Summary: (Against the judgment dated 09.03.2016, passed by the learned Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No. 169/J of 201l and Murder Reference No. 503 of 2011). (a) Criminal Trial--- ----Murder case---Night time occurrence---Source of light, absence of---Effe ct---In absence of source of light mentioned in FIR and recovery of such source, the identification of accused becomes questionable. Usman alias Kaloo v. The State 2017 SCMR 622 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Re-appraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Principle---Night time occurrence---Medical evidence contradicting ocular account---Presence of alleged eye-witnesses at the spot doubtful---Delay in conducting postmortem examination---Accused persons were convicted by Trial Court for qatl-i-amd and sentenced to death but High Court converted the sentence into imprisonment for life---Validity---Evidence of recovery and motive had rightly been discarded by High Court---Prosecution failed to prove guilt of accused persons through cogent and confidence inspiring direct and circumstantial evidence---Prosecution evidence was riddled with doubts, benefit of which was extended to accused persons not as a matter of grace or concession but as a matter of right---For giving benefit of doubt it is not necessary that there should be multiple circumstances rather a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind is sufficient for extending its benefit to accused---Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused person who were acquitted of the charge---Appeal was allowed. Mst. Saima Noreen v. The State 2004 SCMR 1310; PLD 2011 SC 554; 2020 SCMR 1493; 2021 SCMR 387; Usman alias Kaloo v. The State 2017 SCMR 622; Muhammad Rafique alias Feeqa v. The State 2019 SCMR 1068; Irshad Ahmad v. The State 2011 SCMR 1190; Ulfat Hussain v. The State 2018 SCMR 313; Muhammad Yaseen v. Muhammad Afzal and another 2018 SCMR 1549; Muhammad Rafique v. The State 2014 SCMR 1698; Muhammad Ashraf v. The State 2012 SCMR 419; Khalid alias Khalidi and 2 others v. The State 2012 SCMR 327; Muhammad Mansha v. The State 2018 SCMR 772 and Najaf Ali Shah v. The State 2021 SCMR 736 rel. Mazhar Iqbal Sidhu, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in Cr. A. No. 201-L of 2020). Ijaz Ahmad Janjua, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in Cr. A. No. 202-L of 2020) through video link from Lahore. Muhammad Aslam Zar, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in Cr. PLA. No. 596-L of 2016). Ms. Memoona Ihsaan-ul-Haq, DPG for the State (in all cases). Date of hearing: 14th March, 2025.

Summary: (a) Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013)--- ----S. 23(1)(a)---Possession of illegal weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions and inconsistencies in the statement of witnesses---Accused was charged for having illicit weapon i.e., pistol .30-bore and live bullets---Complainant explicitly identified six individuals as having been arrested---Notably, the appellant in the case was never mentioned in the complainant's testimony---Similarly, Police Constable's testimony referenced only three arrestees and also omitted the appellant's name---Such glaring inconsistency in identifying the accused coupled with the complainant's failure to name appellant casted significant doubt on the appellant's alleged involvement or presence at the scene---Prosecution's case was further weakened by a direct contradiction between the two primary witnesses---Complainant claimed six arrests, while Police Constable cited five arrests---Such a material inconsistency undermined the credibility of the prosecution's narrative and raised questions about the accuracy of the entire account---Forensic Science Laboratory Report highlighted that the recovered pistol bore a rubbed serial number---However, that critical detail was never documented in the official arrest/recovery memo, nor corroborated by any witness testimony---Absence of that information in the foundational records suggested either procedural negligence or potential fabrication, further eroding trust in the prosecution's evidence---Complainant asserted that the police team arrived at the scene at 06.30 pm and left the station on 19-02-2023 at 02.10 pm---In contrast, Police Constable stated the team arrived at 06.25 pm and departed the station at 08.00 pm on 19-02-2023, implying an arrival on 20-02-2023 due to the midnight date transition---Said irreconcilable timelines created confusion about the sequence of events and the reliability of witness accounts--- Totality of these contradictions, failure to name the appellant, conflicting arrest figures, unreported tampering of evidence and chronological inconsistencies collectively dismantled the prosecution's version of events---Such material discrepancies in core aspects of the case rendered the evidence untrustworthy and insufficient to meet the burden of proof required for conviction---Prosecution's failure to present a coherent, consistent narrative founded on verifiable facts fatally undermined its credibility, thereby warranting serious doubt about the appellant's culpability---Inconsistencies identified were not minor or peripheral but struck at the heart of the prosecution's claims---Moreover, the appellant had already been acquitted in main crime under Sections 395/397, P.P.C---In light of those rational findings, the case against appellant could not withstand judicial scrutiny and the charges lacked the evidentiary foundation necessary to sustain a conviction---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013)--- ----S. 23(1)(A)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103---Possession of illegal weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Non-association of private witnesses at the time of arrest