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.

• Bakhtiyar Alam vs The State2022 IHC 114 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-14
  post-arrest bailnarcotics recoveryprohibitory clauseconscious knowledgecontrol of narcotic substancesfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 9(c) and 15 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, after his earlier bail application was dismissed by the Special Court. The prosecution alleged that 12 kilograms of opium was recovered from the trunk of a vehicle on the identification of the petitioner and his co-accused, who was sitting on the front seat. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was prima facie connected to the commission of the offence and entitled to post-arrest bail given the large quantity of narcotics recovered. The Islamabad High Court held that a deeper appreciation of the record is not permissible at the bail stage and that the recovery of narcotics on the petitioner's identification indicated conscious knowledge, prima facie connecting him to the offence. The court ruled that the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, read with Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and accordingly dismissed the bail petition.

  Questions settled

  • Is a deeper appreciation of the record permissible at the bail stage?
  • Does the recovery of narcotics on the identification of an accused indicate conscious knowledge for the purpose of bail?
  • Does an offence punishable by death or life imprisonment under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Babar Hussain vs The State and another2022 YLR 1488 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-03-01
  post-arrest bailcross-versionfurther inquiryaggressioncriminal procedurebail after arrestmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition seeks post-arrest bail in a case involving cross-versions of an incident resulting in murder and injuries, registered under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to bail when the prosecution's case involves conflicting versions of the occurrence, disputed aggression, and inconclusive evidence regarding the petitioner's specific role in the fatal injury. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, finding that the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court reasoned that in cross-version cases, determining the initial aggressor and evaluating conflicting evidence are matters to be resolved during trial, not at the bail stage. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that bail should not be withheld as punishment, and where reasonable grounds for further inquiry exist regarding the accused's complicity, the accused should not be incarcerated pending trial. The petition was accepted, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of cross-versions of an incident constitute sufficient grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the determination of the primary aggressor in a criminal case a matter to be decided at the bail stage or during the trial?
  • Should bail be withheld as a form of punishment in cases involving offences punishable with death or transportation?
  Read full judgment →
• Azhar Mehmood Ahmed Qureshi vs Zarai Taraqiati Bank Ltd through its2022 IHC 176 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Atta Ur Rehman vs The State2022 PCRLJ 878 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-01-27
  criminal appealguilty pleasentencing discretionfirst-time offendernarcotics smugglingremission of sentenceCustoms Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the sentence imposed by the Special Court (CNS), Islamabad, following the appellant's conviction for smuggling narcotics under the Customs Act, 1969. The appellant, having pleaded guilty at trial, did not contest the conviction on appeal but sought a reduction in the quantum of sentence, citing his status as a first-time offender and sole breadwinner. The core legal question concerned the appellate court's discretion to modify a sentence where the accused has pleaded guilty and seeks leniency. The Court held that while an appeal against a conviction based on a guilty plea is generally barred under Section 412 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the legality and quantum of the sentence remain open to challenge. Emphasizing the distinction between habitual offenders and first-time novices, the Court ruled that rehabilitation is a primary objective of sentencing. Consequently, the Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, ordering the appellant's immediate release, establishing the principle that first-time offenders showing remorse deserve lenient sentencing consideration.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court review the quantum of a sentence if the accused has pleaded guilty at the trial stage?
  • Does the status of a first-time offender justify a reduction in sentence to the period already undergone?
  • Is an appeal maintainable against a conviction based on a plea of guilty under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Asma Malik vs Federation of Pakistan, through Secretary Ministry of Interior, etc2022 IHC 138 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-17Read full judgment →
• Asima Sarwat and another vs Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC), through Chairman Headquarters, Islamabad and 3 others2022 PLC (C.S.) 349 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-08-27
  writ petitionmaster and servanttransfer and postingnon-statutory rulesstrategic organizationmaintainabilityPakistan Atomic Energy Commission
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged the transfer order of the petitioners, who are husband and wife serving as teachers in the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC), from Islamabad to Jauharabad. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a constitutional petition against the transfer orders of employees belonging to a strategic organization and whether the principle of master and servant applies to them in the absence of statutory rules. The Islamabad High Court held that since the rules regulating employees of the PAEC are non-statutory pursuant to Section 15 of the National Command Authority Act 2010, the relationship is governed by the master and servant principle, rendering the constitutional petition non-maintainable. The Court laid down the key principle that employees governed by non-statutory rules cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court for individual service grievances like transfers, and that transfer is an inherent incident of service where the competent authority is the sole judge of administrative exigencies.

  Questions settled

  • Whether employees of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission are governed by statutory or non-statutory rules?
  • Are constitutional petitions under Article 199 maintainable against transfer orders of employees governed by non-statutory rules?
  • Does an employee have a vested right to remain posted at a place of their own choice?
  • What is the effect of the proviso to Section 15 of the National Command Authority Act 2010 on the service terms of employees of strategic organizations?
  Read full judgment →
• Asim Irfan Ahmed vs Learned Additional District And Sessions Judge, Islamabad etc2022 PLJ Islamabad 40 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Arshad alias Goga vs The State2022 P Cr. L J 198 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-05-06
  post-arrest bailnarcotics recoveryfurther inquiryborderline casestatutory investigation violationfundamental rightsliberty
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of 1285 grams of chars. The core legal questions involved whether the investigation conducted by an ASI below the prescribed rank violates statutory provisions, and whether a recovery marginally exceeding one kilogram constitutes a borderline case warranting further inquiry. The Islamabad High Court accepted the petition and granted post-arrest bail, holding that the investigation carried out by an officer below the competent rank, coupled with the borderline quantity of the recovered substance and the awaiting chemical report, brought the case within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The key principle laid down is that where the recovery of a narcotic substance falls near the borderline between statutory clauses and procedural mandates regarding investigation are questionable, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does an investigation conducted by an officer below the prescribed rank under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 make the case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Whether the recovery of a narcotic substance marginally exceeding one kilogram qualifies as a borderline case between clauses (b) and (c) of Section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can mere involvement of an accused in other criminal cases serve as a ground to withhold bail when the current case otherwise falls within the scope of further inquiry?
  • Does unjustified incarceration prior to conclusion of trial warrant the grant of bail when the recovery is of a borderline quantity?
  Read full judgment →
• Ansar Mehmood Gondal vs The State etc2022 IHC 52 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-04-01
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausecriminal breach of trustrule of consistencycooperative housing societyillegal allotmentSection 164 statement
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 05/2022, involving allegations of illegal allotment of a commercial plot designated for amenities by the management of a Cooperative Housing Society. The petitioner, the former President of the society, faced charges under Sections 109, 409, and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite the serious nature of the allegations and the existence of a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 implicating him in accepting money. The Court held that the offence under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 carries a punishment extending to ten years, placing it within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Finding prima facie evidence of the petitioner's involvement and distinguishing his case from co-accused granted bail, the Court dismissed the petition, establishing that the rule of consistency does not apply when the petitioner's role is distinct and supported by specific incriminating material.

