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.

• Bio Leads (Pvt.) Limited Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice2025 CLC 1715 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-08-31Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kaniz Fatima Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior2025 CLC 1682 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din Shahid Versus Maqbool Hussain Awan2025 CLC 1636 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-22Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Abbas Versus Chief Commissioner, ICT, Islamabad2025 CLC 1585 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-08-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Areej Siddiqua Khan Versus Capital Development Authority through Chairman2025 CLC 1516 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-01-27Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Anjum Malik Versus Mst. Neelofer Malik2025 CLC 1490 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qadir Versus National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA)2025 CLC 1435 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-10Read full judgment →
• Afzaal Ahmed Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary of Interior, Islamabad2025 CLC 1389 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Hussain Versus Ministry of Interior2025 CLC 1328 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-29Read full judgment →
• Naheed Shoukat Malik (Late) Versus Malik Mohsin Raza2025 CLC 1298 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-08Read full judgment →
• Karsaz (Pvt.) Limited Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Commerce2025 CLC 1281 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-09Read full judgment →
• Farhat Nazir Versus Fawad Ahmad2025 CLC 1070 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-13Read full judgment →
• M. B. Javed Awan Versus Muhammad Tahir Nizami2025 CLC 1036 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-12-02Read full judgment →
• Reliance It Solutions (Private) Limited Versus Federation of Pakistan2022 CLC 1206 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-01-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Versus The Chancellor Federal Urdu University of Arts and Science Technology President Secretariat, President House, Islamabad2021 CLC 718 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-11-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Nadeem Versus Chairman, Arbitration Council/Adlg, Islamabad2021 CLC 1947 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-02-24Read full judgment →
• Hassan Aziz Versus Meraj-Ud-Din2021 CLC 1821 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-02-19Read full judgment →
• Wazir Khan Versus Nazar Jaffar2020 CLC 917 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-12-12Read full judgment →
• Capital Development Authority (CDA) Versus Ejaz Mehmood2020 CLC 1219 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-03-09Read full judgment →
• Excel Techno Solutions Fze, UAE Versus Oil and Gas Development Company Limited2019 CLC 416 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-12-07Read full judgment →
• Federal Employees Cooperative Housing Society Versus Director General, Federal Investigation Agency, Islamabad2019 CLC 347 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-10-19
  cooperative housing societyjurisdiction of FIACo-operative Societies Actcriminal investigationbar of jurisdictionpublic servantembezzlementmaster plan violation
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by the Federal Employees Cooperative Housing Society (FECHS) assailing the inquiries initiated against it by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA). The core legal question addressed by the court was whether the exclusive jurisdiction of the Registrar Co-operative Societies under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 bars the FIA from investigating criminal offences, corruption, and financial misappropriation committed by the officers or members of a cooperative housing society. Holding that the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 and the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974 operate in distinct fields with different objectives, the court dismissed the petition and held that while the Registrar has exclusive domain over civil remedies, internal management disputes, and specific statutory offences under the 1925 Act, this does not oust the jurisdiction of law enforcement agencies like the FIA to investigate criminal offences under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 or the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

  Questions settled

  • Does the exclusive jurisdiction of the Registrar under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 bar the FIA from investigating criminal offences committed by society members?
  • Are officers and members of a cooperative housing society considered public servants for the purposes of the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974?
  • Does Section 63 and Section 70-A of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 preclude criminal prosecution and inquiry by anti-corruption establishments or the FIA?
  • What is the scope of inquiry by the Registrar Co-operative Societies vis-a-vis the investigative mandate of the FIA?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasreen Versus Raja Muhammad Shahid Bashir2019 CLC 1213 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-01-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid Versus Mazhar Hussain Mirza2019 CLC 1148 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-07-09Read full judgment →
• Faiz Ahmed Cheema Versus Federation of Pakistan through M/o Interior Islamabad2018 CLC 856 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-10-31Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ullah Khan Versus Muhammad Khalid2018 CLC 648 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-11-22Read full judgment →
• Chaudhry Muhammad Khan Versus Civil Judge, 1ST Class (East) Islamabad2018 CLC 1505 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-03-29Read full judgment →
• Capital Development Authority, through Chairman, CDA Secretariat, Islamabad Versus Sufi Muhammad Sagheer Khan2018 CLC 1387 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-01-15Read full judgment →
• Farrukh Nawaz Bhatti Versus Federal Government through Prime Minister of Pakistan2018 CLC 1275 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-12-29
  quo warrantoregulatory autonomystatutory interpretationconflict of interestde facto doctrinepublic officemerit-based appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought a writ of quo warranto challenging the Federal Government's notification appointing the Mayor of the Metropolitan Corporation, Islamabad, as the Chairman of the Capital Development Authority (CDA) on a part-time basis. The core legal question was whether this appointment complied with the Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960, and whether it violated the principles of autonomy and merit-based selection for regulatory bodies. The Court held that the impugned notifications were illegal and ultra vires. It ruled that the appointment violated the statutory scheme, which mandates fixed terms and merit-based selection for Board members, and created a conflict of interest. The Court emphasized that the CDA must function as an independent, autonomous regulatory body, free from executive overreach. Key principles laid down include the necessity of transparent, merit-based selection processes for key regulatory positions, the inquisitorial nature of quo warranto jurisdiction, and the requirement that statutory appointments must strictly adhere to the governing legislation. While the appointments were set aside, past acts were protected under the de facto doctrine.

