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. 4,389 judgments in total from the Islamabad High Court.
- Moeen Adnan Taj vs Mst. Rabia Arif and others2022 IHC 48 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-17Read full judgment →
- Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif vs State through Chairman, National2022 PLD Islamabad 13 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-06-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from a judgment of an Accountability Court convicting the appellant, who subsequently absconded after being released on bail pending appeal. The core legal question was how an appellate court should proceed with an appeal when the appellant becomes a fugitive from law and refuses to submit to the court's process, particularly in light of constitutional guarantees to a fair trial. Reviewing established precedents, the Islamabad High Court held that a fugitive from justice loses the right of audience and cannot seek the aid or discretionary relief of the court while defying its orders. The court concluded that since the appellant received a fair trial at the original stage and chose to abscond at the appellate stage, his appeal must be dismissed, subject to the condition that it may be resurrected if and when he surrenders or is captured. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court will not act in aid of a fugitive from justice, and an absconding convict forfeits the right to be heard on appeal.
Questions settled- Does a convict who becomes a fugitive from law forfeit the right of audience in a criminal appeal?
- Whether an appellate court can dismiss an appeal when the appellant absconds and fails to appear for hearings?
- Does Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 entitle an absconding convict to a hearing during an appeal despite being a fugitive from justice?
- Can an appeal dismissed due to the appellant's abscondence be resurrected upon their subsequent surrender or capture?
- Mian Muhammad Faisal vs Muhammad Faisal Vawda and 4 others2022 [M] CLR 497 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-03-03Read full judgment →
- Messrs Warid Telecom (Pvt.) Limited through Head of Tax, Corporate and Regulatory Litigation vs Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue Through Chairman, Atir Divisional Branch, Islamabad and 4 others2022 PTD 1220 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-05-09Read full judgment →
- Messrs Telenor Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Finance and 4 others2022 PTD 1097, 2022 PLJ Islamabad 87 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a telecommunication company, challenged a tax recovery notice issued under Section 138 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, via a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The core legal question was whether recovery proceedings under Section 138 are contingent upon the passing of appeal effect orders under Section 124 for all adjudicated matters, or if recovery can proceed for a specific determined tax liability independently. The petitioner argued that recovery could not be initiated until a consolidated determination of all tax liabilities was concluded. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, is a self-contained fiscal statute where tax liability, once created, is immediately payable unless stayed by a competent forum. The Court clarified that Section 124 does not mandate a consolidated order for all adjudicated matters before recovery can commence. The key principle laid down is that fiscal statutes must be interpreted literally, without recourse to equity or intendment, and tax liability is independent and enforceable upon assessment unless explicitly stayed.
Questions settled- Does Section 124 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, require a consolidated determination of all tax liabilities before recovery proceedings can be initiated for a specific adjudged tax liability?
- Is the initiation of recovery proceedings under Section 138 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, contingent upon the passing of appeal effect orders in all other adjudicated cases against a taxpayer?
- Does Section 57 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, have any relevance to the recovery of tax that has become due under the Ordinance?
- Messrs Telenor Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd vs Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Islamabad and others2022 PTD 1632 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-05-05Read full judgment →
- Messrs Sieyuan-Neie-Naeem & Company vs The Federation Of Pakistan2022 CLC 516 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-11-30Read full judgment →
- Messrs Samba Bank Limited vs Messrs Hotel Hill View (Pvt.) Limited through Chairman2022 CLC 845 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-22Read full judgment →
- Messrs Relief International through Authorized Representative vs Securities2022 CLD 432, 2022 PCTLR 1181 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-01-27Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Karim vs The State2022 IHC 110 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of heroin and ice. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully established the chain of custody and the safe transmission of the recovered narcotics to the chemical laboratory. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to significant discrepancies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding the handling of the case property, the unexplained ten-day delay in transmitting samples for analysis, and the use of an unverified seal on the parcels. The Court emphasized that the chain of custody is critical in narcotics cases, and any break or gap renders the Chemical Examiner's report unreliable. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, with the Court reiterating that the prosecution must strictly prove the integrity of the recovered substances from the point of seizure to the laboratory to sustain a conviction.
Questions settled- Does a break in the chain of custody of recovered narcotics render the Chemical Examiner's report unreliable?
- Is the prosecution required to prove the safe custody and safe transmission of narcotics samples to secure a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
- What is the legal effect of an unexplained delay in sending narcotics samples for chemical analysis?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the seal used on the recovered narcotics parcels is not linked to any of the prosecution witnesses?
- Messrs Performance Automotive Private Limited through Chief Executive2022 CLC 37, 2022 PCTLR 497 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-05-04Read full judgment →
- Messrs Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd. and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and others2022 PTD 1730 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-11-08Read full judgment →
- Messrs Pakistan LNG Limited through Authorized Representative vs Federation of Pakistan, through Secretary Revenue Division, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad2022 PTD 1763 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-09-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged a notice issued under Section 140 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, which resulted in the immediate attachment and recovery of funds from the petitioner's bank accounts by the Commissioner, Inland Revenue, following the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals). The core legal question was whether tax authorities are mandated to issue a notice under Section 138(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, before invoking coercive recovery powers under Section 140 of the same Ordinance, particularly after an appellate authority has upheld an assessment order. The Court held that the issuance of a notice under Section 138(1) is a mandatory requirement of law before resorting to coercive recovery. The Court reasoned that such notice is essential to provide the taxpayer with a reasonable timeframe to discharge the liability or pursue further appellate remedies, thereby upholding the constitutional rights to due process and access to justice. Consequently, the Court declared the impugned recovery notice void ab initio and ordered the reimbursement of the recovered funds, emphasizing that state functionaries must act in a just, fair, and reasonable manner.
Questions settled- Is the issuance of a notice under Section 138(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, a mandatory prerequisite before invoking coercive recovery powers under Section 140 of the same Ordinance?
- Does the confirmation of an assessment order by an appellate authority automatically revive the original Section 137 notice to permit immediate coercive recovery?
- Are tax authorities obligated to provide a taxpayer with a reasonable timeframe to discharge tax liabilities before resorting to coercive recovery measures?
- Can tax authorities bypass the requirement of notice under Section 138(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, when an appeal against an assessment order has been dismissed?