and recovery process---Effect---Accused was charged for having illicit weapon i.e. pistol 30-bore and live bullets---Although the incident occurred in a densely populated area during morning hours, the complainant made no attempt to involve independent witnesses to observe the arrest or the recovery process---Such failure to associate independent witnesses, despite the public setting, raised questions about procedural compliance, as such steps were typically critical to ensuring transparency in law enforcement actions---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (c) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Principle---Prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, with even the slightest uncertainty favoring the accused. Muhammad Hamdani v. The State 2018 YLR 2687 and Sajjan Solangi v. The State 2019 SCMR 844 rel. Faheem Shah for Appellant. Mumtaz Ali Shah, Assistant Prosecutor General for the State. Date of hearing: 10th March, 2025. Judgment Jan Ali Junejo, J .--- The present Criminal Appeal has been filed by the Appellant (accused), challenging the Judgment dated 31-05-2024 (here-in-after referred to as the Impugned Judgment) passed by the Court of learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-East (here-in-after referred to as the learned Trial Court) in Sessions Case No.3670 of 2023 (The State v. Zaheer Ahmed), whereby the learned Trial Court convicted the Appellant under Section 23(1)(a), of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013 and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs.20,000/-. In case of default of fine amount, the Appellant shall suffer S.I. for two months. The benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended to the Appellant. 2. According to the prosecution, on 19-02-2023 at 0630 hours, at a Vacant Plot, near Jalal Chowk, Mehran Town, Sector 6/E, KIA, Karachi, the complainant ASI Mazhar Hayat of P.S. K.I.A. Karachi apprehended the appellant Zaheer Ahmed and recovered one unlicensed 30-bore pistol along with four live bullets and a sum of Rs. 90,000/- from his possession. FIR No. 263/2023 was registered against him under Section 23(i)(A) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was submitted, and the trial commenced. During the trial, the prosecution examined the following witnesses and produced documentary evidence: PW-1 ASI Mazhar Hayat (complainant and arresting officer) ? Roznamcha departure entry (Exh-4) ? Memo of arrest and recovery (Exh-5) ? FIR (Exh-6) ? Roznamcha arrival entry (Exh-7) ? Memo of place of incident (Exh-8) PW-2 PC Hamza Khan (mashir of memos) ? His testimony was recorded as Exh-9. PW-3 SIP Muhammad Moosa (Investigating Officer) ? Roznamcha entry No. 9 (Exh-10/A) ? Roznamcha entry No. 10 (Exh-10/B) ? Police forwarding letter (Exh-10/C) ? FSL report (Exh-10/D) ? Snap of the pistol (Exh-10/E) Following the conclusion of the prosecution's case, the Appellant's statement was recorded under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), during which he refuted all allegations levelled against him and sought a fair resolution. The Appellant chose not to exercise his right to testify under oath pursuant to Section 340(2), Cr.P.C., and declined to present any evidence in his defense. Subsequently, the trial Court, based solely on the prosecution's evidentiary submissions, found the Appellant guilty and issued a conviction through the Impugned Judgment dated May 31, 2024 followed by sentence. 3. The learned counsel for the Appellant contends that the learned trial Court has erred both on facts and law while recording the judgment, rendering it legally flawed. He further argues that the alleged recovery from the appellant is contradictory, thereby casting grave doubt on the prosecution's case. He asserts that the trial Judge failed to appreciate the mandatory requirement of Section 103 Cr.P.C., which mandates the presence of independent witnesses during recovery, a lapse that vitiates the proceedings. Additionally, he highlights that the trial Judge overlooked major contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, including discrepancies between the recovery sketch and the FSL report, which irreparably undermine the prosecution's version. He emphasizes that the trial Judge failed to consider the appellant's acquittal in the main case (Crime No.1714/23 under Sections 395/397 P.P.C), a critical omission that further weakens the prosecution's credibility. He stresses that all prosecution witnesses (PWs) are police officials, with no private witness associated, violating principles of fairness and corroboration. He contends that the prosecution's case is riddled with material contradictions, rendering it inherently unreliable, yet the trial Judge opted to convict the appellant without addressing these fatal flaws. He further argues that the impugned judgment is non-speaking, lacking cogent reasoning and failing to weigh the absence of independent corroboration for police testimony, a legal necessity in such cases. Cumulatively, he submits that these errors warrant setting aside the conviction and granting the appellant the benefit of doubt. 4. Per contra, the learned Additional Prosecutor General (APG) has argued that the prosecution had successfully established the accused's guilt beyond any shadow of doubt through credible and corroborative evidence. The testimonies of the complainant, mashir, and Investigating Officer were consistent, confidence-inspiring, and remained unshaken during cross-examination. The FSL report confirmed that the recovered weapon was in working condition, further strengthening the prosecution's case. The APG contended that police witnesses are as reliable as independent witnesses unless proven to have acted with malice, and the absence of private witnesses did not weaken the case. The prompt registration of the FIR, proper documentation, and absence of major contradictions reinforced the prosecution's stance. Additionally, the APG emphasized that illegal possession of firearms contributes to crime, and the accused failed to present any defense evidence or testify under oath, further undermining his plea of false implication. Citing legal precedents, the APG asserted that minor discrepancies do not invalidate a prosecution case and, therefore, urged this Court to dismiss the appeal and uphold the conviction and sentence. 