  Questions settled

  • Does the appointment of a Mayor as Chairman of the Capital Development Authority violate the Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960?
  • Is the jurisdiction of a High Court in a writ of quo warranto inquisitorial or adversarial in nature?
  • Does the appointment of a person with a potential conflict of interest to a regulatory body violate the disqualification criteria under the Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960?
  • Can the Federal Government appoint a person to a regulatory body on a part-time basis when the governing statute mandates a fixed term?
  Read full judgment →
• Faiz Ahmad Cheema Versus Federation of Pakistan2018 CLC 1160 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-10-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Khan Versus Chairman Arbitration Council2018 CLC 1125 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-12-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Azra Gulzar Versus Muhammad Farooq2018 CLC 1056 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-09-29Read full judgment →
• Naseem Ahmed Khan Versus Syed Fahad Ali2017 CLC 839 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-11-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ajaib Versus Zahida Arshad2017 CLC 48 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-07-27Read full judgment →
• Wilson's Pharmaceuticals Versus Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan2017 CLC 1632 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-06-08Read full judgment →
• Syed Usman Khalid Versus Atta Mohammad2017 CLC 1242 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-04-03Read full judgment →
• Khushnood Ahmad Versus Additional District Judge, Islamabad2017 CLC 1043 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-10-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naseer Abbasi Versus Capital Development Authority2016 CLC 343 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-11-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rukhsana Kanwal Versus Abdul Jabbar2016 CLC 313 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-09-15Read full judgment →
• National Highway Authority Versus Lilley International (Private) Limited2016 CLC 1757 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-08-12Read full judgment →
• Waheed Ahmed Versus Babar Khan2016 CLC 1732 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-04-26Read full judgment →
• Atlas Cables (Pvt.) Limited Versus Islamabad Electric Supply Company Limited2016 CLC 1677 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-05-16Read full judgment →
• Makhdoom M. Niaz Inqlabi Versus Election Commission of Pakistan2013 CLC 714 · Islamabad High Court · 2013-02-02Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Yaqoob Khan Nasar Versus Election Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad2013 CLC 1364 · Islamabad High Court · 2013-05-23Read full judgment →
• Ocean Pakistan Ltd. Versus Federation of Pakistan2013 CLC 1036 · Islamabad High Court · 2013-02-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Taj Versus Muhammad Younis Khilji2008 CLC 1666 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-08-06Read full judgment →
• Fazal Raheem Versus Rent Controller (East), Islamabad2025 YLR 2784 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-08-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad NIaz alias Aalian Versus State2025 YLR 2709 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-22
  criminal appealdeath sentenceocular evidencebenefit of doubtrecovery of weaponcapital punishmentappreciation of evidencefair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded by the trial court for offences under Sections 302(b) and 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the reliance on a sole, allegedly unreliable eye-witness and disputed recoveries. The Islamabad High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court found the ocular account inconsistent, delayed, and uncorroborated. Furthermore, it ruled that medical evidence alone cannot identify an assailant and that the recovery of incriminating material, being merely corroborative, cannot sustain a conviction when the substantive evidence is unreliable. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and death sentence, acquitting the appellant. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proof, and any material doubt or loophole in the evidence must be resolved in favour of the accused, as the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of uncorroborated ocular testimony when the witness's presence is doubtful?
  • Does the recovery of an incriminating weapon constitute sufficient evidence to uphold a conviction if the substantive evidence is disbelieved?
  • Is a court required to extend the benefit of doubt to an accused if the prosecution's case contains material loopholes?
  • Can medical evidence alone establish the identity of an assailant in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nauman Qureshi Versus State2025 YLR 2565 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-08-12Read full judgment →
• Abdur-Rauf Versus Land Acquisition Collector, Islamabad2025 YLR 2396 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-11-20Read full judgment →
• M/s Ch. a Latif & sons (Pvt.) Limited Versus National Highway Authority, through Chairman2025 YLR 2080 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zubair Versus State2025 YLR 1963 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-05
  explosive substances actenforced disappearancenon-production of case propertychain of custodyanti-terrorismcriminal conspiracyadmissibility of electronic evidencesanction for prosecutioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment by the Islamabad High Court addresses appeals against the conviction and sentencing of the appellants by the Special Court (Anti-Terrorism), Islamabad, under the Arms Ordinance, Pakistan Penal Code, Explosive Substances Act, and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal questions involved the legality of the recoveries, the non-production of case property, the lack of statutory sanction under the Explosive Substances Act, the admissibility of electronic evidence from mobile devices, and the defense plea of enforced disappearance. The court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case due to fatal flaws, including the non-production of the core incriminating case property, broken chains of custody, absence of mandatory government sanction for prosecution under the Explosive Substances Act, non-compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding private witnesses, and inadmissible electronic evidence. Furthermore, credible defense evidence supported the appellants' plea of prior enforced disappearance by law enforcement agencies. The court laid down the principle that the failure to produce material case property creates a presumption of non-existence, and that the state bears the heavy burden to refute allegations of enforced disappearance when a missing person is subsequently implicated in criminal cases. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the convictions were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect on the prosecution's case when material case property and incriminating substances are neither produced nor exhibited during trial?
  • Whether prior government sanction is a mandatory prerequisite for initiating a trial under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908?
  • What evidentiary standards and conditions must be met for the admissibility of videos or data extracted from mobile devices under Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Where an accused takes a specific plea of prior enforced disappearance by state law enforcement agencies, how does the burden of proof shift to the prosecution?
  • Can a trial court combine multiple substantive offences under different statutes into a single composite sentencing phrase?
  Read full judgment →
• Naseeb Rawan Versus State2025 YLR 1644 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-01-29
  post-arrest bailnarcotics controlscope of investigationillicit assets forfeiturephysical remandprosecutorial reviewprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case involving the recovery of 800 grams of methamphetamine (ice) and 250 grams of heroin registered under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal questions involved the scope of investigation in narcotics cases, the duties of investigating agencies to trace the entire drug supply chain and illicit assets, the role of magistrates in granting physical remand, and the powers of prosecutors under the Federal Prosecution Service Act, 2023. The Islamabad High Court held that investigating agencies have a bounden duty to investigate the complete chain of drug supply from cultivator to abuser and to trace assets derived from illicit trade, rather than merely recovering drugs from the spot. The court dismissed the bail petition, ruling that the huge quantity of narcotics recovered, the positive chemical examiner report, and the prima facie connection of the petitioner with the non-bailable offence disentitled him to bail, while issuing comprehensive guidelines for investigations, remands, and prosecutorial review in narcotics cases.