- Messrs Pakistan Housing Authority Foundation vs The Commissioner Inland2022 PTD 1263 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-06-16Read full judgment →
- Messrs Naseem & Company and others vs Capital Development Authority2022 MLD 1426 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-04Read full judgment →
- Messrs H.J. (Pvt.) Ltd. Through Chief Executive Officer, Rawalpindi and another vs Additional District and Session Judge, West-Islamabad and another2022 MLD 1651 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-17Read full judgment →
- Messrs Gazcon CNG through Managing Partner vs Oil and Gas Regulatory2022 CLC 1561 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-04-12Read full judgment →
- Messrs Dancom Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. Through Chief Executive Officer vs Ministry of Information Technology And Telecom and 3 others2022 YLR 1189 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-12-08Read full judgment →
- Messrs Alamdar Tahawar and Nasir (Private) Limited through Manager vs Rent Controller, Islamabad (West) and another2022 YLR 2424 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Messrs Abid CNG Station through Special Power of Attorney vs Oil and Gas2022 PLC (C.S) 1169 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an application filed under Section 12(2) of the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002, impugning an order passed by the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority (OGRA) whereby its earlier decision accepting the applicant's review application and waiving a regularization fee was reviewed and amended to impose regularization charges of Rs. 500,000/- for establishing a petrol pump at the applicant's CNG filling station without prior permission. The core legal questions involved whether OGRA has the power to review a decision already taken on a review petition (second review), and whether the statutory preconditions for exercising review powers under Section 13 of the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 were met. The Islamabad High Court held that the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 does not provide for a second review or the review of an order passed on a review petition, and that review powers must be strictly exercised upon a change in circumstances or discovery of new evidence. The court set aside OGRA's subsequent decision and restored the earlier review order.
Questions settled- Does the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 permit a second review or the review of a decision already passed on a review petition?
- What are the essential preconditions for the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority to exercise its power of review under Section 13 of the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002?
- Can a quasi-judicial authority assume an inherent power to review its own orders without express statutory conferment?
- Mehmood Alam Sher vs HEC and others2022 CLC 1337 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-04-22Read full judgment →
- Mehboob ur Rehman vs National Highway Authority, etc2022 IHC 246 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-09-19Read full judgment →
- Mazhar Khan vs The State2022 IHC 120 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, after his earlier bail application was dismissed by the trial court. The prosecution alleged that 1540 grams of heroin was recovered from a co-accused who claimed to be an employee of the petitioner and selling narcotics on his behalf, while the petitioner was not present at the spot. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail when the recovery was made from a co-accused and his nomination was based on a co-accused statement. The Islamabad High Court held that since the recovery was not from the petitioner's personal possession, he was not present at the spot, and his implication relied on a co-accused statement, the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The court laid down the principle that nomination in an FIR based on a co-accused statement without personal recovery constitutes a case for further inquiry warranting the grant of bail.
Questions settled- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the accused is nominated solely on the statement of a co-accused and no recovery is made from his personal possession?
- Does nomination in multiple FIRs alone constitute sufficient ground for the refusal of bail?
- Does a case fall within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the accused was not present at the spot of the alleged narcotics recovery?
- Mazhar Iqbal vs The State and another2022 MLD 752 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-09-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenges the judgments of the lower courts whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for dishonestly issuing a cheque and sentenced to three years simple imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner issued a cheque which was dishonored upon presentation due to insufficient balance. The core legal question before the Islamabad High Court was whether the prosecution successfully proved the foundational ingredients of Section 489-F, including dishonest intent and presentation of the cheque, beyond a reasonable doubt. The High Court accepted the revision, set aside the lower courts' judgments, and acquitted the petitioner. The court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the presentation of the cheque and its formal dishonor slip through legal evidence, improperly relied on an unexhibited compromise document that was never put to the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that multiple glaring contradictions entitled the accused to the benefit of the doubt under the constitutional right to a fair trial.
Questions settled- What are the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can an unexhibited document or a compromise deed not put to the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used to maintain a conviction?
- What is the procedure and legal requirement for the prosecution to examine a witness whose name is not included in the list of witnesses under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the mere issuance of a cheque and its dishonor by itself constitute an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without proof of dishonest intent and formal presentation?
- Maryam Nawaz Sharif (Maryam Safdar), Capt. (R) Muhammad Safdar vs The State, The State2022 IHC 248 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Maria Rafique vs National Electrical Power Regulatory Authority And Another2022 IHC 36 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged her termination as Legal Advisor of the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) through a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. She contended that her sudden termination without notice or hearing violated principles of natural justice, audi alteram partem, and due process under Article 10A of the Constitution. The Islamabad High Court examined whether a constitutional writ petition is maintainable for a contractual employee serving under non-statutory service rules. The Court held that the relationship between a contractual employee and a statutory body with non-statutory rules is governed by the principle of master and servant. Termination executed in accordance with contractual terms (such as payment of salary in lieu of notice) does not violate natural justice. Furthermore, allegations of mala fide action involve factual questions requiring evidence, which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed as non-maintainable without deciding the merits.
Questions settled- Is a constitutional writ petition maintainable against termination by a contractual employee of a statutory authority lacking statutory service rules?
- Does the principle of audi alteram partem apply to the termination of a contractual employee where the contract permits termination by payment of salary in lieu of notice?
- Can allegations of mala fide termination of employment be resolved in constitutional writ jurisdiction without recording evidence?
- Maqbool Ahmed vs The State and another2022 MLD 356 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-08-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Maqbool Ahmed, who is facing trial for offences under sections 376 and 364-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner sought bail primarily on statutory grounds, arguing that his incarceration had exceeded two years, that the trial was delayed, and that he was not implicated by the victim in her statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The prosecution opposed the application, highlighting the gravity of the offence, the specific role attributed to the accused, and the fact that nine prosecution witnesses had already been examined, with the trial nearing conclusion. The Islamabad High Court examined the record and determined that there was sufficient prima facie material connecting the petitioner to the alleged offence. Emphasizing the gravity of the charges and the progress of the trial, the Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the concession of bail. Consequently, the bail petition was dismissed, with the Court directing the trial court to conclude the remaining proceedings expeditiously.
