Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 2,435 judgments in total from the Federal Shariat Court.

• In Re: the North-West Frontier Province Urban Planning Ordinance,1992 PLD Federal Shariat Court 512 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-04-30Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Saifullah vs Federal Government1992 PLD Federal Shariat Court 376 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-02-20Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Ismail vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 988 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-01-26
  confiscation of vehicleheroin smugglingprohibitionsupurdginamanotice to ownercontraband transport
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed under Article 203-DD of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against the judgment of a Section 30 Magistrate, Rawalpindi, which confiscated a bus used to transport 47 kilograms of heroin. The petitioner, claiming to be the owner of the bus, argued that the vehicle could not be confiscated without prior notice to him. The Federal Shariat Court examined Articles 14 and 15 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979. It held that Article 14 makes any vehicle used to carry contraband liable to confiscation, and Article 15(1) empowers the trial court to order confiscation even if the accused is acquitted. The Court distinguished cases requiring notice, clarifying that under Article 15(2), notice to the owner is only mandatory when the offender is unknown or cannot be found. Since the offenders in this case were known, tried, and one had claimed ownership during the trial while the petitioner remained silent, no notice was required. The revision petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is a trial court empowered to confiscate a vehicle used for transporting contraband under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 even if the accused is acquitted?
  • Is prior notice to the registered owner of a vehicle mandatory before its confiscation when the actual offenders are known and tried?
  • Does the delivery of a vehicle on Supurdginama constitute proof of ownership for the purpose of preventing confiscation?
  Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Ahmad Khan, Senator vs Province of Punjab through Secretary, Cooperative Government of Punjab1992 PLD Federal Shariat Court 538 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Gulzar Ahmad Khan And 2 Other vs Province of Punjab And Other1992 PLD Federal Shariat Court 535 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-06-30Read full judgment →
• Gulzaman Khan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1635 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-03-18Read full judgment →
• Gulistan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2383 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-05-10Read full judgment →
• Gulab Sher And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1835 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2394 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-05-31
  criminal appealunlawful detentionZina OrdinanceSection 164 statementevidence admissibilityQanun-e-Shahadatprosecution evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for the alleged unlawful detention of a woman. The core legal question was whether a conviction could be sustained based primarily on a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the alleged victim was never produced as a witness in court. The Federal Shariat Court held that the conviction was unsustainable. The Court ruled that a statement recorded under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot be treated as substantive evidence if the maker of the statement is not examined as a witness during the trial, and the conditions for admitting such evidence under Article 47 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 were not satisfied. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to establish the essential elements of enticing or detaining with criminal intent. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, noting that the absence of the victim's testimony proved fatal to the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Can a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be read as evidence if the witness is not examined in court?
  • What are the requirements for admitting a witness's prior statement under Article 47 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984?
  • Does the failure to produce the alleged victim as a witness in a criminal trial render the prosecution's case fatal?
  Read full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabads vs Zafar Awan, Advocate, High Court1992 PLD Supreme Court 72 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-11-30
  public servant prosecutionprior sanctionIslamic Injunctionsaccess to justicejudicial reviewrepugnancyaccountability of public servants
  Summary & questions settled

  The Federation of Pakistan appealed against a Federal Shariat Court judgment declaring Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and Section 6(5) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958 repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. The core legal question was whether statutory requirements for prior government sanction to prosecute public servants for acts performed in the discharge of official duties violate Islamic principles of equality and access to justice. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that these provisions create an unguided, absolute impediment to an aggrieved party's right to seek judicial redress. The Court held that while the legislature may establish specialized forums for administrative accountability, it cannot grant immunity or restrict access to justice through arbitrary executive discretion. The foundational principle laid down is that public power is a trust, and all functionaries must be accountable; therefore, any law shielding public servants from judicial scrutiny without providing a regulated, independent avenue for redress is repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. The Court extended the deadline for legislative amendment to June 30, 1992.

  Questions settled

  • Are provisions requiring prior government sanction for the prosecution of public servants repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam?
  • Does the requirement of prior sanction for prosecuting a public servant constitute a procedural matter or a substantive right?
  • Can the legislature establish exclusive forums for adjudicating claims against public servants without violating the right to seek judicial redress?