  Questions settled

  • Does the offence under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the rule of consistency be applied to grant bail to a co-accused when the petitioner's role is distinct and supported by specific incriminating evidence?
  • Is a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sufficient to establish prima facie involvement for the purpose of refusing bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Amjad Mustafa Malik vs Director General, National Accountability Bureau &2022 [M] CLR 131 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Amjad Hameed Gondal vs Raja Muhammad Ilyas2022 IHC 204 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-08-11Read full judgment →
• Amjad Ghafoor Khan vs Waseem Ahmed Malik2022 IHC 116 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-07Read full judgment →
• Allama Iqbal Open University vs Federation of Pakistan and others2022 IHC 128 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-04-06Read full judgment →
• Ali Saeed Wahla vs Capital Development Authority through Chairman, Islamabad and others2022 CLC 1132 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-23Read full judgment →
• Ali Raza & others vs The Secretary, National Food Security & Research, etc2022 IHC 14 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-08Read full judgment →
• Ali Akhter Hussain Shah vs Model Project (Pvt.) Limited through Chief2022 YLR 310 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-05-25Read full judgment →
• Akbar Azam vs The State, etc2022 IHC 170 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-05-19Read full judgment →
• Air Blue (Pvt) Ltd through its M.D., The Manager (Sales) Air Blue and others2022 IHC 252 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ahmed Bilal vs Khurram Javed2022 IHC 184 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-06-16Read full judgment →
• Administrator Islamabad Club vs Capital Development Authority and Others2022 MLD 1869 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-23Read full judgment →
• Abid Rehman vs Farooq Umar Bhoja and others2022 PCRLJ 1587 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-05-20
  speaking orderjudicial discretioncriminal revisionQatl-bis-sababQatl-i-amdtrial court procedurereasoned judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition arose from a trial court order that, without providing detailed reasoning, concluded that the alleged offences in a fatal plane crash case fell under Section 322, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (Qatl-bis-sabab) rather than Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (Qatl-i-amd). The petitioner challenged this reclassification, arguing that the trial court failed to apply its mind to the evidence and the gravity of the incident. The High Court held that the impugned order was legally unsustainable because it lacked a "speaking" quality, failing to provide rational reasons or link the evidence—specifically the findings of a Judicial Commission—to the legal conclusion reached. The Court emphasized the fundamental principle that judicial pronouncements must be "speaking orders," manifesting that the court has applied its mind to the issues. Consequently, the High Court set aside the trial court's order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision, directing the trial court to provide a reasoned, judicious determination based on the material on record, without being influenced by the High Court's observations.

  Questions settled

  • Is a trial court order that fails to provide reasons for its conclusion regarding the applicability of specific penal sections legally sustainable?
  • Does a judicial order require a detailed explanation of the evidence and material on record to be considered a valid judicial verdict?
  • Can an appellate court set aside a trial court's order if it lacks the necessary reasoning to justify the decision reached?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdus Salam Khan Barki and another vs Mian Pervaiz Akhtar and another2022 PLD Islamabad 346 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-04-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razaq vs The State and another2022 PCRLJ 953 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-01-13
  post-arrest bailchild marriagevalidity of nikahage of pubertyrushdfurther inquirysui juris
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to the alleged abduction of a minor girl for sexual desires. The core legal question revolved around the validity of the Nikah contracted by the alleged victim, who was 16 years and 5 months old, and whether the case warranted further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 given the conflicting statements and legal anomalies concerning the minimum age of marriage. The court held that while the victim did not qualify under the Hanafi school of thought and was not sui juris at the relevant time, the existence of a Nikahnama and an affidavit executed by her in contrast to her statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 rendered the case one of further inquiry. The petition was allowed and the petitioner was granted bail. The court laid down the principle that besides attaining puberty, the requirement of 'rushd' (maturity of mind and capacity to form a reasonable judgment) is essential for a valid contract of marriage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Nikah contracted by a girl aged 16 years and 5 months is valid under Hanafi jurisprudence?
  • Does a Muslim female require the consent of a Wali if she is not sui juris at the time of contracting marriage?
  • Is a case rendered one of further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when a Nikahnama and affidavit are contradicted by a statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What are the legal criteria regarding 'rushd' and puberty for a valid marriage contract in Islam?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum Khan vs Pakistan Post & another2022 IHC 88 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khameed vs Muhammad Shabbir etc2022 PLJ Islamabad 54 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-02-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Farooq and another vs Mst. Maryam Farooq and others2022 PLD Islamabad 120 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-11-15
  interim custodyhabeas corpuswelfare of the minorSection 491 Cr.P.C.Guardians and Wards Actprimary caregivermatrimonial disputehizanat
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged an order under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which granted interim custody of minor children to their mothers. The petitioners, fathers of the minors, contended that the mothers had abandoned the matrimonial home and that the remedy under Section 491 was inappropriate given the ongoing matrimonial disputes. The Court held that jurisdiction under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is not mutually exclusive with the Guardians and Wards Act 1890. While the Guardian Court remains the final arbiter for permanent custody, the High Court or Sessions Court may exercise Section 491 powers to grant interim custody to ensure the welfare of the child, which is the paramount consideration. The Court observed that the 'primary caregiver' status and the need to keep siblings together are vital factors. It found that the children had been tutored against their mothers, which was detrimental to their welfare. Consequently, the Court upheld the interim custody order, directing the Guardian Court to decide the permanent custody matter expeditiously.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 bar the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the interim custody of a minor?
  • Is the welfare of the child the paramount consideration in a habeas corpus petition concerning the custody of a minor?
  • Can a court under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 determine the permanent custody of a minor?
  • Does the 'tender years doctrine' remain the sole consideration for determining the interim custody of a minor?
  Read full judgment →
• Abbas Khan vs The State & another2022 IHC 154 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-05-16
  post-arrest bailrobberyidentification paradehabitual offenderprohibitory clausecriminal-precedents
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in FIR No. 655 dated 20.07.2021 registered under sections 392 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Koral, Islamabad, relating to an armed street robbery. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail considering his identification in an identification parade, recovery of snatched property, and involvement in multiple similar criminal cases. The Islamabad High Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, as sufficient tangible incriminating material prima facie connected him to the heinous offence, which fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and his status as a habitual offender engaged in rampant street crimes disentitled him to discretionary relief. The key principle laid down is that involvement in multiple similar offences and being a habitual offender, coupled with positive identification and recovery, constitutes strong grounds to refuse post-arrest bail in heinous crimes affecting society.

