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.

• Malik Zaheer Ahmad vs The State And Another2011 YLR 2294 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-03-21
  criminal revisiontransfer of caseconsolidation of trialssessions judge powersmagistrate jurisdictionadditional sessions judge
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition is directed against the order of the Sessions Judge, Islamabad, whereby an application for the consolidation of two separate criminal cases—one pending trial before an Additional Sessions Judge under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and another pending before an Illaqa Magistrate under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860—was accepted and the case before the Magistrate was withdrawn and transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge for joint trial. The core legal question was whether a Sessions Judge has the legal authority to withdraw a case from the court of a Magistrate and entrust it to an Additional Sessions Judge. The Islamabad High Court held that while a Sessions Judge has the power under Section 528(1)(C) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to withdraw a case from one Magistrate and transfer it to another Magistrate, that power does not extend to transferring a case from a Magistrate to an Additional Sessions Judge. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order of consolidation and directed that the subsequent case be sent back to the court of the Illaqa Magistrate for further proceedings in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Sessions Judge can withdraw a case from the court of a Magistrate and entrust it to the court of an Additional Sessions Judge?
  • What is the scope of a Sessions Judge's power under Section 528(1)(C) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the transfer of cases?
  • Can two separate criminal cases pending before different tiers of courts be consolidated and tried together by an Additional Sessions Judge?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Zafar Awan vs S. H.0.2011 YLR 717 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-01-20Read full judgment →
• Major (R) Nadeem Uddin Khalid vs Bushra Begum And 3 Others2011 YLR 765 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-01-24Read full judgment →
• Lt.-Col (Retd.) Aamir Rauf vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2011 PLC (C.S.) 654 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-01-14
  contractual employmentmaster and servanttermination of servicewrit petitionautonomous bodyaction in tortdamagessuperannuation
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by a retired Lieutenant Colonel challenging his termination from the National Center for Physics (NCP), an autonomous body funded by the Government of Pakistan. The petitioner, appointed on a contract basis until the age of superannuation, had his services terminated via a letter stating his services were no longer required. The petitioner contended that the termination without an inquiry constituted a stigma on his career despite an unblemished record. The respondents argued that as a contract employee, his services could be terminated without notice or inquiry as per the terms of the appointment letter. The Islamabad High Court held that since the employment was contractual and governed by specific terms allowing termination upon one month's notice or pay, the petitioner could not seek reinstatement through a writ petition. The Court ruled that the relationship was governed by the principle of master and servant, and the only remedy for premature termination in such cases is an action in tort for damages. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

  Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Ali vs Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad and 8 others2011 PLD Islamabad 14 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-03-31
  ejectmentdefault in payment of rentrevocation of power of attorneyunauthorized sub-tenantlandlord and tenantconcurrent findingsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges concurrent orders of the Rent Controller and Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad, whereby an ejectment petition against a tenant was accepted for default in payment of rent, and subsequent cross-objections and appeals by a co-sharer claimant and a subsequent sub-tenant were dismissed. The core legal questions involved whether a revoked attorney could continue to act as a landlord or co-owner to lease out property during pending eviction proceedings, and whether an unauthorized sub-tenant inducted during those proceedings is a necessary party entitled to protection. The Islamabad High Court held that upon revocation of the General Power of Attorney, the petitioner had no authority to create a new tenancy or claim status as a landlord, and unauthorized occupants holding through a stranger cannot claim legal rights or necessity of being impleaded. The court laid down the principle that a person whose power of attorney has been revoked ceases to have authority to lease property, and unauthorized sub-tenants inducted without the landlord's consent have no enforceable right to remain in occupation or resist eviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a person whose general power of attorney has been revoked retain the authority to lease out the demised premises as a landlord or co-owner?
  • Is an unauthorized sub-tenant inducted by a stranger during the pendency of eviction proceedings a necessary party to the ejectment petition?
  • Can constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 be invoked to interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by rent tribunals?
  • Does the mere filing of a civil suit for partition and separate possession create any proprietary right sufficient to defeat valid eviction proceedings by established owners?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Islam vs The State2011 YLR 2280 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-06-14
  criminal appealtelecommunicationillegal termination of international trafficcognizance of offensestatutory complaintPakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Actacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad, convicting the appellant under section 31(3) of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996, and sentencing him to three years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal question was whether the trial court could legally take cognizance of an offense under the Act upon a police report and a complaint lodged by PTCL rather than a written complaint by an authorized officer of the Board as mandated by law. The Islamabad High Court accepted the appeal and held that section 31(5) of the Act strictly requires a complaint in writing by the Board or an authorized officer for taking cognizance, and an ordinary police report or a complaint by an unauthorized entity cannot be equated with the statutory requirement. The court established the principle that taking cognizance on a police report in violation of the mandatory complaint procedure under the Act is illegal and amounts to an abuse of the process of the court, resulting in the acquittal of the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court take cognizance of an offense under the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996, on the basis of a police report or a complaint filed by an unauthorized entity?
  • Does an FIR registered under section 154 Cr.P.C. or a challan submitted under section 173 Cr.P.C. satisfy the requirement of a complaint under section 31(5) of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996?
  • Who is legally empowered to file a complaint for taking cognizance of offenses punishable under the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996?
  Read full judgment →
• Kiran Shahzadi vs Quaid-E-Azam University, Islamabad through Vice-2011 CLC 1375 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-04-27Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mehmood vs Additional District Judge, Islamabad and 2 others2011 CLC 889 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-03-09Read full judgment →
• Kabir Azad vs The State2011 MLD 533 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-01-17
  post-arrest bailabscondancecancellation of bailpunitive baildiscretionary relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, who was charged under sections 393/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The accused had previously been granted bail, but it was subsequently cancelled following his non-appearance and declaration as an absconder. The core legal question was whether the accused, having been declared an absconder and arrested, remained entitled to the concession of bail despite his prior non-appearance. The Court held that bail cannot be withheld as a form of punishment. It reasoned that while the accused had failed to appear, he had already suffered incarceration since his arrest on 3-12-2010. Emphasizing that mere abscondance is not an absolute ground for the refusal of bail if sufficient cause or circumstances warrant, the Court exercised its discretion to grant bail. The key principle laid down is that the denial of bail should not be punitive, and the court may grant bail to an accused who has previously absconded if the circumstances, including the period of incarceration already served, justify such relief.

  Questions settled

  • Is bail to be withheld as a form of punishment?
  • Does mere abscondance constitute an absolute ground for the refusal of bail?
  • Can an accused who was previously declared an absconder be granted post-arrest bail if they have already suffered incarceration?
  Read full judgment →
• Junaid Khan vs The State and another2011 MLD 445 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-01-18
  post-arrest bailmurdersuspicionchallan submissionconcession of bailcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Junaid Khan, who was accused of murder in F.I.R. No. 241/2010 under sections 302, 411, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the evidence, which primarily consisted of suspicion raised by the complainant three days after the occurrence, and the objection that the challan had already been submitted. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The Court reasoned that the petitioner was charged solely on the basis of suspicion, which was delayed, and that the mere submission of a challan or the impending commencement of a trial does not constitute a valid ground for refusing bail if the accused is otherwise entitled to the concession. Consequently, the bail petition was accepted, and the petitioner was ordered to be released upon furnishing bail bonds. The key principle laid down is that the submission of a challan is not an automatic bar to the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the submission of a challan or the commencement of a trial automatically preclude the grant of bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution case is based solely on suspicion raised after a significant delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Javaid Ahmed vs Muhammad Imran Malik and 3 others2011 PLD Islamabad 30 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-04-06
  constitutional petitionejectment petitionpersonal bona fide needlandlord and tenantpower of attorneyeviction orderchoice of landlord
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an appellate order of the Additional District Judge, Islamabad, which set aside the Rent Controller's order and directed the petitioner-tenant to deliver vacant possession of a commercial shop to the respondent-landlords. The landlords sought eviction based on default in rent payment and bona fide personal use. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the eviction petition, but on remand, the appellate court accepted the landlords' claim of personal need. The petitioner contended that the landlord did not personally appear in the witness box despite being present in court, and that testifying through a power of attorney was legally impermissible. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a landlord is not strictly compelled to appear in person and may prove bona fide personal need through an attorney whose testimony stands unshaken. The court further reaffirmed that the choice of which property to occupy for personal use lies solely with the landlord, provided the need is genuine. Finding no misreading or non-reading of evidence, the High Court upheld the eviction order.