  Read full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan Through Regional Director, Pakistan Narcotics1992 P Cr. L J 1811 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-03-11Read full judgment →
• DR. Mahmood-Ur-Rahman Faisal and Another vs Secretary, MinistryK.L.R. 1992 Shariat Cases 1 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Ch. Sarwar Hayat vs Province of Punjab Through Secretary, Cooperative Government Of PunjabAnd 2 Other1992 PLD Federal Shariat Court 537 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Malik Saikhu vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1977 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-05-27Read full judgment →
• Capt. (R) Mukhtar Ahmad Shaikh vs Government of Pakistan1992 PLD Federal Shariat Court 524 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-04-19Read full judgment →
• Bakht Jehan vs The State- -1992 P Cr. L J 644 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-12-12Read full judgment →
• Amir Amanullah Khan vs Raza Muhammad and another-1992 P Cr. L J 1296 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-02-26Read full judgment →
• Akbar Hussain Alias Bundoo vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1823 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-03-17Read full judgment →
• Zahir Ud Din vs The State1991 SCMR 958 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-02-16Read full judgment →
• Yousaf Masih vs The State1991 P Cr. LJ 711 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-12-19Read full judgment →
• The State vs Abdul Rashid1991 P Cr. L J 633 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-11-27Read full judgment →
• The State vs Abdul Bari and 4 others1991 MLD 240 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-09-30Read full judgment →
• Sulkhan Masih and anothers vs The State1991 MLD 1174 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-03-04Read full judgment →
• Sikandar vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1433 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-05-09Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Ahmad vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 794 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-09-26Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah vs The StatePLD 1991 Federal Shariat Cou · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-06-12Read full judgment →
• Sahibzada And Another vs The State1991 SCMR 895 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-02-23Read full judgment →
• Saeed Shah vs The State1991 PLD Federal Shariat Court 66 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-03-11Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 448 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-11-28Read full judgment →
• Qamaruddin vs The State1991 MLD 2557 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-06-16Read full judgment →
• Sher Zada vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1845 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-06-20Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2140 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-08-20Read full judgment →
• Niaz Gul vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 705 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-01-27Read full judgment →
• Naseer Ahmad vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 574 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-11-21Read full judgment →
• Multan Shah vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 888 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-02-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob And 3 Others vs The State and 4 others-1991 P Cr. L J 564 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-11-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Waqar vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 197 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-08-05
  fair trialright to counselcapital sentencecross-examinationexpert witnessremandlegal aid
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court under Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether a trial for a capital offense can proceed when the accused is effectively unrepresented during the examination of a material expert witness, thereby denying the opportunity for cross-examination. The Federal Shariat Court held that the trial was vitiated by the lack of a fair trial, as the appellant was prejudiced by the absence of legal assistance during the testimony of a crucial medical witness. The Court established the principle that in cases punishable by death, the trial court is under a mandatory obligation to ensure the accused has legal representation. If defense counsel is absent, the court must adjourn proceedings and, if necessary, appoint counsel at State expense. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the case was remanded for retrial, with specific directions to recall the medical witness for cross-examination and to properly record the accused's statements.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial for a capital offense proceed if the accused is unrepresented by counsel during the examination of a material witness?
  • Is a trial court obligated to appoint defense counsel at State expense if the accused cannot afford one in a capital case?
  • Does the failure to provide an opportunity for cross-examination of a material expert witness due to the absence of defense counsel constitute a negation of a fair trial?
  • Does the court have the power under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to recall and re-examine a witness to ensure a just decision?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Taj Alias Jalably vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 635 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-01-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 630 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-03-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2251 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-05-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Roshan and anothers vs The State1991 MLD 1490 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-04-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam vs Mehboob Iqbal And 2 Others1991 P Cr. L J 651 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-01-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashiq vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2267 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-05-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nawab Bibi Alias Babo vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 935 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-03-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naheed Mehmood alias Shabo vs Mehmood Khan and another1991 PLD Federal Shariat Court 131 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-04-22
  QazfZinaHadd punishmentcriminal revisionrelevancy of evidencecross-examinationpreliminary inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed under Article 203-DD of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging the acquittal of the respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge (Hudood Court) in a complaint case alleging the offence of Qazf. The petitioner, the respondent's wife, alleged that the respondent falsely accused her of Zina (illicit sexual relations) on three occasions: in an F.I.R. filed against her, during bail proceedings, and by spreading rumors in the locality. The Federal Shariat Court examined the evidence, noting that the petitioner failed to substantiate the allegations. Specifically, the court found no proof of the alleged statements made in the F.I.R. or during bail hearings, and the testimony regarding the neighborhood propaganda was hearsay, as no independent witnesses from the locality were produced. Furthermore, the court rejected the petitioner's attempt to rely on a statement recorded during a preliminary inquiry under Section 200, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the respondent had no opportunity to cross-examine the witness, rendering Section 47 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984 inapplicable. The revision petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Can a statement recorded during a preliminary inquiry under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be admitted as evidence in a subsequent trial if the adverse party had no opportunity to cross-examine the witness?