  Questions settled

  • Whether identification in an identification parade and recovery of snatched property disentitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
  • Does involvement in multiple similar criminal cases classify an accused as a habitual offender for the refusal of bail?
  • Does the offence of robbery under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Aasim Majeed Meer vs Federation of Pakistan and another2022 IHC 148 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-04-22
  deputationrepatriationvested rightcivil serviceexigencies of servicewrit jurisdictionaggrieved person
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged an office order issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs repatriating the petitioner, a deputationist, to his parent department, the Intelligence Bureau. The core legal question was whether a civil servant on deputation possesses a vested right to complete the full tenure of their deputation or to challenge their repatriation to the parent department. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a deputationist has no vested right to remain in a borrowing department for any stipulated period. The court affirmed that the competent authority retains the discretion to repatriate a deputationist at any time, based on the exigencies of service, without being required to assign reasons. Furthermore, the court clarified that a deputationist cannot be considered an 'aggrieved person' regarding such repatriation, as it does not inherently stigmatize the individual or constitute disciplinary action, provided no formal proceedings under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, have been initiated. Consequently, the court found no legal infirmity in the repatriation order.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant on deputation have a vested right to complete the full tenure of their deputation in the borrowing department?
  • Can a competent authority repatriate a deputationist to their parent department without assigning any reason?
  • Is a civil servant on deputation considered an 'aggrieved person' entitled to invoke constitutional jurisdiction against an order of repatriation?
  Read full judgment →
• Zohra Jabeen vs First Woman Bank and others2021 IHC 262, 2022 [M] CLR 762, 2022 PCTLR 604, 2022 PLC 1 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-08-27Read full judgment →
• Zil-e-Huma Farooq vs Government of Pakistan, etc2021 IHC 226 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-07-29Read full judgment →
• Zeenat Ali vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 1294 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-05-03
  narcotics possessionbenefit of doubtdelayed chemical analysisinvestigation by complainantcriminal appealacquittalCNSA
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under section 9-A of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act (CNSA), 1997, for the alleged possession of 1382 grams of charas. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, given significant procedural lapses, including an unexplained nine-day delay in sending samples to the Chemical Examiner, contradictions in the prosecution's evidence regarding the presence of witnesses, and the fact that the complainant acted as the Investigating Officer. The Islamabad High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge, citing the unexplained delay in chemical analysis, the failure to produce key witnesses, and the inherent bias when a complainant investigates their own case. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms the principle that if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind, the accused is entitled to the benefit of that doubt as a matter of right, not concession.

  Questions settled

  • Does the investigation of a case by the complainant himself vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt?
  • What is the legal consequence of an unexplained delay in sending narcotic samples to the Chemical Examiner?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to produce a material eye-witness mentioned in the FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited through Acting Senior Vice President vs Full2021 PLC 209 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-09-22
  National Industrial Relations Commissionworkman statusindustrial disputetrade union activitiesdismissal from servicewrit of certiorariconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of three writ petitions filed by Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited challenging orders passed by the Single Member and Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC), which set aside the termination of the private respondents—union office bearers working as Qasid and Typists—who were dismissed for alleged misconduct involving absence from duty to attend trade union meetings. The core legal questions involved whether the respondents were 'workmen' under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, whether their termination over trade union activities constituted an industrial dispute or an individual dispute falling outside NIRC's jurisdiction, and the scope of a writ of certiorari under Article 199 of the Constitution. The Islamabad High Court held that the respondents, due to the nature of their clerical duties and lack of managerial or administrative powers, qualify as workmen, and that their termination for participating in union activities gives rise to an industrial dispute properly cognizable by the NIRC under Section 33 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The court affirmed that concurrent findings of fact by the NIRC are well-reasoned, suffer from no jurisdictional defect, and cannot be interfered with in the supervisory writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does an employee working as a Qasid or Typist qualify as a 'workman' under Section 2(xxxiii) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Whether termination of union office bearers for absence from duty to attend trade union meetings constitutes an industrial dispute or an individual dispute?
  • Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have jurisdiction to entertain a grievance petition under Section 33 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 in cases involving trade union victimization?
  • What are the permissible grounds for issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 199 of the Constitution against orders passed by the National Industrial Relations Commission?
  Read full judgment →
• Zakia Naz, Charge Nurse, Capital Hospital, Islamabad and 3 others vs Capital Development Authority through Chairman and others2022 PLJ Islamabad 93 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Zaigham Abbas and 10 others vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Op and HRD and 14 others2021 PLC (C.S.) 486 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-07-29
  retrospective applicationpolicy guidelinesadministrative lawjudicial reviewvested rightscompetitive examinationprospective effect
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the retrospective application of amendments to the 'Policy Guidelines for Foreign Appointments and Postings in Pakistan's Diplomatic Missions Abroad' regarding the selection of Community Welfare Attaches (CWAs). The petitioners, who had successfully passed the written test under the 2016 Policy—which allocated 80% weightage to written scores and 20% to interviews, with no minimum passing marks for interviews—were subjected to new criteria approved by the Prime Minister on December 10, 2019. These amendments introduced a 50% minimum passing mark for interviews and adjusted the weightage to 60% written and 40% interview. The core legal question was whether these policy amendments could be applied retrospectively to a selection process that had already commenced. The Court held that executive policy changes cannot operate retrospectively to the disadvantage of candidates unless explicitly stated. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petitioners must be evaluated under the original 2016 Policy criteria. The key principle laid down is that administrative policies, absent express provision, must operate prospectively and cannot disrupt a competitive selection process already in progress to the detriment of participants.