5. Upon a detailed examination of the submissions presented by the appellant's counsel and the State's Additional Prosecutor General (APG), coupled with a rigorous scrutiny of the case record, the following critical findings and rational conclusions emerge: The Complainant, ASI Mazhar Hayat, explicitly identified "six individuals" (Abdullah, Salman, Ubaidullah, Umar, Kashif, and Adnan) as having been arrested. Notably, "Zaheer Ahmed"-the appellant in this case-was "never mentioned" in the complainant's testimony. Similarly, PC Hamza Khan's testimony referenced only "three arrestees" (Ubaidullah, Umar, and Kamran) and also omitted the appellant's name. This glaring inconsistency in identifying the accused-coupled with the complainant's failure to name Zaheer Ahmed-casts significant doubt on the appellant's alleged involvement or presence at the scene. The prosecution's case is further weakened by a direct contradiction between the two primary witnesses: ASI Mazhar Hayat claimed "six arrests", while PC Hamza Khan cited "five arrests". Such a material inconsistency undermines the credibility of the prosecution's narrative and raises questions about the accuracy of the entire account. The "FSL report" highlighted that the recovered pistol bore a "rubbed serial number". However, this critical detail was "never documented" in the official arrest/recovery memo, nor corroborated by any witness testimony. The absence of this information in the foundational records suggests either procedural negligence or potential fabrication, further eroding trust in the prosecution's evidence. "ASI Mazhar Hayat" asserted that the police team arrived at the scene at "0630 hours" and left the station on "19-02-2023 at 0210 hours". In contrast, "PC Hamza Khan" stated the team arrived at "0625 hours" and departed the station at "2000 hours on 19-02-2023", implying an arrival on "20-02-2023" due to the midnight date transition. These irreconcilable timelines create confusion about the sequence of events and the reliability of witness accounts. The totality of these contradictions-"failure to name the appellant", "conflicting arrest figures", "unreported tampering of evidence", and "chronological inconsistencies" -collectively dismantle the prosecution's version of events. Such material discrepancies in core aspects of the case render the evidence untrustworthy and insufficient to meet the burden of proof required for conviction. The prosecution's failure to present a coherent, consistent narrative founded on verifiable facts fatally undermines its credibility, thereby warranting serious doubt about the appellant's culpability. Moreover, although the incident occurred in a densely populated area during morning hours, the Complainant/Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) made no attempt to involve independent witnesses to observe the arrest or the recovery process. This failure to associate independent witnesses, despite the public setting, raises questions about procedural compliance, as such steps are typically critical to ensuring transparency in law enforcement actions. The inconsistencies identified are not minor or peripheral but strike at the heart of the prosecution's claims. Moreover, the Appellant has already been acquitted in main Crime No.1714/23 under Sections 395/397 P.P.C. In light of these rational findings, the case against Zaheer Ahmed cannot withstand judicial scrutiny, and the charges lack the evidentiary foundation necessary to sustain a conviction. 6. It is a foundational principle of criminal law that the prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, with even the slightest uncertainty favoring the accused. In a parallel scenario, as observed in Muhammad Hamdani v. The State (2018 YLR 2687), this Court acquitted the accused by extending the benefit of doubt in a case under Section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013. This position is further corroborated by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan's ruling in Sajjan Solangi v. The State (2019 SCMR 844), which underscores the imperative of adhering to this standard. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the Impugned Judgment dated 31-05-2024, rendered by the Trial Court, is deemed legally untenable and is hereby set-aside. Consequently, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant, Zaheer Ahmed, under Section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, are overturned. He is acquitted of the charges and shall be released immediately, unless lawfully detained in connection with any other pending case. 8. Above are the reasons for the short dated 10.03.2025 in terms of which, the appeal was allowed and sentence awarded to the appellant was set aside. JK/Z-13/Sindh Appeal allowed.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 561-A, 22-A & 22-B---Inherent powers of High Court under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C.