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. 4,389 judgments in total from the Islamabad High Court.

• Muhammad Shahzad Khaliq vs The State2023 PCRLJ 1310 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-01-14
  child pornographycriminal appealforensic evidencechild protectionsexual exploitationsentencing policydigital evidencein camera trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentencing of the appellant for offences including child pornography, seduction, and criminal intimidation under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns the sufficiency of forensic digital evidence to sustain convictions for child pornography and the procedural standards required for protecting child victims during trial. The Court upheld the conviction, finding that forensic analysis of the appellant's mobile devices, corroborated by consistent victim testimony, conclusively established the appellant's guilt in producing and distributing child pornography. The Court affirmed that technical evidence from information systems is admissible and sufficient for conviction, negating the necessity to summon every victim. Key principles laid down include the requirement for in camera trials in child pornography cases, the necessity of protecting child victims from direct confrontation with the accused through video-link testimony, and the mandate for the Federal Government to harmonize sentencing provisions between the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016 and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to reflect the heinous nature of these crimes.

  Questions settled

  • Is forensic digital evidence sufficient to prove child pornography charges without summoning every victim?
  • Should trials involving child pornography be conducted in camera to protect the child victim?
  • Are child victims required to be physically present in court to testify in cases of sexual exploitation?
  • Should minor offences be transferred to be tried alongside the main case to prevent judicial delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shaheer Sohaib vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 IHC 44 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-04-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahbaz vs District & Sessions Judge (East), Islamabad and others2023 IHC 5, 2024 CLC 274 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-01-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahbaz Shabeer vs Additional Sessions Judge and 5 others2023 PCRLJ 810 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-08-22
  physical remandpolice custodycustodial torturetaking of cognizancesanction for prosecutionconstitutional petitioncriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge granting a further 48-hour physical remand of the petitioner to police custody in connection with FIR No. 691 of 2022 registered under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with contentions regarding custodial torture and the necessity of sanction under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Islamabad High Court examined the legality of the revisional order, the scope of judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, allegations of torture, and the distinction between the registration of an FIR/investigation and the taking of cognizance by a court. The court held that the revisional order granting physical remand suffered from no jurisdictional defect or error of law, as police diaries and specific investigation needs justified the remand. Furthermore, statutory bars regarding sanction for prosecution under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply strictly to the stage of taking cognizance by a court and do not impede police investigation or the registration of an FIR. The petition was disposed of with directions for an inquiry into the alleged custodial torture.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere with a revisional order granting physical remand in the absence of a jurisdictional error or error of law under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the requirement of prior sanction under sections 196 and 196-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 place an embargo upon the registration of an FIR and the conduct of police investigation?
  • Can an accused person be remanded to police custody after having been previously remitted to judicial custody?
  • What is the effect of statutory provisions regarding cognizance on the investigative powers of the police?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shah vs The State2023 IHC 20 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-08
  narcotics traffickingcriminal appealspeaking orderjudicial reasoningfair trialremandCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under Section 9(C) of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, where the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for trafficking narcotics. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s judgment complied with the mandatory procedural requirements of Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, specifically regarding the necessity of stating points for determination, decisions thereon, and providing rational reasons for the conviction. The High Court found the impugned judgment perfunctory, containing factual errors regarding the date and location of the occurrence, and lacking the requisite judicial reasoning. Holding that a judgment must be a "speaking order" reflecting the application of judicial mind, the Court ruled that the trial court's failure to provide reasons and specify points for determination constituted a non-curable illegality under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh judgment by a different presiding officer to ensure a fair trial and proper judicial dispensation.

  Questions settled

  • Is a judgment that fails to state points for determination and provide reasons for the decision legally sustainable?
  • Does the failure of a trial court to comply with Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, constitute a curable irregularity under Section 537 of the Code?
  • What are the essential requirements for a valid criminal judgment under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Can an appellate court remand a case for a fresh judgment when the trial court's original judgment is found to be perfunctory and devoid of reasoning?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafeeq vs Federation of Pakistan, through Secretary, Ministry2023 PLC (C.S.) 205 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-03-07
  quo warrantopublic officecontractual appointmentstatutory interpretationjudicial reviewrecruitment policypay package approval
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the appointment of the Director General of the Hydrocarbon Development Institute of Pakistan (H.D.I.P.), specifically contesting the three-year tenure (contrary to the two-year advertisement), the pay package, and the eligibility of a retired civil servant. The petitioner, a candidate for the same post, argued that the appointment process was flawed and the salary excessive. The Court held that while the appointment of a retired civil servant through a competitive process is legally permissible, the tenure must strictly adhere to the terms specified in the original advertisement. Consequently, the appointment was limited to two years. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the pay package determined by the Board of Governors is subject to the mandatory approval of the Federal Government under the Hydrocarbon Development Institute of Pakistan Act, 2006, which cannot be overridden by internal service rules. The principle established is that employment conditions set in an advertisement cannot be unilaterally altered post-application, and statutory requirements for government approval of terms and conditions of public office holders remain binding.