  Questions settled

  • Can an executive policy amendment be applied retrospectively to a competitive selection process that has already commenced?
  • Does a candidate have a vested right to be evaluated under the policy criteria in force at the time of the advertisement?
  • Can a court interfere with the policy-making domain of the executive when such policies are applied retrospectively to the detriment of candidates?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahid Idrees Mufti vs Deputy Commissioner, Capital Development2021 MLD 1909 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-05-27Read full judgment →
• Zabi Ullah Abbasi vs The State and another2021 YLR 520 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-09-10Read full judgment →
• Writ Petition No.3943 of 2020 vs Federal Ombudsman and 3 others2021 MLD 2003 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-05-25Read full judgment →
• Waqas Sabir and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Cabinet Division and others2021 IHC 332 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Waqas Rafi Awan vs National Engineering & Scientific Commission, Islamabad through its Chairman & 2 others2021 PLJ Islamabad 330, 2021 IHC 208 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-05-06Read full judgment →
• Waqas And Brothers Enterprises (Private Limited) through C.E.O vs Messrs2021 PLD Islamabad 333 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-05-07
  consumer protectiondefinition of consumerbeneficiary of servicesrejection of plaintCode of Civil ProcedureCode of Criminal Procedurepenal statutefair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Islamabad under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which dismissed the appellant's consumer complaint on the ground that the appellant did not qualify as a consumer under the Islamabad Consumers Protection Act, 1995. The core legal questions involved whether the appellant, as a direct beneficiary of courier and clearing services, falls within the statutory definition of a consumer, and whether the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, applies to proceedings under the Act. The Islamabad High Court held that the appellant clearly qualifies as a consumer as a beneficiary of services under section 2(c)(ii) of the Act, and that the Code of Civil Procedure is inapplicable since the Act is a special penal statute. The court ruled that trial courts must follow the procedural framework and principles of fair trial embedded in the Code of Criminal Procedure rather than rejecting complaints through civil law mechanisms like Order VII Rule 11. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a beneficiary of courier and clearing services qualifies as a consumer under section 2(c)(ii) of the Islamabad Consumers Protection Act, 1995?
  • Is the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applicable to proceedings initiated under the Islamabad Consumers Protection Act, 1995?
  • Can a consumer complaint under the Islamabad Consumers Protection Act, 1995 be dismissed by applying Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  • Whether the Islamabad Consumers Protection Act, 1995 is a penal statute requiring the application of criminal procedure principles?
  Read full judgment →
• Waqas & Brothers Enterprises (Private) Limited vs M_s. DHL Express through CEO, etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1716 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Waqar Ahmad Saleem Qazi vs National University of Modern Languages2021 IHC 144 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Waleed Khan vs Workers Welfare Fund through Secretary and 3 others2021 PLC (C.S.) 653 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-03-19
  ad-hoc appointmentdeputationrepatriationwrit of mandamusservice lawpermanent absorptionpublic employment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an Assistant Director (BPS-17) initially appointed on an ad-hoc basis by the Workers Welfare Fund (WWF), sought a writ of mandamus to compel the WWF to reinstate him and release his salary following his repatriation from the Workers Welfare Board (WWB), where he had been permanently absorbed. The core legal question was whether an ad-hoc employee, whose services were never regularized in the parent department, possesses a vested right to re-employment upon repatriation from a borrowing department. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that an ad-hoc appointment is a transitory, stop-gap arrangement that confers no right to continuous service, seniority, or promotion. The Court affirmed that neither the passage of time nor absorption in a borrowing department transforms an ad-hoc status into a permanent one. Consequently, the parent department is under no legal obligation to re-employ an ad-hoc appointee. The judgment reiterates the principle that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to regularize an ad-hoc appointment or compel the continuation of service for an employee whose appointment was not made in accordance with prescribed recruitment rules.

  Questions settled

  • Does an ad-hoc appointment confer a vested right to continued employment or regularization?
  • Can an ad-hoc employee claim a right to be re-employed by the parent department after being repatriated from a borrowing department?
  • Does the absorption of an ad-hoc employee in a borrowing department transform their status into a permanent one in the parent department?
  • Can a writ of mandamus be issued to compel the regularization of an ad-hoc employee?
  Read full judgment →
• Waleed Arfaqat vs The State and another2021 MLD 1226 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-03-10
  pre-arrest bailbail before arrestprohibitory clausetentative assessmentmala fideplea of alibicriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition filed before the Islamabad High Court seeking pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 252/20 registered under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Nilore, Islamabad. The petitioner was nominated in the FIR with a specific role of causing firearm injury to an injured witness and participating in an attack resulting in a fatality. The core legal question before the court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail. The court held that the petitioner was nominated with specific roles supported by injured eye-witnesses, was allegedly involved in other criminal cases including an Anti-Terrorism Act case, and the offences fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court dismissed the pre-arrest bail petition, recalling the ad-interim bail earlier granted, laying down the principle that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy not to be granted as a matter of right, and cannot be used to subvert investigation or where sufficient incriminating material connects the accused to the crime.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted as a matter of legal right in every criminal case?
  • Does the grant of pre-arrest bail require the petitioner to reasonably demonstrate mala fide or trumped-up charges?
  • Can a plea of alibi be considered by the court at the pre-arrest bail stage without recording evidence during trial?
  • Whether an accused nominated with a specific role in a crime falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is entitled to pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Waleed Arfaqat vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1679, 2022 PCRLJ 810, 2022 KLR Criminal Cases 357 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-07-12
  post-arrest bailmurderattempt to murderfurther inquirycriminal conspiracymedico-legal contradiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Islamabad High Court through a petition filed by the petitioner seeking post-arrest bail in case First Information Report No. 252/20 dated 28.11.2020, registered under Sections 302, 324, 337-F(iii), 337-D, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Nilore, Islamabad. The allegations state that the petitioner, along with co-accused and while armed with weapons, attacked the complainant party, resulting in injuries to multiple persons and the subsequent death of one injured person, Aftaar. The petitioner's counsel contended that the FIR was lodged with malicious and ulterior motives, pointing out contradictory roles attributed to the petitioner, discrepancies between the medical report and ocular evidence, and the absence of any prior rivalry or grudge, thereby bringing the case within the scope of further inquiry. Conversely, the State Counsel and the complainant's counsel opposed the petition and sought the dismissal of bail. The judgment reflects initial arguments by respective counsels.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the contradictions between ocular evidence and the medico-legal report make the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does an alleged malicious motive and delay in lodging the FIR entitle an accused to post-arrest bail in a murder case?
  • Whether the attribution of multiple and inconsistent roles to an accused in the FIR warrants the grant of bail after arrest?
  Read full judgment →
• Walayat Hussain and another vs The State and others2021 P Cr. L J 923 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-08-29
  qatl-i-amdmedical and ocular discrepancyre-appraisal of evidencesentencing principlessection 302(c) PPCcriminal remandinterested witnessesindependent corroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and revision arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under sections 302(c) and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for qatl-i-amd and attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, resulting in sentences of imprisonment. The core legal questions involved the proper appreciation of ocular versus medical evidence, the application of independent corroboration where witnesses are interested, and the correct legal criteria for awarding punishment under section 302(c) versus section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Islamabad High Court held that the trial court's judgment was self-contradictory, failed to properly evaluate the evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and misapplied the legal principles governing sentencing and the distinction between various clauses of section 302. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment and sentence, allowed the criminal revision, and remanded the matter to the trial court for a rehearing and a fresh judgment in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court can convict an accused under section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without correctly applying the settled legal principles distinguishing it from section 302(b)?
  • Does a judgment become legally unsustainable when the ocular account stands in direct contradiction to the medical and forensic evidence?
  • Is it incumbent upon the trial court to properly sift grain from chaff and apply the rule of independent corroboration when dealing with interested witnesses?
  • Whether an appellate court should remand a criminal case for a fresh decision when the trial court's judgment is self-contradictory and fails to evaluate evidence in accordance with the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Vanguard Books Pvt. Limited vs Lok Virsa2021 [M] C L R 595, 2021 KLR Labour & Service Cases 34, 2021 IHC 74 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-02-25Read full judgment →
• Urooj Tabani vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 2 others2021 PLD Islamabad 105 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-01-01
  paternity determinationComputerized National Identity CardNADRA jurisdictionfamily disputesconstitutional petitionfundamental rightsdue processcivil court declaration
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by the petitioner challenging the action of the National Database and Registration Authority in impounding her Computerized National Identity Card and altering her family tree regarding her paternity. The core legal question was whether the Authority has the power and jurisdiction to adjudicate and interfere with the paternity incorporated in a Computerized National Identity Card without the consent of the holder and in the absence of a declaration by a competent court. The Islamabad High Court held that the Authority is not vested with the power and jurisdiction to directly or indirectly adjudicate upon or interfere with intricate contested family disputes, including paternity. The court ruled that once a Computerized National Identity Card is issued, any alteration of incorporated particulars like paternity cannot be done through self-adjudication by the Authority upon a third-party complaint, but requires a formal declaration by a competent civil court through a fair trial. The petition was allowed with exemplary costs imposed on the Authority and the contesting respondent.

