Summary: (a) Educational institution--- ----Examinations---Result, quashing of---Chairman---Powers--Student/candidate (Plaintiff) who appeared and passed Matriculation examination filed a suit challenged quashing of his result vide two letters ('impugned letters') issued by the Disciplinary Committee of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Faisalabad (BISE Faisalabad )---Trial Court dismissed suit of the plaintiff/ student---Appellate / District Court set-aside judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court declaring the impugned letters null and void on basis that proceedings of Disciplinary Committee were not as per law, however, referred the matter to same (Disciplinary Committee ) and directed that inquiry against the student / candidate would be pending and was to be carried out in accordance with law---Validity---It was not disputed that petitioner's (student's) result was notified in 1997 , however, the provisions of R.18 of Chapter V of Faisalabad BISE's Calendar clearly stipulated that power to quash vested in the Chairman, but the respondent-Board had placed on the record no such order ( i.e. order to said effect having been passed by the Chairman)---Even the document exhibited by respondent, (defendant /Board), through which petitioner / plaintiff was eventually intimated about dismissal of his appeal had not been issued by the Chairman---When a thing is to be done in a manner provided under law, the same should be done in that manner and not otherwise---Thus, the Appellate / District Court erred in law as well as facts of the case while passing the impugned portion of judgment of remand resulting in miscarriage of justice ---High Court set-aside the impugned portion of judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court, consequent whereof , the suit instituted by the petitioner stood decreed as prayed for---Revision was allowed, in circumstances. Secretary Ministry of Finance, Finance Division, Government of Pakistan and others v. Muhammad Anwar 2025 SCMR 153; Commissioner Inland Revenue, Large Taxpayers Office, Islamabad v. Pakistan Oil Fields Ltd., Rawalpindi and others 2024 SCMR 853 and Nadir Khan v. Qadir Hussain and others 2024 SCMR 770 ref. (b) Educational institution--- ----Examinations---Result, quashing of --- Evidence against the student / candidate, deficiency of---Student/candidate (plaintiff) who appeared and passed Matriculation examination filed a suit challenging quashing of his result vide two letters ('impugned letters') issued by the Disciplinary Committee of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Faisalabad (BISE Faisalabad )---Trial Court dismissed suit of the plaintiff /student---Appellate / District Court set-aside judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court declaring the impugned letters null and void on basis that proceedings of Disciplinary Committee were not as per law, however, referred the matter to same (Disciplinary Committee) and directed that inquiry against the student / candidate would be pending and same would be carried out in accordance with law---Held: Evidence adduced by the parties revealed that two persons, including Retired Assistant Controller, appearing as witness for respondent-Board during cross-examination had deposed to the effect that petitioner / plaintiff had appeared in the examination fulfilling all requirements without any complaint and was issued certificate rightly---Thus, said particular piece of evidence clearly reflected that respondent-Board had no case against the petitioner/ plaintiff on merits---On the other hand , all the witnesses produced by the petitioner / plaintiff stood the test of cross-examination and remained unscathed; no contradictions were found in their testimony , rather they remained firm with regard to the stance of the petitioner / plaintiff --- There was not a single suggestion put to the petitioner / plaintiff during the cross-examination that he did not appear in the examination or that he procured the result card by employing unfair means --- On the other hand , evidence led by the respondents -Board was full of material discrepancies---Defence witnesses, during their cross-examination , admitted the stance of the petitioner / plaintiff that he(plaintiff) appeared in the examination and passed it and certificate was issued to him and they (witnesses) did not say that petitioner/plaintiff procured certificate by using unlawful means---Courts below while passing impugned judgments and decrees ignored said piece(s) of evidence and committed non-reading and mis-reading of evidence and in such cases interference was permitted in revisonal jurisdiction of High Court---Thus, the Appellate / District Court erred in law as well as facts of the case while passing the impugned portion of judgment of remand resulting in miscarriage of justice ---High Court set-aside the impugned portion of judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court, consequent whereof , the suit instituted by the petitioner stood decreed as prayed for---Revision was allowed, in circumstances. Ahmad Sher v. Sikandar Hayat 2024 SCMR 1624 ref. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XLI---Education institution---Quashing of result by Education Board---Evidence of parties , availability of---Remanding of the case by Appellate Court---Legality---Student/candidate who appeared and passed Matriculation examination filed a suit challenged quashing of his result vide two letters ('impugned letters') issued by the Disciplinary Committee of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Faisalabad (BISE Faisalabad )--- Trial Court dismissed suit of the plaintiff /student---Appellate / District Court set-aside judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court declaring the impugned letters null and void on basis that proceedings of Disciplinary Committee were not as per law, however, remanded the matter to same (Disciplinary Committee) and directed that inquiry against the student / candidate would be pending and was to be out carried in accordance with law--- Validity---Sufficient material was available on record to decide the matter on merits and the parties had already led evidence and the material facts had clearly emerged--- In such like cases remand was not an option rather Court should have decided the case on merits--- Thus, the Appellate / District Court erred in law as well as facts of the case while passing the impugned portion of judgment of remand resulting in miscarriage of justice ---High Court set-aside the impugned portion of judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court, consequent whereof , the suit instituted by the petitioner stood decreed as prayed for---Revision was allowed, in circumstances. 2009 SCMR 1173 ref. (d) Civil Procedure Code ( V of 1908 ) --- ---- O. XLI---Educational institution---Quashing of result by Education Board---Evidence of parties , availability of---Remanding of the case by Appellate Court---Legality---Student/candidate who appeared and passed Matriculation examination filed a suit challenging quashing of his result vide two letters ('impugned letters') issued by the Disciplinary Committee of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Faisalabad (BISE Faisalabad )--- Trial Court dismissed suit of the plaintiff /student---Appellate / District Court set-aside Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court declaring the impugned letters null and void on basis that proceedings of Disciplinary Committee were not as per law, however, remanded the matter to same (Disciplinary Committee) and directed that inquiry against the student / candidate would be pending and should be carried out in accordance with law---Validity---Remand cannot be ordered to improve the case of one party---Parties cannot be relegated to square one---When the complete evidence of the parties was available the Appellate Court should have decided the matter ---Thus, the Appellate / District Court erred in law as well as facts of the case while passing the impugned portion of judgment of remand resulting in miscarriage of justice ---High Court set-aside the impugned portion of judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court, consequent whereof , the suit instituted by the petitioner stood decreed as prayed for---Revision was allowed, in circumstances. Muhammad Younis and others v. Mat. Dolat Bibi and others 2024 MLD 728; Khawaja Javed Mehmood Punjab Small Industries Corporation through Regional Director Rawalpindi and 2 others 2024 CLC 1503; Zarin Qaisar and others v. Ahmad Faraz and others 2009 SCMR 1173; Islam Ud Din through L.Rs and others v. Mst. Noor Jahan through L.Rs, and others 2016 SCMR 986 and Ahmed Sher and others v. Sikandar Hayat and others 2004 SCMR 1624 ref. Anwaar-ul-Haq for Petitioner. Ahmad Sardar Khan along with Muhammad Arshad, Advocate Supreme Court representatives of Respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Date of hearing: 27th February, 2025. Judgment Ch. Sultan Mahmood, J .--- Brief facts of the case are that present petitioner successfully passed his matriculation examination with Roll No.45965 in the year 1997 and he was issued certificate No.45965-SA-L97 by respondent-BISE Faisalabad. On a telephonic information respondent-BISE Faisalabad initiated an inquiry against the petitioner on the allegation that he has procured matriculation certificate by employing illegal means as someone else appeared in his stead. This culminated in quashing of the result of the petitioner/plaintiff and an FIR to that effect was also registered. However, the petitioner/plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Appellate Committee against the order of quashment, which was also dismissed. The petitioner assailed quashing of his certificate and decision of the Appellate Committee through filing a suit for declaration against the respondents before the learned Trial Court, which was resisted by them while submitting contesting written statement. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues vide order dated 07.06.2010:- I. Whether letter No.1327-SD dated 06.12.2008, 307 FSR-ii dated 11.2000,9-ES R-ii dated 20.2.2001, ACER 728 dated 11.09.2000 are against the law and facts, without notice, based mala fide, inoperative upon the rights of the plaintiff, liable to be declared null and void? OPP. II. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get declare his certified issued vide registration No.45965-SA-L97, serial No.033547 as genuine and to use it? OPP. III. Whether this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit in hand under sections 29 and 31 of Board Act? OPD. IV. Whether plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands? OPD. V. Whether the plaintiff's matriculation certificate has been declared nullified? OPD. VI. Relief. Petitioner in order to prove his stance himself appeared as P.W-1 and produced Shahzad son of Muhammad Aslam as P.W.2, Muhammad Iqbal son of Baqar as P.W-3 and tendered roll number slip Exh.P-1, identification sheet Exh.P-2, verification of result card Exh.P-3, transfer order Exh.P-4, transfer order Exh.P-5, letter of controller examination Exh.P-6, report Exh.P-7, report under section 173, Cr.P.C., Exh.P-8, report under section 173, Cr.P.C., Exh.P-9, restoration of secondary school certificate Exh.P-10, report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Exh.P-11, FIR No.147 Exh.P-12, FIR under sections 302/324, P.P.C, Exh.P-13, FIR No.24/2002 Exh.P-14, attested copy of Nakah Nama Exh.P-15, attested copy of petition for cancellation of bail Exh.P-16, transfer letter Exh.P-17, office order Exh.P-18, transfer order Exh.P-19, office order Exh.P-20, transfer order Exh.P-21, pedigree table Exh.P-22, notification dated 16.02.1999 Mark-A, attested copy of suit titled umer Draz v. Muhammad Aslam Exh.P-23, attested copy of written statement Exh.P-24, attested copy of application Exh.P-25, attested copy Exh.P-26, attested copy Exh.P-27, attested copy of inquiry Exh.P-28, attested copy of statement of witnesses Exh.P-29, letter No.304 dated 11.08.2000 Mar-B, letter dated 31.05.2000 Mark-C, order dated 21.09.2000 Mark-D, letter dated 20.02.2011 Mark E, letter dated 11.09.2000 Mark-F, attested copy of application form Exh.P-30 and closed oral as well as documentary evidence. On the contrary, Muhammad Akram son of Ali Muhammad D.W-1, Sultan Sakandar D.W-2, Muhammad Naseem D.W-3 and tendered copy of identity card of plaintiff Exh.D-1, application for Exh.D-2, roll number slip Exh.D-3, order of appointment of inquiry officer Exh.D-4, letter of complaint Exh.D-5, application to SHO Exh.D-6, copy of FIR Exh.D-7, copy of charge sheet Exh.D-8, copy of order dated 10.05.2000 Exh.D-9, copy of application Exh.D-10, copy of metric certificate Exh.D-10/1, postal receipt Exh.D-10/2, copy of order dated 23.05.2000 Exh.D-11, application by plaintiff Exh.D-12, metric certificate Exh.D-12/1, copy of letter dated 31.05.2013 Exh.D-13, application by plaintiff Exh.D-14, copy of postal envelope Exh.D-14/1, copy of order dated 06.06.2000 Exh.D-15, copy of order dated 07.06.2000 Exh.D-16, copy of application by plaintiff Exh.D-17, copy of postal envelope and receipt Exh.D-17/1, copy of letter of inquiry Exh.D-18, copy of order of inquiry Exh.D-19, copy of application Exh.D-20, copy of letter of inquiry dated 09.05.2000 Exh.D-21, copy of application by plaintiff Exh.D-22, copy of application by plaintiff Exh.D-23, copy of inquiry Exh.D-24, copy of application by plaintiff Exh.D-25, copy of appeal Exh.D-26, copy of bank fee challan Exh.D-26/1, copy of postal receipt Exh.D-26/2, copy of letter dated 10.07.2000 Exh.D-27, copy of letter by plaintiff to controller Exh.D-28, copy of letter dated 01.09.2000 Exh.D-29, copy of letter by plaintiff dated 21.09.2000 Exh.D-30, copy of order of appellate committee Exh.D-31, copy of order dated 20.09.2000 Exh.D-32 and closed oral as well as documentary evidence. Learned Trial Court after hearing final arguments vide judgment and decree dated 10.05.2014 dismissed the suit of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was partly allowed by the learned Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 13.05.2017 in the following manner:- "------appeal in hand is hereby accepted and judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court is set aside, impugned letter given in the head note of the plaint of the suit are hereby declared, null and void, in-effective and in-operative upon the rights of the plaintiff because these letters are based on the proceedings of Disciplinary Committee dated 6.6.2000 Ex.P-15 dated 21.9.2000 Ex.P-31, which are against the law, so both these orders are also set aside and inquiry against the appellant is considered to be still pending. The respondents are directed to carry out the proceedings of the inquiry by the Disciplinary Committee strictly in accordance with law and to pass a speaking order." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the grounds urged in the instant civil revision has argued that there was no reason that the matter would have been remanded to the Authority but the appeal should have been decided on its own merits as there is overwhelming evidence which has been ignored. Prays that by allowing civil revision in hand, impugned portion "inquiry against the appellant considered to be still pending. The respondents are directed to carry out the proceedings of the inquiry by the Disciplinary Committee strictly in accordance with law and to pass a speaking order" of the impugned judgment and decree dated 13.05.2017 passed by the learned Appellate Court may be set aside and suit of the petitioner may be decreed as prayed for. 3. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent-Board has repelled the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner and avers that petitioner was provided sufficient opportunity but he did not elect to appear before the competent forum. Although the orders passed by the Disciplinary Committee and Appellate Committee were non speaking but now the proceedings have been remanded back to the lawful forum, which will be decided in accordance with law. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of the civil revision in hand. 4. Heard. Record perused. 5. The relevant provision of law under which the impugned order was passed is Rule 18 of Chapter V of the Rules appearing in the Board's calendar, which is reproduced herein below for the ready reference:- 18. Chairman's power to quash result. The Chairman shall have the power to quash the result of a candidate after it has been declared and cancel the certificate accordingly, if already result issued. 1) If he/she has been disqualified for using unfair means in the examination; or 2) If a mistake is found in his/her result; or 3) If it is found that he/she was not eligible to appear in the examination; or 4) For Fraud, Forgery and Impersonation that may be determined by the Chairman. From the above quoted law, it is not disputed that petitioner's result was notified in 1997 but the above provision of law clearly stipulates that power to quash vests in the Chairman. I have gone through the record but there is no such order placed on the record by the res pondent-Board. Even the Exh-D-32 through which petitioner was eventually intimated about dismissal of his appeal has not been issued by the Chairman. It is also the case of the plaintiff that Exh.D16/1, which was issued by the Controller of the Exam, has not been issued by the Chairman. When a thing is to be done in a manner provided under law, the same should be done in that manner and not otherwise. Reliance in this regard is placed on Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Finance Division, Government of Pakistan and others v. Muhammad Anwar (2025 SCMR 153), Commissioner Inland Revenue, Large Taxpayers Office, Islamabad v. Pakistan Oil Fields Ltd. Rawalpindi and others (2024 SCMR 853) and Nadir Khan v. Qadir Hussain and others (2024 SCMR 770). 6. Apart from the above, D.W-2 Sultan Sikandar appearing as witness for respondent-Board during cross-examination has deposed as under:- Muhammad Naseem Retired Assistant Controller appearing as D.W-3 during cross-examination has deposed that:- This particular piece of evidence clearly reflects that respondent-Board has no case against the petitioner on merits. All the P.Ws. produced by the petitioner stood the acid test of cross-examination and remained unscathed. No contradictions are found in the testimony of P.Ws. rather they remain firm with regard to the stance of the petitioner. There was not a single suggestion put to the petitioner while appearing as P.W-1 in the cross-examination that he did not appear in the examination and he procured the result card by employing unfair means. On the other hand evidence led by the respondents is full of material discrepancies. D.Ws. during their cross-examination admitted the stance of the petitioner that he appeared in the examination and passed it and certificate was issued to him and they did not say that petitioner/plaintiff procured certificate by using unlawful means. Courts below while passing impugned judgments and decrees have ignored this piece of evidence and have committed non reading and mis reading of evidence and in such cases interreference is permitted. 7. Sufficient material is available on record to decide the matter on merits and the parties had already led evidence and the material facts had clearly emerged. In such like cases remand is not an option rather Court should have decided the case on merits. Even otherwise, remand cannot be ordered to improve the case of one party and parties cannot be relegated to square one, when the complete evidence of the parties is available, the appellate court should have decided the matter. 8. In view of the above, learned Appellate Court has erred in law as well as facts of the case while passing the impugned portion of judgment impugned herein, which resulted in miscarriage of justice. Thus, the revision petition in hand succeeds and the same is allowed, impugned portion of judgment and decree dated 13.05.2017 of the learned Appellate Court is set aside, consequent whereof the suit instituted by the petitioner stands decreed as prayed for. No order as to costs. MQ/M-45/L Revision allowed.