  • Does the mere allegation of illicit relations in an F.I.R. or during bail proceedings constitute the offence of Qazf?
  • What are the mandatory requirements for admitting previous testimony under Section 47 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hussan Bibi And Another vs The State-1991 P Cr. L J 677 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-01-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Faridan And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 968 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-03-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fatima vs The State1991 MLD 2561 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-03-12Read full judgment →
• Mooso vs The State and 2 others1991 MLD 173 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-10-16Read full judgment →
• Mehr Khan And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 35 · Federal Shariat Court · 1989-12-18Read full judgment →
• La. Sharwani vs Government of Pakistan1991 MLD 2613 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-11-11Read full judgment →
• Khan Zaman vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 928 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-03-14Read full judgment →
• Khalid Iqbal vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 443 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-11-19
  narcotics transportationcharas and heroinadverse inferencecolumn no.2 challanmerger of sentencesprohibition ordercriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad, whereby the appellant Khalid Iqbal was convicted for the transportation of 185 K.G. of Charas and 7 K.G. of heroin under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The core legal questions involved whether the trial court correctly evaluated the evidence regarding the appellant's role as the driver of the vehicle carrying narcotics, the propriety of summoning an accused placed in Column No.2 of the police report, and whether separate convictions and sentences could be recorded under different clauses of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 for a single transaction involving multiple narcotics. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, particularly drawing an adverse inference under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 for the appellant's failure to depose on oath in support of his defense. The Court further laid down the principle that where multiple narcotics are transported or possessed in a single transaction, punishments for lesser offenses merge into the major offense carrying an enhanced sentence, rather than resulting in separate convictions. The conviction under Article 3(1)(a) was accordingly set aside while the conviction under Article 3(2) was maintained with a modified sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Must a trial court independently apply its mind before summoning a person placed in Column No.2 of the challan by the investigating agency?
  • Does the failure of an accused to depose on oath under section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 warrant an adverse inference when a different version is claimed?
  • Whether an offender charged with transporting multiple narcotics in a single transaction can be punished separately for each narcotic or if lesser offenses merge into the major offense carrying enhanced punishment?
  Read full judgment →
• Kazi Abdul Hameed Siddiqui vs The Federation of Pakistan and others1991 PLD Federal Shariat Court 127 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-04-25Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal Alias Daidi vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2263 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-02-07Read full judgment →
• Javed And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 843 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-02-21
  HarrabahHudood Ordinanceattempt to commit robberyadverse inferenceSection 342 Cr.P.C.joint trialcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants were convicted by the trial court for the offence of attempt to commit Harrabah under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution case alleged that the appellants, armed with firearms, entered the complainant's house, demanded keys to valuables, and fled after being confronted, subsequently engaging in a shootout with police before surrendering. The core legal question was whether the prosecution evidence sufficiently established the appellants' guilt for the attempted Harrabah, despite the complainant's inability to identify them due to muffled faces. The Federal Shariat Court held that the evidence of police and public witnesses, combined with the appellants' failure to explain their arrest with firearms at the scene of the shootout or to examine themselves on oath under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, warranted an adverse inference. The Court upheld the conviction, ruling that the evidence established the attempt to commit Harrabah, and affirmed the sentence as just and proper.

  Questions settled

  • Can an adverse inference be drawn against an accused who fails to examine themselves on oath under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the failure of a complainant to identify culprits whose faces were muffled preclude a conviction when other evidence establishes the commission of the offence?