  Questions settled

  • Does NADRA have the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon disputed questions of paternity when issuing or modifying a Computerized National Identity Card?
  • Can the particulars of a Computerized National Identity Card relating to paternity be altered without a declaration from a competent civil court?
  • Does a suit for jactitation of marriage serve as a conclusive declaration of paternity for a child who was not a party to the proceedings?
  • Are the right to know one's biological father and the protection of identity integral parts of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Umar Ayaz vs Capital Development Authority through its Chairman & 042021 IHC 32 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Tufail Ahmad vs The State and another2021 IHC 340, 2022 YLR 1035 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-09-06
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirymedical evidenceocular evidencetentative assessmentrecovery of weaponcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought post-arrest bail in a case involving charges of murder and attempted murder. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite being nominated in the FIR, given significant contradictions between the ocular account and medical reports, and the delayed recovery of the alleged weapon. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. It reasoned that where medical evidence conflicts with the ocular account, the benefit of doubt at the bail stage must be extended to the accused. Furthermore, the Court noted that the delayed recovery of the weapon rendered it of little legal consequence and that the investigation was complete. Emphasizing that bail is not to be withheld as punishment and that prolonged incarceration without trial progress is unjustified, the Court established that a tentative assessment of the record revealed a case for further inquiry. Consequently, the petition was accepted, and the petitioner was admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Does a conflict between medical evidence and ocular testimony entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt at the bail stage?
  • Is the delayed recovery of an alleged weapon of offense a relevant factor for the court to consider when deciding a bail application?
  • Can bail be withheld as a form of punishment for an accused person?
  • What is the scope of the court's power to assess evidence during the bail stage before the commencement of trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Trans World Associates (Pvt.) Limited through VP Finance and Company2021 CLC 1255 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-06-25Read full judgment →
• Total Parco Pakistan Limited vs Justice of Peace/Additional Sessions2021 YLR 1436, 2021 IHC 54 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-01-11Read full judgment →
• The Registrar, Islamabad High Court, Islamabad vs Naseer Ahmed Kayani, Advocate and 20 others2021 PLD Islamabad 203 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-06-07Read full judgment →
• The Jurists Foundation through Chairman vs Federation Of Pakistan2021 YLR 241 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-09-18Read full judgment →
• The Director General (Intelligence And Investigation Inland Revenue), Islamabad and 2 others vs The Additional Sessions Judge-Iv, West Islamabad and 4 others2021 PTD 1585 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-04-23Read full judgment →
• The Deputy Registrar/Representative of Employees-of Federal Shariat2021 [M] C L R 1154 · Islamabad High Court
  Federal Shariat Courtjudicial independenceutility allowanceterms and conditions of serviceRules of Business 1973administrative autonomystatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by the employees of the Federal Shariat Court (F.S.C.) seeking implementation of a notification issued by the Chief Justice of the F.S.C. revising utility allowances for its staff. The Federal Government contended that such revisions required the Prime Minister's approval and the Finance Division's concurrence under the Rules of Business, 1973, arguing that the Chief Justice lacked unilateral authority. The core legal question was whether the Chief Justice’s power to regulate staff terms and conditions under the Federal Shariat Court (Terms and Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1982, is contingent upon executive approval. The Court held that the Chief Justice exercises the powers of the President regarding staff conditions under Rule 5 of the 1982 Rules. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Chief Justice’s decision to revise allowances is not subject to the approval of the Prime Minister or the Finance Division. The principle established is that the Chief Justice has exclusive authority to regulate staff terms and conditions within budgetary limits, and courts cannot read implicit executive approval requirements into statutory rules where none exist.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Chief Justice of the Federal Shariat Court have the authority to revise staff allowances without the approval of the Prime Minister?
  • Are the terms and conditions of service for the staff of the Federal Shariat Court subject to the concurrence of the Finance Division under the Rules of Business, 1973?
  • Does Rule 5 of the Federal Shariat Court (Terms and Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1982, grant the Chief Justice the same powers as the President regarding the regulation of staff allowances?
  • Can a court read a requirement for executive approval into a statutory rule that does not explicitly mandate it?
  Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Messrs Fauji Foundation2021 PTD 1951 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-01-18
  tax referenceincome from businessincome from other sourcesinterest incomebank depositsconstituent documentscharitable trust
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated tax reference before the Islamabad High Court addressed whether interest income earned by the assessee on bank deposits is chargeable to tax as 'income from business or profession' or as 'income from other sources' under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question revolved around the classification of interest income in light of the taxpayer's constituent documents and prior judicial precedents involving the same parties. The Court held that the appellate tribunal was justified in holding the interest income chargeable as income from business, distinguishing the Supreme Court's precedent in Lucky Cement Ltd. v. Commissioner Income Tax on the basis that the taxpayer's constituent documents did not prohibit investment activities, and noting that an earlier appellate tribunal decision on the exact same question between the parties had attained finality. The key principle laid down is that the classification of interest income from bank deposits as income from business or other sources depends upon the examination of the business objects and prohibitions contained within the taxpayer's constituent documents.

  Questions settled

  • Whether interest income on bank deposits is chargeable to tax as income from business or profession or as income from other sources?
  • Does the classification of investment or interest income as income from business depend upon the business objects and prohibitions contained in the taxpayer's constituent documents?
  • Is the Revenue bound by a finalized appellate tribunal order holding interest income to be taxable as income from business in previous tax years between the same parties?
  Read full judgment →
• The Assistant Collector Customs (Preventive Division), Islamabad vs Lt. Col.2021 PTD 1257 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-12-23Read full judgment →
• Tausif Ahmed vs Mst. Shaista Malik, etc2021 IHC 334, 2022 CLC 269 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-10-20Read full judgment →
• Tallahasee Resources Incorporated through Mrs. Maleeha Waheed Malik2021 CLC 423 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-01-14Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad, Chief Internal Auditor, OGDCL, etc vs Oil and Gas2021 IHC 58, 2022 [M] CLR 1442, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 712 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-02-19
  antedated promotionsservice regulationsjudicial reviewtrichotomy of powersdiscretionary powerspublic sector employeesconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Islamabad High Court addressed multiple writ petitions filed by employees of the Oil and Gas Development Company Limited (OGDCL) seeking antedated promotions based on previous apex court judgments, particularly Zulfiqar-ul-Husnain and Abid Kamal. The core legal question was whether OGDCL employees are entitled to automatic antedated promotions solely upon completing five years of service in a grade, bypassing the regular promotion criteria, merit, fitness, and vacancy requirements outlined in the Oil and Gas Development Corporation Employees (Service) Regulations, 1994. The court dismissed the petitions, holding that employees do not possess a vested right to automatic or antedated promotions based purely on length of service. The ratio laid down is that promotion decisions involve subjective evaluations of competence and adherence to statutory service regulations, which fall within the executive domain of the employer and policy-making bodies. Consequently, constitutional courts will not interfere or substitute their own judgment through judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 unless there is established illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, or discrimination.

