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.

• Jahangir Versus The State Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi , Pervaiz Alamgir1988 PCRLJ 756 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-10-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Versus The State Tariq Azam Chaudhry , Khan Mushtaq Ahmad Khan for the State.,S.M. Ghazi1988 PCRLJ 529 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-06-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousuf Versus The State1988 PCRLJ 503 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-02-17Read full judgment →
• Robin Versus The State S. Murtaza Ali Zaidi , M. Rafi Siddiqui1988 PCRLJ 348 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-11-15Read full judgment →
• Wazir Ali Versus The State1988 PCRLJ 345 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-11-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid Versus The State1988 PCRLJ 343 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-11-22Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad Versus The State Ali Murtaza Hussain , Agha Imdad Ali1988 PCRLJ 278 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-07-02Read full judgment →
• Masood Aziz Versus The State Muhammad Akmal Salimi , Altaf Muhammad Khan1988 PCRLJ 268 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-11-12Read full judgment →
• Amir Ali and 3 Others Versus The State Khan Zia-ud-Din Khan , S.D. Qureshi1988 PCRLJ 2356 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-06-29Read full judgment →
• Safdar Ali Alias Shafi and 2 Others Versus The State1988 PCRLJ 2353 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-06-02Read full judgment →
• Wasiuddin Khawar Versus The State1988 PCRLJ 2331 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-07-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Versus The State1988 PCRLJ 2321 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-03-18Read full judgment →
• Nazar Hussain Versus The State1988 PCRLJ 1970 · Federal Shariat Court · 1982-11-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Versus The State Ghaus Muhammad Chaudhry , Altaf Muhammad Khan for the State.1988 PCRLJ 1965 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-11-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Versus The State S. Nadeem Saqlain , Faiz-ur-Rahman1988 PCRLJ 1963 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-04-04Read full judgment →
• Nigah Shah Versus The State Rab Nawaz Noon , Muhammad Aslam Uns1988 PCRLJ 1925 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Anwar Masih Versus The State Inamullah Khan , Saleem Shad1988 PCRLJ 1922 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-06-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique Versus The State Sardar Muhammad Ishaque , Makhdoom Abdul Wali1988 PCRLJ 1583 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-02-09Read full judgment →
• Ismail Versus The State Sardar Muhammad Ishaque , Imam Bakhsh1988 PCRLJ 1582 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-02-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar Versus The State Sardar Muhammad Ishaque , Imam Bakhsh1988 PCRLJ 1580 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-02-14Read full judgment →
• Fawad Hussain Versus The State Muhammad Asif , Abdul Qayyum Sarwar1988 PCRLJ 1578 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-02-29Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Versus Zafar Iqbal and 2 Others1988 PCRLJ 1570 · Federal Shariat Court · 1983-08-03Read full judgment →
• Bayazeed Alias Kali Versus The State1988 PCRLJ 1458 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-12-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar Versus The State1988 PCRLJ 1446 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-12-20Read full judgment →
• Gul Zaman Versus The State1988 PCRLJ 1442 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-06-26Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad Versus The State Syed Kamal Mufti , M. Iqbal1988 PCRLJ 1204 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-12-20Read full judgment →
• Javed Versus The State1988 PCRLJ 1081 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-01-12Read full judgment →
• Imdad Hussain Versus The State1988 PCRLJ 1074 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-11-25Read full judgment →
• Salamat Ali Alias Salamat Masih Versus State1987 PCRLJ 384 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-12-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq Versus State Muhammad Akbar Cheema , Azmat Dad1987 PCRLJ 346 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-11-25Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim Versus State1987 PCRLJ 284 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-11-05Read full judgment →
• Uchechukwu Venatius Versus State S. M. Sayedain , Jalal ud Din Baloch1987 PCRLJ 2492 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-03-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shah Versus Muhammad Saleem1987 PCrLJ 2179 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-04-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Versus State1987 PCRLJ 134 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-11-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Gulzar Versus State1987 PCRLJ 125 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-11-18Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas Versus State1987 PCRLJ 122 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-11-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique Versus State Ch. Muhammad Abdus Saleem , Muhammad Ashraf Khan1987 PCRLJ 118 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Hayatullah Versus The State1986 PCRLJ 2589 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-01-30Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad Versus The State1986 PCRLJ 2502 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-04-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Versus The State1986 PCRLJ 2496 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-05-05Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad Versus The State Muhammad Yamin , Nemo1986 PCRLJ 2065 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-02-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fehmida Begum Versus The State Muhammad Ilyas Siddiqui, Malik Rab Nawaz Noon , Muhammad Aslam Uns1986 PCRLJ 1728 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-05-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad Versus The State1986 PCRLJ 1506 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-02-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq Versus The State1985 PCRLJ 778 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-01-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Versus The State M. Bilal , Muhammad Aslam Uns1985 PCRLJ 761 · Federal Shariat Court · 1984-06-03Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad Versus The State1985 PCRLJ 344 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad Versus The State1985 PCRLJ 2831 · Federal Shariat Court · 1983-02-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar Versus The State1985 PCRLJ 2826 · Federal Shariat Court · 1984-10-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamshed Versus The State Malik Saeed Hassan and Muhammad Yameen , Malik Muhammad Aslam, Kh. Shaukat Ali for the State.1985 PCRLJ 2740 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-03-18Read full judgment →
• Sabir Hussain Versus The State1985 PCRLJ 258 · Federal Shariat Court · 1984-09-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail Versus The State1985 PCRLJ 2550 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-01-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Idrees Versus The State Khan Younas Khan and Ch. Muhammad Ali , Bashir Pervez Khan1985 PCRLJ 1472 · Federal Shariat Court · 1984-03-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Versus The State1985 PCRLJ 145 · Federal Shariat Court · 1984-03-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Versus State1984 PCRLJ 2762 · Federal Shariat Court · 1983-10-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan Versus State2025 MLD 1534 · Federal Shariat Court · 2025-05-15
  LianQazfdissolution of marriagedivorce deedcriminal revisionprocedural lawHudood Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order by the Additional Sessions Judge, Okara, which dismissed the petitioner's application to frame an amended charge under Section 14 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The petitioner, accused of Qazf for disowning his child, sought to invoke 'Lian' proceedings, arguing the marriage was subsisting. The core legal question was whether Section 14 of the Qazf Ordinance, which governs Lian (a procedure for dissolving a marriage upon an accusation of Zina), applies when the marriage has already been dissolved. The Federal Shariat Court held that Lian proceedings require a subsisting marital relationship. Since the record confirmed the petitioner had pronounced a valid divorce prior to the accusation, the marriage was dissolved, rendering Section 14 inapplicable. Furthermore, the Court clarified that Section 14 is procedural and cannot form the basis for a criminal charge. The revision petition was dismissed in limine, affirming that the trial court correctly refused to amend the charge, as the statutory requirements for Lian were not met due to the prior dissolution of the marriage.

  Questions settled

  • Can proceedings under Section 14 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 be initiated if the marriage between the parties has already been dissolved?
  • Is Section 14 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 a substantive penal provision or a procedural provision?
  • Does a written divorce deed, when affirmed under oath, establish the effective date of dissolution of marriage?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aman Versus State2025 MLD 1500 · Federal Shariat Court · 2025-05-30
  QazfHadd punishmentde novo trialCode of Criminal Procedurejudicial recordfair trialpresumption of regularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under Section 7 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979, where the appellant was sentenced to whipping for allegedly accusing his brother of Zina during civil proceedings. The core legal questions concerned whether the trial court properly evaluated the authenticity of the alleged statement—specifically whether it was recorded by the presiding judge—and whether the trial court complied with the mandatory procedural requirements for initiating Qazf complaints. The Federal Shariat Court held that the trial court failed to adequately appreciate evidence regarding the disputed recording of the statement and neglected the mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 203-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and remanded the matter for a de novo trial. The judgment reaffirms the principle that Hadd punishments must be free from doubt and that trial courts must conduct a thorough examination of evidence to ensure that complaints are not frivolous or vexatious, thereby protecting the accused's right to a fair trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does a statement recorded in a civil court carry a rebuttable presumption of authenticity regarding the presence of the presiding officer?
  • Is a trial court required to conduct a thorough examination of evidence under Section 203-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before taking cognizance of a Qazf complaint?