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 8 & 54---Suit for possession and injunction---Illegal construction over the plot of the plaintiff---Plaintiff being registered owner of the plot in dispute claimed possession thereof on the ground that the defendant purchased the plot in dispute from a person, who was not actual owner of the same ---Validity---Subject property was leased in the favour of the plaintiff, however, admittedly, no cancellation had been sought of the said lease deed by the defendant---Candid admissions of the defendant sufficiently established that the said defendant had no right title over the subject property---After filing the suit, notices were issued to the defendants, thus, after receipt of the summons, they were aware of the pendency of the suit and execution of the lease deed in favour of the plaintiff and despite a lapse of over 05 years the defendants choose not to file any suit for declaration of his title or the cancellation of the said lease deed---Defendant had most candidly admitted that he was not in possession of any registered instrument, possession or allotment order either in his name or the name of his predecessor---High Court held that plaintiff was the owner of the subject property, thus, issues Nos.1 and 4 were answered in the affirmative and decided in favour of plaintiff---Chain of ownership emanating from the person, from whom the defendant purchased the subject plot, was defective, as the suit property was purchased from a person, who was not the owner of the same---Suit of the plaintiff was decreed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) only, in circumstances. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Arts. 79, 85(5) & 129(e)---Registered documents---Presumption---Under Arts. 79 & 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, presumption is attached to registered documents and they are presumed to be genuine unless proved otherwise. Mst. Nazeeran and others v. Ali Bux and others 2024 SCMR 1271 rel. Jawed Raza for Plaintiff. Gharib Shah for Defendant No. 1. Date of hearing: 27th February, 2025.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 15, 199, 4 & 10-A Freedom of movement—Placement of citizen’s name on Exit Control List (ECL), Passport Control List (PCL), and Provincial National Identification List (PNIL)—Scope and legality—Petitioner’s name was placed on ECL and PCL based on FIRs registered against him without affording any notice or hearing—Petitioner had been granted pre-arrest bail in all such cases—No approval of Federal Government was shown for inclusion of name on PCL as required under Rule 22 of the Passport Rules, 2021—Held, that freedom of movement is a fundamental right guaranteed under Art.15 of the Constitution and cannot be curtailed without due process—Absence of notice, hearing, or lawful authority rendered the action unlawful—Right to liberty and movement includes dignity and the right to travel for lawful purposes such as Umrah—Failure to comply with mandatory procedural safeguards violated Articles 4 and 10-A of the Constitution—Such restrictions, in the absence of cogent justification and legal authority, are repugnant to constitutional protections and liable to be set aside—Petition allowed. Cited Cases: • Syed Zulfiqar Abbas Bukhari v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 2019 Islamabad 316 • Dr. Shireen M. Mazari v. Federation of Pakistan, 2024 MLD 1020 • Rasikh Ellahi v. Federation of Pakistan, 2024 YLR 2616 • Controller General of Accounts v. Fazil Ahmad, 2021 SCMR 800 • Govt. of Sindh v. Dr. Nadeem Rizvi, 2020 SCMR 1 • Messrs Mustafa Impex v. Govt. of Pakistan, PLD 2016 SC 808 • Faisal Maqbool Sheikh v. Federation of Pakistan, W.P. No. 2141/2023

Summary: a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 4, 10-A, 15, 25 & 199 Freedom of movement—Placement of civil servant’s name on PNIL, PCL and restricted lists—Scope and legality—Petitioner, a serving Collector of Customs, challenged inclusion of his name on travel restriction lists without notice or hearing—Name was placed on Passport Control List (PCL) under Rule 22(2)(b) of the Passports Rules, 2021, and on PNIL under FIA Standing Order No. 2/2018 in connection with FIR No. 19/2023 registered under S. 5(2) PCA, 1947, read with Customs Act, 1969 and S. 109, PPC—Held, petitioner was not a fugitive nor accused of any heinous crime as required for PNIL placement—FIA acted mechanically without applying mind or forming opinion independently—Name placed on PCL without approval of Federal Government, in violation of Rule 22 and law laid down in Mustafa Impex case—No show cause notice issued nor any opportunity of hearing afforded—Action held to be arbitrary, mala fide, and lacking lawful authority—Fundamental rights under Arts. 4 (due process), 10-A (fair trial), and 15 (freedom of movement) were infringed—Availability of alternate remedy before Review Committee did not bar exercise of constitutional jurisdiction where violation of fundamental rights was apparent—Petition allowed. Cited Cases: • Govt. of Pakistan and another v. Dada Amir Haider Khan, PLD 1987 SC 504 • Federation of Pakistan v. General (R) Pervez Musharraf, PLD 2016 SC 570 • Federal Government v. Ms. Ayyan Ali, 2017 SCMR 1179 • Sheikh Shan Ilahi v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 2023 Lahore 359 • Messrs Mustafa Impex v. Government of Pakistan, PLD 2016 SC 808

Summary: (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 – Ss. 6, 9(c), 51 – Possession of 3.6 kg charas – Post-arrest bail – Suckling baby in jail with accused – Bail denied ––– Accused, a woman, was found in possession of 3600 grams of charas divided into three packets—The offence falls under Section 9(c) CNSA 1997, punishable with imprisonment not less than nine years—Learned counsel argued for bail on the ground that the accused had her suckling child with her in prison—Held, mere presence of suckling child does not entitle a female accused to bail in narcotics cases unless further inquiry or mala fide is established—Petitioner failed to show any animus by police or doubt on recovery—Held, mothers must also bear responsibility for endangering their children’s welfare by indulging in criminal conduct—Petition dismissed. ----Cited Cases: Mst. Tahira Batool v. The State, PLD 2022 SC 764 Mst. Fursan v. The State, 2022 SCMR 1950 Mst. Nasira Bibi v. The State, PLD 1998 Lahore 146 Mst. Nazo v. The State, 2013 MLD 1860 Malita Syed Shah v. The State, 2009 YLR 1029 Mst. Asiya v. The State, 2023 SCMR 383 Mst. Ishrat Bibi v. The State, 2024 SCMR 1528 (b) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 – S. 497 – Bail in bailable vs. non-bailable offences – Woman accused of narcotics trafficking – No absolute right to bail on ground of gender or parenthood ––– Held, while gender and motherhood may be considered mitigating circumstances, they do not create an absolute right to bail in narcotics cases—Each case must be assessed on its own merits—Where evidence shows clear connection to crime and falls under statutory bar of Section 51 CNSA, bail may be refused despite gender or child welfare arguments. (c) Narcotics – Women as drug carriers – Judicial policy – Deterrence – Public safety: ––– Court observed an increasing trend of women being used as drug carriers by criminal syndicates in hopes of securing bail—Such trends require courts to be vigilant and firm in applying the law—Held, “the hallow of respectability and modesty woven around the traditional woman” cannot be presumed in such serious criminal matters—Courts must treat narcotics offences involving women based on evidence, not presumptions of virtue. Cited Case: Mst. Taj Bibi v. The State, PLD 1989 Quetta 60 (d) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 – S. 51 – Bar on bail – Application to female accused: ––– Section 51 explicitly provides that bail shall not be normally granted in narcotics cases—Court held that this bar is applicable to women as well where sufficient incriminating material connects them to the offence—No exception created under CNSA for women unless falling under categories of further inquiry or legal infirmity in prosecution case. ----Disposition: Bail petition dismissed – Trial Court directed to conclude proceedings expeditiously on day-to-day basis, considering presence of suckling baby with accused in jail.

Summary: Revision Petition Held: The scope of Section-6 of the KP Enforcement of Women's Property Rights Act 2019—Ombudsperson's duty to submit reference to the civil court elaborated in the facts and circumstances of the case. Legal challenges in the implementation of decision by the Ombudsperson in the given circumstances in which the complainant/woman is a joint owner with others explored and viz-a-viz the application of Section-6 of the Act 2019. (Appeal allowed)

Summary: ''The scope of exercise of suo motu jurisdiction in time barred Civil Revisions filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The effect of re-insertion of Article 162-A in the First Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1908 (Punjab Amendment). Argument of unjust enrichment & its scope. The scope and applicability of Order XXII Rule 10 CPC.'' (a) Condonation of Delay and Exercise of Suo Motu Revisional Jurisdiction: --- Limitation Act, 1908, Ss. 5, 14 & 18 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S. 115 – Applicability of Suo Motu Powers in Revisional Jurisdiction Petitioner sought condonation of delay in filing a civil revision petition, citing misconduct of prior counsel and procedural irregularities by the lower court—Held, revisional jurisdiction is corrective and supervisory, exercised at the court's discretion only where material illegality is manifest—Petitioner failed to explain each day's delay, a mandatory requirement under Khushi Muhammad v. Fazal Bibi (PLD 2016 SC 872)—Further, the petitioner cannot claim suo motu revisional jurisdiction as a matter of right—Reliance placed on Hafeez Ahmad v. Civil Judge, Lahore (PLD 2012 SC 400) and Khan Bahadur v. Malook Khan (PLD 2022 SC 482). (b) Effect of Omission of Article 162-A of the Limitation Act: --- Limitation Act, 1908, S. 3 & 29 – Punjab Limitation (Amendment) Act, 2018 At the time of filing the revision, Article 162-A (which previously allowed exclusion of time for obtaining certified copies) had been omitted—Held, limitation must be strictly construed, and the right to file an appeal or revision is governed by the law prevailing at the date of institution—Courts are bound to reject time-barred petitions even if no objection is raised by the office—Reliance placed on Muhammad Ishaq v. State (PLD 1956 SC 256) and Muhammad Saif Ullah Khan v. LDA (PLD 2021 Lahore 168). (c) Wrong Advice of Counsel as Ground for Condonation of Delay: --- Law of Agency – Client's Responsibility for Counsel’s Acts Petitioner argued that delay resulted from collusion between his prior counsel and opposing parties—Held, wrong advice or negligence of counsel is not a valid ground for condonation unless exceptional circumstances exist—Client bears responsibility for the actions of counsel—Reliance placed on Khushi Muhammad v. Fazal Bibi (PLD 2016 SC 872) and Almas Ahmad Fiaz v. Punjab Government (2006 SCMR 783). (d) Unjust Enrichment and Assignment of Rights: --- Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment – Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O. XXII R. 10 Petitioner contended that an intervening party unjustly benefitted from the withdrawal of earlier suits—Held, unjust enrichment claims require a separate suit for restitution—Mere assertion of enrichment is insufficient in revisional proceedings—Further, O. XXII R. 10 applies only where the original litigant explicitly assigns interest to the applicant—Reliance placed on Sui Northern Gas Pipelines v. DCIR (2014 PTD 1939) and Orient Power Co. v. SNGPL (2021 SCMR 1728). ----Disposition: Application for condonation of delay dismissed— Civil revision petition dismissed as time-barred. ----Cited Cases: Hafeez Ahmad v. Civil Judge, Lahore (PLD 2012 SC 400) Khan Bahadur v. Malook Khan (PLD 2022 SC 482) Khushi Muhammad v. Fazal Bibi (PLD 2016 SC 872) Muhammad Ishaq v. State (PLD 1956 SC 256) Muhammad Saif Ullah Khan v. LDA (PLD 2021 Lahore 168) Almas Ahmad Fiaz v. Punjab Government (2006 SCMR 783) Sui Northern Gas Pipelines v. DCIR (2014 PTD 1939) Orient Power Co. v. SNGPL (2021 SCMR 1728)

Summary: (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997: ----S. 9(1)(c)----Possession of narcotics----Bail after arrest----Petitioner apprehended for alleged possession of 1100 grams of heroin for sale----Bail refused by High Court----Standard of proof in narcotics cases must be high due to severe punishments prescribed under the Act----Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt both possession and intent to sell. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984: ----Art. 164----Use of modern devices in evidence collection----Failure of law enforcement to record recovery process on video or take photographs despite judicial directives----Non-collection of digital evidence weakens prosecution case and creates doubt in favor of accused----Reliance solely on police testimony insufficient to meet burden of proof in cases involving severe penalties. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 103----Search and seizure----Non-association of independent witnesses at the time of recovery----Violation of procedural safeguards raises serious concerns regarding fairness of investigation----Absence of independent corroboration further tilts the case in favor of the accused. (d) Administration of justice: ----Presumption of innocence and principle of bail----Courts must ensure that accused persons are not wrongfully incarcerated, particularly in cases where prosecution fails to meet the burden of proof----Ultimate conviction can repair mistaken relief, but prolonged unjust incarceration causes irreparable harm----Bail granted in light of inadequate evidence and judicial directives promoting procedural transparency. ----Disposition: Petition converted into appeal and allowed. Impugned order set aside. Petitioner granted post-arrest bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 200,000 with two sureties. ----Cited Cases: Zahid Sarfaraz Gill v. State (2024 SCMR 934) Manzoor v. State (PLD 1972 SC 81)

Summary: (a) Land Revenue Act, 1967 ----S. 164---Revisional jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue---Scope and exercise of discretion---Impugned order passed by Member (Judicial-VII), Board of Revenue Punjab, cancelling the allotment of land under the Horse Breeding Scheme and remanding the matter for fresh allotment---Validity---Section 164 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, confers wide revisional powers upon the Board of Revenue, allowing interference in any order made by a subordinate officer provided that the Board considers the case fit for interference---However, such power must be exercised in accordance with law and cannot be arbitrarily invoked---The Member Board of Revenue exercised revisional jurisdiction solely based on statements made before him, treating them as admissions without administering oath---Held, that omission to administer oath rendered such statements inadmissible and insufficient to form the basis of a legal determination---Impugned order suffered from jurisdictional overreach and misinterpretation of statutory provisions. Cited Cases: Khuda Buksh v. MBR 1976 SCMR 26 Niaz Begum v. Waris Khan 1995 MLD 690 (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ----Arts. 45 & 113---Admissions in pleadings versus evidentiary admissions---Distinction between judicial and evidentiary admissions---Scope---The Member Board of Revenue relied upon statements made before him as admissions to cancel the allotment, without distinguishing between judicial admissions (those made in pleadings) and evidentiary admissions (those requiring proof)---Held, that judicial admissions are binding, whereas evidentiary admissions can be retracted or explained away---The impugned order erroneously equated the statements with judicial admissions, whereas no such admission was made in pleadings---Further, reliance was placed on statements made in the absence of oath, rendering them weak evidence. Cited Cases: Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam alias Brijram & Ors. (1974) 1 SCC 242 (Indian Supreme Court) Ahmad Khan v. Rasul Shah & others PLD 1975 SC 311 (c) Oaths Act, 1873 ----S. 5---Recording of statements without oath---Effect---Mandatory nature of oath in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings---Validity---No oath was administered to the individuals making statements before the Member Board of Revenue, despite reliance on these statements as admissions---Held, that it is a settled legal principle that testimony recorded without administering an oath is inadmissible and cannot be used to the detriment of the maker---Statements recorded without compliance with statutory requirements lacked probative value and could not form the basis for decision-making. Cited Cases: Sajjad Ahmad and another v. The State 1992 SCMR 408 Ehsan Ellahi Baig v. Muhammad Pervaiz PLD 2018 Lahore 693 National Command Authority v. Miskeen Shah 2020 CLC 2089 (d) Principles of Natural Justice ----Fair hearing---Relevance of policy notes and facts---Wednesbury principle---Unreasonableness as a ground for judicial review---Scope---The Member Board of Revenue, while passing the impugned order, failed to consider the relevant policy notes, legal conditions for allotment, and the eligibility of candidates, instead placing undue reliance on unverified statements---Held, that ignoring material facts and relevant legal provisions while deciding an administrative matter rendered the decision legally flawed---The decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would have reached the same conclusion, thereby violating the Wednesbury principle of unreasonableness, recognized as binding precedent by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Cited Cases: Dr. Akhtar Hassan Khan v. Federation of Pakistan 2012 SCMR 455 Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 (e) Administrative Law ----Quasi-judicial proceedings---Scope of discretion---Misuse of discretionary powers---Effect---Impugned order set aside and case remanded---The Member Board of Revenue acted beyond jurisdiction by cancelling the allotment without proper legal basis and relying on inadmissible evidence---Held, that the order was passed in excess of jurisdiction, violating settled legal principles---High Court exercised judicial review, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the case for a fresh decision strictly in accordance with the law. Disposition: Petition allowed; impugned order dated 27.08.2018 set aside; matter remanded to the Member Board of Revenue for a fresh decision.