Questions settled- Does the mere passage of time in incarceration automatically entitle an accused to post-arrest bail under the statutory grounds of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be denied in a case involving heinous offences where there is sufficient prima facie material connecting the accused to the crime?
- Is a trial court required to conclude proceedings expeditiously when a bail petition is dismissed on the grounds of trial progress?
- Mrs. Zeenat Salim vs Pakistan Naval Farms, etc2022 [M] C L R 231 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-01-07Read full judgment →
- Malik Zulfiqar Ahmed vs The State And 02 Others2022 IHC 280, 2024 YLR 185 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-10-27Read full judgment →
- Malik Tariq Ayub and another vs Raja Arshad Mehmood and another2022 MLD 2037 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves petitions seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent by the Anti-Terrorism Court in a terrorism case. The core legal questions revolved around whether bail under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 is governed by general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, particularly statutory delay grounds, and whether the High Court possesses revisional and constitutional jurisdiction to review bail orders passed by Special Courts. The Islamabad High Court held that the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 provides a complete and restrictive scheme for bail that excludes the general provisions of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and that statutory delay grounds do not apply to offenses punishable with death or imprisonment for life under anti-terrorism laws. The Court further held that it has supervisory and revisional jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and the Constitution to examine the legality and propriety of bail orders issued by subordinate anti-terrorism courts, ultimately setting aside the impugned bail order as perverse.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 apply to the grant of bail in cases triable under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
- Is the statutory ground of delay in conclusion of trial available under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to an accused charged with an act of terrorism punishable with death or imprisonment for life?
- Whether the High Court can exercise revisional jurisdiction under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in relation to a bail granting order passed by an Anti-Terrorism Court?
- Does the mother of a deceased victim qualify as an aggrieved person to challenge a bail order passed in favor of the accused under Article 199 of the Constitution or through criminal revision?
- Malik Sarfraz vs The State and another2022 PCRLJ 762 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-08-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for murder and related offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the application of vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for a crime committed by a co-accused. The Islamabad High Court held that the conviction was unsustainable. The Court found the prosecution's evidence inconsistent, noting contradictions between ocular and medical accounts, the failure to prove the motive, and the unreliability of the recovered weapon. Crucially, the Court emphasized that common intention under Section 34 requires proof of a pre-arranged plan or concert, which cannot be inferred unless it is a necessary deduction from the circumstances. Mere presence or joint action without shared intent is insufficient for vicarious liability. As the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's participation or shared intent beyond a reasonable doubt, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, allowing the appeal.
Questions settled- Does the mere presence of an accused at the scene of a crime with a co-accused who commits the offence establish vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 a state of mind that requires proof of a pre-arranged plan or can it be inferred from surrounding circumstances?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the ocular evidence is inconsistent with the medical evidence and the investigation is fundamentally flawed?
- Malik Naeem Akhtar vs The Station House Officer, etc2022 IHC 80 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-11Read full judgment →
- Malik Musawar Khan vs Mst. Nadia Yaseen Malik and others2022 IHC 9 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-01-05Read full judgment →
- Malik Deen vs Government of Pakistan, etc2022 IHC 64 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-15Read full judgment →
- Malik Dad, Superintendent, etc vs Ministry of Information, Broadcasting &2022 PLJ Islamabad 109 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition was filed by civil servants employed in the Central Board of Film Censors (CBFC), an attached department under the administrative control of the Ministry of Information, Broadcasting and National Heritage, seeking a direction to grant them a 20% Secretariat Allowance and arrears on the ground of non-discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The core legal questions were whether employees of an attached department performing non-secretarial functions are entitled to the Secretariat Allowance admissible to the Federal Secretariat, and whether the claim remained maintainable following the promulgation of the Secretariat Allowance (Rescission of Orders, etc.) Ordinance 2000. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that Article 25 guarantees equal treatment only to those who are similarly placed in designation and nature of duties. The Court held that attached departments do not perform secretarial functions, and after the enactment of the Ordinance 2000, which rescinded the allowance with retrospective effect, the claim lacked legal basis and foundation.
Questions settled- Does Article 25 of the Constitution require identical treatment of employees in attached departments and Federal Secretariat Divisions regarding Secretariat Allowance?
- Can civil servants working in attached departments claim Secretariat Allowance following the enactment of the Secretariat Allowance (Rescission of Orders, etc.) Ordinance 2000?
- Does reasonable classification under Article 25 of the Constitution permit differentiation in allowances based on distinct duties and job functions?
- Malik Bashir Ahmad vs Circle Registrar, ICT Cooperative Societies2022 IHC 112 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Majid Ali vs The State and another2022 PCRLJ 981 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 392/411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner contended that because the minimum sentence for the offence is three years, it falls outside the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, entitling him to bail as a matter of right. The core legal question was whether the 'prohibitory clause' of section 497, which restricts bail for offences punishable with up to ten years, should be interpreted based on the minimum or maximum prescribed sentence. The Court held that the term 'punishable' in section 497 refers to the maximum sentence prescribed for an offence. Consequently, offences with a maximum punishment of ten years fall within the prohibitory clause, and bail is not a matter of right. The key principle laid down is that the prohibitory clause of section 497 is triggered by the maximum potential sentence, not the minimum, and the court must conduct a tentative assessment of whether reasonable grounds exist to believe the accused is guilty.
Questions settled- Does the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply based on the minimum or maximum sentence prescribed for an offence?
- What is the legal standard for 'reasonable grounds' to believe an accused is guilty for the purpose of denying bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the presence of other FIRs against an accused a valid ground for the denial of bail?
- Does the failure to mention a SIM card number in an FIR invalidate the recovery of a mobile phone where the IMEI number is recorded?