  • Can a conviction for Qazf be sustained if the trial court fails to address substantial doubts regarding the recording of the alleged statement?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irshad Versus State2021 MLD 1886 · Federal Shariat Court · 2021-04-30
  death sentencejudicial confessioncircumstantial evidenceidentification paradezina-bil-jabrcriminal appealmurder reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a conviction and death sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge for the kidnapping, rape, and murder of a six-year-old girl. The appellant challenged the judgment, alleging false implication and retracting his earlier confession. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the prosecution's circumstantial evidence, the voluntariness of the judicial confession, and the validity of the identification parade. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution successfully established a flawless chain of events, corroborated by the postmortem report, the recovery of the victim's body upon the appellant's pointation, and the identification of the appellant by witnesses. The Court affirmed that a voluntary and true judicial confession, when corroborated by independent evidence, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, maintained the conviction, and confirmed the death sentence. The judgment reinforces the principle that where the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete and corroborated by medical and forensic findings, the retraction of a confession does not undermine the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Is a judicial confession sufficient to convict an accused if it is found to be voluntary and true?
  • Does the failure of an accused to examine himself on oath under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render his statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without legal value?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on circumstantial evidence if the chain of events is well-connected and corroborated by medical reports?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bux Versus State2021 MLD 1725 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-10-02
  narcoticsprohibitionSection 342 statementcross-examinationchain of custodycriminal appealfair trialHadd offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged a conviction under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, where the trial court relied solely on the appellant’s statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The core legal questions concerned the evidentiary value of such statements when prosecution evidence is deficient, the necessity of cross-examination, and the requirement for proving the chain of custody for narcotics. The Federal Shariat Court set aside the conviction, holding that an inculpatory statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 cannot sustain a conviction if the prosecution fails to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court affirmed that cross-examination is a fundamental right and that trial judges must actively exercise powers under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and Article 161 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, to discover the truth rather than acting as passive observers. Additionally, the court ruled that failing to prove the secure transmission of samples violates mandatory rules, rendering the prosecution's case untenable.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted solely on an inculpatory statement made under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, if the prosecution case is otherwise weak?
  • Is it legally permissible to convict an accused simultaneously under both Article 3 and Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 for the same act?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the safe custody and secure transmission of narcotics samples to the chemical examiner vitiate the conviction?
  • Are trial courts obligated to exercise their powers under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to summon essential witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Sajjad Haider Naqvi Versus Mst. Sadia Bibi2019 MLD 225 · Federal Shariat Court · 2018-11-15Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Ambreen Tariq Awan Versus Federal Government of Pakistan through Secretary M/o Law and Justice Islamabad2013 MLD 1885 · Federal Shariat Court · 2013-06-14Read full judgment →
• Syed Maqsood Shah Bukhari Versus Federal Government through Secretary M/o Law and Justice, Islamabad2013 MLD 1808 · Federal Shariat Court · 2013-05-02Read full judgment →
• Khawar Iqbal Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary M/o Law and Justice, Islamabad2013 MLD 1711 · Federal Shariat Court · 2013-04-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hassan Versus The State2004 MLD 995 · Federal Shariat Court · 2001-05-31
  dacoitycriminal appealrecovery of stolen propertyidentification of accusedsentence reductionappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for his involvement in a dacoity. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt through the evidence of recoveries and witness testimony, and whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was excessive. The court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case, as the appellant was identified by a domestic servant present at the scene, and stolen ornaments were recovered at the appellant's instance, with no substantial evidence presented by the defense to discredit the prosecution witnesses. The court affirmed the conviction but exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence of imprisonment and fine, noting the appellant's role in the offence while maintaining proportionality. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution provides consistent evidence of recovery and identification, and the defense offers only a bare denial without substantiating allegations of police fabrication, the conviction is sustainable, though the appellate court retains discretion to modify sentences in the interest of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of public witnesses to a recovery of stolen property automatically invalidate the recovery?
  • Can an appellate court reduce a sentence of imprisonment and fine even if the conviction is maintained?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the accused offers only a bare denial to the prosecution's evidence of recovery and identification?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Versus The State2002 MLD 628 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain Versus State2000 MLD 411 · Federal Shariat Court · 1999-09-17
  narcoticsprohibition ordersearch and seizureprivacy of homecriminal appealpossession of narcoticschemical examiner reportcognizable offence
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, for narcotics trafficking. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the search conducted without a warrant, the alleged violation of the privacy of the home, and whether the evidence supported a conviction for trafficking (Article 3) versus mere possession (Article 4). The Court held that while the search was valid because it was conducted in the presence of Magistrates, invoking Sections 64 and 65 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the prosecution failed to prove the sale of narcotics. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction under Article 3 and converted it to Article 4, reducing the sentence and fine accordingly. The Court affirmed that while the privacy of the home is constitutionally protected, it is subject to law and may be suspended upon credible information of a heinous, cognizable crime. Furthermore, the head of a household is responsible for illicit items found within his residence. The confiscated money was ordered returned as the sale was not proven.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 be sustained if the prosecution fails to prove the sale of narcotics?