  Questions settled

  • Can a landlord establish bona fide personal need for rented premises through the testimony of a power of attorney without appearing personally in the witness box?
  • Does a tenant have the legal right to dictate which property a landlord should occupy to satisfy a personal bona fide requirement?
  • Can an appellate rent court decide an eviction matter on existing evidence after remand where the High Court did not order fresh evidence to be recorded?
  • What remedy is available to a tenant under the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 if a landlord fails to occupy premises vacated on the ground of personal need?
  Read full judgment →
• Homoeopathic Doctor Muhammad Zahir vs Federation of Pakistan2011 CLC 427 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-01-14
  Writ petitionRemoval from officeExamining BodyNational Council for HomoeopathyShow-cause noticeNatural justiceStatutory procedureUnani, Ayurvedic and Homeopathic Practitioners Act, 1965Federal GovernmentMembership
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the removal of a Homoeopathic Doctor from the membership of the Examining Body of the National Council for Homoeopathy. The petitioner, an elected member of the National Council, was appointed to the Examining Body in 2007 and subsequently removed in 2010 via a notification. The core legal question was whether this removal complied with the procedural requirements stipulated in The Unani, Ayurvedic and Homeopathic Practitioners Act, 1965, and principles of natural justice. The Islamabad High Court held that a member of the Examining Body can only be removed by the Federal Government after consulting the Council and providing an opportunity to show cause against the proposed action, followed by a notification in the official Gazette. Since no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, the court found the removal order to be in violation of Section 13(2) of the 1965 Act and the principle of natural justice, as the petitioner was "condemned unheard." Consequently, the writ petition was accepted, and the removal order was set aside, with liberty granted to the respondents to pursue legal recourse if desired.

  Read full judgment →
• Hashaam Saeed and another vs National University of Computer and Emerging Sciences (Nufast)through Director and another2011 PLD Islamabad 10 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-03-30Read full judgment →
• Gulfam Ahmed vs Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala and 3 others2011 P Cr. L J 487 · Islamabad High Court · 2010-12-01
  illegal dispossessionland grabberprivate complaintcriminal revisionFIRmaterial particularsmaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order dismissing a private complaint filed under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, regarding the alleged forcible occupation of the petitioner's house. The core legal questions were whether a complaint under the Act is maintainable without providing material particulars of the alleged dispossession, whether such a complaint is competent when an FIR for the same occurrence has already been registered, and whether the Act applies to individuals who are not professional land grabbers. The Court held that the complaint was rightly dismissed due to the absence of material particulars, including the date and time of the alleged act. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, is not competent where an FIR has already been registered for the same occurrence. The key principle laid down is that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, is intended to target professional land grabbers and members of the 'land mafia,' rather than individuals accused of a solitary act of illegal dispossession.

  Questions settled

  • Is a private complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 maintainable if the complainant fails to provide material particulars of the alleged dispossession?
  • Can a private complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 be filed for an occurrence where an FIR has already been registered?
  • Does the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 apply to individuals who are not professional land grabbers or members of a land mafia?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghazanfar Ali vs Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited, Islamabad through President and 4 others2011 PLC (C.S.) 648 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-01-24
  transfer ordermala fidewrit jurisdictionservice matterbank employeeharassment
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition filed before the Islamabad High Court challenged the transfer order dated 21-2-2009, whereby the petitioner, an Assistant Vice-President at the Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited (ZTBL) Head Office in Islamabad, was transferred to Kharan, Balochistan. The core legal question was whether a transfer order issued with mala fide intentions, vengeance, and to penalize an employee for participating in a protest can be struck down under the constitutional jurisdiction of the court. The court held that while posting and transfer are generally the prerogative of the competent authority, transfers tainted with mala fide, vengeance, and intended to harass an employee are amenable to writ jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. The petition was accepted, the impugned transfer order was set aside, and the petitioner was restored to his previous place of posting along with all consequential benefits. The key principle laid down is that administrative transfers ordered to victimize or penalize an employee lack public interest and are subject to judicial review and interference under constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an administrative transfer order issued with mala fide intentions is amenable to the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Can an employee challenge a sudden transfer order used as a punitive measure for participating in protests or raising grievances?
  • Does an employer have an unfettered prerogative to transfer an employee without considering public interest and fair play?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazal Abbas vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Housing and Works, Islamabad and 2 others2011 PLC (C.S.) 778 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-03-07
  government accommodationallotment of housediscretionary powersrule relaxationservice lawwrit jurisdictionhardship cases
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a government employee, challenged the unauthorized retention of government accommodation by a retired employee (respondent No. 3) beyond the permissible grace period. The core legal question was whether the government could arbitrarily extend the retention of government housing for a retired employee beyond the limits prescribed by the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002, without recording valid reasons. The court held that while the government possesses discretionary power to relax rules under Rule 29-A, such discretion must be exercised reasonably, within the four corners of the law, and for recorded reasons in hardship cases. The court found that the extension granted to respondent No. 3 exceeded the permissible six-month limit and lacked the required justification. Consequently, the court set aside the extension order as being without lawful authority and directed that the petitioner, as the lawful allottee, be granted possession. The judgment emphasizes that discretionary powers cannot be exercised whimsically or arbitrarily to violate the rights of others, and courts are obligated to correct such irregularities under their constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can the government exercise discretionary power to extend the retention of government accommodation beyond the statutory grace period without recording reasons?
  • Is an order extending government accommodation retention valid if it violates the specific time limits set by the Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002?
  • Does the High Court have the authority under Article 199 to correct arbitrary exercises of discretionary power regarding government housing allotments?
  Read full judgment →
• Faisal Zafar Malik vs Ajmal Bukhari, Deputy Commissioner, CDA, Islamabad and 3 others2011 PLD Islamabad 36 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-06-13
  constitutional petitionnon-conforming useCDA Ordinancedelegated legislationquasi-judicial powerbuilding control regulationswrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the authority of the Deputy Commissioner, Capital Development Authority (CDA), to impose penalties for the non-conforming use of residential premises, arguing that the Deputy Commissioner lacks judicial status and that the relevant CDA regulations suffer from excessive delegation. The core legal question was whether the Deputy Commissioner, CDA, possesses the statutory power to adjudicate and impose fines for violations of the Islamabad Residential Sectors Zoning (Building Control) Regulations, 2005. The Court held that the petition was meritless, affirming that Section 36-A(2) of the Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960, explicitly grants the Deputy Commissioner powers to act as a court for specific purposes, and that Clause 2.17.3 of the Islamabad Residential Sectors, Zoning (Building Control) Regulations, 2005, expressly empowers the Deputy Commissioner to impose penalties for non-conforming use. The principle laid down is that statutory provisions and validly framed regulations empower the Deputy Commissioner to exercise quasi-judicial functions regarding building control violations, rendering such actions legally valid.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Deputy Commissioner, CDA, have the legal authority to impose penalties for the non-conforming use of residential buildings?
  • Are proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner, CDA, deemed to be judicial proceedings under the law?
  • Can the Deputy Commissioner, CDA, impose fines for non-conforming use under the Islamabad Residential Sectors, Zoning (Building Control) Regulations, 2005?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Nawaz Khokhar vs The State And Another2011 YLR 2897 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-08-16
  post-arrest bailplea of alibifurther inquiryabscondencetentative assessmentcriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns a request for post-arrest bail in a murder case involving Sections 302, 34, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought bail on the grounds of alibi, supported by passport records indicating his absence from Pakistan on the date of the incident. The prosecution, while initially charging the petitioner as a direct participant, conceded during the proceedings that the petitioner was abroad, shifting its stance to allege that he hired assassins to commit the crime. The core legal question was whether a plea of alibi can be considered at the bail stage and whether it warrants further inquiry. The Court held that while no hard and fast rule exists, a plea of alibi can be tentatively assessed at the bail stage. Finding that the prosecution's own verification supported the petitioner's absence, the Court determined the case required further inquiry. The Court established that if an accused makes a prima facie case for bail on merits, prior abscondence does not preclude the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plea of alibi be considered by the court at the bail stage?
  • Does the existence of a plea of alibi render a case one of further inquiry?
  • Does the fact of abscondence automatically disentitle an accused to bail if a case for bail is otherwise made out on merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Amila Pirzada and 3 others vs Col. (R) Mansoor Akbar and 2 others2011 CLC 1619 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-05-26
  locus standiex parte decreemaintainability of appeallegal heirsspecific performanceright of appealnon-party appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the maintainability of an appeal filed by the legal heirs of a defendant against an ex parte decree passed in a suit for specific performance. The core legal question was whether persons who were not parties to the original trial proceedings possess the locus standi to file an appeal against a judgment and decree that adversely affects their interests. The Court held that the appeal is maintainable. It determined that while the general rule requires an appellant to be a party to the proceedings, an exception exists where a non-party is prejudicially affected by a decree and lacks an alternative remedy. The key principle laid down is that the right of appeal serves as a safety wall against the perpetuation of injustice; therefore, a person not party to a suit may file an appeal if they are bound by the decree and their legal interests are adversely affected, particularly when they cannot otherwise challenge the correctness of that decree in other proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a person who was not a party to the original suit file an appeal against an ex parte decree?
  • Does the right of appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 extend to non-parties whose interests are adversely affected by a judgment?
  • Is the dismissal of an application for impleadment under Order I, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 a bar to filing an appeal against the final decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Akbar and another vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2011 PLC (C.S.) 1329 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-03-22
  advance incrementsFederal Shariat Courtconstitutional petitioncivil servantsfinancial and administrative powersmaintainabilityterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by staff members of the Federal Shariat Court challenging the rejection by the Ministry of Finance of four advance increments granted to them by the Chief Justice of the Federal Shariat Court. The core legal questions involved whether the Chief Justice of the Federal Shariat Court had the competence to grant advance increments under the relevant service rules, whether staff of the Federal Shariat Court qualify as civil servants, and whether the constitutional petition was maintainable. The Islamabad High Court held that the Chief Justice of the Federal Shariat Court, exercising the powers of the President under the applicable service rules, validly granted the advance increments and possessed full administrative and financial powers. Furthermore, the court held that employees of the Federal Shariat Court are not civil servants under the Civil Servants Act 1973, making the constitutional petition maintainable. The key principle laid down is that the Chief Justice of the Federal Shariat Court holds plenary financial and administrative powers regarding court staff, whose terms are governed by specialized rules rather than general civil servant laws.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Chief Justice of the Federal Shariat Court is competent to grant advance increments to the staff of the court?
  • Are employees of the Federal Shariat Court considered civil servants under the Civil Servants Act 1973?
  • Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against the rejection of service benefits of court staff by the Finance Division?
  • Does the Finance Division have the authority to question financial orders passed by the Chief Justice of the Federal Shariat Court under the service rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Akbar Shah vs Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan2011 PLC (C.S.) 1175 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-03-08
  constitutional petitionad hoc servicepensionary benefitsmaintainabilitynon-statutory rulesjoining timeestoppel
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside decisions of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan declining to count his prior ad hoc service rendered as an Instructor from 1978 to 1985 towards his pension and computation of benefits. The core legal questions involved whether ad hoc service under a provincial government can be counted towards pensionary benefits in a federal autonomous body without complying with relevant civil service rules, and whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against an autonomous body governed by non-statutory rules. The Islamabad High Court held that ad hoc service cannot be counted towards pension without a proper certificate and contribution under the Civil Service Regulations and Account Code, that an authority competent to issue an order can rescind or vary it, and that a writ petition under Article 199 is not maintainable against an organization having non-statutory service rules. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can ad hoc service rendered under a provincial government be counted towards pensionary benefits in a federal organization without a proportionate share certificate from the provincial audit office?
  • Whether an employee of an autonomous body governed by non-statutory rules can invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199?
  • Does the principle of promissory estoppel prevent an authority from withdrawing an erroneous calculation of pension benefits?
  • Is a government servant holding an ad hoc post entitled to joining time and joining time pay under Fundamental Rule 105?
  Read full judgment →
• Ag. Cdr. (Retd.) Irshad Ahmad vs National Highway Authority through Chairman and another2011 PLC (C.S.) 663 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-01-17
  contract employmentservice disputewrit jurisdictionnon-extension of contractstatutory bodyfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a contract employee of the National Highway Authority, sought an extension of his service contract and challenged his termination after the Executive Board declined to approve his request. The core legal question was whether a contract employee possesses a vested right to demand a contract extension and whether the court, under its constitutional jurisdiction, can compel a statutory body to grant such an extension. The court held that contract employees are governed strictly by the terms and conditions of their employment contract and cannot force an extension. Consequently, the court determined that it lacks the authority to compel a statutory body to extend a contract, especially where no fundamental right has been violated. The petitions were dismissed, as the petitioner failed to establish a legal right to the relief sought, and the department had already complied with the court's earlier order regarding the payment of salary arrears.