  Questions settled

  • Whether OGDCL employees are entitled to automatic antedated promotions solely upon the completion of five years of service in a particular grade?
  • Does a constitutional court have the authority under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to substitute its own evaluation of an employee's merit and fitness for that of the departmental promotion committee?
  • Are promotion criteria and eligibility rules framed under service regulations matters of executive policy that warrant judicial restraint?
  • Whether an employee can claim antedated promotions in disregard of statutory service regulations and the requirement of an available vacancy?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahir Mehmood vs IESCO through its Chief Executive Officer and others2021 IHC 330 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-11-09Read full judgment →
• Syed Zafar Ali Shah vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2021 IHC 240 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-07-01Read full judgment →
• Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice & 5 others2021 [M] C L R 512, 2021 PLD Islamabad 194, 2021 KLR Civil Cases 101 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-03-24Read full judgment →
• Syed Sajid Hussain vs Ex-Officio Justice Of Peace/Additional Sessions2022 YLR 112 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-01-11Read full judgment →
• Syed Najam Ul Hassan Shah vs Deputy Inspector General (Operations)2021 P Cr. L J 1434 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-12-31
  quashment of FIRcheating and fraudagreement to sellcivil disputeabuse of process of courtinherent powerstoken money
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 read with section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sought the quashment of an FIR registered under section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether a purely civil dispute arising from the alleged breach of an agreement to sell immovable property could legitimately be prosecuted as a criminal offence of cheating. The Islamabad High Court held that the ingredients of the offence of cheating—specifically dishonest inducement, deception, and wrongful loss—were entirely absent from the transaction, as possession of the land was duly handed over against the token money and both parties had already instituted civil suits against each other. The court laid down the principle that the breach of a term in an agreement to sell is a matter of civil nature governed by the Contract Act 1872 and the Specific Relief Act 1877, and utilizing criminal proceedings to settle civil disputes constitutes an abuse of the process of the court, warranting the quashment of the FIR under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the breach of an agreement to sell immovable property constitutes the offence of cheating under section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can criminal proceedings be maintained for a dispute that is fundamentally of a civil nature and already the subject of pending civil suits?
  • What are the essential ingredients required to constitute the offence of cheating under section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • When can a High Court exercise its inherent powers under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash an FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Zafarullah and others vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division and others2021 PLC (C.S.) 168, 2021 PLJ Islamabad 47 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-12-30
  pension restorationcommuted pensionperiodic increasesZarai Taraqiati Bank Limitedwrit petitionretired employees
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, retired employees of Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited (Z.T.B.L.), filed a writ petition challenging Z.T.B.L.'s letters refusing to grant them increases in their pension upon the restoration of its commuted portion, equivalent to the rates announced by the Federal Government and applied to civil servants. The core legal question was whether retired employees of Z.T.B.L. whose 50% pension was commuted for fifteen years are entitled, upon restoration, to receive the full pension inclusive of periodic increases previously granted on the non-commuted portion. The Islamabad High Court allowed the petition, holding that the term 'restoration' in Z.T.B.L.'s circulars—which mirrored Finance Division memoranda—must be interpreted in line with superior court precedents regarding civil servants. The Court ruled that upon expiry of the commutation period, the restored pension must include all periodic increases accumulated over the fifteen years, bringing the retired employees at par with those who did not commute their pension, thereby avoiding discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a retired employee of Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited is entitled to receive the restored commuted portion of their pension inclusive of periodic increases announced during the commutation period?
  • Does the term 'restoration' of pension under Z.T.B.L. circulars include accumulated increments over the commutation period?
  • Whether denying accumulated pension increases upon the restoration of a commuted pension violates the right to equality under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Sajjad Shabbir Bukhari vs Federal Government2021 YLR 2286 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-06-22Read full judgment →
• Syed Mohsin Shah and others vs Federation of Pakistan & 03 others2021 [M] C L R 1190 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-06-15
  directory retirementcivil servantsvires of rulespublic interestdelegated legislationvoluntary returnplea bargainlocus standi
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged the vires of the Civil Servants (Directory Retirement from Service) Rules, 2020 and Section 13 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, which allow the competent authority to direct the retirement of a civil servant in the public interest after completing 20 years of qualifying service. The petitioners argued that the rules were retrospective, arbitrary, and violated fundamental rights, including the protection against double jeopardy for those who had entered into plea bargains or voluntary returns under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that a civil servant has no vested right to remain in service after completing 20 years of qualifying service until the age of superannuation. The Court ruled that the 2020 Rules are intra vires, as they were validly made under delegated powers, do not exceed the parent statute, and sufficiently protect the right to a fair trial and due process under Article 10-A of the Constitution by providing a mechanism for appeal and review.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant has a vested right to continue in service after completing 20 years of qualifying service until reaching the age of superannuation?
  • Are the Civil Servants (Directory Retirement from Service) Rules, 2020 ultra vires the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 or the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Does a voluntary return or plea bargain under Section 25 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 preclude departmental action or directory retirement of a civil servant?
  • Can retired civil servants challenge the validity of rules governing directory retirement if their own pensionary benefits are unaffected?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Mohammad Hassan Raza Rizvi and others vs Federation of Pakistan2021 IHC 264, 2022 MLD 227 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-08-20Read full judgment →
• Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2021 CLC 2132, 2021 IHC 218 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-06-24Read full judgment →
• Sumera Bibi vs The State and others2021 MLD 297 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-09-17
  post-arrest bailsuckling childwelfare of minorhabitual offendertheftintoxicant
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail petition filed by the accused-petitioner, Sumera Bibi, facing trial under Sections 381, 411, 337-J, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly committing theft in a house after administering intoxicants to the inmates. The core legal question before the Islamabad High Court was whether a female accused having a suckling infant born in jail should be granted post-arrest bail solely on the ground of the minor's welfare, despite being a habitual offender facing multiple other criminal cases. The Court accepted the bail petition and held that an infant child cannot be detained or made to suffer in jail for a crime committed by the mother, as the welfare and future growth of the child require a healthy home environment rather than a prison enclosure. The key principle laid down is that the welfare of a suckling child warrants the concession of post-arrest bail to an incarcerated mother, ensuring that the child does not suffer for an offense they did not commit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a female accused having a suckling infant born in jail is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of the minor's welfare?
  • Does the detention of an infant child in jail for an offense committed by the mother violate the interest of justice and the welfare of the minor?
  • Can the concession of bail be granted to an accused mother facing allegations of an offense against society when she has a suckling baby?
  Read full judgment →
• Sughra Akram vs Federal Government Employees Housingfoundation2021 MLD 537 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-11-06Read full judgment →
• Subah Sadiq Malik and others vs National Accountability Bureau through Chairman and others2021 P Cr. L J 824 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-01-19
  misuse of authorityaccountability courtacquittalgood faithcorruption and corrupt practicesquashment of referenceretrospective effect
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses petitions filed by former employees of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) challenging the dismissal of their applications under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking acquittal in a reference concerning alleged misuse of authority under section 9(a)(vi) of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999. The core legal question revolved around whether the petitioners' actions in prosecuting a previous reference amounted to an illegal misuse of authority without 'good faith' and whether the statutory explanation added to section 9(a)(vi) applies retrospectively. The Islamabad High Court held that the accountability court failed to consider the protection of 'good faith' under section 36 of the Ordinance, the lack of allegations regarding personal gain or disproportionate assets, and the legal effect of the statutory explanation. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned orders and directed the trial court to re-decide the acquittal applications. The key principle laid down is that a mere procedural irregularity or departure from internal Standard Operating Procedures does not constitute misuse of authority under section 9(a)(vi) without the essential ingredients of mens rea, illegal gain, or disproportionate assets.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a public servant acting in the performance of official functions is protected from prosecution under section 36 of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 when acts are done in good faith?
  • Does a mere procedural irregularity or departure from internal Standard Operating Procedures constitute the offence of misuse of authority under section 9(a)(vi) of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 without proof of illegal gain or mens rea?
  • Whether the explanation added to section 9(a)(vi) of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 regarding disproportionate assets and monetary benefit operates retrospectively?
  • Can an accused person be acquitted under section 265K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 at an advanced stage of trial if there is no possibility of conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Sohail Akhter vs The State2021 MLD 549 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-10-12
  post-arrest bailrash and negligent drivingdriving without licensefatal accidentjudicial discretionnon-bailable offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail petition filed by the accused, Sohail Akhtar, facing charges under Sections 322, 279, 337-G, and 427 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a fatal traffic accident involving a dumper truck. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who lacked a valid heavy transport vehicle license at the time of the incident, was entitled to the concession of bail despite the severity of the consequences, which included the death of one person and the paralysis of another. The Islamabad High Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, emphasizing that driving a heavy vehicle without a valid license constitutes an unlawful act. The court reasoned that such reckless conduct, resulting in grave harm, precludes the exercise of judicial discretion in favor of the accused. The key principle laid down is that while bail is generally a rule, it may be denied in cases of rash and negligent driving where the accused lacks a valid license and the act results in severe loss of life or permanent injury, as such conduct warrants strict judicial treatment.