  • Does the presence of a Magistrate during a house search validate the search in the absence of a formal search warrant?
  • Is the privacy of a home inviolable when there is credible information regarding the commission of a heinous, cognizable crime?
  • Can the head of a household be held responsible for the possession of illicit narcotics found within the residence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdul Qadoos Tariq Versus State2000 MLD 386 · Federal Shariat Court · 1999-08-25
  Zina-bil-Jabrconsent of minordetermination of agevalid marriagebenefit of doubtossification reporthudood laws
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that the appellant forcibly abducted a minor girl, Mst. Shazia, and subjected her to Zina. The trial court acquitted the appellant of abduction but convicted him of Zina on the premise that the victim was a consenting minor. The core legal questions involved the determination of the victim's age, whether she was a sui juris capable of giving valid consent, and whether the admitted sexual intercourse constituted Zina when a valid marriage (Nikah) was claimed. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was a minor and not a sui juris, noting the destruction of ossification records and the improper admission of an unexhibited school certificate. The court found that the victim was a consenting adult who had validly contracted marriage with the appellant. Consequently, cohabitation did not constitute Zina under section 4 of the Ordinance. The appeal was accepted, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the alleged victim was a minor in the sense of being a pubert but having not attained the status of a sui juris at the time of being a consenting party to the commission of Zina?
  • Whether the admitted sexual intercourse between the appellant and alleged victim fell within the meaning of Zina as defined in section 4 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
  • In case the offence is that of Zina with consent of the minor but pubert female, does it attract conviction under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Farman Ali Versus State1999 MLD 3105 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-03-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Versus State1999 MLD 2414 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-04-29Read full judgment →
• Daulat Ali Versus Muhammad Aslam1998 MLD 944 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-07-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Israr Versus State1998 MLD 871 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-09-15Read full judgment →
• Ehsan Ullah Versus State1998 MLD 805 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-12-05Read full judgment →
• Firdos Begum Versus Muhammad Iqbal Shah1998 MLD 796 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-06-30Read full judgment →
• Farkhanda Bibi Versus State1998 MLD 729 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-10-09Read full judgment →
• Gul Zamin Versus State1998 MLD 713 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-09-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sher Versus State1998 MLD 700 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-12-08Read full judgment →
• Taga Khan Versus State1998 MLD 662 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-09-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Versus State1998 MLD 637 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-10-10Read full judgment →
• Sabir Khan Versus State1998 MLD 518 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-10-10Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz Versus State1998 MLD 344 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-07-12Read full judgment →
• Inayatur Rehman Versus State1998 MLD 323 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-06-17Read full judgment →
• Sajid Hussain Versus State1998 MLD 312 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-03-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique Versus State1998 MLD 306 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-07-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Versus State1998 MLD 294 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-12-31Read full judgment →
• Shireen Mazhar Versus State1998 MLD 276 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-09-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq Versus State1998 MLD 243 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-05-22Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad Versus State1998 MLD 1358 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-01-21Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad Versus State1998 MLD 1326 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-01-08Read full judgment →
• Ucc Private Limited Versus Deputy Commissioner, Lahore1998 MLD 1186 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-06-09Read full judgment →
• Mehboob Ahmad Versus State1998 MLD 1175 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-12-09Read full judgment →
• Organon Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. Versus Rafat Alt Khan1998 MLD 1166 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-08-06Read full judgment →
• Jalaluddin Versus State1998 MLD 1154 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-12-08Read full judgment →
• Syed Afsar Shah Versus State1998 MLD 1137 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-07-08Read full judgment →
• Mashkoor Ahmed Versus Aziz-Ur-Rehman Khan1998 MLD 1080 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-10-20Read full judgment →
• Qasim Versus Rahim Shah1998 MLD 1014 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-01-18Read full judgment →
• State Versus Faqir Muhammad1996 MLD 936 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-07-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Versus State1996 MLD 779 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-10-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Labbar Versus State1996 MLD 772 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-02-23Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain Versus State1995 MLD 945 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-11-15Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakha Versus State1995 MLD 935 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-02-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazeer Versus State1995 MLD 1704 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-05-23Read full judgment →