonment to death sentence — High Court, having acquitted the accused on merits, held that the revision petition was misconceived and without merit — Revision dismissed accordingly.