  Questions settled

  • Can a contract employee force a statutory body to grant an extension of their service contract?
  • Does a contract employee have a vested right to the extension of their employment contract?
  • Can the court compel a statutory body to extend a service contract under its constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Afzoona Kausar vs Additional District Magistrate, ICT, Islamabad and another2011 PLD Islamabad 1 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-04-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani vs Chairman, Federal Public Service Commission2011 CLC 903 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-02-17Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ahmad vs Nisar Baig, Additional District Judge, Islamabad2010 YLR 1521 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-06-09
  writ petitionejectmentpersonal needexpiry of leasetenant definitionrent restrictionconcurrent findingsundertaking
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the lower appellate court and the Rent Controller dismissing the petitioner's eviction petition against respondent No. 3. The core legal questions involved whether a tenant can be evicted solely upon the expiry of a lease agreement under the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001, and whether the petitioner established a bona fide personal need for the premises. The Islamabad High Court held that the expiry of a lease period is not a ground for ejectment under Section 17 of the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001, since a tenant retaining possession continues to fall within the statutory definition and eviction can only occur on grounds explicitly enumerated in the Ordinance. Furthermore, the court held that the petitioner failed to prove bona fide personal need. The key principle laid down is that rent restriction laws are special statutes meant for tenant protection, and courts cannot read grounds for eviction, such as the efflux of time, into Section 17 of the Ordinance when they are not explicitly provided.

  Questions settled

  • Can a tenant be ordered to be ejected from a residential building merely on the ground of the expiry of the lease period under the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001?
  • Does Section 6 of the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 override Section 17 regarding the grounds for eviction?
  • Can a landlord successfully claim eviction on the ground of personal need without establishing plausible reasons and proper details during the trial?
  • Can a breach of an undertaking given before a civil court to vacate premises be remedied through an eviction petition under the rent laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar Mehmood vs Khan Ayaz Khan and another2010 YLR 1490 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-04-24Read full judgment →
• TNB Libety Power Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax2010 PTD 802 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-05-19Read full judgment →
• TNB Liberty Power Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income TaxPTCL 2010 CL. 890 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sheikh Ansar Ahmed vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 2 others2010 PLC (C.S.) 1018 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-09-18
  service tribunal jurisdictionconstitutional barcivil servant promotionNIPA trainingterms and conditions of servicewrit petition maintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a writ petition filed before the Islamabad High Court seeking a direction to the respondents to convene a meeting of the Central Selection Board to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Drugs Controller (BS-20) without the requirement of NIPA training. The core legal questions involved the constitutional bar on the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution in service matters and whether the Federal Service Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over terms and conditions of civil servants, including challenges to promotion requirements and allegations of discrimination. The court held that the jurisdiction of the High Court is barred by Article 212 of the Constitution in matters relating to the terms and conditions of civil servants, and that questions regarding eligibility criteria, additional qualifications, and discriminatory treatment in service matters fall within the exclusive domain of the Federal Service Tribunal. The key principle laid down is that the constitutional ouster of jurisdiction under Article 212 applies to service matters, and ordinary service disputes including rule challenges must be adjudicated by the Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution bar the jurisdiction of the High Court in service matters concerning civil servants?
  • Can the Federal Service Tribunal examine service rules and grounds of discrimination raised by a civil servant?
  • Whether the requirement of NIPA training for promotion to the post of Drugs Controller can be challenged in a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Hussain Abbasi vs Zim's Security (Pvt.) Ltd.2010 PLC 17 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-06-12
  labour lawgrievance noticeindustrial relationstermination of serviceburden of proofmaintainability of petitionlabour appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three consolidated labour appeals challenging the dismissal of grievance petitions by the Labour Court, Islamabad. The appellants, former security guards, sought reinstatement after their termination by Zim Security (Pvt.) Limited. The core legal question was whether the appellants had complied with the mandatory statutory requirement of serving a grievance notice upon the employer prior to initiating proceedings under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Labour Court had dismissed the petitions on the grounds that the appellants failed to prove the service of such notices. Upon review, the High Court upheld the Labour Court's decision, finding that while the appellants alleged the notices were sent by post, there was no evidence on record to substantiate the dispatch or delivery of these notices. The Court held that the service of a grievance notice is a mandatory prerequisite for the maintainability of a petition under Section 25-A. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, affirming the principle that the burden of proof lies squarely on the employee to establish the service of the required grievance notice.

  Questions settled

  • Is the service of a grievance notice a mandatory prerequisite for filing a petition under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Upon whom does the burden of proof lie to establish the service of a grievance notice in a labour dispute?
  • Can a labour petition be maintained if the employee fails to prove the dispatch or delivery of the mandatory grievance notice?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Mobile Communications Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax2010 PTD 1506 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-07-16
  income taxamendment of assessmentdoctrine of mergeraudit selectiondefinite informationdelegation of powersrevisional powerdeemed assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment resolves three writ petitions concerning the interpretation of Section 122 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The primary legal questions were whether the doctrine of merger precludes the selection of a case for audit after an appellate order has been passed, and whether an Additional Commissioner can exercise revisional powers under Section 122(5A) against a deemed assessment order of the Commissioner. The Court held that while the doctrine of merger applies to powers exercised under Section 122(5A) based on existing data, it does not bar the Commissioner from amending assessments under Section 122(1) and (4) if 'definite information' is subsequently acquired through an audit or other sources. The Court reasoned that new information creates a fresh basis for assessment that was not before the appellate authority. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the Commissioner may delegate powers under Section 122(5A) to an Additional Commissioner via Section 210, making the latter competent to issue show-cause notices. Consequently, all writ petitions were dismissed.