  • Are offences committed in the same series of acts required to be tried jointly under Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmad Alias Bobi And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 488 · Federal Shariat Court · 1989-08-02Read full judgment →
• Ibadat Yar Khan, J Mst. Mansooba vs The State and another1991 MLD 1706 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-10-30Read full judgment →
• I.A. Sharwani vs Government of Pakistan1991 PLC (C.S.) 1205 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-11-11
  civil servicesuspensionsubsistence allowanceIslamic lawrepugnancy to Injunctions of Islamcontract of servicedisciplinary proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from a Shariat Petition challenging the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, specifically regarding the legality of compulsory leave and suspension of civil servants. The core legal question was whether the unilateral stoppage of a civil servant's salary during suspension, as mandated by Fundamental Rule 53 and corresponding provincial rules, is repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. The Federal Shariat Court held that while the Government possesses the authority to suspend a civil servant from duty to ensure an impartial inquiry, it cannot unilaterally withhold the civil servant's salary during the period of suspension as long as the contract of service subsists. The Court reasoned that Islamic principles require the fulfillment of contractual undertakings and the timely payment of wages. Consequently, the Court declared Fundamental Rule 53 and parallel provincial rules repugnant to the Qur'an and Sunnah to the extent that they permit the stoppage of salary. The Court directed the President of Pakistan and Provincial Governors to amend these provisions by May 10, 1991, to ensure conformity with Islamic Injunctions, failing which they would cease to have effect.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Government unilaterally stop the salary of a civil servant during the period of suspension?
  • Is the suspension of a civil servant from duty for the purpose of an inquiry permissible under Islamic law?
  • Does the Government have the authority to place a civil servant on compulsory leave during disciplinary proceedings?
  • Are Fundamental Rule 53 and parallel provincial rules regarding the stoppage of salary during suspension repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Khan And 2 Others vs The State and others-1991 PCr.LJ 2110 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-08-17Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Qayyum vs The State1991 PLD Federal Shariat Court 74 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-05-02Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs Mst. Murad Bakhta and 6 others1991 PLD Federal Shairat Court 78 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-04-29
  Zina-bil-JabrHudood Ordinancecriminal revisioncompromiseunconscionable agreementsuo motu jurisdictionIslamic Injunctions
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner against the acquittal of respondents in a case involving allegations of Zina-bil-Jabr under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The petitioner subsequently sought to withdraw the revision petition based on a compromise agreement, which included monetary compensation and the future marriage of two minor girls to minor boys upon attaining puberty. The Federal Shariat Court rejected the withdrawal application, characterizing the compromise as unconscionable and akin to bartering children, which is repugnant to Islamic Injunctions and ethical standards. The Court held that an offence punishable with Hadd under Shari'ah cannot be compromised, withdrawn, or pardoned once brought before the Court, as it involves the enforcement of Hudoodullah. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that under Article 203-DD of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, it possesses the authority and duty to examine the legality and propriety of any order passed by a Criminal Court regarding Hudood, regardless of a party's desire to withdraw the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can an offence punishable with Hadd under Shari'ah be compromised or withdrawn by the parties?
  • Does the Federal Shariat Court have the authority to review a criminal acquittal involving Hudood offences regardless of a party's request to withdraw?
  • Is a compromise agreement involving the future marriage of minor children legally permissible in the context of criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Alam Sher vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 637 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-11-21Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Aziz And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 974 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-03-28Read full judgment →
• Akbar Khan vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 845 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-02-28Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1512 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-05-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayum And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 568 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-12-03
  ZinaHudood Ordinanceevidentiary standardsprivacyspyingacquittalIslamic jurisprudence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Federal Shariat Court arose from the conviction of the appellants, Abdul Qayyum and Mst. Ghulam Sakina, under Section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The prosecution alleged that the appellants were caught red-handed committing zina in an abandoned house by a complainant and his brother. The appellants contended that the case was fabricated due to prior enmity and that they were arrested from a cobbler's shop. The Court observed that the prosecution's story was highly improbable, noting that the testimony of the complainant's brother failed to corroborate the actual act of zina and that the prosecution suppressed their familial relationship. The Court held that the charge of zina requires strict proof and must not be casually brought on flimsy allegations. Relying on Islamic injunctions against spying, the sanctity of privacy, and the strict evidentiary requirement of four eye-witnesses under Shariah, the Court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions, and acquitted the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • What is the evidentiary standard required under Islamic Shariah and the Hudood laws to sustain a conviction for the offence of zina?
