Summary: When accused was related and already known to the complainant as well as injured/victim but not nominated in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement of injured who was vitally stable at the time of his medical examination then subsequent nomination of the accused through supplementary statements of the complainant and injured require evidential verification during trial of the case. 657Civil Revision- Civil Revision (Against Decree)-Suit for Specific Performance 280-25 MST NASREEN FATIMA VS MUHAMMAD ABBAS KHAN ETC Mr. Justice Masud Abid Naqvi 10- 03- 2025 2025 LHC 3167

Summary: This judgement decides whether amendment to Section 43 of PECA via the 2025 Amendment Act, whereby certain offences have been converted from bailable to non-bailable, is substantive in nature or merely procedural. Based on the above, it is deliberated whether the Amendment Act will have prospective or retrospective applicability. 656Crl. Misc. 77329/24 Muhammad Kashif Shehzad Vs The State etc. Mr. Justice Farooq Haider 11- 03- 2025 2025 LHC

Summary: When as per ocular account, deceased died in the hospital however column No.24 of the inquest report clearly reflects that the dead body was lying in the area of the complainant, then case of the prosecution is bound to fall like the house of cards and benefit will go to convict. 655Crl. Misc.- Post- arrest Bail 10519- B-24 MUHAMMAD RIZWAN VS STATE ETC Mr. Justice Muhammad Jawad Zafar 11- 03- 2025 2025 LHC 846

Summary: Declining Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) indicates a worsening neurological condition due to head injuries, stroke and other brain related issues. 654Murder Reference 2562218.8-

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 337-F(v), 337-D & 34--- Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-hashimah, jaifah, common intention---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Allegations against the accused-petitioner were that he caused injuries to the brother of complainant by firing---Occurrence in this case took place on 23.07.2024 and case was registered on the same day---Petitioner was not nominated in the FIR rather he was nominated through supplementary statement got recorded with considerable delay i.e. on 12.08.2024---Similarly, injured of the case was vitally stable when he was brought in the hospital as per Medico-Legal Examination Certificate but he did not nominate petitioner in his first statement got recorded on 23.07.2024 rather he got recorded statement that occurrence was committed by two unknown accused persons, however, after recording of supplementary statement by the complainant, injured also made supplementary statement on 12.08.2024 while nominating present petitioner as accused---As per FIR, two fire shots hit injured whereas Medico-Legal Examination Certificate of injured reflected that he received entry wound below the umbilicus on right mid clavicular line whereas exit wound was on upper outermost (lateral) region of right gluteus just along the line of right anterior superior iliac spine---When both the parties were related to each other as mentioned in the supplementary statement, then not nominating the petitioner by the complainant in the FIR as well as in first statement of injured rather nominating petitioner as an accused in the case with considerable delay raised eyebrows---In such circumstances supplementary statements of the complainant, injured and witnesses required evidential verification during trial of the case and case of prosecution to the extent of present petitioner, at present, required further probe/inquiry within the purview of subsection (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C---Petitioner was arrested in the case on 28.08.2024, sent to jail on 31.08.2024 where he was confined---Mere detention of the petitioner in lockup for an indefinite period would not serve any useful purpose to the case of prosecution---Bail could not be withheld as advance punishment---In such eventualities, case for grant of post-arrest bail to the petitioner had been made out---Bail was allowed, in circumstances. Lal Marjan and another v. Islam Gul and others 2021 SCMR 301; Haider Ali v. The State and others 2021 SCMR 629; Husnain Mustafa v. The State and another 2019 SCMR 1914 and Noor Muhammad v. The State and another 2020 SCMR 1049 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Bail, grant of---Principle---It is better to err in granting bail than to err in refusal because ultimate conviction and sentence can repair the wrong resulted by a mistaken relief of bail. Chairman, National Accountability Bureau through P.G., NAB v. Nisar Ahmed Pathan and others PLD 2022 SC 475 rel. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Bail order---Observations of Court---Scope---Observations made in a bail order are just tentative in nature, strictly confined to the disposal of bail application and should have no bearing upon trial of the case. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Jalal for Petitioner. Haroon Rasheed, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State along with Mumtaz, ASI and record of the case. Habib Ullah Bhatti for the Complainant/Respondent No. 2 in the Petition. Order Farooq Haider, J .