- Liaqat Ali vs Mci, etc2022 IHC 196 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-08-01Read full judgment →
- Khurshid Anwar Bhinder vs Judge, Accountability Court No.III, Islamabad &2022 IHC 258 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-09-21Read full judgment →
- Khurshid Ahmed vs The Chairman NHA, Islamabad, etc2022 IHC 78 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking implementation of judgments passed by the Federal Service Tribunal and upheld by the Supreme Court, which directed the National Highway Authority (NHA) to consider his case for upgradation to BS-20. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could claim upgradation as a matter of right and whether the writ court could enforce such upgradation contrary to departmental rules and policy. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that upgradation cannot be claimed as a matter of right and is distinct from promotion, as it depends entirely on a policy decision by the competent authority to address stagnation. The court noted that the NHA had already considered the petitioner's case and declined upgradation in accordance with the NHA (Appointment & Promotion) Rules, 1995 and government policy. The key principle laid down is that upgradation is a policy measure meant for isolated posts to relieve stagnation, does not constitute a vested right, and cannot be regulated or substituted by the High Court.
Questions settled- Can upgradation of a post be claimed as a matter of right by an employee?
- What is the distinction between promotion and upgradation in civil service matters?
- Does the High Court have the authority to regulate or substitute policy decisions regarding the upgradation of posts?
- Khurram Manzoor Ch. and others vs Suriya Begum2022 PLD Islamabad 131 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-01-25Read full judgment →
- Khurram Manzoor and another vs Suriya Begum (Late) through her legal2022 PLD Islamabad 68 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-06-04Read full judgment →
- Khurram Imtiaz vs The State and another2022 MLD 329 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-07-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from an FIR registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the dishonor of cheques issued by the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the case. The court held that the offence under Section 489-F does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Relying on established Supreme Court precedents, the court reiterated that for non-bailable offences falling outside the prohibitory clause, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, applicable only in extraordinary circumstances such as risk of abscondance, tampering with evidence, or repetition of the offence. Finding that the investigation was complete, the evidence was documentary and in prosecution custody, and the petitioner was a non-convict, the court granted bail, emphasizing that mere involvement in other cases without conviction is insufficient to deny bail.
Questions settled- Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception for non-bailable offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can mere involvement in other criminal cases, without conviction, be a valid ground to withhold the concession of bail?
- Does a case involving documentary evidence in the possession of the prosecution generally entitle an accused to bail when the investigation is complete?
- Khurram Imtiaz vs Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad and others2022 IHC 276 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Khurram Iftikhar and Others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Interior Division, Islamabad and Others2022 PCRLJ 1665 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns writ petitions filed by directors of companies challenging inquiries and an FIR initiated by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) regarding alleged financial losses to the Employees Old Age Benefit Institution (EOBI). The petitioners sought the quashment of these proceedings, alleging harassment, lack of jurisdiction, and mala fide intent. The core legal questions addressed whether the High Court could exercise constitutional jurisdiction to quash an FIR when the cause of action arose outside its territorial jurisdiction and whether such relief is appropriate when alternate statutory remedies exist. The Court held that the petitions were not maintainable, dismissing them on grounds of laches, lack of territorial jurisdiction, and the petitioners' status as fugitives from law. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass the trial court's authority. The key principle laid down is that once a trial court takes cognizance of a case, the High Court should not interfere via constitutional jurisdiction; instead, the accused must exhaust alternate remedies like seeking acquittal under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Questions settled- Can the High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction to quash an FIR when the cause of action arose outside its territorial jurisdiction?
- Is the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court an appropriate substitute for the trial court's power to grant acquittal under the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Does the High Court have the authority to quash an FIR after a trial court has already taken cognizance of the matter?
- Can a petitioner who is a fugitive from law invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court for relief?
- Khalique Zaman Chaudhry and 2 others vs Shabbir Anjum Mehdi and 52022 MLD 1459 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-04-05Read full judgment →
- Khalid Mahmood vs Secretary, Information and Broadcasting and others2022 PLC (C.S.) 1423 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment from the Islamabad High Court addresses a writ petition filed by a petitioner impugning orders of supersession and the promotion of private respondents to the post of Controller (News) in the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner's supersession was unlawful, mala fide, or contrary to the revised promotion policy, and whether the High Court could interfere in departmental promotion matters. The court held that the petitioner was lawfully superseded on multiple occasions due to a failure to attain the required qualifying score based on quantified PERs and Selection Board marks, that allegations of mala fides were unsubstantiated, and that the court under Article 199 of the Constitution cannot substitute its own evaluation for that of the Selection Board or compel promotion. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an employee can challenge promotion supersessions after failing to contest earlier successive supersessions on the same grounds?
- Can the High Court interfere with departmental promotion decisions and compel the competent authority to promote an individual?
- What constitutes mala fides of law versus mala fides of fact in service matters?
- Is a promotion policy requiring a specific threshold of aggregate marks in PERs and Selection Board evaluation legally binding?
- Junaid Maseeh vs The State through PS CTW, FIA, Islamabad and 2 others2022 PCRLJ 1331 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought to quash an FIR registered against him under Sections 3 and 4 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, arguing that under Section 13 of the Act, a court could only take cognizance upon a complaint from an authorized government officer, thereby precluding the registration of an FIR and investigation. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that there is a clear distinction between the registration of a case and its investigation by law enforcement agencies, and the subsequent act of a court taking cognizance. The court clarified that Section 13 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, only places an embargo on a court taking cognizance without a proper complaint, but it does not prohibit the lodging of an FIR, the investigation of the matter, or the arrest of an accused. Therefore, the FIR and ongoing investigation were deemed permissible, and the petition for quashing was without merit.
Questions settled- Can an FIR be registered and an investigation conducted under the Official Secrets Act, 1923, before a formal complaint is made by an authorized government officer?
- Does Section 13 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, prohibit the lodging of an FIR and investigation, or only the court's taking of cognizance?
- What is the distinction between the registration of a case/FIR and a court taking cognizance of an offence?
- Can an FIR be quashed solely on the ground that a court cannot take cognizance without a specific authorized complaint?