  Questions settled

  • What is the statutory scope of investigation required by investigating agencies under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 beyond mere recovery of drugs at the spot?
  • Whether the recovery of large quantities of narcotic substances and positive chemical reports disentitle an accused to the concession of post-arrest bail under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • What are the powers of prosecutors under the Federal Prosecution Service Act, 2023 to return police reports under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 for incomplete investigations in narcotics cases?
  • How should Magistrates deal with requests for physical remand of an accused arrested under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 in light of the expanded scope of investigation introduced by Section 49A?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal alias Syed Ali Versus State2025 YLR 1620 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-17
  Control of Narcotic Substances Actrecovery memo discrepancybenefit of doubtnarcotics smugglingfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusforfeiture of vehicleinvestigation on the spot
  Summary & questions settled

  The High Court heard joined criminal appeals against a judgment of the Special Court (CNS), Islamabad, convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to ten years' rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that eight kilograms of heroin were recovered, partly from the co-accused's person and partly from the vehicle's trunk. The core legal question was whether a major material contradiction between the recovery memo (which recorded all eight kilograms as recovered from the trunk) and the initial complaint/FIR (which alleged two kilograms were recovered from the co-accused's person and six from the trunk) fatal to the prosecution's case, particularly where the co-accused had been acquitted on that ground. The Court allowed the appeals and acquitted the appellant, holding that this significant discrepancy undermined the credibility of the investigation and indicated the recovery memo or complaint was not prepared on the spot as required under Section 157(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Benefit of reasonable doubt was extended as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does a material contradiction between the recovery memo and the initial complaint regarding the location and manner of recovery of narcotics vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Can a court uphold the conviction of one co-accused for partial recovery from a vehicle when the co-accused is acquitted due to contradictions in the recovery memo regarding the total contraband seized?
  • Is a single material circumstance creating reasonable doubt sufficient to entitle an accused to an acquittal as a matter of right?
  • Can a vehicle seized under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 be forfeited without serving notice on its owner pursuant to Section 32 of the Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Khurram Masih Versus State2025 YLR 1559 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-14
  narcotics controlchain of custodychemical examiner reportcriminal appealpossession of narcoticssafe transmissionsentencing modification
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, where the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment for possessing 21,025 grams of Charas. The core legal questions concern whether discrepancies in laboratory reports regarding the identity of the official depositing samples, the failure to exhibit the vehicle, and the investigation by the complainant himself vitiate the conviction. The High Court held that while the prosecution established the recovery, the discrepancy in laboratory reports—where some named the wrong official as the depositor—created doubt regarding the safe transmission of the entire quantity. Consequently, the court restricted the conviction to the quantity definitively linked to the proven chain of custody (5 kilograms). The court affirmed that minor witness contradictions after significant delays do not invalidate the prosecution's case and that failing to exhibit a vehicle does not vitiate a conviction where narcotics were not recovered from secret cavities. The conviction was modified to seven years and six months of rigorous imprisonment, applying the principle that the prosecution must prove safe custody and transmission for the specific quantity charged.

  Questions settled

  • Does a discrepancy in the name of the official depositing samples in laboratory reports invalidate the entire prosecution case?
  • Can a conviction for narcotics possession be sustained if the vehicle used for transport is not exhibited during trial?
  • Does the failure to obtain prior permission for investigation by CIA staff vitiate a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Are minor contradictions in witness statements sufficient to acquit an accused in a narcotics case?
  Read full judgment →
• Jahangir Khan Versus State2025 YLR 1457 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-03
  narcotics controlsafe custody of sampleschemical examiner reportpossession of vehiclepolice witnessescriminal appeallife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for transporting a huge quantity of opium and charas concealed in a motorcar, resulting in a sentence of imprisonment for life. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the prosecution evidence, the establishment of safe custody and transmission of contraband to the chemical examiner, compliance with the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, and the applicability of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to narcotics searches. The Islamabad High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the chain of custody of the samples was unbroken, official witnesses are as competent as private ones, and Section 103 Cr.P.C. is excluded in narcotics cases under Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The appeal was dismissed and the conviction maintained, reinforcing the principle that a driver in charge of a vehicle is presumed to have knowledge of items concealed within it.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the non-association of private witnesses under Section 103 Cr.P.C. vitiates a search and conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Does the driver of a vehicle carrying concealed narcotics bear the legal burden of proving lack of knowledge regarding the contraband?
  • Whether minor procedural omissions in the investigation affect the core merits of a narcotics case where the prosecution evidence is otherwise consistent and reliable?
  • Are police officials competent witnesses whose testimonies can be relied upon without independent corroboration in criminal trials?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Awais Qarni Versus State2025 YLR 1368 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-25
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequeprohibitory clausestatutory barcriminal breachcivil proceedingsbail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition filed before the Islamabad High Court wherein the petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No.25/2025 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Ramna, Islamabad, on the allegation of dishonouring a cheque. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail considering the nature of the offence, the existence of business transactions between the parties, and the pendency of civil proceedings. The court held that the offence under Section 489-F P.P.C. carries a maximum punishment of three years and does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, making the grant of bail the rule and refusal an exception. The court further held that whether the cheques were issued towards the fulfillment of a valid obligation is a matter for the trial court to decide after recording evidence, and that mere registration of other criminal cases or the involvement of a huge amount does not disentitle an accused to bail. The petition was consequently allowed and post-arrest bail was granted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the mere registration of other criminal cases against an accused disentitle him to the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Can bail be refused solely on the ground of the involvement of a huge financial amount in a case under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Whether continuous detention of an accused whose investigation is complete can be used as a strategy for punishment?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Versus State2025 YLR 1274 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-17
  bail cancellationpre-arrest bailprohibitory clausemisuse of bailcriminal miscellaneous
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed by the complainant under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to seek cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondents by the Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad (West) in an FIR registered under Sections 324, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the pre-arrest bail granted to the respondents was arbitrary or suffered from any illegality warranting its cancellation by the High Court. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the trial court's order was in accordance with law and facts, the investigation was complete, no incriminating material or CDR presence linked most respondents to the scene, and no exceptional grounds or misuse of bail were established by the petitioner. The court reiterated that very strong and exceptional grounds are required to interfere with a bail-granting order once liberty has been extended to an accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail once granted can be cancelled without establishing strong and exceptional grounds?
  • What are the recognized principles for the cancellation of bail under Pakistani criminal jurisprudence?
  • Does mere nomination of an accused in the FIR suffice to cancel a pre-arrest bail when investigation is complete and incriminating material is absent?
  Read full judgment →
• Mudassar Ali Versus Muhammad Zafar Iqbal Pirzada2021 YLR 2245 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-08-24Read full judgment →
• Aamir Munir Puri Versus Mst. Saima Naeem2021 YLR 2166 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-02-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasir Versus Additional District Judge, Islamabad-West2021 YLR 1676 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-04-09Read full judgment →
• Talat Hussain Versus Aqib Mehmood2020 YLR 356 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-07-15
  post-arrest bailsubsequently added offencesjail authoritiesillegal detentionomitted offencesbail ordersureties
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court sought a direction to jail authorities to release the petitioner who, despite obtaining a bail order in an FIR, was not released because offences under Sections 337C and 337L(1) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 were added subsequently during investigation and omitted from the original bail order. The core legal question was whether a bail order granted in an FIR covers subsequently added penal provisions automatically, or whether a separate bail order is required for those offences. Reviewing conflicting precedents, the High Court held that a bail order must explicitly cover all provisions with which an accused is charged or investigated, as automatic extension could lead to abuse. However, since the court had already evaluated the case on merits in the earlier bail application, it allowed bail for the omitted provisions without requiring fresh sureties. The key principle established is that bail once granted in an FIR does not automatically apply to subsequently added graver or omitted offences without specific judicial consideration.

