Pakistan Case LawLatest 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.
- Muhammad Arif Versus State1995 MLD 1680 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-05-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam Versus State1994 MLD 1053 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-01-25Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam Versus State1993 MLD 2247 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-04-13Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor Versus Federation of Pakistan1992 MLD 2326 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-07-09Read full judgment →
- Mahmoodur Rahman Faisal Versus Government of Pakistan1992 MLD 2321 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-05-10Read full judgment →
- 1992 MLD 18661992 MLD 1866 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-03-29Read full judgment →
- Zahoor Versus State1992 MLD 1582 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-03-31Read full judgment →
- Aurangzeb Versus State1992 MLD 1079 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-06-18Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool Alias Wakil Versus State1992 MLD 1060 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-12-17Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ramzan Versus State1990 MLD 1500 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-04-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nazir Versus State1990 MLD 1463 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-03-14Read full judgment →
- Nasir Khan Versus State1990 MLD 1459 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-03-11Read full judgment →
- Khan Muhammad Versus State1985 MLD 1405 · Federal Shariat Court · 1984-11-15Read full judgment →
- Saddam Hussain Versus State2025 YLR 2259 · Federal Shariat Court · 2025-05-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants for robbery and Qatl-e-Amd under Sections 392/34 and 302(b)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, which resulted in sentences of rigorous imprisonment and life imprisonment. The core legal questions involved the evidentiary value and legal compliance of the identification test parade, the effect of failing to put incriminating circumstances to the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the reliability of weapon and property recoveries. The Federal Shariat Court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted the appellants on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court held that an identification test parade loses its efficacy when the accused are shown to the witness prior to the parade, when the magistrate fails to record specific details of identification, and when material circumstances are omitted from the questions put to the accused during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
Questions settled- Whether an identification test parade retains its evidentiary value if the accused were exposed to the witness prior to the parade?
- Can a piece of evidence or circumstance not put to an accused person during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 be used to maintain a conviction?
- What is the legal effect of a Magistrate failing to record specific details of which witness identified which accused during an identification test parade?
- Does the failure to give a description of the culprits in the first information report render a subsequent identification test parade valueless?
- Sofia Aslam Versus State2025 YLR 2138 · Federal Shariat Court · 2025-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision was filed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Okara, which dismissed the petitioner's complaint of Qazf under Section 203-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The petitioner alleged that her husband (Respondent No. 2) filed a suit for declaration disowning their newborn daughter and accusing the petitioner of having illicit relations with male strangers. The trial court dismissed the complaint, reasoning that the civil suit was pending, no civil court finding on zina existed, and no prior complaint under Section 203-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 had been filed. The Federal Shariat Court set aside the impugned order, holding that the filing of a complaint under Section 203-A and subsequent acquittal are not prerequisites for a Qazf complaint. The Court ruled that under Explanation 2 to Section 5 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979, refusing to recognize a child as legitimate constitutes Qazf against the mother. At the preliminary stage, the trial court only needs to determine if a prima facie case exists based on cursory statements and material substance, without deeper appreciation or extraneous considerations.
Questions settled- Is the filing of a complaint under Section 203-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and a subsequent acquittal a pre-requisite for filing a complaint under the Qazf Ordinance?
- Does a father's refusal to recognize his child as legitimate constitute the offence of Qazf against the mother under the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance 1979?
- Can a trial court refuse to summon an accused in a Qazf complaint on the ground that a civil suit concerning the same subject matter is pending adjudication?
- Lal Bux Versus State2025 YLR 1869 · Federal Shariat Court · 2025-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Trial Magistrate convicting the appellants under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 for possessing wine. The core legal questions involve whether the prosecution established the recovery of contraband beyond a reasonable doubt, whether mandatory provisions regarding independent public witnesses were complied with, and whether an unbroken chain of safe custody and safe transmission of the case property to the Chemical Examiner was proved. The Federal Shariat Court allowed the appeals and set aside the convictions, holding that the prosecution miserably failed to prove safe custody and transmission due to the non-production of material police witnesses, and that the recovery from a busy public place without joining independent witnesses violated Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The key principles laid down are that any break in the chain of safe custody and transmission of samples vitiates the Chemical Examiner's report, and the non-production of material witnesses creates an adverse inference against the prosecution under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.
Questions settled- Does the failure to produce the moharrar and the official who transported the sample to the chemical examiner break the chain of custody?
- Is the non-joining of independent public witnesses from a busy locality fatal to a recovery under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an adverse inference be drawn under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 when the prosecution withholds material witnesses cited in the police report?
- Does any break in the chain of safe custody and safe delivery of samples render the Chemical Examiner's report unreliable for sustaining a conviction?
- Imran Khan Versus State2022 YLR 2123 · Federal Shariat Court · 2022-06-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for murder, robbery, and arms offences arising from a double murder committed during a house robbery. The core legal question concerns whether the trial was vitiated due to the failure to provide a defence counsel to an unrepresented and illiterate accused at the time of framing charges, and whether the appellant could simultaneously be convicted of robbery and receiving stolen property. The court held that proceeding with a capital case without providing a defence counsel at the commencement of the trial is an incurable illegality that violates the fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution, and that a person cannot be convicted as both a robber and a receiver of the stolen property. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned judgments, accepted the appeals, and remanded the matter to the trial court for a de novo trial.
Questions settled- Does the absence of a defence counsel at the time of framing a charge in a capital case vitiate the trial?
- Can an accused person be simultaneously convicted of robbery and receiving the stolen property from the same transaction?
- Does framing a charge without providing legal assistance to an illiterate accused violate the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- What is the effect of material and incurable procedural illegalities committed by a trial court on the sustainability of a judgment?
- Ghulam Qadir Versus State2022 YLR 162 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-10-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenges the conviction of the petitioner under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, for the alleged possession of illicit liquor. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the charge framing, the prosecution's failure to establish a secure chain of custody for the recovered contraband, and the reliance on contradictory evidence. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Specifically, the Court found that the trial court’s charge was defective for lacking material particulars, and the prosecution violated Rule 6 of the Sindh Prohibition Rules, 1979, by failing to establish the safe custody and secure transmission of samples to the Chemical Examiner. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the failure to confront the accused with the chemical examiner's report during the statement under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, rendered it inadmissible. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the petitioner, reiterating that the benefit of any doubt must accrue to the accused as a matter of right.
Questions settled- Does the failure to confront an accused with the chemical examiner's report during their statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render the report inadmissible?
- Is the prosecution required to prove the safe custody and secure transmission of samples to the Chemical Examiner to sustain a conviction under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979?
- Does the failure to include material particulars such as the place of recovery in the charge sheet vitiate the trial proceedings?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution relies solely on police witnesses in a case of prior information without associating independent witnesses?
- Mst. Naseema Bibi Versus Murad2021 YLR 1243 · Federal Shariat Court · 2020-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from a petition for special leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondent by the trial court under section 7 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979, for allegedly imputing zina to the appellant. The core legal questions involved whether the trial court correctly evaluated the evidence, properly appreciated the law regarding delay and Tazkiyah al-Shuhood in Qazf cases, and complied with mandatory judgment-writing requirements under section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Federal Shariat Court held that the trial court's judgment suffered from grave misreading and non-reading of evidence, erroneous legal assumptions regarding limitation and tazkiyah al-shuhood, and failure to frame points for determination under section 367, Cr.P.C. Consequently, the court set aside the acquittal, allowed the appeal, and remanded the matter to the trial court for a fresh decision in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Whether delay in filing a criminal complaint for Qazf vitiates the case considering the nature of the offence and protection of family honor?
- Does any word that directly or indirectly connotes Zina uttered against an adult Muslim without four witnesses constitute the offence of Qazf?
- Can the principle of 'Nukul' or refusal to take a special oath be treated as equivalent to a confession of a crime in Qazf cases?
- Does a trial court judgment that fails to formulate points for determination and reasons under Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 remain sustainable?
- Mushtaq Ahmad Versus State2020 YLR 754 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court acquitting the respondent of charges under Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the respondent was witnessed committing unnatural offences against a minor, but the medical evidence, chemical examiner report, and ocular testimony contained significant inconsistencies and contradictions. Furthermore, the medical evidence confirmed that no penetration had occurred and no marks of violence were found on the victim. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt to overturn an acquittal. The Federal Shariat Court held that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses failed to inspire confidence, remained uncorroborated by medical evidence, and were countered by defense evidence highlighting previous civil litigation and animosity. The court laid down the principle that an order of acquittal carries double presumption of innocence, and appellate interference is unwarranted in the absence of any illegality, misreading, or non-reading of evidence.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal against acquittal can be sustained when the ocular testimony lacks corroboration from medical and chemical examiner reports?
- Does a delay in reporting an offence of sodomy combined with prior civil litigation between the parties cast doubt on the prosecution version?
- Whether the absence of signs of penetration and violence in the medical report neutralizes charges under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- What is the evidentiary value of defence witnesses and local residents who negate the occurrence of the crime at the alleged spot?
- Zahir Khan Versus Azad Khan Nemo2019 YLR 2021 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal judgment passed by the trial court in a case involving charges of attempt to commit murder and abduction for Zina. The appellant and his counsel remained persistently absent despite multiple notices, and reports indicated the respondent was untraceable and had migrated abroad. Upon reviewing the evidence, the court observed that the ocular account of the prosecution witnesses contained major inconsistencies and contradictions, with the complainant's deposition differing substantially from the initial FIR. Furthermore, crucial material evidence, including DNA/semen matching reports and recovery of the alleged crime weapon or abductee, did not support the prosecution's case. The court held that the trial court's judgment of acquittal was based on plausible reasons and proper appreciation of evidence, and was neither perverse nor illegal. Consequently, finding no merit in the appeal, the court dismissed it in limine and maintained the acquittal.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal against acquittal can be dismissed in limine when the appellant and counsel persistently fail to appear?
- Does an acquittal judgment based on plausible reasons and correct appreciation of evidence warrant interference by the appellate court?
- What is the evidentiary value of major contradictions between an initial FIR and the deposition of the complainant during trial?
- Sangeen Khan Versus State2019 YLR 1415 · Federal Shariat Court · 2018-09-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence awarded by the trial court for murder and robbery. The prosecution’s case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including judicial confessions, pointation of crime scenes, and recovery of a weapon. The core legal question was whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court held that the prosecution failed to complete the chain of circumstances. Specifically, the judicial confessions were deemed unreliable due to procedural irregularities, including the failure to ensure the accused were not returned to police custody and the lack of proper verification of the language of the confession. Furthermore, the pointation evidence was inadmissible as it led to no recovery, and the recovery of the weapon was discredited by contradictory timelines. The Court reaffirmed that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be unbroken and exclude every hypothesis except guilt. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, extending them the benefit of the doubt.
Questions settled- Can a judicial confession be relied upon if the magistrate fails to ensure the accused is not returned to police custody?
- Is pointation of a crime scene admissible as evidence if no recovery is made in consequence of the disclosure?
- What is the standard of proof required for a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence?
- Does a delay in recording a judicial confession automatically invalidate it?
- Dr. Muhammad Ismail Versus Aman Ullah2019 YLR 1203 · Federal Shariat Court · 2018-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal was directed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Sibi, whereby the respondent Amanullah was acquitted of the charge under section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of evidence in a criminal trial, the admissibility of a police-custody confession without a magistrate, and the strict criteria for interfering with an acquittal order in appellate review. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, noting contradictions in timing, lack of corroboration for the extra-judicial confession under Article 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and the double presumption of innocence attaching to an acquitted accused. The court laid down the principle that a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right, and that appellate courts will not interfere with a reasoned order of acquittal unless it is perverse, arbitrary, or suffering from gross legal misreading.
Questions settled- Whether an extra-judicial confession made in police custody without a magistrate has legal sanctity without strong corroborative evidence?
- Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitle the accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
- What is the scope of interference by an appellate court in an appeal against an order of acquittal?
- Can a conviction be based on high probabilities and suspicion instead of proof beyond reasonable doubt?
- Rahib Ali Versus State2018 YLR 676 · Federal Shariat Court · 2017-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmad Pur Sial, whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 10(2) of The Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. The core legal questions involved whether the private complaint was vitiated by an unexplained delay of one and a half years, whether the prosecution's story of the alleged zina occurring in a jointly occupied house without bolted doors inspired confidence, and whether uncorroborated testimony of interested witnesses could sustain a conviction. The Federal Shariat Court accepted the appeal and set aside the conviction, holding that an inordinate delay in filing the private complaint, coupled with inherent improbabilities in the version of the occurrence and the lack of independent corroboration, created serious and reasonable doubts regarding the guilt of the appellants. The Court laid down the principle that one reasonable doubt is sufficient to grant the benefit of doubt to the accused as a matter of right, and that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof.
Questions settled- Whether an unexplained delay of one and a half years in filing a private complaint is sufficient to cast serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution's allegations?
- Can a conviction for zina be sustained when the alleged occurrence takes place in a jointly occupied house with doors left open, rendering the narrative improbable?
- Whether uncorroborated testimony of interested witnesses can form the basis of a conviction when part of their evidence has already been rejected by the trial court?
- Does suspicion, no matter how strong, take the place of legal proof in criminal jurisprudence?
- Irfan Versus State2016 YLR 727 · Federal Shariat Court · 2015-04-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant, a juvenile, for murder and related offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence, specifically a retracted judicial confession, alleged 'last seen' evidence, and recoveries. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with inconsistencies. The court found that the retracted confession was not confidence-inspiring, as it contradicted medical evidence regarding the weapon used and the nature of the injuries. Furthermore, the court noted that the recovery of stolen items was doubtful, and the 'last seen' evidence failed to establish a definitive link to the crime. Emphasizing that in cases of circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain must be established, the court held that the missing links necessitated the benefit of the doubt. Consequently, the court set aside the trial court's judgment, acquitted the appellant, and dismissed the complainant's revision petition for sentence enhancement.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained on a retracted judicial confession that lacks corroboration by independent evidence?
- Does a contradiction between a confessional statement and medical evidence regarding the weapon used undermine the reliability of the confession?
- Is a conviction based on circumstantial evidence sustainable if the chain of evidence is incomplete?
- Can a recovery memo be considered reliable if the recovery witnesses were not present at the time of the accused's arrest?
- Muhammad Ashraf Versus State2016 YLR 1543 · Federal Shariat Court · 2016-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and revision petition arose from a judgment passed by the Incharge Sessions Judge, Pishin, convicting the appellant under section 396, P.P.C. for robbery and murder. The prosecution case was built on circumstantial evidence, including the testimony of witnesses who last saw the deceased with the appellant, the recovery of the stolen vehicle and a pistol shortly after the occurrence, medical evidence, and a retracted judicial confession. The core legal questions involved the sustainability of a conviction under section 396, P.P.C. where fewer than five persons were involved, the evidentiary value of a retracted judicial confession, and the applicability of cumulative convictions for murder and robbery under the relevant Hudood Ordinance and Pakistan Penal Code provisions. The Federal Shariat Court held that a conviction under section 396, P.P.C. requires a minimum of five accused persons; consequently, the court altered the conviction to sections 394 and 302(b), P.P.C., while maintaining the sentence of life imprisonment. The key principles laid down include that a retracted judicial confession, if proved to be voluntary and true and corroborated by unimpeachable circumstantial evidence, is sufficient to maintain a conviction, and that a conviction under section 396, P.P.C. cannot be sustained in the absence of the requisite number of offenders.
Questions settled- Can a conviction under section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained when fewer than five accused persons are involved?
- Whether a retracted judicial confession alone can be made the basis for a conviction if found to be voluntary and true?
- Does a delay in recording a judicial confession render it entirely nugatory?
- Can an appellate court alter a conviction from section 396 to sections 394 and 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Syed Talib Hussain Versus State2014 YLR 853 · Federal Shariat Court · 2013-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for the alleged commission of zina-bil-jabr. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt given the inordinate delay in FIR registration, the lack of credible ocular evidence, and inconclusive medical reports. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant. The Court emphasized that the significant delay in lodging the FIR, coupled with material contradictions in the complainant’s statements and the failure to conduct DNA testing despite the accused's request, rendered the prosecution’s case highly doubtful. Furthermore, the Court noted that the trial court had acquitted co-accused on the same evidence, creating a legal inconsistency. The key principle laid down is that where prosecution evidence is contradictory, medical evidence is inconclusive, and there is an inordinate, unexplained delay in reporting the crime, the benefit of doubt must accrue to the accused as a matter of right, necessitating acquittal.
Questions settled- Does an inordinate delay in the registration of an FIR in a Zina case render the prosecution story doubtful?
- Can a conviction be sustained based on the solitary statement of a prosecutrix when the medical evidence is inconclusive and contradictory?
- Is a court permitted to convict an accused on the same set of evidence that led to the acquittal of co-accused?
- What is the evidentiary value of semen found on vaginal swabs when the accused's semen was not sent for grouping or DNA analysis?
- Muhammad Hanif Versus State2013 YLR 2026 · Federal Shariat Court · 2013-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant, Muhammad Hanif, was convicted under section 302(b)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of a minor, Abu Bakar, while being acquitted of charges under section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 and section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether a conviction for murder can be sustained solely on weak circumstantial last-seen evidence when there is an unexplained five-day delay in reporting the matter to the police, the trial court relied on evidence from a separate trial of juvenile co-accused, and the primary motive of sodomy failed. The Federal Shariat Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant. The court held that circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken, flawless chain connecting the accused to the crime, and any reasonable doubt arising from delayed reporting, weak last-seen testimony, or contradictory findings must be resolved in favor of the accused.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code be sustained solely on weak last-seen evidence without a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence?
- Does an unexplained delay of five days in lodging the First Information Report create a fatal flaw in the prosecution case?
- Is a trial court justified in relying upon evidence and findings recorded in a separate trial of juvenile co-accused to convict an adult appellant tried independently?
- Whether an accused is entitled to acquittal as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding his guilt?
- Sabir Hussain Versus State2013 YLR 1576 · Federal Shariat Court · 2013-01-10Read full judgment →
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 allegedly enticing a married woman for the purpose of illicit intercourse. The core legal question was whether a conviction for enticing a woman can be sustained when the woman had obtained a valid decree for dissolution of marriage from a competent Family Court prior to her subsequent marriage to the appellant. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The Court reasoned that the decree for dissolution of marriage, having attained finality and not being challenged by the former husband, was binding and legally valid. Consequently, the marriage between the appellant and the woman, contracted after the expiry of the Iddat period, was lawful. The Court established the principle that a trial court cannot ignore or disregard a valid, subsisting decree of a Family Court when determining the legality of a subsequent marriage in the context of Hudood offences.
Questions settled- Can a trial court ignore a valid decree of dissolution of marriage passed by a Family Court when adjudicating a charge under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- Does a marriage contracted after a valid decree of dissolution of marriage and the expiry of the Iddat period constitute the offence of enticement under Section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- Is a decree for dissolution of marriage passed by a Family Court binding on criminal courts in subsequent proceedings?
- Suleman Versus State2012 YLR 2395 · Federal Shariat Court · 2012-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302 and Section 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentencing him to death along with other penalties. The core legal question concerns whether the circumstantial evidence, including last-seen evidence, pointation recoveries, and a judicial confession, was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the death sentence, holding that a chain of robust circumstantial evidence, coupled with a voluntary judicial confession and matching forensic reports, conclusively established the guilt of the accused without any hypothesis of innocence. The key principles laid down include that while last-seen evidence is generally weak on its own, it forms a reliable basis for conviction when corroborated by strong subsequent circumstances such as pointation recoveries of the corpus delicti and stolen property, and a trustworthy judicial confession.
Questions settled- Can a judicial confession alone form the basis of a conviction when supported by corroborative circumstantial evidence?
- Whether last-seen evidence combined with pointation recoveries is sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
- Does the absence of mitigating circumstances justify the confirmation of a death sentence in cases of brutal murder of a minor?
- Saifullah Versus The State2012 YLR 2173 · Federal Shariat Court · 2012-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, read with Section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentencing him to imprisonment for life, alongside a connected revision petition for enhancement of sentence. The core legal question involved whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's participation in the alleged dacoity and murder beyond a reasonable doubt, given major material contradictions in ocular testimony and discrepancies in recoveries. The Federal Shariat Court held that the star eyewitness testimony exonerated the appellant from using force or firing shots, depicting him merely as a customer inside the shop while absconding co-accused committed the offense outside, and that recoveries were heavily contradicted. Consequently, the court laid down the principle that a single reasonable circumstance creating doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right. The appeal was allowed, conviction set aside, and the appellant acquitted.
Questions settled- Whether an accused can be convicted under Section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 when ocular testimony depicts him merely as a customer without using force?
- Does a contradiction between the eyewitness statement and the recovery evidence vitiate the prosecution's case?
- Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
- Whether the absence of crime empties matching the recovered firearm renders the forensic report inconsequential?
- Muhammad Akbar Versus The State2003 YLR 1339 · Federal Shariat Court · 2002-12-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court for murder and robbery. The appellant was initially charged under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, but was ultimately convicted under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. A primary legal question arose regarding the jurisdiction of the Federal Shariat Court to hear an appeal where the accused was acquitted of Hudood charges but convicted under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court held that it retains appellate jurisdiction in such cases because the initial charge was framed under Hudood laws, and splitting appellate forums would create legal confusion and procedural anomalies. On merits, the Court found the prosecution's case, supported by ocular evidence and forensic reports, to be established beyond reasonable doubt. The Court rejected the appellant's arguments regarding the lack of independent witnesses and medical contradictions, affirming that the conviction was sound. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and maintained the sentences, holding that the Federal Shariat Court is the competent forum for such appeals.
Questions settled- Does the Federal Shariat Court have jurisdiction to hear an appeal where the accused was charged under Hudood laws but convicted under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does an acquittal under the Arms Act automatically entitle an accused to an acquittal in a murder case involving the same weapon?
- Can a trial court pronounce a judgment while an application for transfer of the case is pending in the High Court?
- Muhammad Jamil Versus The State2002 YLR 3921 · Federal Shariat Court · 2001-02-20Read full judgment →
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 which he was sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment and stripes. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained when the primary witness, the complainant's mother, had provided testimony in examination-in-chief but died before she could be cross-examined, despite the trial court initially allowing an application to recall her for that purpose. The Federal Shariat Court held that the conviction was unsustainable. The court reasoned that the failure to provide the accused with a proper opportunity to cross-examine the witness rendered her deposition inadmissible as evidence. Consequently, the court excluded her testimony from consideration. Finding that the remaining evidence failed to connect the appellant to the alleged offence, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reinforces the fundamental principle that the right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses is a valuable right, and evidence where such an opportunity was denied or frustrated cannot be relied upon to support a conviction.
Questions settled- Does the death of a witness before cross-examination render their examination-in-chief inadmissible as evidence?
- Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of a witness statement where the accused was denied the opportunity to cross-examine?
- Is a trial court order allowing the recall of a witness for cross-examination under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory?
- Muhammad Aslam Versus The State2002 YLR 3904 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under sections 392 and 394 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 17 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal questions were whether the conviction could be sustained given the evidence and whether the appellant was entitled to the same sentence reduction previously granted to his co-convicts. The Court held that the evidence against the appellant was identical to that of his co-convicts, whose convictions had been maintained; therefore, the appellant's conviction was upheld. Applying the principle of parity, the Court reduced the appellant's sentences to align with those of his co-convicts. The judgment affirms that an appellate court may proceed to decide an appeal on its merits even in the absence of the appellant, provided that counsel is appointed at State expense to ensure a fair hearing. Furthermore, it establishes that co-accused persons similarly situated regarding evidence and culpability are entitled to consistent sentencing treatment to maintain judicial parity.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court decide a criminal appeal on its merits if the appellant fails to appear?
- Is an appellant entitled to the same sentence reduction as co-convicts if the evidence against them is identical?
- Does an appellate court have the authority to appoint counsel at State expense for an absent appellant?
- Bashir Ahmad Versus The State2002 YLR 3430 · Federal Shariat Court · 2001-03-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenged the conviction of the petitioner under Section 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, by a Judicial Magistrate, which was subsequently upheld by the Sessions Judge. The core legal question was whether the Judicial Magistrate possessed the jurisdiction to try an offence involving Section 9 of the Ordinance and whether the Sessions Court was the competent appellate forum for a sentence exceeding two years. The Federal Shariat Court held that, pursuant to the proviso to Section 24(1) of the Ordinance, offences under Section 9 are exclusively triable by a Court of Session, rendering the trial by the Magistrate coram non judice. Additionally, the Court affirmed that appeals against sentences exceeding two years under the Ordinance must be filed before the Federal Shariat Court, not the Sessions Court. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgments and remanded the case for a fresh trial before the Court of Session, establishing the principle that statutory jurisdiction regarding trial and appellate forums must be strictly observed.
Questions settled- Is an offence punishable under Section 9 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, triable by a Judicial Magistrate?
- Which forum has the jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a sentence exceeding two years passed under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
- Does a trial conducted by a court lacking statutory jurisdiction render the resulting conviction void?
- Muhammad Arif Versus The State2002 YLR 3077 · Federal Shariat Court · 2001-09-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, convicting the appellant under sections 10(2) and 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for committing Zina and Zina-bil-Jabr. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on the testimony of the prosecutrix and medical evidence, and whether a compromise between the parties or subsequent hostility in cross-examination warranted acquittal or reduction of sentence. The Federal Shariat Court held that the initial, consistent testimony of the victim during examination-in-chief and extensive cross-examination was truthful and inspired confidence, and the subsequent turn-around under pressure did not vitiate the conviction, which was further corroborated by medical evidence. Consequently, the court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence as a mitigating circumstance in view of the compromise and repentance of the accused. The key principle laid down is that a victim's consistent and coherent testimony in examination-in-chief and early cross-examination can form the basis of a conviction despite later prevarication, and a family compromise in non-compoundable offences may be considered a mitigating circumstance for sentence reduction.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of a prosecutrix who turns hostile in later cross-examination can still be relied upon for conviction if her initial deposition inspires confidence?
- Can a compromise between the victim and the accused in a non-compoundable offence serve as a mitigating circumstance for the reduction of sentence?
- Does secondary evidence of a Medico-Legal Report satisfy the requirements of proof when the original medical officer is unavailable?
- Whether a sentence of imprisonment under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 can be reduced based on repentance and family reconciliation?
- Muhammad Hanif Versus The State2002 YLR 2960 · Federal Shariat Court · 2000-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for theft liable to Hadd, which resulted in a sentence of amputation of the right hand. The core legal question was whether the prosecution satisfied the strict evidentiary requirements for Hadd punishment, specifically regarding eyewitness testimony of the actual removal of property and the mandatory process of Tazkiya-Al-Shuhood. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to meet these requirements, as the witnesses did not observe the actual theft and were not subjected to the necessary inquiry into their credibility. Consequently, the Court set aside the Hadd conviction but upheld the finding of guilt for theft, altering the conviction to theft liable to Tazir under Section 14 of the Ordinance read with Section 382, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court established the principle that a conviction for Hadd theft requires strict compliance with Section 7 of the Ordinance, necessitating credible eyewitnesses who observed the actual removal of property and the completion of the Tazkiya-Al-Shuhood process.
Questions settled- Does the failure to subject prosecution witnesses to Tazkiya-Al-Shuhood preclude a conviction for theft liable to Hadd?
- Is the testimony of witnesses who only saw the accused driving away with stolen property sufficient to prove theft liable to Hadd?
- Can an appellate court alter a conviction from theft liable to Hadd to theft liable to Tazir?
- Zafar Iqbal Versus The State2000 YLR 1897 · Federal Shariat Court · 2000-05-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, for the smuggling of heroin. The appellant, while not challenging the conviction itself, sought a reduction in sentence and the extension of the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which the trial court had denied due to the appellant's abscondence during the trial. The Federal Shariat Court examined whether abscondence during trial constitutes a valid ground for withholding the mandatory benefit of counting pre-trial detention towards the substantive sentence. The Court held that the trial court erred in denying this benefit. It established that Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is mandatory and that pre-trial detention must be computed as part of the sentence. The Court clarified that an accused's conduct during trial, such as abscondence, is not a relevant factor for refusing this benefit unless it is proven that such conduct was specifically employed to delay the trial proceedings. Consequently, the Court granted the benefit of Section 382-B, reduced the sentence, and set aside the punishment of stripes.
Questions settled- Can an accused be denied the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, solely on the ground of abscondence during the trial?
- Is it mandatory for the trial court to consider the period of pre-trial detention when awarding a sentence of imprisonment?
- Does the Abolition of Punishment of Whipping Act, 1996, render a sentence of stripes illegal?
- Sabir Hussain Versus State1999 YLR 2322 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- Shaikh Aftab Ahmad Versus Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad2016 CLD 544 · Federal Shariat Court · 2015-04-16Read full judgment →
- Dr. Mohammad Aslam Khaki, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad2025 PLD 21 · Federal Shariat Court · 2024-05-02Read full judgment →
- Mst. Mussarat Fayyaz Versus Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad2025 PLD 18 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- Farooq Brothers Versus United Bank Limited2023 PLD 47 · Federal Shariat Court · 2022-04-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the re-determination of the prohibition of Riba (interest) within Pakistan's legal and financial framework, following a remand by the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court. The core legal questions addressed whether the Federal Shariat Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the repugnancy of various fiscal laws to the Injunctions of Islam and whether the term Riba encompasses all forms of interest. The Court held that it possesses exclusive jurisdiction to examine laws on the touchstone of Islamic Injunctions. It ruled that Riba is absolutely prohibited in all manifestations, rejecting distinctions between personal and commercial loans or simple and compound interest. The Court affirmed that interest and usury are synonymous and that Islamic banking is a practical, feasible reality. Consequently, the Court declared several statutory provisions repugnant to Islamic Injunctions, directing the government to amend these laws by December 31, 2027, to align with Shariah principles. The judgment establishes that while international financial commitments remain binding, the state must transition toward Shariah-compliant economic modes, emphasizing that the prohibition of Riba is absolute and foundational to the Islamic economic system.
Questions settled- Does the Federal Shariat Court have exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate the repugnancy of fiscal laws to the Injunctions of Islam?
- Is the prohibition of Riba in Islam limited to compound interest or personal loans, or does it extend to all forms of commercial interest?
- Are the terms 'interest' and 'usury' synonymous under Islamic law?
- Can the government be directed to set a timeline for the transformation of the conventional banking system into an interest-free system?
- Hammad Hussain Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad2022 PLD 9 · Federal Shariat Court · 2021-10-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sakina Begum Versus Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad2022 PLD 64 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. Sakeena Bibi Versus Secretary Law, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad2022 PLD 57 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- Hammad Hussain Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad2022 PLD 21 · Federal Shariat Court · 2021-10-25Read full judgment →
- Farooq Omar Bhoja Versus Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Law and Justice of Pakistan through Secretary, Islamabad2022 PLD 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 2021-10-25Read full judgment →
- Hammad Hussain Versus Federation of Pakistan2021 PLD 50 · Federal Shariat Court · 2020-11-04Read full judgment →
- Fareha Bokhari Versus State2019 PLD 13 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-04-15Read full judgment →
- Fiaz Ahmed Versus State2018 PLD 6 · Federal Shariat Court · 2018-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under section 7 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979, and sentencing them to eighty stripes of whipping for committing Qazf liable to Hadd against the complainant. During the proceedings, the complainant submitted an application stating she had effected a compromise with the appellants and pardoned them. The core legal question was whether the offence of Qazf liable to Hadd, being a violation involving both individual and divine rights, is compoundable and susceptible to pardon by the victim. The Federal Shariat Court held that in the offence of Qazf, the right of the individual is predominant, and therefore, the complainant can validly compromise the matter and grant a pardon to the accused, even after conviction. The court laid down the principle that the sentence of Hadd for Qazf can be waived off or remitted if the victim pardons the offender, resulting in the setting aside of the conviction and acquittal of the appellants.
Questions settled- Whether the offence of Qazf liable to Hadd is compoundable through a compromise between the parties?
- Can a complainant grant a pardon to an accused convicted of Qazf after the trial has concluded?
- Is the right of the individual predominant over the right of Allah in the offence of Qazf?
- Muhammad Hassan Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Human Rights of Pakistan, Islamabad2018 PLD 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 2017-09-27Read full judgment →
- Khamiso Versus State2017 PLD 98 · Federal Shariat Court · 2017-06-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant under Section 392 and Section 342 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, considering the inordinate three-month delay in lodging the FIR, the absence of recovery of stolen property, and material contradictions in the prosecution's evidence. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof. The court observed that the key eye-witness failed to identify the appellant, and the complainant's testimony contained significant contradictions regarding the items allegedly robbed. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms the principle that for the purpose of granting the benefit of doubt, it is not necessary for multiple circumstances to exist; a single reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the accused's guilt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, rather than as a concession or grace.
Questions settled- Does an inordinate, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt?
- Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the primary eye-witness fails to identify the accused and no recovery is made?
- Syeda Viquar UN Nisa Hashmi Versus Federal Government of Pakistan through Ministry of Law Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad2017 PLD 8 · Federal Shariat Court · 2016-05-12Read full judgment →
- Farooq Siddiqui Versus Mst. Farzana Naheed2017 PLD 78 · Federal Shariat Court · 2017-02-16Read full judgment →
- Shahid Orakzai Versus Pakistan through Secretary Law, Ministry of Law, Islamabad2017 PLD 63 · Federal Shariat Court · 2016-12-15Read full judgment →
- Abid Ali Bangsh Versus Government of Pakistan through Secretary Justice and Law Division, Islamabad2017 PLD 39 · Federal Shariat Court · 2016-11-18Read full judgment →
- Shahid Orakzai Versus Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Religious Affairs, Hajj and Auqaf, Islamabad2017 PLD 33 · Federal Shariat Court · 2016-11-18Read full judgment →
- Col (Retd.) Muhammad Akram Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary M/o Defence, Rawalpindi Cantt.2017 PLD 24 · Federal Shariat Court · 2016-10-31Read full judgment →
- Director and Members Al-Quran Research Academy, Khyber Bazar, Peshawar Versus Federal Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Law Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad2017 PLD 12 · Federal Shariat Court · 2016-05-12Read full judgment →
- Dr. Muhammad Aslam Khaki Versus Federation of Pakistan2017 PLD 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 2016-05-12Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Cotton Ginners Association (Regd.) Pakistan Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Commerce2016 PLD 9 · Federal Shariat Court · 2015-04-16Read full judgment →
- Nadeem Siddiqui Versus Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad2016 PLD 4 · Federal Shariat Court · 2015-04-30Read full judgment →
- Saleem Ahmad Versus Government of Pakistan through Attorney General of Pakistan2014 PLD 43 · Federal Shariat Court · 2009-05-28Read full judgment →
- Mukhtiar Ahmed Shaikh Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Law, Islamabad2014 PLD 23 · Federal Shariat Court · 2014-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review shariat petition challenged the constitutional and Islamic validity of section 3-A(2)(c), section 4(1) with Proviso (A), and sections 6 and 7 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The core legal questions involved whether granting a casting or prevailing vote to the Chairman of a Service Tribunal when a bench is equally divided violates Islamic injunctions regarding human equality, and whether statutory limitation periods for filing appeals are repugnant to Islamic jurisprudence. The Federal Shariat Court held that section 3-A(2)(c), in giving preferential weight to the Chairman's opinion in judicial decision-making, violates the Islamic principle of equality of human beings and is repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam, making it void after a specified date. However, the court upheld the provisions concerning limitation, holding that procedural time limits and laws of limitation do not extinguish substantive rights improperly, are well-founded in Islamic jurisprudence (Tamadi), and are necessary for the administration of justice to prevent stale claims and evidentiary difficulties.
Questions settled- Does section 3-A(2)(c) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 violate the Injunctions of Islam by giving preferential weight to the Chairman's opinion on an equally divided bench?
- Are statutory limitation periods and procedural timeframes for filing appeals against the Injunctions of Islam?
- Does Islamic jurisprudence recognize the concept of limitation of time (Tamadi) for the enforcement of rights?
- Qazi Muhammad Haroon, Advocate, High Court, Balochistan Versus Federal Government of Pakistan2013 PLD 7 · Federal Shariat Court · 2012-10-22Read full judgment →
- Dr. Mahmood-Ur-Rehman Faisal Versus Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Justice, Law and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad2013 PLD 55 · Federal Shariat Court · 2013-01-07Read full judgment →
- Professor Kazim Hussain Versus Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad2013 PLD 18 · Federal Shariat Court · 2012-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged government Office Memoranda that denied house rent allowance to one spouse if the other was provided government accommodation, arguing this was repugnant to Islamic Injunctions. The core legal question was whether such rules, which penalized married government servants by denying individual entitlements, violated Islamic principles of equality and justice. The Federal Shariat Court held that the impugned rules were indeed repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam and the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court reasoned that marriage is not a disqualification for service benefits, and that civil servants, as separate individuals, are entitled to their own earnings and allowances. The holding established that rules formulated under delegated authority cannot contradict constitutional provisions or Islamic injunctions. The Court directed the Federal and Provincial Governments to amend the offending rules by June 30, 2013, failing which they would cease to have effect. The key principle laid down is that the State cannot discriminate against employees based on marital status, as equality before the law is a fundamental tenet of both the Constitution and Sharia.
Questions settled- Are government rules denying house rent allowance to one spouse if the other is provided government accommodation repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam?
- Can rules framed under delegated authority contradict the Constitution or Islamic injunctions?
- Does marriage constitute a valid ground for denying service benefits like house rent allowance to a government servant?
- Mian Abdur Razzaq Aamir Versus Federal Government of Islamic Republic of Pakistan2011 PLD 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 2010-12-22Read full judgment →
- Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Finance Islamabad2010 PLD 229 · Federal Shariat Court · 2010-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Shariat petition challenged the validity of Martial Law Order No. 21 (1977), MLO 26 (1977), President's Order No. 4 (1978), and President's Order No. 6 (1979), which seized and reorganized the 'Peoples Foundation Trust' established by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. The core legal question was whether these instruments were repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. The Federal Shariat Court held that the impugned instruments were indeed repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam, declaring them void and of no legal effect, thereby restoring the status quo ante. The court established that Islamic law mandates the preservation of trusts, prohibits arbitrary confiscation of property, and requires due process. It affirmed that trust assets must be returned to rightful owners and that administrative actions lacking transparency, consultation, or legal basis—particularly those violating fundamental rights and Islamic principles of justice—are ultra vires. The court asserted its jurisdiction to review such instruments despite their inclusion in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, emphasizing that no executive authority can override Islamic injunctions or fundamental constitutional protections.
Questions settled- Does the Federal Shariat Court have the jurisdiction to examine Martial Law Orders on the touchstone of the Injunctions of Islam?
- Are Martial Law Orders that confiscate trust property without due process repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam?
- Does the inclusion of a law in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of Pakistan bar the Federal Shariat Court from reviewing it for repugnancy to Islamic Injunctions?
- Is the unilateral alteration of a trust's objectives and administration by executive fiat permissible under Islamic law?
- Syed Muhammad Jamaluddin Kazmi Versus Federation of Pakistan through President of Pakistan2010 PLD 221 · Federal Shariat Court · 2009-05-08Read full judgment →
- Dlr. Muhammad Aslam Khaki Versus Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad2010 PLD 191 · Federal Shariat Court · 2009-05-28Read full judgment →
- Dr. Muhammad Aslam Khakhi Versus State2010 PLD 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 2009-08-28Read full judgment →
- Mukhtar Ahmad Shaikh Versus Government of Pakistan2009 PLD 65 · Federal Shariat Court · 2009-02-11Read full judgment →
- Zafar Versus Federation of Pakistan2009 PLD 62 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Akram Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi2009 PLD 36 · Federal Shariat Court · 2008-09-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Saeedullah Khan Versus Secretary, Government of N.-W.F.P. Excise and Taxation Department, Peshawar2009 PLD 33 · Federal Shariat Court · 2008-08-28Read full judgment →
- Federal Government Versus Provincial Governments2009 PLD 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 2008-10-24Read full judgment →
- Suo Motu Case No.1/K of 2006 Versus2008 PLD 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 2007-12-12Read full judgment →
- Moulvi Iqbal Haider Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad2006 PLD 26 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-12-15Read full judgment →
- Syed Shabbir Hussain Kazmi Versus Government of Pakistan2006 PLD 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 2005-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of eight Shariat petitions filed under Article 203-D of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan by brick kiln owners challenging the constitutional validity of various provisions of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1992, including its definitions and sections 5, 6, 7, 8, and 11, on the ground that they are repugnant to the Injunctions of the Holy Quran and Sunnah. The core legal question is whether the abolition of the traditional 'peshgi' (advance) and 'jamadari' systems and the criminalization and penalization of bonded labour under the 1992 Act violate Islamic injunctions. The Federal Shariat Court held that the impugned provisions are entirely consistent with Islamic injunctions, which strictly forbid forced labour, exploitation, and unconscionable contracts, and that the legislation was enacted in pursuance of authoritative judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The court laid down the principle that Islam mandates the protection of workers' dignity, the prompt payment of wages, and the elimination of all forms of economic servitude and exploitative bondage, thereby dismissing the petitions as both non-maintainable and devoid of merit.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1992 regarding the abolition of the peshgi system are repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam?
- Are the judgments of the Supremeitor of Pakistan rendered under Article 184 of the Constitution binding on persons who were not parties to the original proceedings?
- Whether the practice of taking advances (peshgi) and binding brick kiln workers under unconscionable terms constitutes forced labour prohibited by Islam?
- Do sections 5, 6, 7, 8, and 11 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1992 violate any provisions of the Holy Quran and Sunnah?
- Abdul Majid Versus Government of Pakistan2004 PLD 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 2003-11-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. Zafran Bibi Versus The State2002 PLD 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 2002-06-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal was filed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kohat, which convicted the appellant under Section 5 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and sentenced her to stoning to death (Rajm). The prosecution's case was initiated after the appellant reported being subjected to rape (Zina-bil-Jabr) by a co-accused while her husband was imprisoned. Due to a discrepancy between the estimated duration of her pregnancy and the date of the alleged rape, the police arraigned her as a co-accused. The trial court subsequently acquitted the co-accused but convicted the appellant based on her pregnancy and statements. The Federal Shariat Court accepted additional evidence under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, where the appellant's husband testified and owned the legitimacy of the child. The Court held that pregnancy alone does not constitute conclusive proof of Zina, especially for a married woman, and cannot justify a Hadd punishment. Furthermore, the Court ruled that exculpatory statements alleging rape cannot be treated as confessions of consensual Zina. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
Questions settled- Whether the pregnancy of a married woman can be treated as sole or conclusive proof of Zina to impose a Hadd punishment?
- Can an exculpatory statement alleging rape (Zina-bil-Jabr) be construed as a confession of consensual Zina under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- Is a conviction for a graver Hadd offence legally sustainable if the accused was originally charged only with a lesser Ta'zir offence without altering the charge during trial?
- Ghulam Asghar Versus State2000 PLD 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 1999-05-13Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Anita Ghosh Note 3, P.1997 PLD 5 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-04-02Read full judgment →
- Farzand Ali Versus Raja Muhammad Ibrahim1996 PLD 29 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-05-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nuzhat Jabin Versus Jamil Hussain Shah1996 PLD 15 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-04-02Read full judgment →
- Abdul Malik Versus The State1996 PLD 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-11-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Banaras Versus The State1995 PLD 7 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-02-14Read full judgment →
- Ahmed Sher Versus The State1995 PLD 20 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-02-28Read full judgment →
- Bali Khan Versus The State1995 PLD 13 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-03-21Read full judgment →
- Tahir Majeed Versus The State1995 PLD 10 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-01-24Read full judgment →
- Said Mahmood Versus The State1995 PLD 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-03-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Abbas Versus The State1994 PLD 46 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-04-23Read full judgment →
- Razia Bibi Versus Muhammad Arshad1994 PLD 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-10-25Read full judgment →
- 1993 PLD 61993 PLD 6 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-04-18Read full judgment →
- 1993 PLD 441993 PLD 44 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-11-12Read full judgment →
- 1993 PLD 381993 PLD 38 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-05-24Read full judgment →
- 1993 PLD 331993 PLD 33 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-03-16Read full judgment →
- 1993 PLD 311993 PLD 31 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-03-14Read full judgment →