- JS Global Capital Limited vs Mrs. Raheela Yahya2022 KLR Civil Cases 418 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-04-26Read full judgment →
- Jehanzeb Khan vs Justice of Peace, Additional Sessions Judge-III, Islamabad-East and others2022 MLD 1263 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-03Read full judgment →
- Javed Ahmed Mir vs Muhammad Afzal and others2022 CLC 668 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-01-18Read full judgment →
- Jahangir Muggo and others vs Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan and others2022 CLD 1325 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-07-21Read full judgment →
- Jahangir Muggo and others vs Securities & Exchange Commission of Pakistan and others2022 IHC 194 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Jahangir Khan vs The State and another2022 IHC 46 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for pre-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 28/2022 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the alleged dishonour of two cheques issued by the Petitioner to the Complainant pursuant to a Restaurant Management Agreement. The core legal question was whether the cheques were issued dishonestly, a necessary ingredient for the offence under Section 489-F, given the Petitioner's contention that they were intended as security for cash payments. The Court held that because the cheques were tendered under an agreement and there was a dispute regarding whether cash payments were made for the relevant months, the element of dishonesty could not be prima facie established at the bail stage. Emphasizing that deeper appreciation of evidence is impermissible during bail proceedings, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where cheques are issued pursuant to a contractual agreement, the determination of whether they were issued dishonestly requires trial evidence, and such ambiguity entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt at the pre-arrest bail stage.
Questions settled- Does the issuance of a cheque pursuant to a management agreement, where cash payment is disputed, prima facie satisfy the requirement of dishonesty under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is deeper appreciation of evidence permissible at the pre-arrest bail stage regarding the intent behind issuing a cheque?
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted when the underlying dispute involves a contractual obligation to pay rent or management fees?
- Israr Ahmed Afzal vs Mehtabuddin (deceased) and others2022 IHC 144 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-04-19Read full judgment →
- Irum Masood Etc vs Ministry of Information and Broad Casting, Islamabad, Etc2022 IHC 262 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-12-08Read full judgment →
- Independent Media Corporation (Pvt.) Limited vs Senior Civil Judge (West), Islamabad and others2022 CLC 1727 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-04-19Read full judgment →
- Inayatullah and others vs Station House Officer, Fia Corporate Crime Circle, Islamabad and others2022 P Cr. L J 638 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses three consolidated writ petitions seeking the quashing of an FIR registered under sections 420, 468, 471, 477-A, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, concerning alleged fraudulent plot allotments in the Capital Development Authority. The core legal questions involved whether an FIR can be quashed after the submission of a challan under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, whether prior sanction is mandatory under the Federal Investigation Agency (Inquiry and Investigation) Rules 2002, and whether a constitutional petition is maintainable when an alternate and efficacious remedy exists. The Islamabad High Court held that once a trial court takes cognizance and a challan is submitted, the FIR cannot be quashed through a constitutional petition, and the accused must instead pursue remedies such as seeking acquittal under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the court reaffirmed that prior executive sanction requirements in investigation rules, found repugnant to Islamic injunctions by the Federal Shariat Court and Supreme Court, ceased to have effect, and extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 cannot be invoked when an alternate statutory remedy is available.
Questions settled- Can an FIR be quashed by the High Court under Article 199 after the challan has been submitted and cognizance taken by the trial court?
- Whether the requirement of prior sanction under the Federal Investigation Agency (Inquiry and Investigation) Rules 2002 remains legally effective?
- Is a constitutional petition maintainable against an FIR when an alternate and efficacious remedy under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is available before the trial court?
- Can the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court be invoked as a routine matter to bypass statutory forums?
- Inayatullah and others vs SHO, FIA Corporate Crime Circle, Islamabad and others2022 PLJ Islamabad 47 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-11-23Read full judgment →
- Inayat Ullah Memon vs Rejesh Kumar and others2022 IHC 200 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-08-05Read full judgment →
- Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi vs Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority2022 IHC 212 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-09-05Read full judgment →
- Imaan Zainab Hazir vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior & 5 others2022 IHC 186 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-06-20Read full judgment →
- Iffco Insaf Mehnatkash Union vs M/s Iffco Pakistan (Private) Limited, etc2022 IHC 242 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-09-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from constitutional petitions filed against the judgment of the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission, which had allowed the respondent company's appeals and set aside trade union registrations. The core legal question was whether the respondent company, engaged in manufacturing cooking oil at Port Qasim, Karachi, qualified as a trans-provincial establishment having branches in more than one province under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The Islamabad High Court held that the Full Bench correctly interpreted the law and the expression 'branch', and found no misreading or non-reading of facts. The Court dismissed the petitions, laying down the principle that factual controversies cannot be resolved while exercising constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and that a well-reasoned finding of a specialized tribunal on the status of an establishment as trans-provincial will not be interfered with absent legal infirmity.
Questions settled- Whether a manufacturing company with a unit in one province qualifies as a trans-provincial establishment under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
- Can factual controversies regarding the existence of branches in other provinces be resolved under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
- Whether the High Court will interfere with a well-reasoned judgment of the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission without a showing of legal infirmity?
- Hussain Lawai vs The State and 2 others2022 MLD 405 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a petition seeking post-arrest bail in a corruption reference under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and the Anti Money Laundering Act, 2010. The core legal questions concern whether prolonged incarceration without trial conclusion, combined with deteriorating medical health and the release of co-accused on the principle of consistency, constitute sufficient grounds for granting post-arrest bail. The Islamabad High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail on the grounds of undue hardship due to delayed trial, critical health condition requiring specialized medical treatment, and the principle of consistency since main and co-accused had already been enlarged on bail. The key principles laid down are that an accused cannot be left to rot in jail indefinitely due to unconscionable trial delays, bail is not to be withheld as punishment, and constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 may be exercised to grant bail in appropriate cases of extreme hardship.
Questions settled- Whether prolonged incarceration without conclusion of trial amounts to undue hardship warranting post-arrest bail?
- Can bail be granted on the principle of consistency when co-accused facing similar charges have already been released on bail?
- Whether deteriorating health and the need for specialized medical treatment constitute valid grounds for the grant of bail in accountability cases?