  Questions settled

  • Is a person driving a heavy transport vehicle without a valid license entitled to bail when their actions result in death and serious injury?
  • Does the absence of a valid driving license render an act of rash and negligent driving an 'unlawful act' for the purpose of bail consideration?
  • Can the court exercise its discretion to grant bail in cases of fatal accidents caused by unlicensed drivers?
  Read full judgment →
• Sobia Jabeen and others vs Judge Guardian Court (East), Islamabad2021 CLC 934 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-01-28Read full judgment →
• SKP Food And Trading through Director vs Federal Board Of Revenue2021 PTD 725 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-02-22Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Ismail Khan vs Ms Seemi Abbas & 2 others2021 IHC 260 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-07-29Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Ali alias Bhola vs The State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 513, 2021 YLR 1381 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-11-30
  circumstantial evidencemurderlife imprisonmentcriminal appealrecovery of weaponchain of evidencemedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentence awarded to the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question was whether the prosecution’s case, resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, was sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court held that the conviction was sound, as the prosecution successfully established a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances, including the appellant's motive, his presence at the crime scene, the recovery of the murder weapon on his pointation, and corroborating medical evidence. The court affirmed that while a case based on circumstantial evidence requires careful scrutiny to ensure no missing links, such evidence is sufficient for conviction if it is cogent, convincing, and incompatible with the innocence of the accused. The court concluded that the prosecution’s evidence was consistent and reliable, leaving no room for reasonable doubt regarding the appellant's culpability, thereby dismissing the appeal and upholding the trial court's judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence?
  • What is the standard of proof required for circumstantial evidence to form the basis of a criminal conviction?
  • Does the failure of an accused to produce defense evidence strengthen the prosecution's case in a trial based on circumstantial evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Ali alias Bhola vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 513 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-11-30
  circumstantial evidencemurderstrangulationlast-seen theorycriminal appealmedical evidencechain of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment addresses an appeal against the conviction of the appellant under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of the deceased through strangulation, resulting in a sentence of life imprisonment. The core legal question involved whether the circumstantial and medical evidence, alongside motive and the last-seen theory, sufficiently established the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt in the absence of direct eyewitnesses to the actual murder. The court held that the prosecution successfully linked the appellant to the crime through a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence, including entry records, mobile phone data, recovery of the weapon of the crime on the appellant's pointation, and the natural, unimpeachable testimony of the deceased's daughter. The key principle laid down is that capital or major criminal convictions can safely rest on circumstantial evidence provided the circumstances are fully established, form an unbroken chain connecting the accused directly to the crime, and are incompatible with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence?
  • Whether the failure of an accused to produce defence evidence or depose on oath can be used to strengthen the prosecution's case?
  • Does a delay in the registration of the First Information Report vitiate the prosecution case if reasonably explained?
  • What constitutes a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence required for a conviction in a capital charge?
  Read full judgment →
• Shell Pakistan Ltd. through its Legal Counsel vs Full Bench, NIRC, Islamabad2021 IHC 30 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-01-13Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Zafar Iqbal vs National Accountability Bureau and others2021 IHC 274 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-07-01Read full judgment →
• Syed Imran Gillani vs The State and another2022 YLR 769 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-09-07
  post-arrest bailcross versionconflict between medical and ocular evidencefurther inquirytentative assessmentprohibitory clauseprivate defence
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail petition arising from a criminal case involving a First Information Report (FIR) and a cross version registered at Police Station Shahzad Town, Islamabad, under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved whether conflict between ocular account and medical evidence warrants bail, and how counter-versions of the same incident impact the assessment of further inquiry under criminal procedure. The Islamabad High Court held that where medical evidence conflicts with the ocular account regarding the attribution of injuries, and in cases of cross versions where the determination of the aggressor requires further inquiry, the benefit of doubt at the bail stage must be extended to the accused. The court laid down the principle that bail is not to be withheld as punishment, tentative assessment of record is permissible without delving into deep appreciation, and counter-versions generally warrant the grant of bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does a conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt at the bail stage?
  • Are cases involving counter-versions arising from the same incident generally covered for the grant of bail on the ground of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be withheld as a punishment when the accused is no longer required for investigation and the trial has not made fruitful progress?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Ahsan Akhtar vs Deputy Commissioner/Registrar2021 IHC 220 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-07-09Read full judgment →
• Shazia Abbas vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, M/o Law &2021 IHC 72 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shaukat Hayat Awan Sr. Engineer (Civil) and 3 others vs Managing Director, Oil & Gas Development Company, Blue Area, Islamabad and 10 others2021 PLJ Islamabad 107 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sharafat Ali vs Secretary, Works & Service Department, Government of Sindh and others2021 IHC 300 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-11-30Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Masih vs The State2021 IHC 108 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-03-11
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsborderline criteriachemical analysis delayfurther inquirybail as punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner, Shakeel Masih, who was charged under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of 1500 grams of charas. The central legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the quantity of the narcotic substance and procedural lapses in the investigation. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail. The ratio of the decision rests on two primary factors: first, the recovered quantity of 1500 grams falls within the 'borderline' criteria established by judicial precedent, where the substance marginally exceeds the threshold for lesser offenses; second, the prosecution failed to send the sample for chemical analysis within the mandatory 72-hour period, causing an unexplained seven-day delay. The Court affirmed the principle that bail should not be withheld as a form of punishment and that procedural lapses, such as delays in chemical analysis, render a case one of further inquiry. Furthermore, the Court noted that mere allegations of habitual offending without prior conviction do not preclude the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in sending a narcotic sample for chemical analysis beyond the 72-hour limit entitle an accused to bail?
  • Is a recovery of 1500 grams of charas considered a 'borderline' case for the purpose of granting bail?
  • Does the mere allegation of being a habitual offender without prior conviction disentitle an accused from the concession of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Tufail Khan and others vs Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited and others2021 PLC (C.S.) 1130 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-03-02
  Constitutional petitionBank managementPromotion policyService regulationsStatutory interpretationBoard of DirectorsImplementation of judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition concerns the implementation of a Supreme Court judgment regarding promotion policies for employees of the Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited. The petitioners challenged the Bank's failure to properly implement the apex court's directive, specifically contesting the unilateral actions taken by the Bank's President. The core legal question was whether the President possessed the authority to formulate policy decisions to satisfy the Supreme Court's mandate while the Bank's Board of Directors remained dysfunctional. The Court held that the President lacked the jurisdiction to make such policy decisions, as Section 11 of the Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974 vests policy-making powers, including personnel and evaluation criteria, exclusively in the Board. Consequently, the impugned notifications issued by the President were set aside. The Court established the principle that statutory powers assigned to a Board cannot be usurped by the Chief Executive in the absence of a validly constituted Board. The matter was remanded to the newly constituted Board with a directive to implement the Supreme Court's judgment within three months.