  • Can a conviction for zina be sustained solely on the uncorroborated testimony of closely related witnesses where there is evidence of prior enmity?
  • How does Islamic jurisprudence view the act of spying and violating the privacy of individuals to detect moral sins?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ahid vs Khadim Hussain1991 P Cr. L J 563 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-12-18Read full judgment →
• Zakir alias Bhola vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 183 · Federal Shariat Court · 1989-06-13Read full judgment →
• Umar Hayat vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 742 · Federal Shariat Court · 1989-07-09Read full judgment →
• The State vs Sohail Ahmad and 4 others1990 PLD Federal Shariat Court 29 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-02-12
  appeal against acquittalcognizable offencedefect in investigationpublic placeprohibition orderjurisdiction of courthudood laws
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal against acquittal filed by the State against five respondents who were prosecuted for offences under Articles 3, 4, and 11 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The trial court had acquitted the respondents under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. without recording evidence, holding that the police investigation was unauthorized because the vehicle from which narcotics were recovered was a 'place' and not a 'public place', rendering the offences non-cognizable. The Federal Shariat Court examined the competence of the appeal, affirming its constitutional review jurisdiction under Article 203-DD of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. On the merits, the court held that Article 16(1) of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 creates distinct categories where offences under Article 3 are cognizable unconditionally, and that defects or irregularities in police investigation do not oust the jurisdiction of the trial court to take cognizance under section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The appeal was allowed, the acquittal order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the trial court for disposal on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal against an order of acquittal under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 lies to the Federal Shariat Court?
  • Are offences under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 subject to the condition of being committed at a public place to be considered cognizable?
  • Does a defect or illegality in a police investigation vitiate the subsequent trial and oust the jurisdiction of the trial court?
  • Whether a motor vehicle can be considered a public place for the purpose of determining the cognizability of offences under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Sher Abbas Khan and 2 others1990 P Cr. L J 1702 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-05-16Read full judgment →
• The State vs Anwar Khattak and others1990 PLD Federal Shariat Court 62 · Federal Shariat Court
  case decidedrevisional jurisdictionnarcotics smugglingProhibition Enforcement of Hadd Order 1979Customs Act 1969double jeopardydistinct offencespost-arrest bail
  Summary & questions settled

  The Federal Shariat Court initiated suo motu revisional proceedings under Article 203-DD of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to examine proceedings in a Customs Court where the accused was charged and granted bail exclusively under Section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act 1969 for smuggling narcotics, without invoking Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 (P.O. No. 4 of 1979).

  The preliminary issue was whether the Federal Shariat Court had revisional jurisdiction under Article 203-DD when trial proceedings had not concluded. The court held that orders granting bail or framing charges constitute a judicial application of mind, satisfying the requirement of a 'case decided'. On the substantive question of double jeopardy and implied repeal, the Court held that the offences under the Customs Act 1969 and the Prohibition Order 1979 are separate, distinct, and carry different penalties, jurisdictional forums, and essential ingredients. Proceedings under the Customs Act 1969 do not bar separate prosecution under the Prohibition Order 1979.

  Questions settled

  • Does the grant of bail or framing of a charge in a trial court constitute a 'case decided' under Article 203-DD of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 for the exercise of revisional jurisdiction?
  • Are offences under Section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act 1969 and Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 separate and distinct offences?
  • Does prosecution under the Customs Act 1969 bar a separate prosecution under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 under Article 13 of the Constitution or Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Are Customs Officers legally obligated to inform general law-enforcing agencies when apprehending individuals in possession of narcotics for offences under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Spin Bacha and anothers vs The State1990 PLD Federal Shariat Court 57 · Federal Shariat Court
  abductionexculpatory confessionexamination of accusedSection 342 CrPCSection 340(2) CrPCco-accused testimonyabscondenceidentification paradebenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment arises from a criminal appeal before the Federal Shariat Court against convictions under Section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The core legal questions pertained to the evidentiary value of an exculpatory judicial confession against co-accused, the admissibility of testimony given by an accused on oath under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against co-accused without cross-examination, and the effect of failing to put incriminating circumstances—such as alleged abscondence—to the accused during Section 342 Cr.P.C. examination. The Court acquitted the appellants by extending the benefit of doubt. The Court laid down that under Article 43 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, an exculpatory confession cannot be used against co-accused. Additionally, testimony of an accused under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. cannot be used against a co-accused unless the co-accused is afforded the right to cross-examine and the evidence is formally put to them under Section 342 Cr.P.C. Failure to put any incriminating circumstance to the accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C. completely excludes such circumstance from being used to base a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can an exculpatory judicial confession of an accused be used as incriminating evidence against a co-accused under Article 43 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can incriminating evidence given by an accused on oath under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. be relied upon against a co-accused who was not given the opportunity to cross-examine?
