Here are the updated facts with the court's holdings added for each case:

Case 1: 2005 SCMR 1544 (Raja Abdul Rehman vs. State)

【7†source】
 Incident: In 1991, a narcotics raid was conducted by Inspector
Ghulam Hussain in Landhi Industrial Area, Karachi. A large quantity of
charas (cannabis resin) was discovered in 160 boxes.
 Arrests: Two people were caught packing the drugs, but the property
owner, Raja Abdul Rehman, was implicated later as he owned the
place.
 Legal Proceedings:
o Multiple applications were filed by Raja Abdul Rehman for
acquittal under Section 249-A Cr.P.C.
o Initially, the application was rejected by the First Judicial
Magistrate, but later granted by the Second Judicial Magistrate.
o The prosecution appealed unsuccessfully in the High Court,
followed by a further appeal in the Supreme Court.
 Main Issues: Whether the acquittal under Section 249-A was justified
at a stage when evidence against other co-accused was still pending
and whether the trial magistrate overstepped authority.
 Court Held: The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, finding that the
trial magistrate’s decision was within legal bounds, as no strong
grounds were made to demonstrate that the acquittal order was
shocking, perverse, or scandalous.

Case 2: 2006 PLD 43 (Hakam Din vs. State) 【8†source】

 Incident: In 2003, a dispute over a marriage led to a violent
altercation where the complainant (Mst. Hussan Jan) alleged that
Hakam Din and his family attacked her and her sons. Stones and sticks
were used, and she sustained injuries that led to her death.
 Legal Proceedings:
o Initially charged under lesser offenses (Sections 324, 337), later
escalated to Section 302 (murder) after the death.
o Trial Court sentenced Hakam Din to two years under Section 337-
A but acquitted others.
o Complainants sought enhanced punishment, and Shariat Court
sentenced Hakam Din to ten years imprisonment and diyat
(compensation).
 Main Issues: Flaws in trial procedure, including the premature
recording of evidence and inadequate preparation time for the
accused, led to procedural irregularities and a remand for a fair trial.
  Court Held: The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir found
significant procedural flaws in the trial process. It remanded the case
for retrial, directing strict adherence to legal procedure to ensure a fair
trial for all parties.

Case 3: 2016 YLR 62 (Sikandar Ali Lashari vs. State) 【9†source】

 Incident: In 2014, the applicant, Sikandar Ali Lashari, faced trial for
murder charges under Sections 302, 114, and anti-terrorism provisions.
 Dispute: The accused requested copies of USB and CD recordings
(evidence), which contained a confession and conversations. The trial
court denied this request, stating it could lead to manipulation.
 Legal Arguments:
o Defense argued denial violated the right to fair trial under Article
10-A of the Constitution.
o The prosecution claimed transcripts provided were sufficient for
trial preparation and the original recordings would be presented
in court.
 Main Issues: Whether the accused was entitled to USB and CD copies
under the right to fair trial and Section 265-C Cr.P.C.
 Court Held: The Sindh High Court held that the USB and CD were part
of the case evidence and should have been provided to the accused.
Denying these materials was against the principles of fair trial and
natural justice. The trial court's order was set aside.

Let me know if you need further clarification or additional edits!

Here’s a detailed explanation of the flaws in the trial and the court's holding in Case No. 2
(2006 PLD 43, Hakam Din vs. State):

Flaws in Trial:
1. Premature Evidence Recording:
o The trial court ordered the prosecution to produce evidence
before framing charges and recording the statements of the
accused under Section 265-D Cr.P.C. This violated the standard
procedure, which requires evidence to be presented after the
accused has been informed of the charges against them.
2. Insufficient Time for Defense Preparation:
 o Copies of necessary documents were supplied to the accused on
17th September 2004, but the trial began just three days
later on 20th September 2004, rather than after the
mandatory seven-day preparation period specified under
Section 265-C Cr.P.C.
3. Addition of Charges During Trial:
o After the trial had commenced, additional charges (under
Sections 324 and 337 of the Penal Code) were included on 22nd
September 2004. This alteration midway was seen as a
procedural defect, potentially prejudicing the defense.
4. Skipping Tazkia Procedure:
o For a case involving Islamic Penal Laws, the process of tazkia
(purification of witnesses) under Articles 3 and 17 of the Qanun-
e-Shahadat Order, 1984, was bypassed. This was required to
ensure the credibility of prosecution witnesses but was ignored
by the trial court.
5. Prejudgment by the Court:
o The trial court prematurely concluded that the case was one of
tazir (discretionary punishment) rather than hadd (mandatory
punishment). This decision was made before hearing the defense
or examining the evidence properly, raising concerns of judicial
bias.
6. Violation of the Right to Fair Trial:
o The procedural irregularities undermined the principle of fairness
and neutrality, which is a cornerstone of the criminal justice
system. The flaws indicated that the trial court had a
predetermined approach toward convicting the accused.

What the Court Held:

The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir identified the flaws in trial as significant
violations of procedural law and the right to a fair trial. It held the following:
1. Flaws Violate Mandatory Provisions of Law:
o The court emphasized that procedural requirements, especially
those concerning the rights of the accused, must be strictly
followed. Non-compliance with Sections 265-C, 265-D, and 265-E
Cr.P.C. rendered the trial flawed and invalid.
2. Retrial Ordered:
o The case was remanded for a fresh trial, instructing the trial
court to ensure that all mandatory provisions of the law are
strictly observed. The retrial was to provide sufficient preparation
time to the accused and follow all prescribed procedures.
3. Tazkia Was Mandatory:
 o The court clarified that in cases involving Islamic Penal Laws,
tazkia (witness credibility) is an essential process and cannot be
skipped. A fair evaluation of the evidence must occur to
determine whether the case fell under tazir or hadd.
4. Judicial Responsibility:
o The court reminded lower courts of their duty to act impartially,
uphold the presumption of innocence, and avoid unnecessary
haste in deciding criminal cases. It highlighted that such
irregularities could lead to injustice and undermine public trust in
the judiciary.

Significance of the Judgment:

This case reinforced the importance of procedural fairness in criminal trials, particularly where
grave charges like murder are involved. The judgment also underlined the necessity of adhering
to Islamic Penal Law procedures, reflecting the legal framework of Azad Jammu and Kashmir.
Let me know if further clarification is needed!
Here is the detailed breakdown of facts, legal points, and contentions for the two case laws:

1. PLD 2018 Balochistan 39 (SADULLAH v. THE STATE)

Facts:
1. Case 1:
o The petitioner, Saadullah, was facing trial for murder under
Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code
(PPC).
o The trial court ordered the case to remain dormant due to the
unavailability of material witnesses.
o The accused was released on bail and the case was kept pending
until the evidence could be secured.
2. Case 2:
o Another petitioner, Jan Gul, was accused in a murder case under
Section 302, along with allegations under Sections 147, 148, and
149 of the PPC.
o The trial court passed a similar order to keep the case in
abeyance, citing untraceable witnesses.
o An application under Section 265-K of the Cr.P.C. for dismissal of
the charges was rejected.
3. Key Issues:
o Whether the Sessions Court has jurisdiction to keep cases
dormant under Sections 249 and 344 of the Cr.P.C.
o Whether such delays infringe upon the constitutional rights of
the accused to a fair and speedy trial under Articles 4 and 10-A
of the Constitution.

Legal Points and Contentions:

1. Jurisdiction of Sessions Court under Section 249 Cr.P.C.:
o Section 249 pertains to stopping proceedings in Magistrate trials
but does not apply to trials before Sessions Courts.
o The court found that Sessions Courts cannot indefinitely
postpone cases by keeping them dormant for want of evidence.
2. Fair Trial and Speedy Justice:
o Article 10-A of the Constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial
and due process.
o Prolonged delays in proceedings due to procedural flaws deprive
the accused of their constitutional rights, including mental relief
and economic stability.
3. Power of Courts under Section 344 Cr.P.C.:
o Section 344 allows adjournment of proceedings for a reasonable
and definite period, not indefinitely.
 o The High Court emphasized that allowing indefinite delays could
lead to misuse of judicial power, leaving cases unresolved for
years.

High Court's Decision:

 The High Court declared that keeping cases dormant was outside the
jurisdiction of the Sessions Courts and violated fundamental rights.
 The Court remanded the cases with directions to proceed expeditiously.
 The High Court emphasized that the remedy for procedural gaps lies
with the legislature, not the judiciary.

2. 2020 PCr.LJ 902 (Dr. WAQAR SAEED v. THE STATE)

Facts:
1. Nature of Dispute:
o A private complaint alleged corruption and forgery against Dr.
Waqar Saeed and others under Sections 161, 420, 468, and 34 of
the PPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
o The allegations were related to the illegal transfer of a property
amidst a pending civil suit.
2. Proceedings in Trial Court:
o The Special Judge Anti-Corruption ordered registration of a
criminal case without proper examination of evidence or the
complainant under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.
o The complaint was filed as a tactic to involve public servants in a
civil property dispute.
3. Key Issues:
o Whether the trial court erred in entertaining the private
complaint and initiating criminal proceedings without jurisdiction.
o Whether the High Court could quash such proceedings under
Section 561-A Cr.P.C.

Legal Points and Contentions:

1. Misuse of Criminal Proceedings:
o The High Court observed that the allegations were of a civil
nature, involving property disputes, and did not constitute
cognizable criminal offenses.
o The inclusion of public servants as accused was deemed an
attempt to create jurisdiction for the Special Judge Anti-
Corruption.
2. Requirements under Section 200 Cr.P.C.:
o Section 200 requires examination of the complainant on oath
before taking cognizance of an offense.
 o The trial court’s failure to comply with this procedural safeguard
rendered the complaint defective and void ab initio.
3. Scope of Section 561-A Cr.P.C.:
o The High Court has inherent powers to quash criminal
proceedings that abuse the process of law or fail to secure the
ends of justice.
o Unlike Sections 249-A and 265-K (applicable to
Magistrates/Sessions Judges), Section 561-A provides broader
powers to the High Court to intervene in cases of misuse.

High Court's Decision:

 The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings, declaring them
unlawful and an abuse of judicial process.
 The decision highlighted the importance of differentiating between civil
and criminal jurisdiction.
 The Court cautioned against the misuse of criminal courts to settle
private disputes and directed trial courts to exercise due diligence
when entertaining such complaints.

Conclusion:
Both cases emphasize:
 The judiciary’s responsibility to adhere to statutory limitations and
procedural safeguards.
 The need to prevent the misuse of judicial processes, whether by
delaying criminal trials or using criminal laws to settle civil disputes.
 Upholding constitutional rights, particularly the right to a fair trial and
due process, as central to Pakistan’s legal system.
Let me know if you need more detailed analysis or case law references!