Essential requirements

­-Party seeking setting aside of ex parte decree would have to satisfy the Court: firstly, that summons was not duly served on him; or secondly, that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing

Either of the said two conditions was to be fulfilled to set aside the ex parte decree

Not essential that both the conditions should be satisfied simultaneously as the satisfaction of either of the conditions was sufficient in the eye of law to recall the ex parte decree.

Forensic Science Laboratory Report revealed that the same was without protocol as the Office of Chemical Examiner Forensic Science Laboratory also after chemical analysis had submitted a consolidated report declaring all the 18 samples to be "Charas" instead of independent test details regarding each sample as required by law

Report of Chemical Examiner did not show that each sample pertaining to narcotic, allegedly recovered from the accused, had actually been analyzed separately

Evidentiary value of the report of Chemical Examiner had been evaluated in the light of Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, R. 6 of which made it imperative on an analyst to separately mention result of each sample analyzed with full protocols applied thereon along with other details in the certificate issued for test/analysis by laboratory

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

To serve the purposes of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, the report of the Government Analyst must contain three elements, i.e the tests applied; the protocols applied to carry out these tests; and, the result of the test(s)

Once the said three requirements under R. 6 were contained in the Report of the Government Analyst, any ambiguity therein may be resolved by the Trial Court by exercising its power under proviso to S. 510, Cr.P.C.

Said provision stated that the Court may, if it considered necessary in the interest of justice, summon and examine the person by whom such report had been made

Trial Court while examining the said report had the power to summon the Government Analyst in case there was any ambiguity in the said Report and seek clarification thereof

Such clarification could only be based on the existing record of the Government Analyst and did not mean to allow the Government Analyst to conduct a fresh test or prepare another Report, for that would amount to giving the prosecution a chance of filling the gaps and lacunas in the report

Trial Court must also be mindful of the legal position that the per se admissibility of the report i.e. without examining the Analyst (expert) did not vouch for its evidentiary value

Courts were free to examine the contents of the report and to assess its evidentiary value (weight), a matter distinct from its admissibility.

To serve the purposes of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, the report of the Government Analyst must contain three elements, i.e the tests applied; the protocols applied to carry out these tests; and, the result of the test(s)

Report of the Government Analyst which did not specify the protocols of the tests applied did not meet the requirements of the law

Such a Report could not be relied upon for the conviction of an accused. [Context of 'protocols' as explained in the judgment reported as (Ikramullah's case 2015 SCMR 1002, Imam Bakhsh's case 2018 SCMR 2039 and Khair-ul-Bashar's case 2019 SCMR 930) further clarified].

Where an authority was making any order or issuing any directions under powers conferred to it by or under any enactment, then it shall give reasons for making such order or for issuing such direction(s)

Such ingredients were included in definition of "speaking order", being an order that spoke for itself and demonstrated that an adjudicating authority had applied its independent mind to issues and controversy involved in a case

Such requirement was not exclusive to courts but also applied to public functionaries who were duty bound to decide cases after independent application of mind and their orders were obliged to demonstrate reasoning in determination of issue(s) before them.

Prerequisites of valid gift were offer by the donor without any enticement or duress, acceptance of said offer by the donee and delivery of possession under gift to the donee.

Three ingredients of a valid gift included declaration/offer by the donor; acceptance of gift by the donee; and, delivery of possession under the gift

Declaration of gift and delivery of possession had to be established through independent evidence.

Provisions of Art.95 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 were mandatory in nature and court could only presume a power of attorney to be valid if all necessary requirements for execution of the same had been duly fulfilled and where power of attorney was executed or authenticated by functionaries as envisaged in Article 95 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 then Court was bound to presume that the same had been executed by the executant

Definition of "power of attorney" provided in S.2(21) of the Stamp Act, 1899, a power of attorney may be connoted to be a written authorization by which a principal appointed another person as his agent and conferred upon him authority to perform specified act(s) on behalf of such principal

Primary object of an instrument of such nature was to evidence the authority of the agents to third parties with whom the agent dealt and a power of attorney must be strictly construed and perused

Authentication of power of attorney was not merely an attestation of the power of attorney but implied that the person authenticating the same must satisfy himself not only about the identity of executant but also about factum of authentication

Power of attorney executed in a foreign country must be authenticated by any of the authorities mentioned in Art.95 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat and should also fulfill requirements provided under Ss.32 & 33 of the Registration Act, 1908; and could be attested by a competent officer of the Pakistan Embassy in such country

In absence of such requirements being fulfilled, court could not assume that said power of attorney was validly executed and any proceedings initiated on strength of such power of attorney would be nullity in the eye of the law and a person who acted on strength of such power of attorney could be said to be unauthorized person.

Constructive possession of plaintiff coupled with title would also be sufficient for bringing into operation S.9 of Specific Relief Act, 1877.