  Questions settled

  • Can the terms of employment, such as tenure, be altered after the advertisement for a public post has been issued?
  • Does a retired civil servant face an absolute bar on re-employment in a statutory body if selected through a competitive process?
  • Can internal service rules of an autonomous body override a statutory requirement for Federal Government approval of a salary package?
  • Is a writ petition filed by an unsuccessful candidate against the appointment of a successful candidate maintainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabbir vs Registrar, Islamabad High Court and others2023 IHC 294 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-07-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabbir vs Overseas Pakistani Foundation through its Chief2023 IHC 306 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabbir Khan Abbasi vs Islamabad Diagnostic Centre Pvt. Ltd.2023 IHC 60 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sami Ullah vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division and 3 others2023 PLC (C.S.) 435 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-06-13
  promotionsupersessiondefermentseniorityCentral Selection Boardfitness for promotiondiscretionary power
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to set aside the Establishment Division's decision/letter dated 02.02.2022 and to obtain a direction for awarding additional marks for exemption from the Mid-Career Management Course (MCMC). The petitioner argued that his supersession in the 2016 Central Selection Board (CSB) meeting should have been converted to deferment in light of a previous court order and a Supreme Court judgment, which would restore his seniority. The respondents contended that the petitioner failed to meet the required threshold of 70 marks for promotion, and that the conversion of supersession to deferment was only applicable to officers who met the threshold but were superseded due to the overriding effect of integrity marks. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner did not meet the objective threshold of marks, making his case distinguishable from those covered by the Supreme Court's directions. The Court reaffirmed that the determination of fitness or suitability for promotion falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority and is not justiciable under Article 199 of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant's supersession be converted to deferment if they fail to meet the objective threshold of marks required for promotion?
  • Whether the determination of fitness or suitability of a civil servant for promotion is within the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Does the exemption from mandatory training automatically entitle an officer to promotion if they otherwise fail to meet the aggregate score threshold?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited2023 PLC (C.S.) 517 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-22
  writ jurisdictionPTCLservice protectiondue processaudi alteram partemtermination of servicefundamental rightserstwhile T&T employees
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the removal of the petitioner, a former employee of the erstwhile T&T department, from service by the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL). The core legal questions were whether the writ petition was maintainable against PTCL and whether the petitioner's removal without disciplinary proceedings was lawful. The court held that the petitioner, as a transferred employee of the erstwhile T&T department, possessed protected terms and conditions of service. It affirmed that PTCL constitutes a 'person' amenable to the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. Finding that the petitioner was removed without a show-cause notice or adherence to due process, the court declared the termination illegal and ordered reinstatement without back benefits. The judgment established that statutory employment within the public domain requires strict adherence to procedural fairness. It reaffirmed the principle of audi alteram partem, holding that arbitrary termination of service violates fundamental rights, including the right to a lawful livelihood and the right to a fair trial under the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited a 'person' amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Are the terms and conditions of service of erstwhile T&T employees transferred to the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited protected by law?
  • Can an employee be removed from service without the issuance of a show-cause notice and adherence to disciplinary proceedings?
  • Does the arbitrary termination of a public sector employee violate the fundamental right to a lawful livelihood?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rizwan Bari vs Iqra University and others2023 IHC 62 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-04-07
  contractual employmentmaster and servantwrit jurisdictiontermination of serviceconstitutional petitionmaintainabilitydamages
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a contractual Associate Professor at Iqra University, challenged the termination of his employment contract, arguing that the termination required approval from the Board of Governors under the Iqra University Ordinance, 2000. The core legal question was whether a contractual employee could invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution to challenge such termination and seek reinstatement. The Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that it was not maintainable. The ratio established that the relationship between the university and the petitioner was governed by the principle of master and servant. Consequently, a contractual employee cannot invoke writ jurisdiction for reinstatement, as they possess no vested right to such relief. The Court affirmed that the appropriate remedy for a contractual employee alleging wrongful termination is a civil suit for damages, not constitutional litigation, as the Court cannot enforce specific performance of a personal service contract or declare the termination unlawful in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a contractual employee invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution to challenge the termination of their services?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable for the reinstatement of a contractual employee in a master-servant relationship?
  • What is the appropriate legal remedy for a contractual employee seeking redress for wrongful termination of their employment contract?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique Khalid vs Director General Pakistan Post Office2023 IHC 228 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique and another vs Director General, Federal2023 PCRLJ 38 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-01-28
  money launderingpredicate offencequashing of FIRspecial lawAnti-Money Laundering Act 2010proceeds of crimesame transaction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two writ petitions seeking the quashing of FIRs registered under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, against petitioners already facing charges for embezzlement and criminal breach of trust in a previously registered FIR. The core legal question was whether a second FIR for money laundering can be registered when the alleged proceeds of crime originate from the same transaction as the predicate offence already under investigation. The Court held that the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, is a special law with an overriding effect that treats money laundering as a distinct, standalone offence, independent of the predicate offence. Consequently, the registration of a separate FIR for money laundering, even if based on the same underlying transaction as the predicate offence, is legally valid and does not violate the principles against double jeopardy or the prohibition of multiple FIRs for the same transaction. The Court established that money laundering offences require separate investigation, trial, and burden of proof, and that the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, prevails over general criminal law provisions in this context.

  Questions settled

  • Can a separate FIR for money laundering be registered when the alleged proceeds of crime originate from a predicate offence already under investigation?
  • Does the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, have an overriding effect over general criminal law provisions regarding the registration of FIRs?
  • Is the offence of money laundering under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, a distinct and independent offence from the predicate offence?
  • Does the principle against the registration of multiple FIRs for the same transaction apply to proceedings initiated under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs Vice-Chancellor, Allama Iqbal Open University and 32023 PLC (C.S.) 1143 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-11-21
  pensionary benefitswrit jurisdictionright to lifeservice mattersautonomous bodiesnon-statutory rulessuperannuation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a retired employee of Allama Iqbal Open University (AIOU), sought revised pensionary benefits based on over 40 years of service, including prior service in the Pakistan Post. AIOU contended that the petition was not maintainable as its service statutes are non-statutory and that the claimed benefits were discontinued by a 2001 Finance Division Office Memorandum. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise writ jurisdiction over an autonomous body regarding pensionary claims and whether the AIOU was justified in withholding benefits after receiving pension contributions from the petitioner's parent department. The Court held that pensionary benefits are intrinsically linked to the fundamental right to life under Article 9 of the Constitution, rendering the matter justiciable regardless of the statutory nature of the service rules. The Court emphasized that public authorities must adhere to procedural fairness and service regulations. Consequently, the Court directed the AIOU to resolve the petitioner's claim through a speaking order within one month, ensuring the matter is decided in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise writ jurisdiction against an autonomous body regarding the payment of pensionary benefits?
  • Is the right to receive pensionary benefits considered a component of the fundamental right to life under the Constitution?
  • Does the non-statutory nature of an organization's service rules bar judicial review of its actions in service-related disputes?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem Akhtar vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Cabinet Division and others2023 IHC 220 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Nadeem vs The State, etc2023 IHC 430 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-08-31
  post-arrest bailabetmentconspiracyfurther inquirysupplementary statementcriminal conspiracymurder
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Muhammad Nadeem, sought post-arrest bail in a case involving charges under Sections 302, 324, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was not named in the initial FIR but was later implicated through a supplementary statement by the complainant’s brother, alleging abetment and conspiracy. The core legal question was whether a vague allegation of conspiracy, lacking specific details regarding the time, place, or witnesses of the alleged abetment, constitutes sufficient incriminating material to deny bail. The Court held that mere allegations of conspiracy, without specific details or corroborating circumstantial evidence, do not establish a prima facie case sufficient to deny bail. Relying on precedent, the Court emphasized that the prosecution must provide concrete details of an alleged conspiracy to justify detention. Finding that the petitioner’s involvement remained unsubstantiated and that the case fell within the ambit of further inquiry, the Court granted the post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that vague allegations of abetment without supporting particulars fail to constitute incriminating material for the purpose of bail adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Does a vague allegation of conspiracy without specific details of time, place, or witnesses constitute sufficient incriminating material to deny bail?
  • Can an accused be denied bail solely on the basis of a supplementary statement alleging abetment when the initial FIR did not name them?
  • Is an allegation of conspiracy or abetment sufficient to exclude a case from the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Musawar Abbasi vs The State and another2023 PCRLJ 149 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-06-20
  criminal breach of trustpre-arrest bail cancellationagreement to sellentrustment of propertybreach of contractmens rea
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition filed before the Islamabad High Court by the petitioner seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to respondent No.2 in a case registered under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning an alleged criminal breach of trust regarding money paid for the purchase of land that was neither transferred nor refunded. The core legal question was whether a breach of an agreement to sell involving the payment of money constitutes the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and whether grounds existed for the cancellation of pre-arrest bail. The court held that the payment of money for the purchase of property under an agreement does not amount to 'entrustment' under Section 406, P.P.C., and that a breach of contract or agreement to sell falls under the Contract Act 1872 and the Specific Relief Act 1877 rather than criminal law. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to establish any extraordinary or strong grounds warranting the cancellation of bail. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to transfer property or return money under an agreement to sell constitute criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What is the distinction between payment or investment of money and entrustment of property under criminal law?
  • What are the established principles governing the cancellation of pre-arrest bail once granted by a competent court?
  • Does a breach of a contractual obligation fall within the domain of criminal law or civil remedies?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mujtaba Khawaja vs Khawaja Azam Ali and others2023 MLD 1901 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-06-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Muddasir Ahmed Haqqani and others vs National Skills2023 IHC 278 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-06-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mubaraz vs Secretary, Cabinet Division and another2023 IHC 84 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-04-13
  intra court appealwrit petitionnon-statutory rulesworkmantermination of serviceNational Industrial Relations Commissionalternate remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal was filed against the judgment of a learned Judge-in-Chambers dismissing the appellant's writ petition against his termination from service by the Printing Corporation of Pakistan (PCP) under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. The primary issues raised were whether the writ petition was maintainable against the termination order given the nature of the service rules and whether alternative statutory remedies were available. The High Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that since the PCP Employees Service Rules, 1977 are non-statutory, constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 cannot be invoked. Furthermore, the court observed that as the appellant was alleged to have committed misconduct under Rule 15(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, he fell within the definition of a 'workman'. Consequently, his proper legal remedy lay before the National Industrial Relations Commission rather than through a writ petition before the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a writ petition is maintainable against a termination of service order governed by non-statutory service rules?
  • Whether an employee classified as a workman under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 must seek remedy before the National Industrial Relations Commission instead of invoking constitutional writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Moinuddin Khan vs District Judge, Islamabad and 5 others2023 CLC 1315, 2023 PLJ Islamabad 212 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-02-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Israr vs Amjad Ali and others2023 IHC 198, 2024 MLD 552 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-11-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Islam Khan vs Islamabad Club through Administrator and another2023 YLR 1387 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-04-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Islam Khan vs Islamabad Club and another2023 IHC 22 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irfan Wahid vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Islamabad & Another2023 IHC 152 · Islamabad High Court
  foreign postinglegitimate expectationwrit jurisdictionservice mattersadministrative discretionjudicial reviewpolicy deviationmerit-based appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges the recommendation of the Selection Board regarding the posting of a Trade and Investment Officer to a foreign mission. The petitioner, despite ranking higher in merit than a respondent, was assigned a station contrary to his preference, while the respondent received the petitioner's preferred station. The core legal questions were whether the petition was barred by Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, and whether the Board’s deviation from the established appointment policy was arbitrary. The Court held the petition maintainable, ruling that foreign postings under specific policy guidelines do not constitute 'terms and conditions of service' under the Civil Servants Act 1973, thus bypassing the Article 212 bar. On merits, the Court held the Board’s decision arbitrary and violative of the petitioner's legitimate expectation, as the Board failed to record cogent reasons for deviating from the merit-based preference policy. The judgment establishes that administrative authorities must strictly adhere to announced policies and that any deviation must be supported by recorded, justifiable reasons to satisfy the requirements of fairness and transparency.

  Questions settled

  • Is a challenge to the allocation of foreign postings for civil servants barred by Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does an appointment policy for foreign missions constitute a term and condition of service under the Civil Servants Act 1973?
  • Can an administrative authority deviate from a published merit-based appointment policy without recording cogent reasons?
  • Does the doctrine of legitimate expectation apply when an administrative authority departs from a stated policy for station allocation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs Ig Police, Islamabad etc2023 IHC 406 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Finance2023 IHC 300 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-09-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrar Khan vs Mian Muhammad Ramzan and another2023 PCRLJ 276 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-08-05
  acquittal under section 249-Acriminal breach of trustmens reaFIR evidentiary valuecivil dispute vs criminal liabilityfair trialremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate whereby the respondent was acquitted under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in a case registered under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court could acquit an accused under Section 249-A solely relying on the contents of the First Information Report without considering the incriminating material collected by the prosecution during investigation. The Islamabad High Court held that an acquittal under Section 249-A cannot be based exclusively on the contents of the FIR while ignoring the broader investigative record, including witness statements and documentary evidence, and that treating a matter prematurely as a civil dispute without analyzing the prosecution evidence violates the right to a fair trial. The Court set aside the acquittal order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision on the Section 249-A application, laying down the principle that a court must evaluate all prosecution material and record rational reasons when considering acquittal at an early stage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court can acquit an accused under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 solely on the basis of the contents of the First Information Report?
  • Is it mandatory for a court deciding an application under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to consider the incriminating material collected during the police investigation?
  • Does an order of acquittal passed under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 carry the same sanctity and presumption of double innocence as an acquittal recorded after a full-fledged trial?
  • What are the essential ingredients required to constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 405 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fayaz vs Muhammad Banyameen and 3 others2023 MLD 180 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-06-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ehtasham Buland Khan vs Syed Shabahat Ali and another2023 IHC 242 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bilal Sheikh vs Accountability Court No. 1, Islamabad and 52023 PCRLJ 337 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-07-25
  National Accountability Ordinanceretrospective amendmentomission of sectioninfructuous applicationpast and closed transactionssubstantive lawasset caution
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil miscellaneous application was filed seeking clarification of a prior judgment passed by the Islamabad High Court in writ petitions and a criminal appeal concerning a 'caution' imposed by the National Accountability Bureau on the petitioner's assets. During the pendency of the application, the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 was amended by the National Accountability (Amendment) Act, 2022, omitting section 23 of the 1999 Ordinance with retrospective effect. Counsel for the applicant contended that the application had become infructuous due to the legislative omission of section 23. The Court evaluated the retrospective application of statutes and noted that while substantive amendments generally operate prospectively unless expressly stated otherwise, the 2022 Act explicitly gave retrospective effect to the omission of section 23 from the inception of the 1999 Ordinance. Consequently, the Court held that actions taken under the omitted section stand extinguished, provided that past and closed transactions are not prejudiced. The application was accordingly disposed of as having become infructuous.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect of the omission of section 23 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 by the National Accountability (Amendment) Act, 2022?
  • Does an amendment to a statute operate prospectively or retrospectively when the legislature has explicitly given it retrospective effect?
  • Do past and closed transactions get affected by the retrospective omission of a statutory provision?
  • How do courts interpret changes in substantive law regarding vested rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam Khan Swati vs The State and another2023 PCRLJ 350 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-01-02
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausecyber crimePECA 2016further inquirybench shoppingtransfer of casesrepetition of offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail petition filed by Muhammad Azam Khan Swati arising out of FIR No. 185/2022 registered under sections 20 of PECA, 2016 and sections 131, 500, 501, 505, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) for allegedly posting objectionable tweets inciting mutiny and making derogatory remarks against serving army personnel. The core legal questions involved whether the offences fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), whether the petitioner's alleged repetition of the offence disentitles him to bail, and whether lapses in following the investigation's Standing Orders warrant further inquiry. The Islamabad High Court held that since the maximum punishment for the primary offense is up to 10 years and lesser sentences are considered for bail, the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., making bail a rule and refusal an exception. The Court further noted that a single prior instance does not constitute habitual repetition under the exceptions outlined in jurisprudence, and lapses in following the investigative Standing Order make the case one of further inquiry. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and bail was granted subject to surety bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an offence carrying a maximum sentence of up to ten years falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Cr.P.C. for the purpose of bail?
  • Does a single prior instance of a similar criminal case constitute habitual repetition of the offence so as to bring the case within the exceptions for refusing bail?
  • Can an application for the transfer of a case lie against a Judge of a High Court on the ground of apprehended bias?
  • Does a procedural lapse in complying with investigative Standing Orders during an inquiry render the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Cr.P.C.?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam Khan Swati vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2023 PLD Islamabad 184 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-12-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam Khan Hoti (deceased) through Mst. Humaira Azam Hoti2023 IHC 172 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Wazir vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 IHC 192 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-09-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Mughal vs Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), and others2023 IHC · Islamabad High Court · 2023-04-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Adeel Akram vs Government of Pakistan through Prime2023 IHC 206 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-02-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Veera vs Jonathan and 2 others2023 PCRLJ 421 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-10-27
  cancellation of baildeceitSection 493-A PPCChristian Marriages Actpre-arrest bailcriminal liabilityprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought the cancellation of bail granted to the respondents in a case involving allegations under Section 493-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning deceitful inducement into cohabitation, and subsequently added offences under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the accused had "deceitfully" caused the complainant to believe she was lawfully married, thereby justifying the cancellation of bail. The Islamabad High Court held that the bail orders were not perverse and dismissed the petition. The court established that for criminal liability under Section 493-A, "deceit" requires that the representee was not aware of the truth and did not knowingly turn a blind eye to circumstances suggesting otherwise. Where a complainant, familiar with marriage customs, accepts a document without standard solemnization, the claim of deception becomes a matter for further inquiry at trial. Furthermore, the court reiterated that bail cancellation requires "strong and exceptional" grounds, and the mere possibility of an alternative view does not justify recalling bail, especially for offences outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the offence of deceit under Section 493-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 require that the representee had no knowledge or suspicion of the truth?
  • What is the threshold for cancelling bail once it has been granted by a lower court?
  • Is a marriage void under the Christian Marriages Act 1872 automatically indicative of criminal deception under Section 493-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Are offences under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sobia Shaheen vs Muhammad Usman and another2023 MLD 279 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-05-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahnaz Gul vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and another2023 PLC (C.S.) 328 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-11-21
  deputationrepatriationwedlock policycivil servantrecruitment rulesvested rightgood governance
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Lady Health Visitor, challenged her repatriation from the Health Department, Islamabad Capital Territory (I.C.T.) to her parent department in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, arguing that her husband's employment in Islamabad entitled her to remain on deputation under the wedlock policy and the proviso to Rule 20A of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973. The core legal question was whether a deputationist possesses a vested right to continue in a borrowing department based on the wedlock policy or the expiry of a deputation period. The Court held that a deputationist has no vested right to remain on a post indefinitely or for a specific period and may be repatriated at any time by the competent authority. The Court affirmed that the wedlock policy cannot override the borrowing department's right to repatriate a deputationist or the requirement to fill posts through prescribed competitive recruitment rules. The ratio established that sanctioned posts must be filled via merit-based competitive processes rather than indefinite deputation, and that public functionaries must adhere strictly to recruitment rules to ensure good governance and transparency.

  Questions settled

  • Does a deputationist have a vested right to remain on a post for the entire duration of a deputation period?
  • Can the wedlock policy be invoked to prevent the repatriation of a deputationist to their parent department?
  • Is a borrowing department obligated to retain a deputationist against their will?
  • Must sanctioned government posts be filled through competitive recruitment processes rather than indefinite deputation?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahida Parveen through Legal Heirs and others vs Saeed Ahmed and others2023 CLC 838 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-08-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nazeer Bibi and another vs Higher Education Commission, Islamabad2023 CLC 1860 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-09-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasreen Bibi etc. vs Arbab Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd. through its Chairman2023 IHC 144 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-09-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Liaba Rauf vs Pakistan Medical & Dental Council and others2023 IHC 322, 2024 MLD 2019 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-12-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Farasat Zareen vs Federation of Pakistan & others2023 IHC 418 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-05-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bisma Noureen vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry2023 CLC 110 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-28Read full judgment →
• Ms. Ghazala Ali vs Sikandar Ramzan Ch.2023 IHC 394, 2024 PCRLJ 909, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 618 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-11-08
  acquittalSection 249-A Cr.P.Cfrivolous litigationforgeryfraudjudicial noticeabuse of processexemplary costs
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges an order of acquittal passed by a Judicial Magistrate under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, in a case involving allegations of forgery and fraud related to the transfer of property. The core legal question is whether the trial court correctly exercised its discretion to acquit the respondents when the prosecution's evidence, specifically the handwriting expert's report, failed to substantiate the allegations of forgery and when the litigation appeared to be a continuation of a long-standing family dispute. The Court held that the acquittal was justified as the charge was groundless and there was no probability of conviction. The Court emphasized that the prosecution's evidence, including the verified handwriting expert report, negated the claims of forgery. Furthermore, the Court established that courts must curb frivolous and vexatious litigation by imposing exemplary costs to prevent the abuse of the judicial process, protect the court's time, and ensure that genuine grievances are prioritized, consistent with the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court acquit an accused under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the prosecution evidence is groundless?
  • Under what circumstances can a court take judicial notice of documents from other litigation proceedings?
  • Is the imposition of exemplary costs a valid judicial tool to curb frivolous and vexatious litigation?
  • Does the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 include the power of the court to penalize vexatious litigants?
  Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Shamshad Butt vs Deputy Commissioner C.D.A., Islamabad and 32023 CLC 304 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-06-24Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Rubina Amjad vs Javaid Shafique Saddiqui and 9 others2023 PLJ Islamabad 21 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-09-21Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Najeeba Touqeer, Muhammad Shakil and another vs Muhammad2023 IHC 402 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Monday Erima Paul vs The State and another2023 YLR 749 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-15
  post-arrest bailcocaine smugglingbody cavity concealmentcustoms actnarcotics recoveryconscious knowledgeprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under the Customs Act, 1969, following the recovery of 1350 grams of cocaine concealed in capsules inside his body upon arrival at the Islamabad Airport. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the substantial recovery of contraband. The Islamabad High Court held that the factor of conscious knowledge could not be ruled out at the tentative assessment stage, and sufficient incriminating material was available on record to connect the petitioner with the heinous offence. Consequently, the court refused bail and dismissed the petition, while expecting the trial court to conclude the proceedings expeditiously.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused from whose body a substantial quantity of contraband is recovered is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does the recovery of narcotic drugs concealed inside the body of an accused raise a question of conscious knowledge at the bail stage?
  • Whether post-arrest bail should be refused when sufficient incriminating material connects the accused to the alleged smuggling offense?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Tahir Nizami vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of National Health Services, Regulations & Coordination, Pak. Secretariat, Islamabad and others2023 IHC 120, 2023 IHC 364, 2025 CLC 943 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-10-12
  National Council for Homeopathyelection schedulescrutiny of nomination paperseligibility of candidatesre-electioncooling-off periodstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged the acceptance of nomination papers of sitting members of the National Council for Homeopathy for upcoming Council elections. They argued that under Section 9(3) of the Unani, Ayurvedic and Homoeopathic Practitioners Act, 1965, incumbent members are only eligible for re-election or re-nomination after their prescribed five-year term expires. Since Section 9(5) requires elections for a successive Council to be held at least three months before the expiry of the incumbent Council's tenure, serving members could not contest while still holding office. The court examined Section 9 of the Act alongside the Unani Ayurvedic and Homoeopathic System Medicine Rules, 1980. The Islamabad High Court held that the statute plain text creates a mandatory cooling-off period for incumbent members, making them ineligible to contest elections for a successive Council prior to the expiry of their current five-year term. The acceptance of the respondents' nomination papers was declared unlawful, and the Returning Officer was directed to issue a revised election schedule excluding incumbent members.

  Questions settled

  • Are sitting members of the National Council for Homeopathy eligible to contest elections for a successive Council prior to the expiry of their current five-year tenure?
  • Does Section 9(3) of the Unani, Ayurvedic and Homoeopathic Practitioners Act, 1965 create a mandatory cooling-off period for incumbent Council members?
  • Can courts read words into an unambiguous statutory provision under the guise of purposive interpretation?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Ali Tariq vs Thai Airways International and others2023 IHC 440, 2023 IHC 124, 2024 PLD Islamabad 227 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-11-13Read full judgment →
• Miss Memoona Zainab Kazmi vs Additional District Judge (Mcac)2023 CLC 207 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-05-20Read full judgment →
• Mirza Shakeel Ahmed and others vs Atif Tanveer Bhatti and another2023 PLJ Islamabad 229, 2023 MLD 1715 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-01-12Read full judgment →
• Ministry of Information Technology & Telecommunication vs Ayub Khan2023 IHC 58 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-04-05Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif vs State through Chairman, National2023 IHC 308 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-10-26Read full judgment →
• Messrs Zohongding International Engineering Co. Ltd. through Authorized2023 CLC 1163 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-01-26Read full judgment →
• Messrs Sun Diplomatic Bonded Warehouse (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Customs2023 PTD 206 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-11-22Read full judgment →
• Messrs Shaheen Chemist through Proprietors and 3 others vs Zahid2023 CLD 1 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-07-28
  Intellectual Property Tribunaltrademark invalidationtrademark revocationexclusive jurisdictionimplied repealnon-obstante clauseTrade Marks Ordinance 2001IPO Act 2012
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil miscellaneous appeals were filed against an order of the Intellectual Property Tribunal, Islamabad, which returned applications seeking invalidation and cancellation of a registered trademark, directing that such matters be filed before the District Judge. The primary legal question was whether the Intellectual Property Tribunal possesses exclusive jurisdiction over civil proceedings seeking statutory remedies under Intellectual Property Laws, including applications for declaration of invalidity or revocation of registered trademarks, or if such jurisdiction remains with the District Court under the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001. The Islamabad High Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned order. The Court held that the Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan Act, 2012, being a subsequent special law containing non-obstante provisions under Section 39, impliedly repealed conflicting forum-specifying provisions of the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001, including Sections 73, 80, and 117. The key principle established is that Section 18(1) of the Act applies to all actions concerning the 'infringement of Intellectual Property Laws' in the broader sense of breach or violation, vesting exclusive jurisdiction in the Intellectual Property Tribunal for all civil proceedings arising thereunder.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Intellectual Property Tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain applications seeking revocation or invalidation of a registered trademark?
  • Whether the provisions of the Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan Act, 2012 impliedly repeal conflicting jurisdiction clauses in the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001?
  • Does the phrase 'infringement of intellectual property laws' under Section 18(1) of the IPO Act, 2012 encompass all civil proceedings and statutory remedies under intellectual property statutes?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Samba Bank Limited vs Messrs Hotel Hill View (Pvt.) Limited through Chairman2023 [M] CLR 144 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Pakistan Oilfields Limited through Managing Director vs Federation2023 PTD 505 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-09-22Read full judgment →
• Messrs Muhammad Hanif & Co. through Authorized representative and another vs Chief Engineer North, Pak PWD and 3 others2023 CLC 443 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-11-16Read full judgment →
• Messrs First Micro Finance Bank Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 PTD 1095 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-02-25Read full judgment →
• Messrs Bestway Cement Ltd. and others vs Full Bench of National Industrial2023 PLC 101 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-10-10
  individual grievancetrans-provincial establishmentNIRC jurisdictionfull and final settlementtermination of servicedocumentary evidencewrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns writ petitions filed by an employer challenging the reinstatement of employees by the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC). The core legal questions involve the NIRC's jurisdiction over individual grievances in trans-provincial entities and the legal effect of an employee accepting "full and final" settlement dues upon termination. The Court held that the NIRC possesses exclusive jurisdiction over such individual grievances in trans-provincial establishments. However, the Court found that the lower fora failed to independently determine whether the employees had voluntarily accepted full and final settlement of their dues, which could preclude them from challenging their termination. Furthermore, the Court noted procedural errors regarding the handling of documentary evidence, specifically clearance certificates that were marked but not formally exhibited or rejected. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the cases for a fresh determination on the voluntariness of the settlements and the admissibility of the disputed documents. The principle established is that while routine wage acceptance does not bar litigation, voluntary acceptance of full and final settlement dues may preclude an employee from challenging termination.

  Questions settled

  • Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have exclusive jurisdiction over individual grievances of employees working in trans-provincial establishments?
  • Does the acceptance of payment for services rendered by an employee automatically bar them from challenging the termination of their employment?
  • What is the legal effect of an employee voluntarily accepting dues paid as a full and final settlement upon the termination of their service?
  • Is a Court or Tribunal required to formally exhibit or reject documents produced in evidence rather than merely marking them?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Askari Bank Limited through Senior Executive Vice President vs Federation of Pakistan through Chairman Federal Board of Revenue and 4 others2023 PTD 316 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-10-04Read full judgment →
• Messrs Army Welfare Trust, Rawalpindi vs Commissioner of Income Tax2023 PTD 351 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-04-07Read full judgment →
• Messrs Aploi (Private) Limited through Authorized Representative vs Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Interior, Pakistan Secretariat, Constitutional Avenue, Islamabad and 4 others2023 MLD 505 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-12-19Read full judgment →
• MCB Bank Limited vs Tariq Ahmed Khan Lodhi and others2023 CLD 627 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-04-17Read full judgment →
• MCB Bank Limited vs M/s Highland Shoes Limited and others2023 IHC 252 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-27Read full judgment →
• Masud Reza vs The Federation of Pakistan through President & othersPTCL 2023 CL. 891, 2025 PTD 451 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-22Read full judgment →
• Malik Musawar Khan vs Mst. Nadia Yaseen Malik and others2023 PLD Islamabad 135 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-01-05Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Akram Kanhoon Versus vs Election Commission of Pakistan and others2023 IHC 328 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-12-15Read full judgment →
• Malik Mohammad Rafiq and 2 others vs Public at Large and others2023 CLC 1916 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-11-08Read full judgment →
• Malik Manzoor Hussain vs Muhammad Khalid Zaman2023 IHC 374 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-02-27Read full judgment →
• Malik Dad Superintendent and others vs Ministry of Information, Broadcasting and National Heritage and others2023 PLC (C.S.) 469 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-06-02
  Secretariat AllowanceCivil ServantsArticle 25DiscriminationAttached DepartmentsWrit PetitionService Matters
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by employees of the Central Board of Film Censors, an attached department of the Federal Government, seeking the grant of a 20% Secretariat Allowance. The petitioners contended that they were being discriminated against in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, as other Federal Government employees had received this benefit. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the allowance based on the principle of equality and whether the Secretariat Allowance (Recession of Orders, etc.) Ordinance 2000 barred such claims. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that their duties were identical to those of the employees who had received the allowance, a prerequisite for invoking the principle of non-discrimination. Furthermore, the Court held that the Secretariat Allowance (Recession of Orders, etc.) Ordinance 2000 effectively rescinded the allowance with effect from July 1, 1988, rendering the claim legally redundant. The Court affirmed that Article 25 only requires equal treatment for those similarly placed, not identical treatment for dissimilar roles.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 mandate identical treatment for all government employees regardless of the nature of their duties?
  • Are employees of attached departments entitled to the Secretariat Allowance if they do not perform Secretariat functions?
  • What is the legal effect of the Secretariat Allowance (Recession of Orders, etc.) Ordinance 2000 on claims for the Secretariat Allowance?
  • Can a claim of discrimination under Article 25 be sustained without proving that the petitioners and their counterparts perform identical duties?
  Read full judgment →
• Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Qureshi vs The State & Another2023 IHC 168 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-10-23
  jail trialopen courtjoint trialadministrative errordignity of accusedofficial secrets actcriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the trial court's order dated 09.10.2023, which directed his trial to be conducted in jail alongside his co-accused. The petitioner contended that his name was omitted from the initial jail trial notification, and that he was entitled to an open court trial under Section 352 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court observed that the omission of the petitioner's name in the initial notification was an administrative error subsequently rectified by an amended notification. The Court held that because the petitioner was being jointly tried with a co-accused who faced severe security threats, a joint trial in jail was necessary under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, under Section 531 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, proceedings cannot be set aside merely for being held at a wrong place unless a failure of justice is demonstrated. The Court affirmed that a jail trial is not akin to an in-camera trial and must remain open to the public and media to the maximum extent possible, while ensuring the dignity of the accused is preserved.

  Questions settled

  • Does the omission of an accused's name from an initial jail trial notification vitiate the trial proceedings if the omission is subsequently rectified by an amended notification?
  • Can a trial be conducted in jail for joint accused persons under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if security concerns exist for one of the co-accused?
  • Whether a jail trial is legally equivalent to an in-camera trial, or must it satisfy the requirements of an open and fair trial?
  • Does conducting a trial at an incorrect venue or jail premises invalidate the proceedings in the absence of a proven failure of justice under Section 531 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Maj (R) Shahzad Saleem vs Federation of Pakistan etc.2023 IHC 170 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-01-17
  Public Accounts Committeeparliamentary privilegejurisdiction of PACwrit of certioraritrichotomy of powersjudicial reviewinternal proceedings of Parliament
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses several interconnected writ petitions filed against notices and directions issued by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) to officials of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), Pakistan Science Foundation, and NADRA Technologies Limited. The core legal questions involved the scope of the PAC's jurisdiction, the justiciability of parliamentary proceedings under Article 69 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and whether the PAC can entertain private complaints or interfere in service matters. The court held that parliamentary privilege and immunity under Article 69 are restricted to procedural irregularities and do not provide blanket immunity against excess of jurisdiction. The ratio decidendi is that the PAC's functions are strictly confined to examining government accounts, appropriations, and public expenditures as prescribed by the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the National Assembly 2007; it has no legal authority to summon officials based on private complaints such as allegations of sexual harassment, nor to interfere in the executive or service matters of autonomous bodies. The petitions were consequently allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the immunity and privilege of parliamentary proceedings under Article 69 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is absolute or restricted?
  • Does the Public Accounts Committee have the legal authority to entertain private complaints or inquire into allegations of sexual harassment against government officials?
  • Can the superior courts judicially review actions of parliamentary committees that exceed their constitutionally and statutorily prescribed limits?
  • Whether the Public Accounts Committee can interfere in the executive and service matters of autonomous or statutory bodies?
  Read full judgment →
• Lt. Col. (Retd.) Nazar Hussain Islam vs Cooperative Societies Department2023 MLD 1638 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali vs National Accountability Bureau2023 YLR 637 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-03-26Read full judgment →
• Legal Aid Foundation for Victims of Rape and Sexual Assault (Lrsa)2023 PLD Islamabad 195 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-12-16Read full judgment →
• Khurram Imtiaz vs Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad and 3 others2023 PCRLJ 640 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-12-07
  writ petitionconcealment of factsclean hands doctrineregistration of FIRabuse of processfalse affidavitsconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 impugned an order of the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing a petition under Section 22-A/B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the registration of an FIR against respondents. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to constitutional relief and the registration of a criminal case despite concealing material facts, filing multiple overlapping petitions across different forums, and submitting false affidavits and certificates. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition with special costs, holding that a litigant who approaches the court with unclean hands, conceals facts, and abuses the judicial process through multiple vexatious proceedings forfeits the right to discretionary and equitable relief under constitutional jurisdiction. The court laid down the principle that discretionary constitutional remedies are denied to litigants who engage in misrepresentation and abuse court processes, and directed initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner for submitting false affidavits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a petitioner who conceals material facts and files multiple overlapping petitions is entitled to discretionary relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a writ petition be maintained when the petitioner has given false certificates and submitted false affidavits before the courts of law?
  • Whether the High Court can impose special costs on a litigant for exhibiting reprehensible and contemptuous conduct by abusing the judicial process?
  Read full judgment →
• Khawar Mehmood vs Gul Faraz Ahmed and another2023 IHC 342 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-11-22
  Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005criminal complaintlocus standiattorneyactus reusmens realawful authorityacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged a conviction under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, wherein the appellant was sentenced to three years imprisonment for allegedly grabbing a plot. The core legal questions were whether criminal proceedings can be initiated through an attorney and whether the appellant’s actions satisfied the statutory requirements for illegal dispossession. The Islamabad High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant. The Court held that criminal proceedings cannot be initiated through an attorney, as the law requires a complainant to have personal knowledge of the offence. Furthermore, the Court established that an offence under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, requires proof of both actus reus and mens rea, specifically that the accused entered the property without lawful authority to dispossess the owner or occupier. Because the appellant was initially authorized by the owner to occupy the property, the essential ingredients for the offence were absent. Consequently, the Court ruled that the complainant, not being the owner or occupier, lacked the standing to initiate these proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can criminal proceedings be initiated through an attorney?
  • What are the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Does a person who is neither the owner nor the occupier of a property have the standing to file a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Is an accused who enters a property with the owner's permission liable for illegal dispossession under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mehmood Khan and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Finance and others2023 IHC 34 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Kashif Zaman vs Federation of Pakistan and another2023 IHC 212 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-01-17Read full judgment →
• Kaniz Fatima vs Tamiz ul Haque & another2023 IHC 392, 2024 YLR 890 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-20Read full judgment →
• Junaid Qamar vs Sessions Judge, West Islamabad and 2 others2023 PCRLJ 305 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-07-15
  transitory remandarrest without warrantcognizable offenceterritorial jurisdictionpolice pursuitmagistrate remandhabeas corpus
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged orders passed by respondents dismissing his petition under section 86 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and granting one day transitory remand following his arrest in Islamabad by police officials from Murree in connection with a cognizable offence. The core legal question was whether police from another jurisdiction could arrest a person without a warrant for a cognizable offence and whether section 86 Cr.P.C. applied in the absence of court-issued arrest warrants. The Islamabad High Court held that section 86 Cr.P.C. applies exclusively when warrants have been issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, and that police are empowered under sections 54 and 58 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to arrest without a warrant and pursue an accused anywhere in Pakistan for a cognizable offence. The court laid down the principle that where an arrest is made without a warrant for a cognizable offence, the provisions relating to warrant-based procedures such as section 86 are inapplicable, and the arrested person must be produced before the nearest magistrate within twenty-four hours in accordance with sections 60, 61, and 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 86 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply when an arrest is effected without a warrant issued by a court of competent jurisdiction?
  • Can police officers arrest a person without a warrant outside their local territorial jurisdiction for a cognizable offence?
  • Whether the police are authorized to pursue an accused person into any place in Pakistan under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the legal requirement for presenting a person arrested without a warrant before a magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Junaid Maseeh vs The State through PS CTW, FIA, Islamabad and 2 others2023 MLD 47 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-01
  Intra Court Appealquashing of FIRwrit petitionmaintainabilityOfficial Secrets Actcriminal investigationcivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal challenged an order of a learned Single Judge-in-Chambers, which dismissed a writ petition seeking the quashing of an FIR registered under the Official Secrets Act, 1923. The primary legal question was whether an Intra Court Appeal is maintainable against an order passed by a Single Judge in a writ petition concerning the quashing of an FIR, in view of the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. The Court held that the appeal was not maintainable. Relying on established Supreme Court precedents, the Court determined that the term "proceedings" in the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, precludes such appeals. Furthermore, the Court clarified that Section 13 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, relates to the cognizance of an offence by a court and does not restrict the registration of an FIR. Additionally, the Court affirmed that departmental proceedings under the Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 2020, do not preclude criminal investigation or prosecution for the same conduct. The appeal was consequently dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Is an Intra Court Appeal maintainable against an order passed by a Single Judge in a writ petition regarding the quashing of an FIR?
  • Does Section 13 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, place an embargo on the registration of an FIR?
  • Do departmental proceedings under the Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 2020, preclude the criminal investigation or prosecution of a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• JS Bank Limited through duly authorized/attorney and others vs Pakistan2023 PTD 704 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-01-31
  constitutional petitionshow-cause noticeFederal Excise Act 2005Special Judge jurisdictionimposition of penaltyalternative remedywithout lawful authority
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, a banking company and its officers, filed writ petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution challenging show-cause notices and Orders-in-Original issued by the tax authorities under Section 19(6) of the Federal Excise Act, 2005, which imposed a substantial monetary penalty for alleged obstruction of Inland Revenue officers during recovery proceedings against a bank customer. The legal question before the High Court was whether the executive tax authorities possessed the jurisdiction to directly impose penal fines and penalize criminal offences under Section 19(6) of the Act, or whether such alleged offences could only be tried by a Special Judge upon a formal written complaint under Section 21. The High Court held that Section 19(6) defines a criminal offence carrying both imprisonment and fine, which under Section 21 falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Special Judge upon a complaint in writing by an authorized Inland Revenue officer. Consequently, the executive officers acted without jurisdiction, making the constitutional petition maintainable despite alternative statutory remedies. The court set aside the impugned show-cause notices and orders.

  Questions settled

  • Can a monetary fine or penalty under Section 19(6) of the Federal Excise Act 2005 be imposed through an executive order without a trial before a Special Judge?
  • Is a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution maintainable against a show-cause notice or order passed without jurisdiction despite the availability of a statutory right of appeal?
  • Does an allegation of obstructing an Inland Revenue officer under Section 19(6) of the Federal Excise Act 2005 require trial by a Special Judge on a written complaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Joint Venture of M/s. Kamal Nasir Khan (Pvt.) Ltd. through Authorized2023 PLJ Islamabad 119, 2023 CLC 1657 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-12-30Read full judgment →
• Jammu Kashmir Co-Operative Housing Society vs Gulraiz Mehmood and others2023 PLJ Islamabad 105, 2024 MLD 698 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-06-01Read full judgment →
• Jammu And Kashmir Cooperative Housing Society vs Federation Of Pakistan and others2023 CLC 134 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-14Read full judgment →
• Ismail Ijaz vs The State2023 PCRLJ 114 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-09-28
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausealternative punishmentcybercrimeproscribed organizationfreedom of speechright to liberty
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail petition filed before the Islamabad High Court by the petitioner, who was charged under sections 9, 10, and 11 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 for allegedly tweeting and retweeting content glorifying and propagating a proscribed organization. The core legal question was whether offences carrying fine as an alternative punishment to imprisonment fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and whether the petitioner was entitled to bail. The Court held that where fine is provided as an alternative punishment, the lesser punishment must be considered for the purpose of bail, meaning such offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause. Furthermore, questions regarding the petitioner's intent (mens rea) in retweeting required further inquiry. The Court laid down the principle that bail cannot be withheld as a punishment pending trial, and unjustified pre-trial incarceration violates the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, as restitution for lost liberty is impossible if the accused is ultimately acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether offences where fine is prescribed as an alternative punishment to imprisonment fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Can bail be withheld as a punishment pending trial when the alternative punishment for the charged offence is a fine?
  • Does the act of retweeting content without establishing immediate intent (mens rea) to glorify a proscribed organization make a case one of further inquiry?
  • Does pre-trial incarceration violate the right to liberty under Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, when no mechanism exists to compensate for unjustified loss of liberty?
  Read full judgment →
• Islamabad Medical and Dental College vs Dr. Suleman Ahmed, Acting2023 IHC 182, 2024 PLJ Islamabad 18 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Islamabad Electric Supply Company vs National Industrial Relations2023 IHC 194, 2024 PCRLJ 944, 2024 PLC 1 · Islamabad High Court
  permanent workmantemporary workmanregularization of servicegrievance petitionNational Industrial Relations Commissionstanding ordersindustrial relations
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition arises from an employer's challenge to concurrent orders passed by the National Industrial Relations Commission holding that a casual worker had attained the status of a permanent workman. The core legal questions involved whether a worker engaged on a temporary basis can be classified as a permanent workman based on the nature of the work performed, whether a grievance petition filed before the expiry of fifteen days from a grievance notice is maintainable, and whether the National Industrial Relations Commission has the power to order regularization. The court held that the nature of work—rather than the nomenclature in the appointment letter or artificial breaks—determines whether an employee is a permanent workman, and that the National Industrial Relations Commission cannot order regularization of service but can enforce statutory rights and privileges of permanent workmen. The court established that beneficial labor legislation cannot be overridden by executive bans on recruitment, and that a grievance petition filed prematurely is not fatally flawed where the employer demonstrates a persistent denial of statutory rights.

  Questions settled

  • Does the nature of the work or the designation in the appointment letter determine whether an employee is a permanent workman?
  • Can the National Industrial Relations Commission order the regularization of a workman's services?
  • Is a grievance petition rendered non-maintainable if it is filed before the expiry of fifteen days from the issuance of the grievance notice?
  • Can an executive ban on recruitment override the statutory rights and privileges granted to permanent workmen under labor laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Islamabad Cooperative Housing Society, Islamabad through its Secretary2023 IHC 100 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-08-15Read full judgment →
• Islamabad Capital Territory, Private Educational Institutions Regulatory2023 IHC 40 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Irfan Ahmad Chattha and another vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Energy (Power Division), Pak Secretariat, Islamabad and others2023 CLD 1064 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-05-02Read full judgment →
• Intizar Hussain and another vs Amjad Hussain and another2023 PCRLJ 596 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-11-14
  exemption from personal appearancecriminal revisionprivate complaintincapabilityCode of Criminal Proceduretrial court discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the trial court's order dismissing the petitioners' application for exemption from personal appearance in a private complaint under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners sought exemption under Section 540-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, citing credible threats of murderous assault by the complainants, supported by registered FIRs and medical evidence. The trial court had rejected the application, reasoning that the parties resided in the same vicinity and lacked sufficient evidence of threats. The High Court held that the trial court erred in its restrictive interpretation. The Court determined that the term "incapability" in Section 540-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is a term of wide import, encompassing circumstances beyond physical disability, and must be interpreted with benevolence rather than as a penal provision. Given the petitioners' counsel's undertaking to appear on every date, the Court found no prejudice to the trial proceedings. Consequently, the revision was allowed, granting the petitioners exemption from personal appearance, while affirming the trial court's residual power to mandate attendance if necessary for justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'incapability' in Section 540-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 extend beyond physical disability to include threats to life?
  • Should Section 540-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be interpreted as a penal provision or an enabling provision?
  • Can an accused be granted exemption from personal appearance in a criminal trial if their counsel provides an undertaking to appear on every date?
  Read full judgment →