  • Does the failure to put an incriminating circumstance to an accused during their examination under Section 342 Cr.P.C. render that circumstance unusable for conviction?
  • Can the factum of abscondence be used as corroborative evidence if it was neither proved by prosecution evidence nor put to the accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C.?
  Read full judgment →
• Siraj vs The State1990 MLD 2079 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-06-27Read full judgment →
• Said Amir vs The State1990 PLD Federal Shariat Court 26 · Federal Shariat Court · 1989-11-16
  Prohibition OrderFATAFrontier Crimes RegulationFederal Shariat Courtrevisional jurisdictionHudood lawsjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Said Amir, challenged his conviction and six-year sentence for heroin possession under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, which was handed down by the Political Agent, Khyber, following a trial by a jirga under the Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR). His revision petition was earlier dismissed by the Commissioner FCR. The core legal questions involved the applicability of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 to the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), whether it overrides the FCR, and the proper forum for appeal and revision. The Federal Shariat Court held that the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 extends to FATA by its own terms and overrides the FCR, that trials under the Order must be conducted under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, that appeals lie to the Federal Shariat Court, and that the Court possesses exclusive revisional jurisdiction in Hudood cases under Article 203-DD of the Constitution. The Court accepted the revision, set aside the lower judgments, and remanded the case for retrial under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 extend in its application to the Federally Administered Tribal Areas?
  • Does the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 override the provisions of the Frontier Crimes Regulation?
  • Which forum has the appellate jurisdiction against a conviction and sentence exceeding two years under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979?
  • What is the extent of the revisional jurisdiction of the Federal Shariat Court in Hudood cases under the Constitution of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Naeem Amin vs The State1990 MLD 1953 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-06-19Read full judgment →
• Muzammil Shah vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1682 · Federal Shariat Court · 1989-10-31Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Hussain vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 746 · Federal Shariat Court · 1989-05-04Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 2055 · Federal Shariat Court · 1989-11-02
  abductioncriminal appealbenefit of doubtabscondenceburden of proofcorroborationOffence of Zina
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for the alleged abduction of the deceased. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the charge of abduction when the primary witnesses were disbelieved by the trial court regarding a co-accused and no independent corroboration existed to link the appellant to the crime. The Federal Shariat Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant. The court held that where prosecution witnesses are disbelieved regarding a co-accused, their testimony cannot be relied upon to convict another accused without independent corroboration. Furthermore, the court established that abscondence, in the absence of formal proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, constitutes weak corroboratory evidence and cannot sustain a conviction. The burden of proof remains strictly on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt where the prosecution's case rests on unreliable testimony.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on the testimony of witnesses who have been disbelieved regarding a co-accused without independent corroboration?
  • Is abscondence sufficient to prove guilt in the absence of formal proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused if the prosecution fails to provide independent evidence of the alleged crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Maskin vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 590 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-01-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jameel vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 740 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-12-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1102 · Federal Shariat Court · 1981-09-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 749 · Federal Shariat Court · 1989-06-11Read full judgment →
• Mubarik Ali vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1685 · Federal Shariat Court · 1989-11-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Iqbal Bibi vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1831 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-06-14
  post-arrest bailheroin recoveryjudicial remandnon-cognizable offencemandatory search provisionsprocedural lapsecriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed under Article 203-DD of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, by Mst. Iqbal Bibi challenging the lower courts' orders refusing her post-arrest bail in a case involving the alleged recovery of 130 grams of heroin from her house. The core legal questions revolved around the legality of continued detention without proper judicial remand under section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the non-compliance with mandatory search provisions under section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the investigation of a non-cognizable offence without a Magistrate's order under section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Federal Shariat Court accepted the petition and held that procedural lapses in investigation, search, and the absence of a valid judicial remand, combined with compassionate grounds regarding the petitioner's status as a young lady, warranted the grant of bail. The court laid down that violation of mandatory procedural safeguards during search and detention entitles an accused to post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to obtain continuous judicial remand under section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 justify the release of an accused on bail?