  Questions settled

  • Does a bail order granted in an FIR automatically extend to offences subsequently added during investigation?
  • Are jail authorities required to release an accused when a bail granting order omits newly added penal sections?
  • Can a court extend bail to subsequently added penal provisions without requiring fresh sureties if the merits were previously considered?
  Read full judgment →
• Chanzeb Akhtar Versus State2020 YLR 1972 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-04-23
  murderres gestaecircumstantial evidencespousal murderburden of proofmitigating circumstanceslife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal, jail appeal, and murder reference arose from the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his wife. The prosecution's case rested on circumstantial evidence, including the testimony of the deceased's brother who saw the appellant fleeing the scene with a pistol, the recovery of the weapon of offence, and a matching Forensic Science Laboratory report. The appellant argued that the case lacked motive, the medical examination was delayed, and the trial court improperly relied on a court witness's affidavit. The High Court held that under the principle of res gestae, the immediate post-occurrence observations of the witnesses were admissible. Furthermore, the delay in the postmortem was caused by the appellant's family, and the burden of explaining an unnatural death of a spouse within the shared home lies heavily on the accused. While the guilt of the appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt, the court converted the death sentence to life imprisonment due to the complete absence of a proven motive.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the immediate post-occurrence observations of witnesses are admissible under the principle of res gestae?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused to explain the unnatural death of a spouse occurring within their shared dwelling?
  • Can a delay in conducting a postmortem examination benefit the accused if the delay was caused by the accused's own family members?
  • Whether the complete absence or concealment of motive in a murder case can serve as a mitigating circumstance to reduce a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ahmed Chaudhry Versus Akbar Hussain2020 YLR 1695 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-04-16Read full judgment →
• Raja Khurram Ali Khan Versus Tayyaba Bibi2019 YLR 98 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-06-11
  child domestic workerchild abusecruelty to a childmens reawilful neglectenhancement of sentencechild trafficking
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated appeal arose from the conviction of a former judicial officer and his wife under Section 328-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the cruelty, neglect, and ill-treatment of a child domestic worker under ten years of age. The prosecution alleged that the child was subjected to physical abuse, locked up, and denied medical treatment. The High Court examined the scope of Section 328-A, particularly the standard of mens rea required to satisfy the term 'wilfully'. The Court held that the appropriate test for 'wilful' conduct includes both subjective intent and recklessness (where an accused is aware of a risk of harm or is unaware due to not caring). Finding that the appellants had deliberately kept the child in virtual servitude, exposed her to severe cold, and hid her to conceal injuries without providing medical aid, the Court upheld their conviction under Section 328-A and enhanced their sentences to three years' imprisonment. It also reversed their acquittal under Sections 201, 337-A(i), and 337-F(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, finding the medical and eye-witness evidence sufficient to prove those charges beyond reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • What is the appropriate legal standard or test to determine the element of mens rea for the offence of cruelty to a child under Section 328-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can an accused be convicted of 'wilful neglect' under Section 328-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if their unawareness of the child's risk of harm was due to not caring?
  • Does the failure of the defense to cross-examine a witness on a material part of their testimony raise an inference that the truth of that statement was accepted?
  • Is a first information report under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 rendered invalid if the written complaint was not signed or thumb-marked by the victim child?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Saeed Versus Mst. Gulzar Begum2019 YLR 2816 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-05-09Read full judgment →
• Hayat Ullah Barki Versus Additional District Judge, West, Islamabad2019 YLR 2596 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-03-17Read full judgment →
• Farrukh Nisar Versus Israr Ahmed2019 YLR 2569 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-09-12Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ali Haideri Versus National Accountability Bureau, Islamabad2019 YLR 255 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-01-15
  illegal gratificationtrap raidpecuniary jurisdictionNational Accountability Ordinance 1999benefit of doubtprocedural irregularitycorruption and corrupt practices
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant, a CDA official, by the Accountability Court under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, for allegedly accepting illegal gratification. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution proved the charge of corruption beyond reasonable doubt and whether the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) possessed the requisite jurisdiction to initiate proceedings given the pecuniary threshold and nature of the case. The Islamabad High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the foundational facts of the alleged bribery, noting significant procedural lapses during the raid, including the failure to prove the 'taint' on the prize bonds, the failure to associate independent witnesses as required by Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the failure to record the accused's version. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that NAB’s jurisdiction is limited to large-scale corruption cases, and the instant matter failed to meet the pecuniary threshold established by NAB’s own Standing Operating Procedures. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, extending the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the National Accountability Bureau have the jurisdiction to prosecute cases of illegal gratification that fall below the established pecuniary threshold?
  • Is the failure to associate independent witnesses during a recovery proceeding a fatal flaw in a trap case?