---Scope---Powers of Ex-officio Justice of Peace---Application of the petitioner for the registration of FIR was turned down by Ex-officio Justice of Peace---Validity---Petitioner stated that the proposed accused had felled three trees from his land---In the present case, the brother of applicant settled his dispute as reported by SHO; such fact was neither controverted by applicant nor was any ground taken in instant petition that police malafidely or in collusion with proposed accused prepared false report before Ex-officio Justice of Peace---Brother of applicant was not a witness to support the version of applicant while as per report he was owner of land who settled his dispute and even the properties of the parties were adjacent to each other with no distinct boundaries making it difficult to distinguish between them---Perusal of record showed that there was no intention for commission of any offence for the reason that guilty intention was always important ingredient of offence as provided by the maxim "actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea" (the act is not guilty until the mind is guilty)---Petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Munwar Alam Khan v. Qurban Ali Malano and others 2024 SCMR 985 and Jameel Ahmed Butt and another v. The State through Prosecutor General Sindh and 2 others 2014 PCr.LJ 1093 rel. Ateeq-ur-Rehman Soomro for Applicant. Abdul Hafeez Bandhani for proposed accused. Syed Sardar Ali Shah Rizvi, Additional P.G for the State. Order Ali Haider 'Ada', J .--- The applicant assails the order dated 13-02-2024, passed by learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Sukkur, whereby his application under sections 22-A (6)(i) and 22-B Cr.P.C was turned down, in his application stated that the proposed accused had felled three trees of TARI from his land on 23-12-2023 and such incident was addressed to Police Functionaries but all in vain. The applicant approached before Justice of Peace and after dismissal prefers this Criminal Misc: application. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace only on the police report dismissed his application as he reported such incident to SSP Sukkur through application and such application was also marked to Respondent No. 2, but his grievance was not redressed. He further contends that he sustained huge loss by the act of proposed accused, therefore he intends to register the FIR. 3. On the other hand learned counsel for the proposed accused submits that no any alleged incident was committed by the hands of proposed accused, actually the land of proposed accused is adjacent to the land of brother of applicant namely Manzoor Jutt and due to usurp the land area the applicant initiated frivolous litigation, further he submits that the applicant with unclean hands approached before Court, as before SSP Sukkur he showed land property of Survey No. 87 of deh Begmaji while in application under section 22-B Cr.P.C, he showed another number which is Survey No. 199 of Deh Begmaji; which revealed that he has no knowledge that from which part of land the alleged offence, if any, was committed, lastly prays for dismissal of instant application. 4. Learned Additional P.G for the State pointed out that incident which was mentioned in application under section 22-A, B Cr.P.C is unwitnessed as the names of the witnesses were not transpired to support the version of the applicant. He further submits that actually the police report is very much clear on the stance that three months ago some trees were cut down by proposed accused from their own land while the brother of the applicant namely Manzoor Jutt claimed that his trees were also cut down, so, on the intervention of Nek Mard, he received entire amount through private Faisla, as neither such Manzoor Jutt is witness in application nor he sworn any kind of affidavit in order to support the version of applicant; further pointed out that as per police report the brother of the applicant is owner of the land which is adjacent to the land of proposed accused and he settled his issue through private Faisla, but now the applicant malafidely approached with ulterior motives. 5. Heard arguments and perused the material available on record. 6. The powers of Ex-Officio Justice of Peace is actually to support the administration of criminal justice system and such power be exercised with prudent mind. In support reliance be placed in case of Munwar Alam Khan v. Qurban Ali Malano and others (2024 SCMR 985) it is held by the Apex Court that: "Having heard the petitioner and scanned the material available on the record, we observe that there are many precedents regarding misuse of provisions of Sections 22-A and 22-B Cr.P.C, and it is the prime duty of the Court that such misuse be taken care of and application filed should not be lightly entertained and decided in mechanical manner for issuing directions to the police to lodge an FIR, conduct investigation in the matter and prosecute the accused. It is settled principle of law that each and every case is to be decided on its own peculiar facts and circumstances and inference in this regard can be drawn from the case reported as Rai Ashraf and others v Muhammad Saleem Bhatti and others (PLD 2010 SC 691), Trustees of the Port of Karachi v. Muhammad Saleem (1994 SCMR 2213) and The State v. Mushtaque Ahmed (PLD 1973 SC 418). 7. As well, In case of Jameel Ahmed Butt and another v. The State through Prosecutor General Sindh and 2 others (2014 PCr.LJ 1093) it is held that; "There are instances of misuse of provision of section 22-A, Cr.P.C, and, therefore, it is the duty of the Court that such misuse should be taken care of and such application should not be lightly entertained in a mechanical manner for direction to the police to register a statement of complainant and start prosecuting the alleged accused persons. In forming this view, I find support from the judgment reported as Imtiaz Ahmed Cheema v. SHO, Police Station Dharki, Ghotki (2010 YLR 189). 