  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Mobile Communications Limited, Islamabad M/s. Sme BankPTCL 2010 CL. 354 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• National Logistic Cell(NLC) through General Manager Administration vs Messrs Hakas (Pvt.) Ltd. through Chief Executive2010 YLR 1448 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-07-08
  arbitration awardrule of the courtfiling of awardex parte decreesuo motu powerslimitation periodcivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Islamabad High Court arose from a dispute concerning building contracts between the National Logistic Cell (NLC) and Messrs Hakas (Pvt.) Ltd. Following prior writ proceedings and a compromise in an intra-court appeal, the matter was referred to a sole arbitrator who rendered an award. The respondent filed an application in the trial court under sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act 1940 to make the award a rule of the court. The trial court proceeded ex parte against NLC and made the award the rule of the court without examining its legality, simply because no objections were filed. The lower appellate court dismissed NLC's appeal on pecuniary jurisdiction grounds, leading to the present appeal. The core legal questions involved the validity of filing an award directly by a party without explicit arbitrator authority and the mandatory duty of the court under section 17 of the Arbitration Act to examine an award before making it a rule of the court, regardless of whether objections were filed. The High Court held that the respondent lacked authority to file the award on the arbitrator's behalf and that the trial court failed in its statutory duty to independently examine the award. The court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the case for decision in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an award can be deemed validly filed in court under section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act 1940 when submitted directly by a party without express or implied authority from the arbitrator?
  • Does section 17 of the Arbitration Act 1940 impose a mandatory duty upon the court to examine an award suo motu before making it a rule of the court, even if no formal objections or application to set aside the award are filed by a party?
  • Is a party permitted to challenge an ex parte order making an award a rule of the court when the trial court failed to evaluate the merits and legality of the award itself?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Ch. Muhammad Arif And Other vs Commissioner Of IncometaxPTCL 2010 CL. 814 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Al-Technique Corporation Of Pakistan Ltd. vs Additional CollectorPTCL 2010 CL. 426 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Younas Marwat vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry Of Interior and 3 others2010 YLR 1573 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-06-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman Iqbal Jadoon through Special Attorney vs Mst. Saadia2010 YLR 1539 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-11-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Umar, Etc vs The State2010 NLR Criminal 94 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-05-18
  post-arrest bailfirearm injuriesprohibitory clausecriminal liabilitydeeper appreciation of evidencetentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by three petitioners, Muhammad Umar, Qaiser Khalil, and Muhammad Ibrahim, who were charged in FIR No. 314 dated 1.12.2008 under Sections 452, 324, 148, 149, 337-L(i), 337-C, and 337-F(iv) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners sought bail after their previous applications were dismissed by the lower courts. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail given the allegations of specific roles in causing firearm injuries to the victim, supported by medical reports. The Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to bail, noting that they were specifically nominated in the FIR, their roles were clearly attributed, and the injuries were corroborated by medical evidence. Furthermore, the Court observed that the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that at the bail stage, the Court should not engage in a deeper appreciation of evidence, and the police's opinion is not binding upon the Court.

  Questions settled

  • Is a deeper appreciation of evidence required at the bail stage?
  • Does the police opinion regarding the innocence of an accused bind the Court during bail proceedings?
  • Are petitioners entitled to bail when they are specifically nominated in the FIR and their roles are supported by medical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman Khan vs International Tabacco Machinery2010 YLR 1560 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-07-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim, Etc. vs SSP, Islamabad, Etc.2010 NLR Criminal 99 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-01-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Furqan vs Speaker National Assembly and 4 others2010 PLC (C.S.) 1013 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-07-29
  locus poenitentiaeextra-ordinary leaverecovery of overpaymentdual salaryconstitutional petitioncivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a constitutional petition filed by an employee of the National Assembly Secretariat challenging a notification that converted his previously granted leave with full pay into extra-ordinary leave (EOL) without pay and allowances, and directed the recovery of salary drawn during that period. The petitioner had joined the Islamic Development Bank on leave, resulting in drawing dual salaries. The core legal question was whether the authorities could legally convert the leave to EOL and recover the excess salary paid, and whether the principle of locus poenitentiae barred such recovery. The Islamabad High Court held that an illegal order does not create perpetual rights, and since the petitioner performed no duties for the National Assembly while drawing salary elsewhere and was legally not entitled to dual pay, the recovery of public money paid in excess was justified. The court laid down that the principle of locus poenitentiae does not protect illegal orders, and good governance mandates the recovery of public funds paid in excess where no services were rendered.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order granting leave with full pay can be subsequently converted to extra-ordinary leave without pay and allowances?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae prevent the government from recalling an illegal order and recovering overpaid salary?
  • Can a civil servant draw two salaries simultaneously from two different organizations for the same period?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Faisal Iqbal Qureshi And Other vs Additional CollectorPTCL 2010 CL. 179 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Miss Sania Safdar Khan and another vs Ameer Abbas and 3 others2010 PLC (C.S.) 1244 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-04-27
  allotment of government accommodationequitable reliefestoppelconstitutional jurisdictionpossession of government propertylegal heirs
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over the possession of a government residential quarter (No. 135/C, Sector G-6/2, Islamabad) originally allotted to a police officer, the late DSP Muhammad Safdar Khan. Following his death in 1995, his legal heirs (the appellants) continued to occupy the premises for fourteen years. The appellants challenged the allotment of the same quarter to a new allottee (respondent No. 1) by the Inspector-General of Police, arguing that the police department lacked the authority to allot the property as it did not belong to their pool. The Court held that the appellants, having occupied the premises for over a decade based on an allotment from the same police authority they now challenge, were estopped from questioning that authority. Emphasizing equity and fair play, the Court upheld the Inspector-General's allotment order as just. The key principle established is that a party cannot approbate and reprobate by challenging the authority of an entity from which they previously derived and enjoyed a benefit for an extended period, particularly when seeking equitable relief under constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party challenge the authority of a department to allot government accommodation after having derived benefits from an allotment made by that same department for over a decade?
  • Does the court have the discretion to deny equitable relief in constitutional jurisdiction when the petitioner seeks to perpetuate an advantage to which they are not entitled?
  • Is an allotment order made by the Inspector-General of Police regarding government accommodation subject to interference when the court finds the order to be just and equitable?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Rai Farms and another vs M.G. Hertz (Pvt.) Ltd. and 4 others2010 YLR 1601 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-07-07Read full judgment →
• Messrs Adaptive Solutions (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Messrs Utility Stores2010 YLR 1618 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-07-07Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Tariq Saeed, Ex-De PTCL, Gujranwala vs Federation through Secretary,(It& Telecom Division), Ministry of Information Technology, Islamabad and another2010 PLC (C.S.) 997 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-06-19
  service lawreinstatementappellate orderRemoval from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000vested rightsadministrative hierarchyretrospective effect
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an employee of the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL), challenged the non-implementation of an appellate order that had set aside his removal from service and directed his reinstatement. The core legal question was whether the respondent authority could refuse to implement a final appellate order passed under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, particularly in light of subsequent notifications regarding the organization's status. The Court held that the respondent authority was legally bound to implement the appellate order, as the petitioner had acquired a vested right through the appellate decision. The Court further observed that the respondent had failed to challenge the appellate order through the statutory remedies provided under the Ordinance. Additionally, the Court ruled that a subsequent notification exempting PTCL employees from the Ordinance could not retrospectively divest the petitioner of the rights already secured. The principle laid down is that administrative authorities cannot ignore or refuse to implement final appellate orders, and vested rights acquired under a statute cannot be extinguished by subsequent retrospective notifications.