  • Does non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during a house search render the recovery defective for the purpose of bail?
  • Can an investigation into a non-cognizable offence be conducted without the order of a Magistrate under section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether infirmities in investigation and search, coupled with compassionate grounds, constitute sufficient basis for granting post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bakhi and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1706 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-05-16Read full judgment →
• Khalil Ahmad and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1849 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-06-28Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1827 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-06-14Read full judgment →
• Javed Akhtar alias Yasin vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 445 · Federal Shariat Court · 1989-12-11Read full judgment →
• Imran Bashir Faroooi vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 677 · Federal Shariat Court · 1989-10-19
  retracted confessionmurder referencejudicial confessionextra-judicial confessionpolice investigationZinaHudood Ordinanceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for murder and Zina, imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The prosecution relied on a retracted judicial confession, alleged extra-judicial confessions, and circumstantial evidence. The Federal Shariat Court found that the investigation was tainted by dishonesty, including falsified police records and manipulated remand applications. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charges, noting that the medical evidence regarding the ligature marks on the deceased's neck was consistent with suicide rather than homicide. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that a retracted confession, especially one obtained under duress or without ensuring its voluntary nature, cannot form the basis of a conviction. The Court reaffirmed that in cases under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, a confession must be recorded by a court of competent jurisdiction to be effective. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellant, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retracted confession, standing alone and uncorroborated, form the basis of a conviction?
  • Does a confession recorded by a Magistrate satisfy the requirements for a confession under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
  • What is the legal effect of a police officer falsifying investigation records on the prosecution's case?
  • Is a confession voluntary if the accused was held in police custody without sleep and subjected to duress?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Munir and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1878 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-07-08
  retracted judicial confessionabetment of murderzina liable to tazircorroborative evidenceabscondenceadverse inferencemurder referencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Federal Shariat Court addresses criminal appeals and a murder reference arising from the conviction of Gul Munir and Mst. Razia for murder, abetment, and Zina. The core legal questions involve the evidentiary value of retracted judicial confessions, the sustainability of a murder abetment charge based primarily on a co-accused's confession, and the proof required for offences under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The court held that a retracted judicial confession, when voluntary, can be used against the maker and as circumstantial evidence against a co-accused if corroborated by other material evidence, such as medical testimony, abscondence, and adverse inferences drawn from failure to testify under oath. Consequently, the court maintained the male appellant's conviction and death sentence for murder along with his conviction for Zina, while acquitting the female appellant of murder abetment due to insufficient corroborative evidence of active participation, though upholding her conviction for Zina with a modified sentence. The key principle laid down is that retracted judicial confessions, if found voluntary, require material corroboration to sustain convictions, and a co-accused's confession alone is insufficient to prove abetment without independent supporting evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a retracted judicial confession can be made the basis of a conviction without corroboration?
  • Can a co-accused's judicial confession be used as circumstantial evidence against another co-accused?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an accused's failure to give evidence on oath under section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether a confession recorded during investigation under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can impose Hadd punishments for offences under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of N.W.F.P and Other vs Malik Said Kamal Shah and OtherK.L.R. 1990 Revenue Cases 43 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Fida Muhammad Khan, J Muhammad Asif vs The State1990 MLD 607 · Federal Shariat Court · 1989-06-22Read full judgment →
• Fazal Qadeem vs The State1990 MLD 1199 · Federal Shariat Court · 1989-12-03Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad and 3 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 921 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-11-02Read full judgment →
• David Ochina Ojwang and others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1886 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Zuloarnain Shah vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 980 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-10-11Read full judgment →
• Z Afar .Awa N vs The Islamic Republic of Pakistan1989 PLD Federal Shariat Court 84 · Federal Shariat Court · 1989-06-29Read full judgment →
• The State vs Lal Masih and others1989 PLD Federal Shariat Court 70 · Federal Shariat Court · 1989-05-09Read full judgment →