8. In present case, the brother of applicant settled his dispute as reported by Respondent No. 2/concerned SHO, such fact is neither controverted by applicant nor was any ground taken in instant Crl. Misc. Application that police malafidely or in collusion with proposed accused prepared false report before Ex-Officio Justice of Peace. The brother of applicant Manzoor Jutt is not a witness to support the version of applicant while as per report he is owner of land who settled his dispute and even the properties of the parties are adjacent to each other with no distinct boundaries and making it difficult to distinguish between them, so perusal of record shows that there is no intention for commission of any offence for the reason that guilty of intention is always important ingredient of offence, as "actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, the act is not guilty until the mind is guilty" such legal maxim unequivocally supports this stance. 9. In view of foregoing reasons, this Criminal Misc: Application is dismissed and the order of Learned Justice of Peace is hereby maintained. JK/M-66/Sindh Application dismissed.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan—Art. 25; Punjab Civil Service Pension Rules, 1955—Fundamental Rule 54-A; Service Jurisprudence Retirement after abatement of disciplinary proceedings—Vested right to pension—Appellant, a Civil Judge since 1978, was dismissed from service following a conviction in contempt proceedings—Dismissal was set aside and matter remanded by the Service Tribunal, which was upheld by the Supreme Court with directions to determine whether the conviction involved moral turpitude—However, before such determination, the appellant had already attained superannuation, leading to abatement of proceedings—Held, upon superannuation, disciplinary proceedings automatically abate by operation of law—No punishment remained in the field, and the appellant was to be treated as notionally retired—Retirement creates a vested right to receive pension and benefits without diminution—Failure to release pension and issue retirement notification amounted to discrimination and violated Art. 25 of the Constitution—Impugned rejection of pension was illegal and unsustainable—Tribunal directed issuance of retirement notification and release of all retiral benefits. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Zaheer Khan v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment (2010 SCMR 1554) • Province of Punjab v. Javed Iqbal (2021 SCMR 328) • Haji Muhammad Ismail Memon Advocate Complainant's Case (PLD 2007 SC 35) • Muhammad Anwar Bajwa v. Chairman ADBP (2001 PLC (C.S.) 336) • Syed Abdus Salam Kazmi v. MD WASA Multan (2005 PLC (C.S.) 244) • Bilquis Nargis v. Secretary Education Department (1983 PLC (C.S.) 1141) • Muhammad Yousaf v. Province of Sindh (2024 SCMR 1689) • The State v. Musin Tirmizey (PLD 1964 (W.P.) Lahore 434) • Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar [AIR 1971 SC 1409] • D.S. Nakara v. Union of India [1983 SCR (2) 165] • All India RBI Retired Officers v. Union of India [AIR 1992 SC 767] Disposition: Appeal allowed; impugned order set aside. Respondent directed to issue retirement notification and release pensionary benefits.

Summary: (a) Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 ----S. 5(3)(a)---Discharge from service---Failure to qualify Departmental Examination---Civil Judge appointed on probation failed in all four permissible attempts under Punjab Civil Judges Departmental Examination Rules, 1991---Held, confirmation of service was contingent on passing the departmental exam within four chances; upon failure, appellant was rightly discharged under the law---Request for a 5th chance already adjudicated and dismissed by the Service Tribunal in earlier appeal---No ground to revisit settled adjudication. Cited Cases: • University of the Health Sciences v. Sheikh Nasir Subhani (PLD 2006 SC 243) • Nazir Ahmad v. Pakistan (PLD 1970 SC 453) (b) Punjab Civil Judges Departmental Examination Rules, 1991 ----R. 9---Grace marks---Scope and practice---Interpretation---Appellant, having failed in multiple subjects, claimed parity with batchmates granted grace marks in departmental examination---Held, departmental practice consistently limited award of 5% grace marks to candidates failing in only one subject---Record revealed that officers granted grace marks in 36th Departmental Examination failed in one paper within margin salvageable by 5%---Appellant, having failed in multiple subjects, did not qualify for grace marks---No discrimination established. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Ilyas v. Bahauddin Zakariya University (2005 SCMR 961) • Memoona Noureen v. Vice-Chancellor, FJWU (2011 CLC 230) • Aslam Warraich v. Secretary, Planning & Development Division (1991 SCMR 2330) (c) Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act, 1991 ----S. 5---Limitation---Appeal before Tribunal---Requirement to file within 30 days from communication of order---Order rejecting representation for grace marks passed on 27.02.2023---Appellant claimed knowledge of order on self-assumed date (22.03.2023) after visiting concerned branch but filed appeal on 19.04.2023---Held, neither credible justification for delay nor explanation of time lapse provided---Application for condonation of delay lacked requisite material or explanation for each day of delay---Tribunal rightly dismissed appeal as time-barred. Cited Cases: • Lever Brothers Pakistan Ltd. v. Government of Punjab (PLD 2000 Lah. 1) • Radaka Corporation v. Collector of Customs (1989 SCMR 353) **(d) Service law---Discharge during probation---Effect---Probationary appointment terminated upon failure to meet qualifying criteria---Held, discharge from service for failing to qualify departmental exam did not constitute punitive action, and was therefore lawful and not violative of any vested right. Disposition: Appeal dismissed---Barred by limitation---Also devoid of merit.

Summary: Regular First Appeal Held: (i) Under sub-section (2) of section 17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963 a landlord has to apply to Controller; if he seeks to evict his tenant on the ground mentioned thereunder. The Controller may pass an order of eviction after giving opportunity of showing cause against the application. The said sub-section cannot be set at motion unless it is established before the Controller that relationship of landlord and tenant exists. (ii) Under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963 acknowledges the landlord has the right to reclaim their property for bonafide personal use irrespective of the existence of a written tenancy agreement however the landlord must provide credible evidence to support the claim of genuine personal need. The Court carefully assess the authenticity of such claim to balance the interest of both landlord and tenant. The absence of a written agreement does not preclude the landlord from exercising this right but subject to certain conditions. The landlord must convincingly demonstrate that the need for the property is genuine and not a pretext for eviction this involves providing credible evidence to substantiate the personal requirement the bonafide requirement can encompass various personal uses such as residential purposes or initiating a business. Notably the landlord is not obligated to specify the exact nature of the intended business or possess prior experience in the proposed venture if the landlord possesses other suitable properties that can fulfill the stated need the claim of bonafide personal requirement may be weak and the availability of alternative accommodation is a factor considered by the rent Controller when assessing the genuineness of the landlord’s claim. (iii) Section 17(8) of the Act of 1963 mandates that during eviction proceedings the Rent Controller directs the tenant to deposit all due rent by a specific date continue depositing monthly rent by the 5th day of each month until the case concludes if there is a dispute over the rent amount the Controller shall determine an approximate sum for deposit. Failure to comply allows the landlord to request the striking off of the tenant’s defence. Section 17(8) balances the interests of landlord and tenants ensuring rent is paid during dispute while also providing a mechanism to address disagreement over rent amounts. (iv) Each impugned order giving rise to the respective appeal is reflective of the abortive tenant here the appellant as to how he/they failed in payment of rent for the indicated month/period. The law on the subject is lucid and puts nobody in two minds that in case where a tenant fails to pay the rent for a specific period notwithstanding clear direction by the Rent Controller then next provision of law i.e. section 17 (9) of the Act of 1963s shall come into play to attend the situation. (v) If a tenant fails to deposit the monthly rent before the specified date his defence if he is a respondent shall be struck off and the landlord shall be given vacant possession of the shop/building without any further proceedings. (RFA dismissed)

Summary: Acquittal granted ---- (a) Criminal Law – Narcotics Case – Burden of Proof and Strict Compliance with Police RulesIn cases under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, strict adherence to procedural safeguards is mandatory. The prosecution must establish safe custody and transmission of seized narcotics through documentary evidence, including Register No. XIX entries and Road Certificates as required under Police Rules, 1934 (Rule 22.70 & Rule 22.72, Form 10.17). Failure to comply with these statutory requirements creates serious doubts regarding the integrity of the case property, leading to acquittal. (Asif Ali v. State, 2024 SCMR 1408)(b) Criminal Procedure – Search Warrants & Compliance with Section 20, CNSA, 1997Where a prior tip-off is received regarding drug possession, the prosecution is obligated to obtain a search warrant unless exceptional circumstances exist, as per Section 20, CNSA, 1997. The failure to record the prior information in Register No. II (Rule 22.49(n), Police Rules, 1934) renders the raid illegal and casts serious doubt on the prosecution's case. (Zain Shahid v. State, 2024 SCMR 843)(c) Criminal Law – Forensic Analysis – Violation of Mandatory Testing ProcedureFailure to conduct separate chemical analysis for each recovered sample contravenes Ameer Zeb v. State (PLD 2012 SC 380), where the Supreme Court mandated individual testing of each narcotic sample to ascertain the actual weight and nature of the substance. A single, collective forensic report is unreliable, vitiating the entire prosecution case.(d) Criminal Investigation – Need for Comprehensive Inquiry Beyond PeddlersThe Supreme Court criticized the investigative failures of law enforcement agencies, observing that the Anti-Narcotics Force (ANF) and police focus only on small-scale peddlers, ignoring the broader drug supply chain, manufacturers, and financiers. The Court directed that future narcotics investigations must:1) Trace the origin of narcotics and identify suppliers/manufacturers.---2) Identify intended recipients and financial beneficiaries of illicit drug transactions.---3) Investigate assets and financial gains derived from drug trade.---4) Document efforts to rehabilitate drug abusers.---5) The Court directed all law enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with these directives and recommended disciplinary action against officers failing to adhere to proper investigative procedures.(e) Appeal & Acquittal – Failure of Prosecution to Prove Case Beyond DoubtDue to serious procedural lapses, non-compliance with statutory safeguards, and unreliable forensic analysis, the Supreme Court found the prosecution's case riddled with doubts. The petition was converted into an appeal, the High Court judgment was set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted. The Court reiterated the principle that in cases involving stringent penalties, the highest standard of proof is required. (Ahmed Ali v. State, 2023 SCMR 781; Muhammad Hashim v. State, PLD 2004 SC 856)Disposition: Appeal allowed; conviction set aside; petitioner acquitted.