  Questions settled

  • Can an administrative authority refuse to implement a final order passed by a designated appellate authority?
  • Does a subsequent notification exempting an organization from a statute retrospectively divest an employee of rights already secured under that statute?
  • Is the non-implementation of an appellate order by a subordinate authority a violation of the principle of hierarchy and rule of law?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax, Islamabad vs M/s. PakistanPLJ 2010 Tax Cases (Islm.) 12 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax, Coys Zone, Islamabad vs Al-2010 PTD 1194 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-07-27Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Of Income Tax/Wealth Tax, Companies Zone, Islamabad vsPTCL 2010 CL. 967 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax/Coy Zone, Islamabad vs Pakistan2010 PTD 1119 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-07-27Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax, Zone, Islamabad vs Cap Gas (Pvt.) Ltd., Rawalpindi2010 PTD 763 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-04-14Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Of Income Tax Zone, Islamabad vs Cap Gas (Pvt.)PTCL 2010 CL. 1076 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner Of Income Tax Companies Zone, Islamabad vs M/s.PTCL 2010 CL. 781 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner Of Income Companies Zone Islamabad. vs M/s. PakistanPTCL 2010 CL.798 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Associated Press of Pakistan Corporation through Managing Director, Islamabad vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Labour Manpower and Overseas Pakistanis Division, Islamabad and 2 others2010 PLC (C.S.) 1003 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-05-11
  Newspaper EmployeesImplementation TribunalJurisdictionProvident FundWage BoardWrit Petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition filed by the Associated Press of Pakistan Corporation challenges the order of the Tribunal constituted under section 12-A of the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973, which had directed the petitioner to pay the difference of arrears on wages including allowances in respect of a retired Chief Reporter's Provident Fund. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal constituted under section 12-A of the Act had the power and jurisdiction to pass such an order regarding a claim based on section 5 of the Act. The Islamabad High Court held that the Tribunal has a very limited jurisdiction restricted solely to implementing decisions of the Wage Board under section 11. Since the employee's claim was based on section 5 of the Act rather than a Wage Board decision, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, and the appropriate remedy lay with a civil court. The writ petition was accordingly allowed, declaring the Tribunal's order to be without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Tribunal constituted under section 12-A of the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973 have jurisdiction to entertain claims not based on a decision of the Wage Board?
  • What is the scope of powers exercisable by the Tribunal constituted under section 12-A of the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973?
  • Which forum has the appropriate jurisdiction when a retired newspaper employee seeks redressal regarding Provident Fund disputes under section 5 of the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Amjad Masih vs Mst. Bushra Bibi and another2010 YLR 1468 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-06-25
  custody of minorswelfare of minorshabeas corpusconstitutional jurisdictionintra-court appealguardian judgematernal custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal challenges an order passed by a learned Single Judge in Chamber who accepted a writ petition and entrusted the temporary custody of minor children to their mother. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in constitutional jurisdiction, could properly grant temporary custody of minors to the mother while leaving the parties to resolve permanent custody before the Guardian Judge. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that minor children in their early age need the company and protection of their mother more than grown-up children, as deprivation of maternal care can cause lifelong psychological harm. The court laid down the principle that the welfare of minor children at a tender age is best served in the custody of their real mother, and that factual controversies regarding child custody are appropriately investigated by the Guardian Judge rather than resolved definitively within writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minor children in their early age are entitled to the temporary custody of their mother in the interest of their welfare?
  • Can factual controversies regarding child custody be decided by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction?
  • Whether an order granting temporary custody of minors to a parent pending a regular adjudication by the Guardian Judge is sustainable in law?
  Read full judgment →
• Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad through its Registrar vs Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan through its Secretary and 2 others2010 YLR 1339 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-05-18
  property tax exemptionstatutory corporationveil of incorporationeducational institutioncharitable organizationFederal Government entitywrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged property tax demands issued by the Capital Development Authority against the Allama Iqbal Open University (AIOU). The core legal question was whether AIOU, a statutory body corporate, was liable for property tax or qualified for exemption under S.R.O. 24(I)/2001, which exempts educational institutions and Federal Government-owned properties. The Court held that AIOU is a non-profit, charitable educational institution functioning under the control of the Federal Government, rather than a commercial corporation. Consequently, the Court ruled that AIOU is entitled to tax exemption under both Clause 4(4) and Clause 4(6) of the notification. The key principle laid down is that the "veil of incorporation" may be lifted to ascertain the true character of a statutory body; where such a body is established for non-profit educational purposes and is under the pervasive control of the Federal Government, it is not a "commercial corporation" and is entitled to tax exemptions reserved for government-owned properties. The impugned tax demands were declared illegal and set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Can the veil of incorporation be lifted to determine if a statutory body is a commercial corporation or a government entity for tax purposes?
  • Does a statutory body established for educational purposes qualify as a 'commercial corporation' under S.R.O. 24(I)/2001?
  • Are properties owned by the Allama Iqbal Open University exempt from property tax under the relevant S.R.O. of 2001?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Abbas Khan vs Mst. Palwasha Khan and 2 others2010 YLR 1632 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-05-05Read full judgment →
• Zia Aftab vs The State2009 MLD 320 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-09-29
  post-arrest baildelayed trialfailure to frame chargepunishment without trialcriminal procedurebail petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two post-arrest bail petitions filed by Zia Aftab and Waheed uz Zaman, arising from F.I.R. No. 240/2006, involving allegations of dealing in cut and weld vehicles using forged documents. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the significant delay in the trial process, specifically the failure to frame charges despite a prior court order directing the trial's expeditious conclusion within four months. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, emphasizing that the trial court had failed to comply with the previous directive to conclude the trial within the stipulated timeframe, and that the petitioners had been incarcerated for over a year without the charge even being framed. The key principle laid down is that an accused person cannot be kept behind bars for an indefinite period without trial, as such prolonged detention without progress in the proceedings effectively amounts to punishment without trial, thereby justifying the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a trial court to frame charges within a court-mandated timeframe constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Can an accused be kept in custody indefinitely when trial proceedings have not progressed?
  • Does the prolonged detention of an accused without the commencement of a trial amount to punishment without trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Yar Muhammad Khan vs The State2009 P Cr. L J 527 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-01-16
  post-arrest baildishonouring of chequefresh ground for baildelay in trialstatutory delayprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed six criminal miscellaneous petitions seeking post-arrest bail in multiple cases registered under sections 489-F and 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code, after his earlier bail pleas were dismissed up to the apex Court. The core legal questions involved whether the prolonged incarceration without material progress in the trial and the fact that the petitioner had undergone a major portion of the substantive sentence constituted fresh grounds for grant of post-arrest bail. The Islamabad High Court allowed the petitions and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, holding that an accused can move a fresh bail application at a subsequent stage if a new ground exists that was not available earlier, and that prolonged detention coupled with inordinate delay in the trial justifies the grant of bail when a substantial portion of the maximum sentence has already been served.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a fresh post-arrest bail application can be moved at a subsequent stage in the presence of a new ground?
  • Does prolonged incarceration without material progress in the trial constitute a fresh ground for the grant of bail?
  • Can the cumulative potential punishment of multiple separate cases be invoked to bring a case within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani vs The State2009 P Cr. L J 598 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-02-04
  corruption and corrupt practicesNational Accountability Ordinancespeaker privilegesburden of proofcriminal appealacquittalmisuse of authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Accountability Court convicting the appellant under Section 10 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, for corruption and corrupt practices relating to the purchase of luxury vehicles, misuse of official vehicles, maintenance of camp offices, and misuse of official telephones during his tenure as Speaker of the National Assembly. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant acted fraudulently and with mens rea to cause loss to the national exchequer. The Islamabad High Court held that credible evidence was lacking to prove the charges, as prosecution witnesses conceded that rules and circulars regarding vehicle purchases and expenditure limits were either inapplicable to the sovereign National Assembly Secretariat or that financial decisions fell within the administrative domain of the Secretary as Principal Accounting Officer. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, laid down that statutory entitlements to 'a' vehicle or telephone do not restrict the holder to a single unit, and acquitted the appellant of all charges.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the purchase of vehicles for the National Assembly Secretariat by its administrative staff without tenders constitutes a corrupt practice attributable to the Speaker without proof of mens rea?
  • Does a statutory entitlement to 'a' vehicle or telephone under the Chairman and Speaker (Salaries, Allowances and Privileges) Act 1975 restrict the holder to strictly one vehicle or telephone?
  • Can a criminal conviction under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 be sustained when prosecution evidence lacks support on foundational allegations of corruption?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Sajid Abbas Zaidi vs Additional District Judge and others2009 MLD 379 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-07-03Read full judgment →
• Syed Azmat Hussain Shah vs The State2009 P Cr. L J 780 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-11-13
  post-arrest bailcompromisenon-compoundable offencesodomycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Syed Azmat Hussain Shah in relation to F.I.R. No. 253 dated 20-6-2008 registered under Section 377/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Shahzad Town, Islamabad. The core legal question before the court was whether a compromise between the parties and the forgiveness by the complainant can be considered as a ground for granting post-arrest bail when the offence is non-compoundable under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Islamabad High Court held that although the offence is non-compoundable and does not fall within the ambit of Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the fact that the complainant does not wish to pursue the matter and has forgiven the accused through an out-of-court compromise is a relevant factor to be considered at the bail stage. The court laid down the principle that a complainant's statement and affidavit regarding compromise, even in non-compoundable offences, can be weighed as a ground for the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Can a compromise between the parties be considered as a relevant factor for granting bail in a non-compoundable offence?
  • Whether an affidavit of forgiveness by the complainant can influence the court's discretion at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Sohail Abbas Bohhari vs Secretary Information and Broadcasting/2009 PLC (C.S.) 565 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-02-19