  Questions settled

  • Can the President of a bank exercise policy-making powers in the absence of a lawfully constituted Board of Directors?
  • Does Section 11 of the Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974 vest the authority to determine personnel policies exclusively in the Board?
  • Is a Chief Executive empowered to unilaterally implement a court directive that requires policy formulation when the Board is dysfunctional?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Ali Khan vs Board of Governors, Hdip through its Chairman and others2021 IHC 150 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shahid Akbar Abbasi, Advocate vs The Chief Commissioner, Islamabad2021 [M] C L R 1046, 2021 PLD Islamabad 1 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-07-22Read full judgment →
• Shahab Saqib vs Sadaf Rasheed, etc2022 KLR Civil Cases 45, 2021 [M] CLR 1530 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-05-03Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmed etc vs The Auditor General of Pakistan & 3 others2021 IHC 76 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-02-25Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmad Hussain vs The State, etc2021 LHC 126 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-03-26
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequeprohibitory clauserecovery of amounttentative assessmentpunishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail petition filed by the accused-petitioner in F.I.R. No. 16 dated 08.01.2021 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Tarnol, Islamabad, concerning the dishonour of a cheque worth Rs. 26,43,200/-. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail when the offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, investigation is complete, and bail cannot be used as a punishment. The Islamabad High Court accepted the petition and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner. The court held that since the offense carries a maximum punishment of three years and does not fall within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 Cr.P.C., and as the investigation has concluded with no further requirement of the accused, withholding bail as a punitive measure is impermissible. Furthermore, Section 489-F P.P.C. is designed to determine guilt rather than act as a recovery mechanism for outstanding dues.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be granted when an offense under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 intended to be used as a mechanism for the recovery of outstanding financial amounts?
  • Can bail be withheld as a measure of punishment during pre-trial detention?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ali vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Information and Broadcasting & 10 Others2022 IHC 224 · Islamabad High Court
  writ jurisdictionmaster and servantnon-statutory regulationsservice mattersmaintainabilityPEMRAconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an employee of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA), filed a writ petition seeking promotion to the post of Director (PS-09) and challenging an office order as discriminatory. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is maintainable by an employee of a statutory body to enforce service regulations that lack statutory backing. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable and dismissed it. It reasoned that the PEMRA (Employees Service) Regulations, 2021, were neither framed nor approved by the Federal Government, rendering them non-statutory in nature. Consequently, the relationship between PEMRA and its employees is governed by the principle of "master and servant." The Court affirmed the established legal principle that where service regulations are non-statutory, an employee cannot invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to enforce terms and conditions of service. As the petition was found non-maintainable on jurisdictional grounds, the Court declined to address the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding promotion.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable by an employee of a statutory body to enforce non-statutory service regulations?
  • Does the relationship between PEMRA and its employees fall under the principle of master and servant?
  • Are the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Employees Service) Regulations, 2021, considered statutory rules?
  • Must a court decide the question of its own jurisdiction before addressing the merits of a case?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Ashraf D. Baloch (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi vs National2021 CLC 290 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-11-12Read full judgment →
• Sardar Khaliq uz Zaman, etc vs Secretary Ministry of NHSRC, etc2021 IHC 112 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-03-08Read full judgment →
• Sara Younas vs Station House Officer and others2021 PCRLJ 1798, 2022 KLR Labour & Service Cases 51 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-02-23
  FIR registrationinvestigation powersinsertion of sectionsEx-Officio Justice of Peaceconstitutional petitioncharge framingpolice investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, which dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 22-A/B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the insertion of additional sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 into an existing FIR. The petitioner alleged that the investigation was biased and that the police failed to include appropriate non-bailable offences despite evidence of injuries. The core legal question was whether a court, under Section 22-A/B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 or Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, can direct the police to insert or delete specific sections of law in an FIR during the investigation stage. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the insertion or deletion of sections in an FIR falls within the exclusive domain of the investigating police agency. The Court affirmed that trial courts possess the authority to frame or alter charges based on evidence under Section 265-D and Section 227, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to interfere with ongoing police investigations.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court under Section 22-A/B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 direct the police to insert or delete specific sections of law in an FIR?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to interfere with an ongoing police investigation?
  • At what stage of the trial can a court alter or change the charge framed against an accused?
  • Is the trial court bound by the sections of law included in the police report submitted under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanghol Engineering Services (Pvt.) Ltd vs Capital Development Authority2021 IHC 268, 2024 CLC 321 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-07-26Read full judgment →
• Samsung Gulf Electronics Fze vs Latif Hakeem and 5 others2021 MLD 747 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-10-23Read full judgment →