- Does the High Court possess jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan to grant bail in cases under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
- Homoeopathic Doctor Perveiz Akhter Qureshi vs Government of Pakistan2022 PLC (C.S.) 866, 2022 [M] CLR 1043, 2022 KLR Civil Cases 336 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed in 2011 by Dr. Pervez Akhtar Qureshi, President of the National Council for Homeopathy, challenging a show cause notice and subsequent notification issued by the Ministry of Health disqualifying him and removing him from office on allegations of corruption and misuse of public funds regarding the purchase of a building for the Council. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner passed away and his legal heirs were impleaded. The core legal questions concerned whether the right to reputation survives for the benefit of legal heirs upon the death of a petitioner, whether an elected statutory office-holder can be removed without a proper inquiry into disputed questions of fact, and whether the impugned notification violated due process. The Islamabad High Court held that while the right to dignity and fair trial survives to legal heirs, a specific prayer for reputation or damages must be pleaded and cannot be granted by rewriting the petition in constitutional jurisdiction. However, the Court ruled that issuing a notification finding a person guilty of corruption without conducting a proper inquiry, failing to address the petitioner's defence of collegiate decision-making, and acting without bona fides violates due process and the right to fair trial. The petition was allowed and the impugned notification was set aside.
Questions settled- Does the right to dignity and fair trial survive for the benefit of legal heirs after the death of a petitioner challenging their removal from a statutory office?
- Can a statutory authority remove an elected office-holder on allegations of corruption and misuse of public funds without conducting a proper inquiry into disputed questions of fact?
- Is a notification issued without addressing the petitioner's valid defences of collegiate decision-making and without due process sustainable in law?
- Can a constitutional court in its writ jurisdiction assume the role of a civil court under the Defamation Ordinance to award a declaration of innocence or damages for injury to reputation?
- Hashmat Hussain vs The State, etc2022 IHC 156 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-05-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the petitioner, Hashmat Hussain, seeking pre-arrest bail in a cross-version FIR registered under Section 337-F(ii)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involved whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the contradictions in eye-witness statements, delay in medical legal reporting, and the absence of offences falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Islamabad High Court held that upon tentative assessment, significant flaws existed in the prosecution's version, eyewitness statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 did not attribute the knife injury to the petitioner, and the alleged offences fell outside the prohibitory clause. Consequently, the court confirmed the pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail must be examined in the constitutional context of liberty and due process, and where incriminating material is lacking or flawed, bail ought to be granted as a rule.
Questions settled- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does a contradiction between the complainant's FIR and statements of eye-witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute a ground for confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
- How does the right to fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 influence the consideration of pre-arrest bail applications?
- Hania Obaid vs Chairman, Arbitration Council and another2022 IHC 18 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-10Read full judgment →
- Hamza Sadaqat vs The State and another2022 YLR 1024 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition sought post-arrest bail for an accused charged under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether the accused was entitled to bail despite being nominated in the FIR with a specific role, having been a fugitive from law, and despite the police opinion in the challan suggesting his absence from the crime scene. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that there was sufficient material on record to connect the accused to the crime. The Court established that a plea of alibi must be determined by the trial court after evidence is recorded, not at the bail stage. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the police's opinion (ipse dixit) in the challan is not binding, and non-recovery of weapons does not automatically entitle an accused to bail. Crucially, the Court reiterated that unexplained abscondence disentitles an accused to bail, and offences falling under the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, generally preclude bail unless a clear case for further inquiry is established.
Questions settled- Can a plea of alibi be adjudicated at the bail stage?
- Is the police opinion in the challan regarding an accused's presence at the crime scene binding on the court during bail proceedings?
- Does the non-recovery of incriminating weapons entitle an accused to bail?
- Does unexplained abscondence disentitle an accused to the concession of bail?
- Hameed Ullah vs Ali Arshad and another2022 CLC 340 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-08-25Read full judgment →
- Haji Muhammad Shafiq vs The Registrar of Companies, Company Law2022 CLD 1402 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-07-26Read full judgment →
- Haji Muhammad Shafiq vs Registrar of Companies, Company Law Division2022 PLJ Islamabad 160 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Haji Haroon vs National Accountability Bureau through its Chairman & 22022 IHC 254 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-08-29Read full judgment →
- Habib Rafiq (Pvt.) Ltd vs Capital Development Authority through its2022 [M] CLR 104 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Gull Muhammad vs The State2022 MLD 2071 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-06-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for the possession of charas and ICE, and sentenced to cumulative terms totaling 5 years and 10 months rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the recovery witnesses, the effect of delay in dispatching the sample parcels to the forensic laboratory, the discrepancy in weight due to different measuring scales, and the legality of awarding separate consecutive punishments for multiple types of narcotics recovered in a single transaction. The court held that the prosecution successfully established the recovery of contraband beyond a reasonable doubt, and minor delays or weight discrepancies explained scientifically do not vitiate the conviction. However, the court ruled that separate consecutive punishments for different kinds of narcotics recovered simultaneously are not warranted under the statute, modifying the sentence accordingly. The key principle laid down is that the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 provides for cumulative punishment for total contraband rather than separate fragmented sentences for different types of drugs recovered in the same transaction.
Questions settled- Whether delay in dispatching sample parcels to the chemical examiner vitiates the prosecution case under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- Can minor weight variations between police recovery and laboratory reports be satisfactorily explained by the use of advanced analytical balance scales?
- Does the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 warrant separate consecutive punishments for multiple types of narcotics recovered in a single transaction?
- Whether the prosecution proved the safe custody and unbroken chain of transmission of narcotics samples to the forensic laboratory?
- Gull Muhammad vs StatePLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1475 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-06-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 9(C) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of charas and ICE. The appellant contended that the prosecution case was doubtful due to a delay in sending samples for chemical analysis, conflicting recovery witness statements, and discrepancies in sample weights between the recovery memo and the forensic report. The Court upheld the conviction, finding the prosecution's evidence consistent and the chain of custody intact. Regarding the delay in chemical analysis, the Court, citing Supreme Court precedents, held that procedural rule violations do not automatically invalidate a prosecution case if the core evidence of recovery remains credible. The Court also accepted the forensic expert's explanation regarding weight discrepancies due to the use of more precise analytical balances. However, the Court modified the sentence, ruling that the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 does not authorize separate, consecutive sentences for different types of narcotics possessed in a single transaction. Consequently, the Court maintained the conviction but reduced the cumulative sentence.
Questions settled- Does a delay in sending narcotic samples for chemical analysis automatically invalidate the prosecution's case?
- Can a trial court impose separate, consecutive sentences for the possession of different types of narcotics in a single transaction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- Is a discrepancy in weight between the recovery memo and the forensic report sufficient to discredit the prosecution's recovery evidence?