  constitutional petitionmaintainabilitynon-statutory rulesterms and conditions of servicedemotionmaster and servantalternative remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitutional petition before the Islamabad High Court challenging orders of his transfer and subsequent demotion from General Manager Media Relations (G-9) to Manager Media Relations (G-8) by the Pakistan Television Corporation (PTV). The petitioner contended that the demotion violated the principle of locus poenitentiae, section 21 of the General Clauses Act 1897, and natural justice, having been carried out without a show-cause notice or regular inquiry. Conversely, the respondents raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the petitioner had alternate remedies under the service rules and before the National Industrial Relations Commission, and that PTV employees are governed by non-statutory service rules which cannot be enforced through constitutional jurisdiction. The Court held that the employees of the Pakistan Television Corporation Limited are governed by non-statutory service rules lacking statutory cover, and therefore their terms and conditions cannot be enforced through a constitutional petition. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the terms and conditions of service of employees of the Pakistan Television Corporation Limited are governed by statutory rules?
  • Can a constitutional petition under Article 199 be maintained for the enforcement of non-statutory service rules?
  • Whether the violation of non-statutory regulations, instructions, or internal directions can be challenged through a writ petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Shireen Mehtab Khan vs Shifa College of Medicine and others2009 YLR 892 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-01-20Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Murid Hussain vs Shah Jahan Khetran and another2009 MLD 552 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-01-22Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Sarwar vs Zaheer Ahmad2009 MLD 481 · Islamabad High Court · 2002-11-26Read full judgment →
• Shamshad Ali vs Ghulam Muhammad Chaudhry and another2009 CLC 52 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-09-17
  Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance 2001striking off defencedeposit of rentrent defaultejectment petitionconcurrent findingswrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition before the Islamabad High Court arose from an ejectment petition filed by the respondent-landlord against the petitioner-tenant. The Rent Controller had directed the tenant under Section 17(8) of the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 to deposit arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 4,41,247 by a specified date. Upon the petitioner's failure to deposit the full amount and regular monthly rent, the Rent Controller struck off the petitioner's defence and ordered eviction under Section 17(9) of the Ordinance, which was subsequently affirmed on appeal by the Additional District Judge. The petitioner challenged these concurrent findings via a writ petition. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Rent Controller was fully competent to strike off the tenant's defence and order eviction without further proceedings once the order under Section 17(8) was violated. The Court reaffirmed that concurrent findings of fact showing non-compliance cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction absent illegality, irregularity, or misreading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Rent Controller is legally empowered under Section 17(9) of the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 to strike off a tenant's defence and order eviction upon non-compliance with an order passed under Section 17(8)?
  • Does a Rent Controller possess discretion to condone default when a tenant fails to comply with a tentative rent deposit order?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact regarding default in rent deposit be interfered with by the High Court in the exercise of its constitutional writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahiq Ahmad Khan vs Senate Secretariat, Islamabad through Secretary2009 PLC (C.S.) 305 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-11-25
  pay protectiondeputation and absorptionSenate Secretariatcivil servant statuspensionary benefitsrecovery of overpaymentconstitutional bodyautonomous bodies
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an employee originally serving in National Construction Limited (NCL) whose services were later absorbed into the Senate Secretariat, challenged the reduction of his salary, the recovery of alleged overpayments, and the refusal to count his previous service towards pay protection and pensionary benefits. The core legal questions involved whether an employee absorbed from a registered company (NCL) into an independent constitutional body like the Senate Secretariat is entitled to pay protection, counting of previous service for pension, and exemption from recovery of overpaid amounts. The Islamabad High Court held that NCL is a separate company with its own pay scales and rules whose employees are not civil servants, that services rendered in a non-pensionable organization cannot be counted towards pension under the Civil Service Regulations, and that overpaid amounts are recoverable under the Federal Treasury Rules. The court laid down the principle that employees of autonomous bodies or registered companies absorbed into government service or constitutional bodies do not possess a statutory right to pay protection or pension counting unless expressly provided by applicable rules, and dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee absorbed from a registered company into the Senate Secretariat is entitled to pay protection?
  • Can previous service rendered in a non-pensionable corporate entity be counted towards pension upon absorption into government service?
  • Are overpaid pay and allowances recoverable from an employee under the Federal Treasury Rules?
  • Do employees of National Construction Limited qualify as civil servants under the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Murad vs StatePLJ 2009 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 920 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-02-18
  post-arrest baildacoityidentification paradedelay in trialfundamental rightstentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 139 dated 12.6.2006, registered under Sections 395, 402, 342, and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 20 Haraba at Police Station Sabzi Mandi, Islamabad, on allegations of committing dacoity. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail considering the lack of an identification parade, the delayed submission of the challan, the statutory right to an expeditious trial, and the tentative assessment of the evidence. The Islamabad High Court held that the petitioner had made out a case for bail, noting that he had been detained for over two and a half years without trial progress, no identification parade was conducted, the challan had not yet been submitted to the trial court, and he was a first offender. The court laid down the principles that expeditious trial is a fundamental right of the accused, an individual cannot be detained indefinitely, and only a tentative assessment of evidence is warranted at the bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when no identification parade was conducted and the challan has not been submitted after two and a half years?
  • Does the right to an expeditious trial serve as a ground for granting bail in protracted detentions?
  • To what extent can a court make an appreciation of evidence at the post-arrest bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafqat Raheem vs Land Acquisition Collector, Islamabad and 22009 CLC 596 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shafaqat Ullah vs StatePLJ 2009 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 1106 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-06-25
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryprohibitory clausezinaprostitutionchemical analysis
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arose from a raid conducted at a guest house where the petitioner and a female were found naked in a room, leading to registration of an FIR under Sections 371-A, 371-B, and 496-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established a prima facie case under the charged sections to deny bail. The Islamabad High Court held that there was no evidence of the actual commission of zina, nor were the recovered condoms sent for chemical analysis. Furthermore, the court observed that Sections 371-A and 371-B PPC relate to the buying and selling of persons for prostitution, which was not alleged against the petitioner. Consequently, the applicability of these sections required further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. As Section 496-B PPC does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the court allowed the petition and granted post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the offences of buying and selling a person for prostitution under Sections 371-A and 371-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be attracted without allegations of buying or selling?
  • Does the absence of chemical analysis of recovered physical evidence and lack of medical examination of the accused render a case of alleged zina one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does Section 496-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain and 4 others vs The State2009 P Cr. L J 793 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-12-18
  criminal appealcompromiseQisas and Diyatcompoundable offencesentence reductionhouse-breakingmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad, which convicted the appellants under Sections 302(b), 460, 148, 149, and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The primary legal question concerned whether a compromise between the parties, involving the compounding of the offence of murder (Section 302), could be accepted, and how it affected the non-compoundable offence of house-breaking/trespass (Section 460). The Court found that the compromise regarding the murder charge was entered into voluntarily by the legal heirs of the deceased, including the Wali of the minor daughters, and was in the interest of justice. Consequently, the Court accepted the compromise regarding the murder conviction. Regarding the non-compoundable offence under Section 460, the Court declined to merge it into the compoundable offence but, considering the appellants' long incarceration and the lack of contest on merits, exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone. The Court set aside the conviction under Section 302, maintained the conviction under Section 460, and reduced the sentences accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Can a compromise regarding a compoundable offence be accepted if it involves minors and is found to be voluntary?
  • Does a non-compoundable offence automatically merge into a compoundable offence when a compromise is reached in a criminal case?
  • Does an appellate court have the discretion to reduce a sentence to the period already undergone for a non-compoundable offence if the conviction is not contested on merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmed vs Mst. Asmat Hasham and another2009 CLC 630 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-10-28Read full judgment →
• SGM (Pvt.) Limited vs Capital Development Authority through Chairman2009 YLR 1100 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-12-17Read full judgment →
• Sarwar vs Muhammad Rizwan and 7 others2009 YLR 1163 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-10-28Read full judgment →
• Sajid Sohail vs Vice-Chancellor, Quaid-E-Azam University, Islamabad2009 CLC 507 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-03-14
  constitutional petitioncompetent authoritytermination of servicecoram non judicealternate remedyregistrar appointmentuniversity syndicate
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitutional petition impugning the termination order passed by the Vice-Chancellor of Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, terminating his services as Registrar. The core legal questions involved whether the Vice-Chancellor was the competent authority to terminate the petitioner's services, given that he was appointed by the Syndicate, and whether the petition was barred due to an alternate remedy under the University Act. The court held that the Vice-Chancellor lacked statutory powers under the Quaid-i-Azam University Act, 1973 to terminate an officer whose appointing authority was the Syndicate, rendering the impugned termination order illegal and without lawful authority. The key principle laid down is that an order passed by an authority lacking competence and statutory jurisdiction is void ab initio, and constitutional jurisdiction can be invoked despite an alternate remedy when the impugned order is coram non judice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Vice-Chancellor of a university is competent to terminate an officer whose appointing authority is the Syndicate?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against an order passed without lawful authority despite the availability of an alternate statutory remedy?
  • Whether an order passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction can be sustained on the ground of probation or unsatisfactory performance?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajid Sohail vs Syndicate of Quaid-I-Azam University, Islamabad2009 PLC (C.S.) 403 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-05-16
  probationertermination of serviceshow-cause noticeaudi alteram partemwrit jurisdictionalternative remedyuniversity employee
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the termination of the petitioner’s services as Registrar of Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad. The petitioner, appointed on a two-year probation, argued that his termination by the Syndicate was illegal, violated statutory procedures, and lacked a show-cause notice or opportunity for a hearing. The respondents contended that the petition was not maintainable due to an available alternative remedy under the University Act and that the petitioner, being on probation, was subject to the terms of his appointment letter, which allowed for termination upon notice. The Court held that the petitioner, as a probationer, did not possess a vested right to a show-cause notice or a formal hearing before termination, as his services were governed by the specific terms of his appointment letter. The Court found that the Syndicate acted within its authority to terminate the services of a probationer whose performance was deemed unsatisfactory. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, affirming that probationers are subject to the employer's discretion during the trial period and that the petitioner failed to exhaust the statutory remedy of review.