  • Must the prosecution prove the specific 'taint' or mark on currency notes or prize bonds to establish them as evidence of bribery?
  • Is the hearing of the conversation between the complainant and the accused a mandatory requirement to prove a trap case?
  Read full judgment →
• Moaz Waqar Versus State2019 YLR 2219 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-02-26
  circumstantial evidencemurderabductionransomCCTV footagepointation of dead bodyrecovery of stolen articlesbenefit of doubtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under sections 365-A, 302, 419, 420, 201/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentencing one to death and the other to imprisonment for life. The core legal questions involve the reliability of circumstantial evidence, including last-seen evidence, CCTV footage under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, joint and subsequent discoveries, and dead-body pointation. The Islamabad High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt, as key recoveries were compromised, the author of the CCTV footage was not produced, and police pointations lacked credibility. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the convictions and sentences were set aside, the appellants were acquitted of all charges, and the murder reference was answered in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether CCTV footage can be relied upon as evidence without producing the person who prepared it from the system in accordance with the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Does a pointation and recovery lose its evidentiary value if the police authorities and witnesses had prior knowledge of the place of recovery?
  • Whether a conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained when the chain of evidence is incomplete and fraught with serious discrepancies?
  • Is a subsequent recovery from an already accessed and inhabited premises admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mariam alias Maria alias Shakeeba Versus State2019 YLR 2082 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-11-22
  narcotics possessioncriminal appealacquittalcase propertynon-production of evidencebenefit of doubtControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, for the alleged possession of 12.5 kilograms of charas. The core legal question was whether the prosecution’s failure to produce the specific bag and cloth used to transport the contraband, despite their mention in recovery documents, vitiated the conviction. The Islamabad High Court held that the prosecution is strictly bound to produce the case property allegedly used in criminal activity during the trial. Because the prosecution failed to exhibit the bag and chaddar, which were central to the recovery memo, a serious doubt emerged regarding the integrity of the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court set aside the trial court's judgment and acquitted the appellant. The key principle laid down is that the non-production of incriminating case property during trial creates a serious doubt in the prosecution's narrative, the benefit of which must be extended to the accused as a matter of right rather than grace.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to produce the incriminating case property during trial entitle the accused to an acquittal?
  • Is the prosecution legally bound to produce the bag and materials used for transporting narcotics as evidence in court?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when there are material discrepancies in the testimony of police witnesses regarding the recovery proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• State Versus Zafar Ali2019 YLR 2006 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-05-13
  murder referenceplea of guiltycapital punishmentsafe administration of justicede novo trialjudicial discretionconfessioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a Murder Reference and a Jail Appeal arising from a conviction and death sentence handed down by the trial court, which relied solely on the appellant's plea of guilty. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly exercised its discretion under Section 265-E of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by convicting the appellant without recording prosecution evidence. The Islamabad High Court set aside the conviction and remanded the case for a de novo trial. The Court held that the discretion to convict on a plea of guilty must be exercised with extraordinary care and caution, particularly in capital cases. It established that a plea of guilt alone is insufficient to warrant a death sentence without ensuring the plea is voluntary and free from coercion. The judgment emphasizes that the safe administration of criminal justice necessitates recording prosecution evidence to verify the veracity of the admission, distinguishing between a mere admission and a fully validated confession. The trial court’s failure to observe these mandatory precautionary measures rendered the conviction unsustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court convict an accused and impose a death sentence solely on the basis of a plea of guilty?
  • What precautionary measures must a trial court observe before accepting a plea of guilty in a capital case?
  • Is there a legal distinction between a confession and an admission for the purpose of criminal conviction?
  • Does the discretion vested in a trial court under Section 265-E of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require the recording of prosecution evidence even when an accused pleads guilty?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Awais Versus State2019 YLR 18 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-05-21
  homicidesuicide pleamedical evidenceburden of proofhostile witnessfirearm injuryunnatural deathsentence reduction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant for the murder of his wife, Sarah Abro, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant challenged the death sentence, asserting the deceased committed suicide. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved the death was homicidal beyond reasonable doubt, given the appellant's suicide plea and the lack of direct eyewitnesses. The Islamabad High Court, upon reappraising the evidence, held that the medical evidence—specifically the trajectory of the firearm injury and the absence of close-contact characteristics like burning—negated the suicide theory. The court affirmed the conviction, finding the appellant failed to discharge the burden of explaining the unnatural death of a dependent within his home. However, noting the prosecution's failure to prove a clear motive and the unreliability of the weapon recovery due to investigative lapses, the court reduced the sentence from death to life imprisonment. The judgment emphasizes that while the burden of proof remains on the prosecution, an accused must provide a reasonable explanation for a dependent's unnatural death in their custody.

  Questions settled

  • Does the death of a vulnerable dependent within the confines of an accused's house shift the burden of proof to the accused to explain the circumstances of the death?
  • Can a court rely on medical evidence regarding firearm trajectory and distance to reject a plea of suicide in a murder case?
  • Should the testimony of a hostile witness be automatically discarded, or must it be evaluated with care and caution?
  • Does an investigative officer's failure to timely transmit evidence to a forensic laboratory render the recovery of the weapon legally insignificant?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irfan Versus State2019 YLR 1738 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-11-29
  dying declarationacid throwingcriminal negligencebenefit of the doubtsecondary evidencemedical fitness certificateinvestigative flawsmurder reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the Trial Court convicting the appellant under sections 302, 324, 336, and 337-F(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for throwing acid on the victim, who subsequently succumbed to her burn injuries. The core legal questions involved the admissibility and evidentiary value of the alleged dying declaration, the credibility of the ocular and last-seen evidence, and the legal effect of serious investigative lapses by the police. The Islamabad High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to fatal flaws, including the failure to produce the original dying declaration, non-verification of the victim's medical fitness by the recording magistrate and police, unexplained delays in recording statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and failure to send recovered items for chemical examination. The court laid down the principle that procedural safeguards governing dying declarations and investigations are mandatory, and where the prosecution's primary evidence is unverified or lost without proper legal recourse under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, the resulting benefit of the doubt requires the outright acquittal of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • What is the evidentiary value of a dying declaration when the original document is missing and secondary evidence is produced without fulfilling the requirements of Articles 74, 75, and 76 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained on the basis of a dying declaration recorded without obtaining a prior medical certificate regarding the victim's physical and mental fitness?
  • What is the legal effect on the prosecution's case when witness statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are received in written form with unexplained delay?
  • Does the failure of the investigating officer to send recovered acid containers and the victim's last-worn clothes for chemical examination vitiate the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irfan Versus State2019 YLR 1617 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-02-19
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryconflicting versionslalkarabenefit of doubtmurdercriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition concerns an application for post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the existence of two conflicting versions of the prosecution story: the initial FIR lodged by the deceased's father and a subsequent supplementary statement by the deceased's widow, which implicated a different set of accused. The Islamabad High Court held that the case fell within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the conflicting versions and the failure of forensic evidence to match the recovered weapons created doubt. Furthermore, the court noted the petitioner was assigned the role of 'lalkara' rather than the actual firing. The court established that where two conflicting versions of an occurrence exist, the matter requires further inquiry, and the benefit of doubt at the bail stage may be extended to the accused. Additionally, the court affirmed that the mere pendency of other criminal cases does not disentitle an accused to bail if they are otherwise eligible.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of two conflicting versions of a prosecution story regarding the identity of the accused entitle an accused to bail on the ground of further inquiry?
  • Is the mere pendency of other criminal cases against an accused a sufficient ground to deny bail if the accused is otherwise entitled to it?
  • Can the court grant bail to an accused assigned the role of 'lalkara' when the primary firing is attributed to other co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehmood Azam Versus State2018 YLR 621 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-05-29
  murderbenefit of doubtlast seen evidenceocular evidencemedical evidence conflictsubstantive evidenceacquittalattempt to sodomycriminal appealcriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  The Islamabad High Court heard criminal appeals filed by appellants Mehmood Azam, Chaudhry Usman Mehmood, and Haider Mehmood against their convictions under Sections 302(b), 365, and 201 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a revision petition seeking sentence enhancement and conviction for attempted sodomy under Sections 377/511 PPC. The primary legal issue was whether the prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on the ocular testimony of a solitary witness (initially nominated as an co-accused), circumstantial last seen evidence, and disputed recoveries. The High Court found critical infirmities, including conflict between medical evidence and ocular testimony regarding firearm injuries, lack of medical proof for the witness's alleged injuries, failure to establish the exact place of occurrence, absence of matching ballistic reports, and an uncorroborated motive. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions, and acquitted the appellants on the basis of benefit of doubt, while dismissing the revision petition. The Court reaffirmed that uncorroborated last seen evidence and an FIR are not substantive evidence to sustain a capital conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a solitary witness who was originally a nominated accused in the case?
  • Whether conflict between medical evidence and ocular testimony regarding the number of firearm injuries creates reasonable doubt fatal to the prosecution?
  • Can last seen evidence without independent corroboration form the sole basis for a criminal conviction?
  • Is a First Information Report (FIR) a substantive piece of evidence capable of proving the guilt of an accused without corroboration?
  • What is the legal evidentiary value of a pointation or recovery of a crime scene when the location was already known to the investigating officer?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sumera Versus Mst. Zaitoon Jan2018 YLR 2452 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-05-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mohsin Fawad Versus Hina Tayyaba Khalil2018 YLR 2199 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-04-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed Versus State2018 YLR 1115 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-06-19
  murder referencedying declarationmitigation of sentenceocular evidencecriminal appealrecovery of weaponinterested witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal and murder reference arising from the conviction of the appellant, Muhammad Saeed, for the murder of Nagina Bibi. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt through ocular evidence and dying declarations, and whether the death penalty was appropriate given the lack of proven motive and the nature of the recovery of the weapon. The Islamabad High Court held that the prosecution proved the case through the consistent, un-rebutted testimony of the deceased's mother and the corroborating dying declaration relayed to the complainant and a taxi driver. The Court found the recovery of the weapon unreliable due to procedural lapses under section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction but, citing the absence of a proven motive and the single-blow nature of the attack, converted the death sentence to life imprisonment. The principle laid down is that where motive is not proven, the death sentence is typically mitigated to life imprisonment, and a dying declaration requires careful scrutiny but can form the basis of conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be based on a dying declaration if it is not recorded by a Magistrate?
  • Does the failure to record a witness's statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render their testimony inadmissible at trial?
  • Is the death penalty appropriate in a murder case where the motive has not been proven?
  • Can a court examine a witness under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if they were not cited in the initial police report?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad Kiani Versus State2018 YLR 1002 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-06-19
  circumstantial evidenceidentification paradecapital punishmentmurderdacoityfaulty investigationbenefit of doubtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under section 302(b)/34 and section 392/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing them to death and imprisonment respectively. The prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including last-seen testimony, identification parades, and recoveries of a mobile phone and a crime weapon (Churri). The core legal questions centered upon the reliability of circumstantial evidence, the legal validity of identification parades conducted without proper adherence to procedural rules, and the sufficiency of tainted recoveries to sustain a capital conviction. The Islamabad High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence connecting the appellants to the crime. The court found major discrepancies and legal flaws in the recovery proceedings, identification parades, and last-seen evidence, noting that tainted pieces of evidence cannot corroborate one another. Consequently, the High Court set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitted the appellants, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for murder and dacoity can be sustained solely on weak circumstantial evidence and flawed recoveries?
  • Does an identification parade lose its legal efficacy if the magistrate fails to record proper descriptions and parentage of the dummies?
  • Can multiple tainted pieces of circumstantial evidence be used to corroborate each other to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Whether the failure of the investigating officer to verify the IMEI number of a recovered mobile phone renders the recovery unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Noman Ahmed Versus Mst. Sobia Farooq2017 YLR 821 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-11-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeedullah Versus Jamia Masjid Madni2017 YLR 2078 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-03-08Read full judgment →
• Zohra Begum Versus Fazal-E-Rab Pirzada2015 YLR 2602 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-04-27Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Rasheed Rajput Versus Muhammad Yaqoob2015 YLR 1260 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-02-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Faiz Bibi Versus Doctor Shaukat Kiani2013 YLR 988 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-11-26Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Ahmed Siddiqui Versus Additional Sessions Judge, (West) Islamabad2013 YLR 2630 · Islamabad High Court · 2013-06-17Read full judgment →
• Global Pharmaceutial Versus Assistant Commissioner Rural, ICT, Islamabad / Authority under Payment of Wages Act, Islamabad2025 PLC 204 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-27
  payment of wagesworkman definitionmanagerial capacityjurisdiction of authorityindustrial relationsmaster-servant relationshipwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, which had allowed claims for outstanding wages and compensation filed by former employees of the petitioner company. The core legal question was whether individuals employed in positions such as Assistant Manager, Senior Sales Promotion Officer, and Admin Officer qualify as 'workmen' entitled to the protections and remedies provided under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The Court held that the Authority lacked jurisdiction, as the nature of the respondents' duties—involving autonomy, decision-making, and administrative responsibility—did not constitute manual or clerical labor. By reading the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 in conjunction with the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, the Court established that employees performing managerial or administrative functions are excluded from the definition of 'workman'. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders, ruling that the Authority had no legal basis to entertain the complaints, as the proper forum for such grievances lies with the Civil Court.

  Questions settled

  • Do employees holding managerial or administrative positions qualify as 'workmen' under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936?
  • Does the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 have jurisdiction to adjudicate claims filed by employees who do not perform manual or clerical labor?
  • Must the definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 be considered when interpreting the scope of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936?
  Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank Limited Versus Full Bench National Industrial Relations Commission, Islamabad2025 PLC 190 · Islamabad High Court
  constitutional petitionNational Industrial Relations Commissionprocedural irregularitycurable defectpower of attorneysigning of pleadingsfair trialremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 by Allied Bank Limited challenging an order of the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC). The NIRC had dismissed the petitioner's appeal solely on the technical ground that it had been signed by only one attorney rather than two, without adjudicating the appeal on its merits. The core legal question was whether a procedural irregularity concerning the number of authorized signatories on an appeal memo renders it incurably defective, justifying outright dismissal without giving an opportunity for rectification. The Islamabad High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the case to the NIRC for a decision on merits. The Court held that defects in signing or verifying pleadings are curable procedural irregularities that do not go to the root of jurisdiction. Quasi-judicial bodies must advance substantial justice rather than defeating substantive rights and fair trial guarantees on hyper-technicalities.

  Questions settled

  • Does a defect in the signing or verification of a memorandum of appeal affect the jurisdiction of the forum or the merits of the case?
  • Can a court or quasi-judicial tribunal dismiss an appeal solely for having fewer authorized signatories than required without first providing an opportunity to rectify the defect?
  • Does the dismissal of an appeal on a purely hyper-technical procedural ground violate the constitutional guarantee of fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can the absence of formal authorization or board resolution for a person executing pleadings on behalf of a corporation be subsequently cured or ratified?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Ltd. Versus National Industrial Relations Commission, Islamabad2025 PLC 176 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-29
  Collective Bargaining AgentIndustrial Relations Act 2012Voters ListTrade UnionReferendumNIRCStatutory Interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the National Industrial Relations Commission's (NIRC) decision to treat the employer's list of workmen as the final voters' list for a Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) election without verifying the lists of union members. The core legal question was whether the Registrar could bypass the statutory requirement to verify union membership lists under Section 19(3) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, by relying solely on the employer's list provided under Section 19(4). The Court held that the impugned orders were unlawful. It determined that the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 establishes a distinct scheme where only members of contesting trade unions are eligible voters for CBA elections. Consequently, the Registrar must verify the lists submitted by trade unions against the employer's list to compile a valid voters' list under Section 19(5). The Court clarified that previous jurisprudence under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, is distinguishable due to the current Act's specific penal and procedural requirements regarding union registration and membership. The matter was remanded for a fresh electoral process in accordance with the statutory framework.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Registrar of Trade Unions declare an employer's list of workmen as the final voters' list for a Collective Bargaining Agent election without verifying the lists of members submitted by contesting trade unions?
  • Are only members of contesting trade unions eligible to vote in an election for a Collective Bargaining Agent under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Does the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 impose a mandatory requirement for contesting trade unions to submit a list of their members to the Registrar for the purpose of compiling a voters' list?
  Read full judgment →
• Ms. Iffat Nawaz Versus The Bank of Khyber through Managing Director2025 PLC 141 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-21
  reinstatementmisconducthabitual negligenceremoval from serviceproportionality of punishmentbank employeeNIRCwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an Officer Grade-III at the Bank of Khyber, challenged the decisions of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) which upheld her removal from service following a bank financial fraud involving 28 unauthorized transactions. The petitioner argued that her account password had been hacked by a co-accused colleague who fully confessed to committing the embezzlement independently, and that the inquiry committee merely found her guilty of negligence rather than active participation or fraud. The Islamabad High Court examined whether a single instance of negligence or neglect of work could justify the major penalty of removal from service under Standing Order 15(3)(i) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968. Allowing the writ petition, the Court held that under Standing Order 15(3)(i), negligence or neglect of work must be of a habitual nature to constitute actionable misconduct. An isolated act of negligence, without evidence of bad faith, willful collusion, or habitual conduct, cannot warrant the extreme punishment of termination. The Court set aside the NIRC's orders and reinstated the petitioner with full back benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Does a single instance of negligence constitute misconduct under Standing Order 15(3)(i) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
  • Is the major penalty of removal from service permissible where an employee is found guilty of negligence rather than active fraud or embezzlement?
  • Must negligence or neglect of work be habitual in nature to justify dismissal from service under employment laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Shams Ul Islam Versus The Governor, State Bank of Pakistan2021 PLC 184 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-02-18