- Gul Taj vs The State2022 IHC 220 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-09-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court (CNS), Islamabad, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 9(C) of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997 for trafficking 2500 grams of heroin and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery beyond a reasonable doubt, whether the chain of custody and safe transmission of the samples to the National Institute of Health was maintained, and whether an investigating officer who is also the complainant is legally barred from investigating the case. The Islamabad High Court held that the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of custody, that minor discrepancies do not vitiate the trial, and that a police officer is not prohibited from being both the complainant and the investigating officer provided no prejudice is caused to the accused. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence.
Questions settled- Whether the prosecution must prove an unbroken chain of safe custody for narcotic samples sent for chemical analysis?
- Can a police officer who acts as the complainant in a narcotics case also competently conduct the investigation?
- Does minor discrepancy in witness testimonies regarding vehicle descriptions vitiate a narcotics conviction supported by positive chemical reports?
- Is a bald statement in a Section 342 Cr.P.C. examination sufficient to establish a plea of false implication without supporting defense evidence?
- Gul Faraz vs The Secretary, Cabinet Division, etc2022 IHC 20 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-24Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Qamar vs The State & another2022 IHC 90 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the accused, Ghulam Qamar, in an FIR involving allegations of managing a brothel and trafficking females for prostitution. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations and his conduct during the investigation. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to join the investigation despite having ad-interim bail for over a month, which undermined the investigative process. Furthermore, the court found sufficient incriminating material linking the petitioner to the offence, which falls under the prohibitory clause of the relevant criminal procedure law. The court emphasized that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy intended to protect innocent citizens from malicious prosecution, not to subvert investigative procedures. The principle laid down is that an accused who fails to cooperate with the investigation while on ad-interim bail, and against whom there is prima facie incriminating evidence, is not entitled to the discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail.
Questions settled- Does the failure of an accused to join the investigation while on ad-interim bail disentitle them to the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Is the rule of consistency applicable when comparing the bail status of a principal accused with a commanding role to co-accused?
- What is the primary purpose of the extraordinary remedy of pre-arrest bail in criminal proceedings?
- Ghulam Ahmed Chaudhry (deceased) through legal heirs vs Akbar2022 IHC 190 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- FFCL Management Staff Pension Fund Trust through Secretary vs President2022 CLD 1540 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-08-25Read full judgment →
- Federation of Pakistan and others vs Javed Iqbal and others2022 [M] CLR 361, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 1095 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses multiple Intra Court Appeals challenging a decision that declared the appointments of the President and Chairman of the National Bank of Pakistan illegal. The core legal questions concerned whether these appointments required public advertisement and whether the appointees possessed the requisite eligibility, specifically regarding their educational qualifications. The Court held that Section 11(3)(a) of the Banks Nationalization Act, 1974, does not mandate public advertisement for these positions; thus, the judiciary cannot impose such a requirement where the statute is silent. Furthermore, the Court ruled that determining whether a specific degree constitutes a 'related field' for banking is a matter of expert assessment, not judicial determination. Deferring to the State Bank of Pakistan, which had already vetted the appointees under its 'Fit and Proper' criteria, the Court emphasized that judicial review should not interfere with policy decisions or expert evaluations of eligibility. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the original writ petitions were dismissed, affirming the appointments as lawful.
Questions settled- Does the appointment of the President or Chairman of the National Bank of Pakistan under the Banks Nationalization Act, 1974 require public advertisement?
- Can courts interfere with the eligibility determination of a candidate for a specialized banking post when the regulator has already declared them 'fit and proper'?
- Are cross-objections maintainable in an Intra Court Appeal filed under the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972?
- Can a court read a requirement for public advertisement into a statute that does not explicitly provide for one?
- Edwin Coe LLP vs Naseim Ahmed Sarfraz2022 CLC 1064 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant impugned an order of the District and Sessions Judge granting nominal costs of Rs. 100,000 under section 35 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 during execution proceedings of a foreign judgment, while the respondent filed cross-objections challenging the execution. The Islamabad High Court examined whether the award of actual litigation costs under the Cost of Litigation Act, 2017 is mandatory, how reasonableness and proportionality of attorney fees are to be determined, and whether cross-objections are maintainable against an interlocutory order that is not a decree. The Court held that awarding actual litigation costs to the successful party is a mandatory statutory requirement under section 35(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, serving to indemnify the winning party and discourage frivolous litigation. Furthermore, cross-objections under Order XLI Rule 22 are not maintainable against non-decree orders, and persistent relitigation of settled issues constitutes an abuse of process warranting special costs. The Court set aside the impugned cost order, remanded the matter for redetermination of actual costs incurred in the execution proceedings, and imposed special costs on the respondent for filing vexatious cross-objections.
Questions settled- Whether the award of actual costs of litigation to a successful party under section 35(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is mandatory or discretionary?
- Can cross-objections under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 be maintained against an order that does not constitute a decree?
- What principles govern the determination of reasonableness and proportionality of attorney fees when awarding litigation costs under the Cost of Litigation Act, 2017?
- Whether an executing court can award litigation costs incurred in proceedings before another court or at a different adjudicatory tier?
- Dr. Noor Muhammad Shah vs Ministry of National Health Services, Regulation and Coordination and 2 others2022 PLC (C.S.) 1567 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a civil servant (BS-19) in the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan (D.R.A.P.), challenged a memorandum deferring his promotion to BS-20. The Central Selection Board (C.S.B.) deferred his promotion, citing the absence of valid Performance Evaluation Reports (PERs) for 2017-2018 and alleging he had obtained them from irrelevant officers. The core legal question was whether the C.S.B. could lawfully defer promotion based on missing PERs when the Ministry of National Health Services, Regulations and Coordination, acting on Establishment Division advice, had already issued a certificate in lieu of PERs for those years. The Court held that the deferment was irrational and arbitrary. It found that the Ministry, not the petitioner, was responsible for the completeness of the dossier. Furthermore, the C.S.B. was misled by departmental representatives who failed to disclose the existence of the validly issued certificate. The Court established that a department cannot penalize a civil servant for missing PERs when it failed to maintain them or provided an alternative certificate in accordance with official guidelines, and that such administrative failures cannot be used to deny promotion.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant's promotion be deferred due to missing Performance Evaluation Reports when the department itself failed to ensure their completion?