--- Through instant petition, Muhammad Kashif Shehzad (petitioner/accused) has sought post-arrest bail in case arising out of FIR No.301/2024 dated: 23.07.2024, registered under Sections: 324, 34 P.P.C (during investigation offences under Sections: 337-F(v), 337-D P.P.C were added subsequently) at Police Station: Noorpur, District: Khushab. 2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Deputy Prosecutor General and going through the available record with their able assistance, it has been noticed that briefly, as per Crime Report (FIR) got recorded by Shahzad Amjad (complainant), on 23.07.2024 at about 08:20 p.m., two unknown accused persons came on a motorcycle (features of accused persons have been mentioned in the FIR), accused person who was sitting on the rear seat of motorcycle fired two successive shots with pistol 30-bore at Waqas Amjad (brother of the complainant), one fire shot hit below umbilicus on right side whereas second fire shot hit on right flank, unknown accused persons while riding on motorcycle and brandishing pistol fled away. On Court's query, learned Deputy Prosecutor General under instructions of police official (present before the Court) and after himself going through the available record apprises that on 12.08.2024 Shahzad Amjad (complainant) nominated present petitioner through supplementary statement while mentioning therein that he got registered case against unknown accused persons, has been searching for the accused persons of his own, now he is having suspicion on Kashif Shehzad with whom he has (close relationship Muhammad Kashif Shehzad went to related person namely Altaf son of Ghulam Habib with whom at that time Kamran Hayat son of Khizar Hayat was also present there, Kashif Shehzad said to Altaf that he was having suspicion that Waqas Amjad talks to his mother on phone whereas his friendship was with younger brother of Waqas Amjad who refrained his brother to stop talking with him, he called his relative namely Majid and fired shots at Waqas Amjad, his fire shot hit Waqas Amjad whereas shot fired by Majid went ineffective he was having suspicion that Waqas Amjad has identified them and asked for pardon from complainant party; Altaf and Kamran Hayat told aforementioned facts to the complainant. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General further submits that Altaf and Kamran Hayat also got recorded their statements to the investigating officer under Section: 161 Cr.P.C. in support of aforementioned supplementary statement of the complainant; further adds that Waqas Amjad also got recorded his statement to the investigating officer; also submits that Waqas Amjad first got recorded his statement under Section: 161 Cr.P.C. on 23.07.2024 which was according to the contents of the First Information Report and he did not nominate any accused in the same, however, after recording aforementioned supplementary statement of complainant, Waqas Amjad (injured) also got recorded his further statement on 12.08.2024 while mentioning therein that he was having suspicion from the day one that Kashif Shehzad has fired shots at him as he was suspecting that he (Waqas Amjad) was having contact with his mother but due to fear and shame he did not mention name of Kashif Shehzad at the spot and subsequently they have attained the satisfaction that Kashif Shehzad after suspecting that he (Waqas Amjad) has identified him, has made confession before Altaf and Shahzad Amjad; further apprises that when Waqas Amjad was taken in injured condition to the hospital, he was vitally stable as per his Medico-Legal Examination Certificate and there is one entry wound and one exit wound on the body of Waqas Amjad (injured). Occurrence in this case took place on 23.07.2024 and case was also registered on the same day i.e. 23.07.2024. Petitioner is not nominated in the FIR rather he was nominated through supplementary statement got recorded with considerable delay i.e. on 12.08.2024; similarly injured of the case was vitally stable when he was brought in the hospital as per Medico-Legal Examination Certificate but he did not nominate petitioner in his first statement got recorded on 23.07.2024 rather he got recorded statement that occurrence was committed by two unknown accused persons, however, after recording of supplementary statement by the complainant he (Waqas Amjad, injured) also made supplementary statement on 12.08.2024 while nominating present petitioner as an accused. As per first information report, two fire shots hit Waqas Amjad (injured) whereas Medico-Legal Examination Certificate of Waqas Amjad reflects that he received entry wound below the umbilicus on right mid clavicular line whereas exit wound is on upper outermost (lateral) region of right gluteus just along the line of right anterior superior iliac spine. Though pistol was recovered from the petitioner, however, any report of Forensic Science Agency regarding matching of empties secured from the place of occurrence with said pistol is still awaited as apprised by learned Deputy Prosecutor General. When both the parties i.e. petitioner and complainant are related to each other (as mentioned in aforementioned supplementary statement), then not nominating the petitioner by the complainant in the FIR as well as in first statement of injured rather nominating petitioner as an accused in the case with considerable delay (as detailed above) raises eyebrows and in such circumstances supplementary statement of the complainant, supplementary statement of Waqas Amjad (injured) and statements of Altaf and Kamran Hayat require evidential verification during trial of the case and case of prosecution to the extent of present petitioner, at present, requires further probe/inquiry within the purview of subsection: (2) of Section: 497 Cr.P.C., in this regard, guidance has been sought from the cases of "Lal Marjan and another v. Islam Gul and others" (2021 SCMR 301), "Haider Ali v. The State and others" (2021 SCMR 629), "Husnain Mustafa v. The State and another" (2019 SCMR 1914) and "Noor Muhammad v. The State and another" (2020 SCMR 1049). Petitioner was arrested in the case on 28.08.2024, sent to jail on 31.08.2024 where he is confined till now; in aforementioned circumstances, mere detention of the petitioner in lockup for an indefinite period would not serve any useful purpose to the case of prosecution. Bail cannot be withheld as advance punishment. By now it is also well settled that it is better to err in granting bail than to err in refusal because ultimate conviction and sentence can repair the wrong resulted by a mistaken relief of bail; in this regard, case of "Chairman, National Accountability Bureau through P.G., NAB v. Nisar Ahmed Pathan and others" (PLD 2022 Supreme Court 475) can be advantageously referred and its relevant portion from Page No(s). 480-481 is reproduced: - "To err in granting bail is better than to err in declining; for the ultimate conviction and sentence of a guilty person can repair the wrong caused by a mistaken relief of bail, but no satisfactory reparation can be offered to an innocent person on his acquittal for his unjustified imprisonment during the trial," When all the aforementioned factors are taken into consideration in totality then case for grant of post-arrest bail to the petitioner has been made out. 3. In view of what has been discussed above, instant petition filed by the petition for grant of post-arrest bail is accepted and he is admitted to bail in the case subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial court. 4. It goes without saying that observations mentioned above are just tentative in nature, strictly confined to the disposal of instant bail petition and will have no bearing upon trial of the case, which will be concluded by the trial court expeditiously. Needless to add that if petitioner or anybody else acting on his behalf creates any hurdle in the way of conclusion of trial, then state as well as complainant would be at liberty to move this Court for recalling of this order. JK/M-52/L Bail granted.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 561-A--- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 100 & 397 --- Inherent powers of High Court---Quashing of order---Judicial Magistrate, after taking cognizance of the case, directed the Investigating Officer to register the FIR against the complainant---Scope---Complainant got lodged FIR under S.397, P.P.C.,against the accused persons---Complainant fired upon accused in self defence, due to which one accused died whereas other sustained injuries---After usual investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted challan against the accused and furnished his report that the applicant had acted in his defence therefore, S.100, P.P.C., was applied but the Judicial Magistrate had not considered all the said facts and directed the Investigating Officer to register the FIR against the applicant for committing murder of the deceased/accused---Validity---From perusal of impugned order, it revealed that on one hand Magistrate had taken the cognizance against accused for offence under S.397, P.P.C., and sent up case for disposal in accordance with law as the offence under S.397, P.P.C., was exclusively triable by Sessions Court---Case sent up for trial was proceeded against the accused and after a full-fledged trial, trial Court convicted co-accused/respondent and sentenced him R.I for seven years---On the other hand, Magistrate directed the Investigating Officer to registered the FIR against applicant/complainant for committing murder of deceased accused---Surprisingly, Magistrate denied the plea of self-defense and directed the SHO to register the FIR, without any substance and had not considered the fact that applicant had fired on the accused after the accused fired on him while fleeing after robbing the applicant---Even otherwise two FIRs of the same incident could not be registered---Thus, it appeared that the order passed by Magistrate was unjustified and unwarranted, thus the impugned order passed by Magistrate to the extent for registration of the FIR against the applicant/complainant was set-aside---Criminal Revision Application was allowed, in circumstances. PLD 2018 SC 595 rel. Mudasir Iqbal for Applicant. Neel Parkash, Assistant Prosecutor General Sindh, for Respondent. Order Shamsuddin Abbasi, J .--- Applicant Mehdi Ishaque is the complainant in FIR No.532 of 2020 registered with P.S Awami Colony, Karachi for offence punishable under Sections 397, 100 and 34 P.P.C. The brief facts as depicted in the impugned order, reads as under;_ "Brief facts of the case are that the FIR has been registered against the accused namely Arshad @ Arshi son of in connection to FIR No 532/2020 under section 397 P.P.C in which complainant namely Mhendi Ishaq son of M.Ishaq resident of H.No N-465 Korangi No. 3 1/2 Karachi. Reported and stated he is working as a school administration at dated 21-10-2020 at 1020 hrs complainant reached at place of offence N-Area, Korangi No. 3 _ Karachi near Madni Masjid. Suddenly 2 unknown accused were coming on M/C duly with arms and snatched cash Cash:4000/- and Mobile Phone Cash:4000/- and Mobile Phone from complainant and his friends namely Yasir after snatching accused fired upon the complainant and his friend and then were escaping from the scene meanwhile the complainant fired upon accused in self-defense from his 9MM license pistol No:T-1102-13E-12499 which resulted, the back side accused got hit with bullet and fall down from Motorcycle, and co-accused also got hit with bullet and fall down from Motorcycle, and co-accused also got injuries and then escaped from scene by throwing his pistol on his motorcycle thereafter complainant inform the Police who after few minutes arrived on the spot meanwhile injured accused dead at the spot. D/O ASI Mumtaz Gondal search to dead accused and recovered one pistol 30 bor with 2 round alive and one pistol co-accused snatching amount 2500/- one wallet contain Cash:1300/- and 2 CNIC Copy, one super market card 3 cordage 9MM one cordage 30 bor after legal proceedings dead body accused shifted to JPMC after postmortem MLO Dr. Imran verify the dead of accused and shifted to dead body of accused by Ambulance No:240 driver Shokat in Cheapa Charnal House. Hence the FIR." Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is illegal and unjustified for the reason that applicant/complainant has acted in his defense plea and accused sustained injuries. After usual investigation, the concerned police submitted challan against the accused and the I.O furnished his report that the applicant has acted in his defense, therefore, section 100 P.P.C was applied but the learned Magistrate has not considered all these facts and directed the I.O to register the FIR against the applicant/complainant for committing murder of deceased/accused Arshad @ Arshi as well as for causing injuries to the co-accused Khizaryuddin; that the learned trial Court has proceeded in the case and convicted the co-accused / respondent No.5 Khizaruddin and found him guilty and sentenced for seven years. Learned counsel for the respondent is called absence without intimation. Same was the position of last three dates of hearing viz. 16.12.2024, 17.12.2024 and 16.01.2025. Learned Assistant P.G, Sindh submits that since after full-fledged trial, respondent No.5 was convicted and sentenced for seven years, which shows that the FIR was lodged against respondent No.5/co-accused was justified, therefore, he does not support the impugned order dated 12.11.2020. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Assistant P.G, Sindh and perused the material available on record. Per FIR, co-accused Khizaruddin along with co-accused deceased Arshad alias Arshi came at the scene and committed the robbery from the complainant. The complainant also possess a licensed weapon of 9 mm pistol and firing took place between the applicant and accused party where two persons from accused side had sustained fire arm injuries at the hands of complainant, in his self-defense. The plea of self-defense has been considered by the I.O and he furnished required report before the learned Magistrate against the accused in terms of section 173 Cr.P.C. I.O found incident as genuine and he considered the plea of self defense of applicant/complainant. From perusal of impugned order, it reveals that on one hand learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance against accused for offence under Section 397 P.P.C and sent up case for disposal in accordance with law as the offence under Section 397 P.P.C is exclusively triable by learned Sessions Court. The case sent up for trial was proceeded against the accused and after a full-fledged trial, learned trial Court convicted respondent No.5/accused and sentenced him R.I for seven years. On the other hand, learned Magistrate directed the I.O to registered the FIR against applicant / complainant for committing murder of co-accused Arshad alias Arshi. I am surprised with the order of learned Magistrate who denied the plea of self-defense and directed the SHO to register the FIR, without any substance and has not considered the fact that applicant had fired on the accused after the accused fired on him while fleeing after robbing the applicant, even otherwise two FIRs of the same incident cannot be registered in view of Sughra Bibi case registered in PLD 2018 SC 595. It appears that the order passed by learned Magistrate is unjustified and unwarranted, therefore, instant Criminal Revision Application is hereby allowed and the impugned order passed by learned Magistrate to the extent for registration of the FIR against the applicant / complainant, is hereby set-aside. JK/M-54/Sindh Revision allowed.

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S.42---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 3 & First Sched. Art. 120---Correction of father's name in Computerized National Identity Card [CNIC] sought---Delay in seeking such correction, effect of---The petitioner filed a suit against National Database and Registering Authority (NADRA) seeking correction of his father's name on his CNIC---The Trial Court decreed the suit in his favour based on supporting documents and a DNA test, however, the appellate court dismissed the suit on the point of limitation---The core issue in the case was the significant delay in filing the suit---Held: The applicant was well aware of the discrepancy in his CNIC as early as 2009 when he first received it---From the court's perspective the law could not bend just because the petitioner now had evidence that may have supported his case---Legal processes were meant to be timely, and the petitioner's failure to address the issue within a reasonable period outweighed the strength of his claim---This delay was critical because, under the law, clear time frames within which a person must file a suit had been provided---If the claim was not raised within the prescribed period, it would be considered as time-barred, meaning thereby that the petitioner would lose the right to have the case heard, regardless of merit of the argument---This factor was significant in the present case where the applicant had reached forty-one years of age---If every case with late filings was allowed to proceed, the judicial system would be overwhelmed, and the principles of fairness and efficiency would break down---Limitation periods are there to prevent exactly that to make sure that people do not sit on their rights for too long---The revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances. (b) Administration of justice--- ----Justice is not just about the facts of a case, but about ensuring that disputes are settled in a timely and orderly manner. Jaleel Ahmed Memon for Applicant. Safdar Kamal for Respondents-NADRA. Ahmed Ali Shahani, Assistant Advocate General, Sindh. Date of hearing: 11th March, 2025.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 199---Writ of mandamus---Waiting list---Scope---Petitioner's entitlement to appointment against resultant vacancy---Petitioner, standing first on the waiting list, applied within the validity period after selected candidate failed to join---Respondent department failed to request substitute from waiting list and conducted fresh recruitment during pendency of petition---Held, administrative department is obligated to act fairly and recommend next candidate from waiting list where vacancy occurs during validity period---Expiry of waiting list validity period, caused by departmental inaction, cannot prejudice rights of petitioner---Writ petition allowed and appointment directed accordingly. (b) Service Law ----Waiting list---Principles governing---Where a vacancy occurs due to non-joining or resignation of selected candidate, next eligible candidate on waiting list must be considered for appointment within validity period---Department's failure to act within validity period amounts to arbitrary and unfair administrative practice---Fresh recruitment during pendency of waiting list without justifiable reason illegal---Petitioner cannot suffer for lapse attributable to departmental inertia---Doctrine of legitimate expectation applies. (c) Administrative Law ----Fairness and transparency---Obligation of administrative departments---Departments must act consistently and uniformly across regions in applying recruitment policies---Selective application or arbitrary deviation from practice without justification violates principles of equality and merit---Failure to timely decide application from candidate on waiting list renders administrative action unfair and liable to be set aside. Cited Cases: • The Secretary Punjab Public Service Commission v. Aamir Hayat (2019 SCMR 124) • Government of Punjab through Secretary Cooperative Societies v. Asad Abbas (2022 SCMR 739) • Asad Abbas v. Government of the Punjab (2024 PLC (C.S.) 142) • Shabana Akhtar v. District Coordination Officer, Bhakkar (2012 PLC (C.S.) 366) • Rafaqat Ali v. Executive District Officer (Health) (2011 PLC (C.S.) 1615) • Dr. Sumera Tabassum v. F.P.S.C. and others (2016 SCMR 196)