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of three hours and ten minutes in lodging the FIR---Consequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the mother of complainant by firing---Occurrence took place on 02.10.2019 at evening time i.e. 06.30 p.m. and was alleged to have been seen by eye-witnesses and the matter was reported to the police on the same day at night i.e. 09:40 p.m., with the delay of about three hours and ten minutes, despite the fact that police station was just 12 kilometers from the place of occurrence---No reason much less plausible had been given by the prosecution at any stage---In the attending circumstances, the delay in reporting the matter to the police created many suspicions and doubts in the prosecution case particularly when eye-witnesses were not only closely related inter-se to the deceased but also the residents of the same vicinity---In such a situation if eye-witnesses were present at the time and place of occurrence and also witnessed the scene of occurrence then such an inordinate and unexplained delay would never have occurred---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Mehmood Ahmed and others v. The State and another 1995 SCMR 127; Mst. Nazia Anwar v. The State and others 2018 SCMR 911 and Muhammad Nawaz v. The State and others 2024 SCMR 1741 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of nine hours in conducting the postmortem upon the dead body of the deceased---Consequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the mother of complainant by firing---Although as per contents of the FIR, the occurrence took place on 02.10.2019 at 06.30 p.m. and was alleged to have been seen by eye-witnesses and the matter was reported to the police on the same day at 09:40 p.m., but postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased was conducted on 03.10.2019 at 03:20 a.m., i.e., with the delay of 09 hours---In the postmortem report of deceased, the Medical Officer who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased had mentioned probable time between injuries and death as immediate whereas between death and postmortem as 6 to 12 hours---Complainant, in his examination-in-chief, stated that dead body of deceased remained present at the place of occurrence for about 3 ¾ hours and no one lifted it till such period from the place of occurrence---Investigating Officer, in his cross-examination, stated that he reached at the place of occurrence at 10:20/10:25 p.m. and thereafter he conducted investigation at the place of occurrence---Thus, there was obvious delay in sending the dead body to mortuary, as according to postmortem report the police papers were received at 03:15 a.m. at the mortuary and thereafter postmortem examination was conducted at 03:20 a.m.---Keeping in mind that complainant and eye-witness were closely related inter-se to the deceased and also the fact that both those witnesses of ocular account were the residents of the same vicinity, in such a situation if these witnesses were present at the place of occurrence and also witnessed the scene of occurrence then such an inordinate and unexplained delay would never have occurred---So it was also a case of delayed postmortem, which casted serious doubt and the inference could be drawn that the intervening period was consumed in fabricating the prosecution story after the preliminary investigation, otherwise there was no justification for conveying the dead body in the mortuary on the next day at 3.20 a.m., and as to what happened in between, which delayed the postmortem examination for about 09 hours---No explanation at all was available on record for such delay---No doubt, the noticeable delay in post mortem examination of the dead body was generally suggestive of a real possibility that time had been consumed by the police in procuring and planting eye-witnesses before preparing police papers necessary for the same---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Irshad Ahmed v. The State 2011 SCMR 1190; Muhammad Rafique alias Feeqa v. The State 2019 SCMR 1068 and Iftikhar alias Kharoo v. The State 2024 SCMR 1449 rel. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions and discrepancies in the ocular account---Accused were charged for committing murder of the mother of complainant by firing---Occurrence took place at an unpaved/rough road (kham rasta) in a deserted area---On both sides of the road, there were agricultural fields and no residential house, shop, bus stop, petrol pump or any other building had been shown at the spot---Both the eye-witnesses simply stated in their statements before the police, as well as, in their statements recorded by the Trial Court that on the day of occurrence, they were returning back while riding on a motorcycle from the under construction house of the complainant whereas deceased was walking ahead of them---During the investigation, Investigating Officer in his cross-examination admitted that neither he visited the place of under construction house as mentioned in the FIR nor held investigation on the point that whether any under constructed house as mentioned in the FIR existed or not---Investigating Officer further admitted that he did not visit the place of under constructed house in order to fortify the stance of complainant party---Witnesses also failed to bring on record any evidence about their departure from the under constructed house---Said contradictions and discrepancies in the ocular account of the eye-witnesses could not be discarded---Such contradictions had diluted the story of the prosecution, whose case rested on the statements of eye-witnesses, who all were closely related to the deceased---Actually no one else was present at the place of occurrence---Allegedly, third eye-witness was present at the time and place of occurrence but the prosecution did not produce him as a witness rather he was given up as unnecessary---Two unknown accused persons who were also attributed same role to that of the appellant of causing fire arm injuries to the deceased had not come on surface during investigation or during trial and in this way story narrated by the complainant party had also been found false---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (d) Criminal trial--- ----Chance witness, testimony of---Scope---Testimony of chance witness may be relied upon, provided some convincing explanations appealing to a prudent mind for his presence on the crime spot are put forth, when the occurrence took place otherwise his testimony would fall within the category of suspect evidence and could not be accepted without a pinch of salt. Mst. Shazia Parveen v. The State 2014 SCMR 1197; Muhammad Rafique v. The State 2014 SCMR 1698; Naveed Asghar and 2 others v. The State PLD 2021 SC 600 and Abdul Khaliq v. The State 2021 SCMR 325 rel. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Dishonest claim of eye-witnesses---Accused were charged for committing murder of the mother of complainant by firing---Record showed that the blood stained clothes of the eye-witnesses were not taken into possession by the Investigation Officer---Admittedly, no such blood stained clothes of said eye-witnesses had been secured or produced by the Investigating Officer because if those were sent to the Chemical Examiner for examination and grouping with that of the blood stained clothes of the deceased, the same would have provided strongest corroboration to the testimony of the two eye-witness---Such omission struck at the roots of the case of the prosecution and spoke volumes about the dishonest and false claim of the said witnesses---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Mst. Mir Zalai v. Ghazi Khan and others 2020 SCMR 319 and Mst. Sughra Begum and another v. Qaiser Pervez and others 2015 SCMR 1142 rel. (f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Night time occurrence---Source of light not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the mother of complainant by firing---Source of light introduced by the prosecution was that the witnesses witnessed the occurrence in the light of motorcycle---Admittedly, it was a night time occurrence wherein the identity of the appellant and his co-accused was highly doubtful as both the eye-witnesses claimed that they had seen the appellant abusing and thereafter making straight fire shots at the deceased with his co-accused who were armed with pistols in the light of motorcycle---As per seizure memo, motorcycle of the complainant party was taken into possession but while taking into consideration the statement of the investigating officer, it appeared that the motorcycle of the accused was lying on the road at the place of occurrence---Question arose that why the motorcycle of the accused was not taken into possession---Admitted fact on record was that the main source of light i.e. motorcycle on which the complainant and other witnesses were riding was not produced before the Trial Court during the trial---Thus, it was important to point out that when headlight of motorcycle was flashed on the face of a person, it was impossible for the eye-witnesses to see/watch the acts committed in the surroundings what to talk about witnessing the firing by three accused persons, the locale of injuries and the specification of weapons of offence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Kamar Sajid alias Kamar Shahzad v. The State 2016 YLR Note 68; Talib Hussain Jatoi v. The State 2018 YLR 469 and Dargahi v. The State 2023 MLD 1426 rel. (g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Ocular account and medical evidence---Conflictions---Accused were charged for committing murder of the mother of complainant by firing---According to the site plan, deceased, received fire shots from a distance of five feet---Medical Officer, who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased observed that there were burnt margins present on a injury---In case of pistol fire shot burning could occur if the fire shot was made from a distance of within 02 feet---Thus, it could safely be held that the deceased sustained fire shot injury from a distance of 2/3 feet---As per the statements of the eye-witnesses, the deceased sustained six fire shot injuries with pistols but the size of entry and exit wounds were different, therefore, possibility could not be ruled out that different types of weapons were used in the commission of offence---Contradiction in the ocular account of the occurrence as narrated by the prosecution witnesses and the medical evidence furnished by the Medical Officer clearly established that the prosecution hadmiserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Riasat Ali and another v. The State and another 2024 SCMR 1224; Muhammad Idrees v. The State 2021 SCMR 612 and Muhammad Hanif v. The State 2023 SCMR 2016 rel. (h) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the mother of complainant by firing---Although the prosecution had set up a motive that the appellant and his family were demanding the hand of complainant's sister but complainant's mother/deceased refused for which the accused nourished a grudge---Complainant in his cross-examination admitted that “AB” was the same lady with whom motive part was related and “AB” was married prior to alleged occurrence---Complainant further admitted that “AB” got married 20/25 days prior to the alleged occurrence and it was her love marriage whereas the other family members were not happy with her marriage---Other eye-witness admitted in his cross-examination that “AB”, his niece, contracted Court marriage with “YP” about 10/15 days prior to the occurrence---Said witness also admitted that one sister of “AB” was married to the brother of accused who had four kinds---Said witness also admitted that in his presence motive occurrence did not take place---Thus, the prosecution had not established the motive---If the appellant did have motive to kill the deceased, then why did he not do the same in the past when he and his family were demanding the hand of complainant’s sister for the last one year---Thus, in the absence of any other corroborating evidence, it did not appear to be a sound and reasonable motive as stated by the prosecution for the commission of the offence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (i) Criminal trial--- ----Motive not proved---Scope---Prosecution had to suffer if it set up a motive but failed to prove the same. Tajamal Hussain Shah v. The State and another 2022 SCMR 1567 rel. (j) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapon of offence on the lead of accused---Accused were charged for committing murder of the mother of complainant by firing---According to the prosecution case the accused/appellant had succeeded in fleeing away from the place of occurrence along with crime weapon and then on his arrest he was said to have got recovered the crime weapon i.e. .30 bore pistol from an iron box lying in a room of his residential house---Firstly, it was not believable that an accused having committed a serious crime like murder and successfully managing escape along with crime weapon, would keep it safe for its subsequent recovery and use against him as evidence---After the arrest of accused/appellant on 24.10.2019 the crime weapon i.e. pistol .30 bore was shown recovered on his lead and the Forensic Science Agency Report had been received in the positive but the fact remained that when the ocular account was disbelieved such recovery would not be sufficient for recording conviction of an accused on capital charge, because that type of corroborative evidence was always taken into consideration along with direct evidence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Noor Muhammad v. The State 2010 SCMR 97 rel. (k) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Principle---For giving benefit of doubt to an accused a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about guilt of accused is sufficient to make him entitled to such benefit. Khial Muhammad v. The State 2024 SCMR 1490 and Muhammad Ijaz alias Billa and another v. The State and others 2024 SCMR 1507 rel. Mohsin Aman Butt (Defence Counsel at the State expense) for Appellant. Humayoun Aslam, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State. Umar Hayat Bhatti for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 13th March, 2025.