- Is a certificate issued in lieu of Performance Evaluation Reports, pursuant to official advice, a valid substitute for the purposes of promotion consideration?
- Does the responsibility for maintaining complete Performance Evaluation dossiers lie with the civil servant or the administrative department?
- Can the Central Selection Board defer a promotion based on reasons that contradict official administrative advice previously issued by the Establishment Division?
- Dr. Muhammad Abdullah & 10 others vs Federation of Pakistan through its2022 IHC 250 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-10-25Read full judgment →
- Dr. Amna Mahmood vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry2022 PLC (C.S.) 223 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-07-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a scholar recommended by a Search and Selection Committee for the Pakistan Chair at Jordan University, challenged the respondents' failure to issue a posting order following the Prime Minister's approval of her appointment. The respondents subsequently sought to re-advertise the position, citing generalized concerns regarding the qualifications of some candidates in the original selection process. The core legal question was whether the authorities could unilaterally nullify a selection process approved by the Prime Minister without providing specific reasons or due process to the affected candidate. The Court held that the respondents could not arbitrarily discard the petitioner's selection based on vague, generalized allegations of disqualification. The Court emphasized that if the petitioner was deemed unqualified, she was entitled to a hearing and a reasoned decision. The ratio established that government authorities cannot reverse prior approvals or penalize candidates for departmental irregularities without due process, and that the principles of natural justice require that a candidate be given an opportunity to defend their credentials before their selection is set aside.
Questions settled- Can a government department unilaterally nullify a selection process approved by the Prime Minister based on generalized and ambiguous allegations of disqualification?
- Is a candidate entitled to a hearing and a reasoned order before their selection is set aside on grounds of lacking required qualifications?
- Does a candidate suffer prejudice when a department reverses its own prior approval without providing specific reasons for the reversal?
- Dr Shireen Mehrunnisa Mazari vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice & 11 others2022 IHC 236 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-09-23Read full judgment →
- District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner, ICT vs Maulana Abdul Majeed2022 IHC 132 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-26Read full judgment →
- Director (I&I) (Inland Revenue), Islamabad vs Chaudhary Riaz Ahmed And 04 Others2022 IHC 278 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Dalda Foods Limited vs The Competition Commission of Pakistan, etc.2022 PCTLR 540 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-09-14Read full judgment →
- Dalda Foods Limited through National Sales Manager (North) vs The Competition Commission Of Pakistan and others2022 CLD 10 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-09-14Read full judgment →
- Daily Khabrain vs Abdul Waheed Jamal, etc2022 IHC 118 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Intra Court Appeal challenges a Single Bench judgment that dismissed a writ petition against an Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees (ITNE) judgment. The core legal questions involve the jurisdiction of the ITNE under the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973 to award gratuity and salary in lieu of notice upon the termination of a newspaper employee, and whether the employee's termination constituted dismissal for misconduct. The court held that the ITNE possesses jurisdiction over gratuity claims as gratuity forms part of 'wages' governed by the Wage Board Award, but lacks jurisdiction over claims for salary in lieu of notice under Section 4 of the Act, which fall outside the implementation powers of the Tribunal under Section 12A. The key principle laid down is that while the ITNE can enforce Wage Board awards concerning wages and gratuity, claims strictly governed by Section 4 regarding notice or salary in lieu thereof must be pursued before the appropriate forum such as the NIRC, and termination without statutory notice and inquiry cannot be treated as dismissal for misconduct.
Questions settled- Does the Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees have jurisdiction to adjudicate claims regarding salary in lieu of notice under Section 4 of the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973?
- Is gratuity included within the definition of 'wages' under the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973, thereby falling within the domain of the ITNE?
- Can a newspaper employee's services be terminated on the ground of misconduct without complying with the procedure prescribed under Standing Order 15 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
- What is the extent of the jurisdiction of the Implementation Tribunal constituted under Section 12A of the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973?
- Commissioner of Inland Revenue, Zone-III, Regional Tax Office, Islamabad2022 PTD 1876 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-08-31Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Inland Revenue Rto, Islamabad vs Pak Telecommunication2022 PTD 696, 2022 [M] CLR 890, 2022 PCTLR 1029 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Collector, Sales Tax & Federal Excise, Regional Tax Office, Islamabad vs Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax, Appellate Tribunal, Islamabad and another2022 IHC 152, 2024 PTD 275 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-05-09Read full judgment →
- Collector of Customs, Model Customs Collectorate (Mcc), Islamabad vs Messrs Sugi Duty Free Shop (Pvt.) Ltd. through Authorized Representative and another2022 PTD 1638 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-10-25Read full judgment →
- Chief Commissioner ICT vs Federation of Pakistan etc2022 IHC 66 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-04Read full judgment →
- Ch. Asghar Ali vs Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice Of Peace2022 P Cr. L J 366 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-01-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a land dispute in Islamabad where proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were initiated to prevent a breach of peace. The petitioner challenged orders passed by the Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge, arguing that the Magistrate misread the record regarding possession and that civil litigation was pending. The core legal questions were whether the Magistrate exceeded jurisdiction by adjudicating property rights and whether a second FIR could be registered for the same incident. The Court held that the Magistrate’s order was a valid, tentative determination of possession intended solely to maintain public order, not a final declaration of title, which remains the exclusive domain of the civil court. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that, per established precedent, a second FIR cannot be registered for the same occurrence, though an Investigating Officer may record a cross-version. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed as the impugned orders contained no legal infirmity. The principle established is that Section 145 proceedings are limited to preventing breach of peace and do not empower a Magistrate to adjudicate substantive property rights.
Questions settled- Does a Magistrate have the authority to adjudicate title rights during proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a Magistrate's order regarding the custody of property under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 considered a final declaration of title?
- Can a second FIR be registered for the same incident that is already the subject of an existing FIR?
- Capital Development Authority, through its Chairman and another vs M/s.2022 [M] CLR 89 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Capital Development Authority vs Commissioner C.D.a, etc2022 IHC 16 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-01Read full judgment →
- Better Engineered Solutions (Pvt.) Ltd vs Balochistan Development2022 IHC 208 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →