The Lahore High Court’s recently reported judgment in Criminal Revision No. 400 of 2018 (Hafeez Ahmad v. The State, etc.), authored by newly appointed Mr. Justice Muhammad Jawad Zafar, stands as a sterling example of judicial craftsmanship and analytical precision. The decision not only vindicates a citizen’s right to due process but also reinforces fundamental principles of criminal justice. It’s no surprise to those who know Justice Zafar as an outstanding legal mind before he took oath as a judge—his clarity of thought and legal acumen have seamlessly transitioned to the bench.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Hafeez Ahmad, was tried by a Judicial Magistrate in Karor Lal-Eason, District Layyah, for allegedly preparing alcohol in contravention of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hudood) Order, 1979 (PEHO). He was convicted under Article 4 of the PEHO and sentenced to one day till the rising of the court, along with a fine of PKR 2,000. His appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Left with no option, he approached the Lahore High Court through a revision petition.
Core Issues Addressed in the Judgment
Justice Jawad Zafar methodically dissected the case, highlighting several significant lapses in the prosecution’s handling and trial court’s appreciation of evidence. The judgment underscores the indispensable principles of fair trial and due process by focusing on the following key areas:
- Limited Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction, Exceptionally Exercised
Justice Zafar revisited the principles governing revisional jurisdiction under Sections 435 and 439 Cr.P.C., asserting that this power must only be exercised when findings are unsupported by evidence or result from misreading. In this case, he found that both conditions were met.
- Failure to Exhibit Critical Evidence
One of the most glaring defects in the prosecution’s case was its failure to exhibit the recovered articles and documents, including the Punjab Forensic Science Agency (PFSA) report. Justice Zafar meticulously cited the Rules and Orders of the Lahore High Court and relevant case law, notably Aziz Khan v. The State (2023 PCr.LJ 1806), to conclude that unexhibited evidence could not sustain a conviction.
- Breakdown in Chain of Custody
The prosecution did not produce Muhammad Khalid, the constable responsible for transmitting the samples to the PFSA. Justice Zafar referenced the Supreme Court’s judgments, including Ikramullah and others v. The State (2015 SCMR 1002), to highlight the failure in establishing the integrity of the chain of custody—rendering the positive PFSA report ineffective.
- Incriminating Evidence Not Put to the Accused
The judgment reveals that the trial court failed to put the alleged recoveries to the accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C. Without such questioning, any adverse inference could not be drawn. Justice Zafar relied on Abdul Hayee v. The State (2025 SCMR 281), emphasizing that this procedural lapse deprived the petitioner of his right to explain or refute the evidence.
- Failure to Establish Identity
The prosecution’s inability to establish the identity of the accused further compounded the case’s weaknesses. No identification parade was conducted, nor was there any explanation in the FIR on how the accused was identified, leaving his alleged involvement unsubstantiated.
- Right to Acquittal Despite Absence
Justice Zafar brushed aside the objection regarding acquittal in absentia by citing authoritative precedents. He rightly observed that the court, exercising revisional jurisdiction, retains suo motu powers to correct a miscarriage of justice.
- Doctrine of Reasonable Doubt
True to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, Justice Zafar held that even a single reasonable doubt is enough to acquit an accused. He eloquently cited the Supreme Court’s rulings, reinforcing that this benefit is a fundamental right, not a concession.
Final Verdict
Justice Jawad Zafar allowed the revision petition, set aside the convictions of the lower courts, and acquitted Hafeez Ahmad of all charges. His judgment demonstrates an unwavering commitment to justice, rooted in meticulous legal reasoning and adherence to procedural safeguards.
Why This Judgment Matters
This decision is a guiding precedent for lower courts and practitioners alike. It reinforces the necessity of following strict procedures in criminal trials—failure of which can lead to the collapse of prosecution cases. It also signals that under Justice Jawad Zafar’s watch, the Lahore High Court remains steadfast in upholding the sanctity of law and the rights of the accused.
Justice Muhammad Jawad Zafar’s debut judgments at the Lahore High Court have set a high standard for judicial reasoning and fairness. His deep understanding of criminal law and procedure, sharpened over years of distinguished legal practice, shines through in this landmark ruling. If this is an indication of what’s to come, the bar and bench of Pakistan can look forward to a judge who blends brilliance with a deep sense of justice.
By:
Advocate Muhammad Shafique Baloch
www.bestlawyerlahore.com
p