  Questions settled

  • Is a show-cause notice required for the termination of a university employee serving on probation?
  • Does the termination of a probationer's services on the grounds of unsatisfactory performance constitute a removal from service requiring constitutional protection?
  • Can a writ petition be dismissed if the petitioner fails to exhaust an alternative statutory remedy provided by the university regulations?
  • Are the terms and conditions stipulated in an appointment letter binding on an employee during their probation period?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Mumtaz Hussain Arif vs StatePLJ 2009 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 1070 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-06-29
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequeprohibitory clausemala fidesdelay in FIRSection 489-F PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an accused facing charges under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding the alleged dishonour of two cheques. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the prosecution's allegations of fraud and the nature of the offence. The High Court granted the bail, holding that the inordinate three-year delay in lodging the FIR indicated mala fides on the part of the prosecution. The court further noted that the agreement underlying one cheque had been cancelled, and the other cheque involved a business partnership requiring trial-stage investigation. The key principle laid down is that an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 carries a maximum punishment of three years and does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court clarified that the statute does not distinguish between cheque amounts for bail purposes, and such offences generally warrant the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the amount of the dishonoured cheque affect the applicability of Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the purpose of bail?
  • Can an inordinate delay in lodging an FIR be considered as evidence of mala fides in a bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Qaiser Javed Malik vs Pervaiz Hameed and 2 others2009 MLD 350 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-11-25Read full judgment →
• Pitras Masih vs The State2009 P Cr. L J 637 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-01-16
  Superdaricustody of vehiclebona fide purchaserSection 550 CrPCtampered vehiclewrit petitionpolice custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 18-8-2008 of the Sessions Judge, Islamabad, which refused the petitioner's application for Superdari of a vehicle. The vehicle had been seized by the police under Section 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after a chemical examination revealed tampering, leading to an FIR under Sections 420, 468, 471, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner argued that he was a bona fide purchaser, the vehicle was seized from his possession, and there was no rival claimant. The prosecution conceded that the petitioner was a bona fide purchaser and that the vehicle was not required for investigation. The Islamabad High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the lower court's order. The Court held that where no rival claimant exists, a vehicle seized by police should ordinarily be restored on Superdari to the person from whose custody it was seized, to prevent its deterioration while in police custody.

  Questions settled

  • To whom should the custody of a vehicle seized under Section 550 CrPC be granted on Superdari when there is no rival claimant?
  • Whether a bona fide purchaser from whom a vehicle was seized is entitled to its interim custody on Superdari to prevent its deterioration?
  Read full judgment →
• Northern Tourism Development (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Executive Director2009 CLD 490 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-11-13Read full judgment →
• Nazir Khan vs The State2009 P Cr. L J 1041 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-03-04
  post-arrest baildacoityhabitual offenderprohibitory clauserecoveryrule of consistencybail stage
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case involving dacoity and house trespass (Sections 395, 458, and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860). The petitioner argued that he was not nominated in the F.I.R., the recovery was doubtful due to non-compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that he was entitled to bail based on the rule of consistency, as a co-accused had been granted bail. The State opposed the application, highlighting that looted items were recovered from the petitioner and that he was a habitual offender involved in other similar cases. The Court held that at the bail stage, only a prima facie assessment is required, not a deeper appreciation of evidence. Finding sufficient material to connect the petitioner to the offence, which fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and noting his status as a habitual offender, the Court dismissed the bail petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule of consistency automatically entitle an accused to bail if a co-accused has been granted the same relief?
  • Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permissible at the bail stage?
  • Does the recovery of looted articles from an accused, coupled with a history of similar offences, justify the refusal of bail for offences falling under the prohibitory clause?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Khan and anothers vs The State2009 P Cr. L J 938 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-01-27
  post-arrest baildacoitydelay in FIRidentification paradefurther inquirybenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the court through a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioners under sections 458, 395, 412, P.P.C. and 20 Harraba, arising out of a criminal case registered at Police Station Shahzad Town, Islamabad. The core legal questions involve whether the unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R., the absence of an identification parade, and the lack of recovery of looted property make the case one of further inquiry under section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that the petition qua the second petitioner is dismissed as withdrawn, but allowed the petition for the first petitioner, granting him post-arrest bail. The key principles laid down include that an unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R., failure to hold an identification parade, and absence of recovery of looted property create reasonable grounds for further inquiry, entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt at the bail stage, and that bail cannot be withheld as a punishment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. makes out a case for further inquiry under section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be withheld as a punishment when the accused is no longer required for further investigation?
  • Does the failure to conduct an identification parade during investigation create reasonable doubt entitling the accused to bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Najma Sugar Mills Ltd. through Company Secretary vs Messrs Mega2009 CLC 209 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-09-15Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Hameed Sheikh vs StatePLJ 2009 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 1111 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-05-22
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequeprohibitory clausesecurity chequefinancial crimecriminal breach
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by Nadeem Hameed Sheikh in case F.I.R. No. 292 dated 18.9.2007, registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Margalla, Islamabad, relating to the dishonour of a cheque amounting to Rs. 9,11,06,037/- due to insufficient funds. The core legal question revolved around whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the defense claim that the cheque was issued merely as security, and the petitioner's old age and health conditions. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that the issuance of the cheque was admitted, there was no mention on the face of the cheque that it was a security, deep appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage, and bail can be refused even in offences outside the prohibitory clause if sufficient incriminating material connects the accused to a heinous crime. The court laid down that a cheque issued without notation of being a security carries a prima facie liability, and the mere fact that an offence falls outside the prohibitory clause does not automatically entitle an accused to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be refused in an offence that does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a cheque allegedly issued as security without any such notation on its face create a prima facie liability for the drawer under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is deep appreciation of evidence permissible at the stage of deciding a post-arrest bail petition?
  • Does old age and illness automatically entitle an accused to the concession of bail in a heinous offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Hameed Shaikh vs The State2009 YLR 1786 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-05-22
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequeprohibitory clausesecurity chequefraudcriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application seeks post-arrest bail for the petitioner, who was charged under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for issuing a dishonoured cheque amounting to over nine crore rupees after a share transaction dispute. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail considering that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the defence that the cheque was issued merely as security, and the petitioner's age and health. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that the issuance of the cheque was admitted, nothing on the face of the cheque indicated it was a security, the petitioner was directly connected to the offence with sufficient material available, and bail can still be refused in offences outside the prohibitory clause under appropriate circumstances. The court established that a deep appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the bail stage and that claims of a cheque being issued as security without documentary proof or contemporaneous complaints of coercion are afterthoughts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be refused in an offence that does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a cheque alleged to have been given merely as a security attract the penal consequences of Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when no such condition is written on the instrument?
  • Is deep appreciation of evidence permissible at the bail stage in cases involving dishonoured cheques?
  • Whether old age and illness alone entitle an accused to the concession of bail in heinous economic crimes?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Abbasi Enterprises And Another vs Collector Of Sales Tax, PeshawarPTCL 2009 CL. 35 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. through Attorney vs Dewan Salman Fibre2009 CLD 1483 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-06-24Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Limited through Regional Manager and another2009 PLC 171 · Islamabad High Court
  workman statusgrievance noticeIndustrial Relations Ordinancedismissal from servicedepartmental appealclerical dutieslabour law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns cross-appeals filed by an employer bank and a dismissed employee against a Labour Court order. The core legal questions were whether the employee, designated as an Officer Grade-III, qualified as a "workman" under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, and whether a departmental appeal submitted to the Bank President constituted a valid grievance notice under Section 46 of the same Ordinance. The Court held that the employee’s primary duties were clerical and manual, thus classifying him as a workman. Furthermore, the Court ruled that grievance notice requirements should be interpreted liberally to avoid technical traps; therefore, a departmental appeal can serve as a valid grievance notice. On the merits, the Court upheld the Labour Court’s finding that the unauthorized credit entry was an inadvertent error rather than mala fide conduct, and affirmed the decision to substitute the dismissal with retirement, as requested by the employee. The key principle laid down is that the status of a workman is determined by the nature of duties performed rather than designation, and grievance procedures should be construed to favor employees.

  Questions settled

  • Does an employee's designation as an officer automatically exclude them from the definition of a workman under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002?
  • Can a departmental appeal filed by an employee be treated as a valid grievance notice under Section 46 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002?
  • What is the primary test for determining whether an employee falls within the definition of a workman under labour legislation?
  • Is the dismissal of a bank employee justified when the alleged financial misconduct is proven to be an inadvertent clerical error?
  Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmed vs Syed Faisal Mahmood Shah And AnotherK.L.R. 2009 Criminal Cases 268 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-05-27
  bail cancellationpost-arrest bailsupplementary statementcriminal conspiracyfurther inquirymurdercall data records
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a petition seeking the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to respondent No. 1 by the Additional Sessions Judge in a murder case registered under Sections 302, 109, 34, and 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Respondent No. 1 was not nominated in the initial First Information Report (FIR) but was subsequently implicated via a supplementary statement of the complainant, alleging conspiracy based on mobile phone call records with the main accused. The petitioner argued that the bail-granting order was perverse and that the respondent was attempting to tamper with prosecution evidence. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a bail-granting order can only be recalled if it is shown to be absurd, fanciful, illegal, or arbitrary. The Court observed that the respondent's implication through a supplementary statement and mere telephonic contact did not ipso facto establish a conspiracy, rendering his involvement a matter of further inquiry. Additionally, allegations of tampering with evidence must be raised before the trial court that granted the bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a post-arrest bail order can be cancelled without demonstrating that it is absurd, fanciful, illegal, or arbitrary?
  • Does the mere existence of telephonic contact between accused persons ipso facto establish a criminal conspiracy for the purpose of denying or cancelling bail?
  • Whether the implication of an accused through a supplementary statement, where they were not named in the initial FIR, constitutes a ground for further inquiry under bail law?
  • Where should allegations of tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses by an accused on bail be properly agitated?
  Read full judgment →
• Munda Hydropower Ltd. through Habib H. Parach and 2 others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry at Water and Power and 2 others2009 MLD 526 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-11-17
  temporary injunctionpower generation projectprinciples of natural justiceultra viresprivate power policyspecific reliefbalance of convenience
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal arises from an order passed by the learned Judge-in-Chamber dismissing the appellants-plaintiffs' application for a temporary injunction in a suit concerning a private power generation project. The core legal question involves whether a temporary injunction should be granted to restrain the government from changing a project into a public-private partnership venture and transferring it to WAPDA without notice, and whether damages are an adequate remedy where state action violates principles of natural justice. The court held that the government's action in abruptly changing the project policy without granting an opportunity of hearing was prima facie ultra vires, violated principles of natural justice, and lacked transparency. The court ruled that where a state action is ultra vires and creates a stigma, the mere availability of monetary compensation or damages is not a sufficient ground to refuse a temporary injunction. The principle laid down is that public functionaries must act fairly, transparently, and in conformity with norms, and arbitrary deviations from announced government policies without hearing the affected private investors cannot be encouraged.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an interim injunction can be refused on the ground of adequacy of damages where the impugned state action is prima facie ultra vires and violates natural justice?
  • Does the abrupt transfer of a private power project to the public sector without affording the investor a prior hearing violate the principles of natural justice?
  • Can public authorities arbitrarily deviate from an announced government investment policy without fair procedure?
  • Whether balance of convenience favors a private investor who has incurred substantial expenses on an approved feasibility study when a project is reassigned without notice?
  Read full judgment →
• Munda Hydropower Ltd. and 2 others vs Federation of Pakistan2009 MLD 414 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-12-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zulfiqar Ahmed and 25 others vs Chairman, Pakistan2009 PLC (C.S.) 368 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-07-21
  writ jurisdictionmaintainabilitystatutory rulesservice mattersPakistan Atomic Energy CommissionNational Command Authorityconstitutional petitionnon-statutory regulations
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves several writ petitions filed by employees of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission seeking relief regarding their terms and conditions of service following their absorption into the National Command Authority. The core legal question was whether the Employees Service Regulations, 2007, governing these employees, constitute statutory rules, thereby rendering the writ petitions maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, or if the employees must seek alternative remedies. The Court held that the regulations governing the employees are non-statutory in nature. Consequently, the Court ruled that the writ petitions were not maintainable, as breaches of non-statutory regulations cannot be enforced through the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction. The Court further clarified that the jurisdictional bar in the National Command Authority Ordinance 2007 does not preclude recourse to Civil Courts, which retain ultimate jurisdiction to review actions taken by special authorities beyond their legal powers. The key principle established is that regulations framed by a statutory body, even with government approval, do not automatically acquire statutory status, and constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked for their enforcement.

  Questions settled

  • Are the Employees Service Regulations, 2007, governing the employees of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission, statutory in nature?
  • Can the breach of non-statutory regulations be enforced through a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the jurisdictional bar in Section 22 of the National Command Authority Ordinance 2007 preclude the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to review the actions of a special authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaheer vs The State2009 YLR 816 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-12-22
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirydeclared innocentabscondencepolice investigationcommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition where the petitioner, Muhammad Zaheer, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302, 34, 201, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the ground of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, having been declared innocent during police investigation and verified by senior police officers, notwithstanding allegations of abscondence and participation with common intention. The Islamabad High Court held that since the investigation revealed no concrete evidence connecting the petitioner to the crime and placed him in column No. 2 of the challan, his case fell within the scope of further inquiry, making him eligible for bail. The court laid down the principle that while police findings are not strictly binding, they constitute a relevant factor at the bail stage, and abscondence alone does not disentitle an accused to bail when the prosecution otherwise lacks sufficient incriminating evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does a police finding declaring an accused innocent during investigation make the case one of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can abscondence alone serve as a ground for refusing bail when the prosecution lacks other substantive evidence against the accused?
  • To what extent can tentative assessment of evidence be used during the bail stage in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tauqeer and another vs The State2009 P Cr. L J 648 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-12-02
  circumstantial evidencelast-seen evidencebenefit of doubtcriminal appealrecovery evidencemurder convictionappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad, under Section 302(b) and Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, regarding the murder of a minor student. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully established guilt beyond reasonable doubt based solely on circumstantial evidence, specifically 'last-seen' testimony and alleged recoveries. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, noting that the 'last-seen' witnesses were unreliable, their presence at the scene was not justified, and their testimony was inconsistent. Furthermore, the Court found the recoveries of articles and currency were suspicious, likely planted, and lacked independent corroboration, violating the mandatory requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court reiterated the principle that in cases of circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain must be established, and evidence must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused. Finding the prosecution's case riddled with doubts, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, granting them the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be based on 'last-seen' evidence without strong corroboration?
  • Does the failure to associate private witnesses during recovery violate Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the standard of proof required for circumstantial evidence to sustain a criminal conviction?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the chain of circumstantial evidence is broken by unreliable witness testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi Khan vs Mst. Shabana Irfan and another2009 MLD 699 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-05-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan Khokhar vs The State2009 YLR 839 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-07-11
  post-arrest bailabsconsioncriminal negligencemargalla towersearthquake disasterprohibitory clausesubstandard construction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed by Muhammad Ramzan Khokhar seeking post-arrest bail in a high-profile case arising from the partial collapse of the Margalla Towers during the 8 October 2005 earthquake, which resulted in numerous fatalities, permanent disabilities, and extensive financial loss. The petitioner, as the owner of the collapsed building, along with Capital Development Authority officers, faced charges including culpable homicide and negligence. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given his prolonged absconsion, the use of substandard construction materials despite official warnings, and the absence of a completion certificate or No Objection Certificate. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was an intentional fugitive who had evaded law enforcement until brought back via Interpol, that expert reports prima facie established the use of substandard materials and ignored official warnings, and that bail could not be claimed as of right for offences outside the prohibitory clause. The key principle laid down is that an accused who intentionally absconds for a prolonged period following a mass casualty incident, where expert material connects him to criminal negligence, is not entitled to post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused who remains an intentional fugitive for a prolonged period following a mass casualty incident is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does bail can be claimed as a matter of right in cases not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether a police officer is empowered to register and investigate a case based on facts coming to their knowledge regarding statutory offenses?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir Khan vs The State2009 P Cr. L J 980 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-03-04
  post-arrest baildacoityrecovery of stolen propertyhabitual offenderprohibitory clauserule of consistencybail stage
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Nazir Khan, who was implicated in an F.I.R. registered under Sections 395, 458, and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, regarding a robbery involving gold ornaments, cash, and electronic items. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the recovery of looted items from his possession, his alleged habitual criminal behavior, and the rule of consistency regarding a co-accused who had been granted bail. The Court held that the petition should be dismissed. The ratio of the decision is that where there is sufficient material on record to establish a prima facie case, particularly when looted articles are recovered from the accused and identified by the complainant, bail should be refused, especially if the offense falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court emphasized that deeper appreciation of evidence is not warranted at the bail stage, and the petitioner's history of similar offenses further militates against the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of looted articles from an accused, which are subsequently identified by the complainant, constitute sufficient grounds to deny post-arrest bail?
  • Is a court required to conduct a deep appreciation of evidence at the bail stage?
  • Does the fact that a co-accused has been granted bail automatically entitle another accused to bail under the rule of consistency, even if the latter is a habitual offender?
  • Does an offense falling under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 generally preclude the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naveed vs The State2009 YLR 15 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-09-29
  post-arrest bailinvestigating officer reportfurther inquirymedical and ocular discrepancydistrict attorney rolemurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition for post-arrest bail arising out of F.I.R. registered under sections 302, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner, who was declared innocent during police investigation and placed in column No.2 but subsequently challaned on the direction of the District Attorney, is entitled to post-arrest bail when the investigating officer confirms the lack of direct evidence and where discrepancies exist between ocular and medical accounts. The Islamabad High Court accepted the bail petition and held that while the police opinion is not binding on the court, it remains a relevant factor at the bail stage, and the District Attorney cannot substitute the findings of the investigating officer. The court laid down the principle that tentative assessment at the bail stage showing conflict between medical and ocular evidence, coupled with a police finding of innocence based on local witness affidavits, brings the case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the findings of innocence by an investigating officer can be substituted by the District Attorney?
  • Can a conflict between medical evidence and ocular account make out a case for further inquiry at the bail stage?
  • Is the opinion of the police regarding the innocence of an accused a relevant factor to consider during bail adjudication?
  Read full judgment →