  voluntary golden handshake schemeretirement benefitspensionary benefitsexecution of supreme court judgmentleave encashmentpay compensationstate bank of pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a writ petition filed under Article 187(2) of the Constitution seeking the implementation of a judgment passed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the recalculation and payment of retirement and pensionary benefits of an employee of the State Bank of Pakistan who opted for the Voluntary Golden Handshake Scheme. The core legal question is whether the State Bank of Pakistan could lawfully withhold fifty percent of the petitioner's pay compensation and leave encashment under the guise of pension commutation provisions in the scheme despite a clear direction from the Supreme Court to calculate and pay all retirement benefits based on the last pay drawn treating the retirement date as 15.12.1997. The court held that pay compensation and leave encashment do not form part of the pension subject to fifty percent commutation and that the State Bank of Pakistan was obligated to pay the full amounts. The petition was allowed, and the State Bank of Pakistan was directed to pay the remaining fifty percent of the pay compensation and leave encashment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can enforce a judgment of the Supreme Court under Article 187(2) of the Constitution?
  • Can the State Bank of Pakistan restrict pay compensation and leave encashment to fifty percent under the Voluntary Golden Handshake Scheme based on pension commutation rules?
  • How should retirement and pensionary benefits be calculated for an employee who remained in service after opting for the Voluntary Golden Handshake Scheme?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nazia Fazal Versus Pakistan International Airlines Corporation2020 PLC 233 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-12-05
  grievance petitionlimitation periodindustrial relationswrongful dismissalworkmanNIRCservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an employee of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, challenged the dismissal of her grievance petition by the National Industrial Relations Commission (N.I.R.C.) and its Full Bench. The primary legal question was whether the grievance petition filed under Section 33 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, was time-barred under Section 33(4), and whether the period spent prosecuting a parallel civil suit could be excluded from the limitation period. The Court held that the grievance petition was clearly time-barred, as the petitioner failed to file it within the statutory sixty-day period following the rejection of her grievance notice. The Court rejected the petitioner's plea to exclude the time spent in civil litigation, finding her explanation regarding the delayed discovery of her employment status implausible. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that tribunals must consider limitation issues regardless of whether they are raised by parties. While upholding the dismissal of the grievance petition on limitation grounds, the Court set aside the N.I.R.C.'s order requiring the petitioner to return her past salary, as such relief was neither sought nor justified by the dismissal order.

  Questions settled

  • Is a court or tribunal required to consider the question of limitation even if it is not raised by the parties?
  • Can the time spent prosecuting a civil suit be excluded from the limitation period for filing a grievance petition under the Industrial Relations Act 2012?
  • Does a tribunal have the authority to order the return of salary in a grievance petition where such relief was not requested and not part of the original dismissal order?
  Read full judgment →
• Zarai Taraqiati Bank Versus Muhammad Tariq2020 PLC 226 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-03-16
  civil revisionrejection of plaintrecovery suitretirement benefitsdisciplinary proceedingspension and gratuity regulations
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Zarai Taraqiati Bank, filed a civil revision petition impugning the concurrent judgments of the lower courts whereby the respondent's application under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was allowed and the petitioner's suit for recovery of money was rejected. The core legal question was whether the petitioner bank could institute a recovery suit against its retired employee after having failed to effect recovery or complete disciplinary proceedings prior to or upon his retirement, and having paid him all retirement benefits without deduction. The Islamabad High Court held that since the petitioner permitted the respondent to retire and receive all retirement benefits without completing disciplinary proceedings or deducting the alleged loss in violation of its regulations, the suit was rightly rejected. The court laid down the principle that an employer cannot bypass its own internal service and pension regulations to initiate a civil recovery suit against a retired employee when it permitted retirement without finalizing pending disciplinary actions or deductions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a bank can institute a suit for recovery against a retired employee after releasing all retirement benefits without deduction?
  • Can an employer permit an employee to proceed on retirement while disciplinary proceedings or show cause notices remain pending?
  • Does the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 stand when the plaintiff fails to establish a valid cause of action due to its own administrative omissions?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Mobile Communication Limited Versus Full Bench N.I.R.C2019 PLC 86 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-02-08
  termination of serviceworkmanstanding ordersindustrial relationsback benefitswrongful terminationN.I.R.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the concurrent orders of the National Industrial Relations Commission (N.I.R.C.), which set aside the termination of respondent No.3, a Transport Assistant, and ordered his reinstatement with back benefits. The core legal questions were whether the termination letter stating "services are no longer required" satisfied the statutory requirement to explicitly state reasons for termination, whether an employer could contract out of statutory protections, and whether the employee qualified as a "workman." The Court held that the termination was unlawful because the employer failed to provide explicit, sustainable reasons in writing as mandated by Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that beneficial statutory provisions cannot be overridden by private employment contracts. It also determined that the respondent, whose duties involved manual work, was a "workman" regardless of his designation. The Court upheld the N.I.R.C.'s jurisdiction and dismissed the petition, establishing that termination orders must clearly articulate valid, justiciable reasons to comply with the 1968 Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Does the phrase 'services are no longer required' in a termination letter satisfy the requirement to explicitly state reasons under Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Can an employer and employee contract out of the beneficial provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • What criteria determine whether an employee is a 'workman' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Does the N.I.R.C. have the authority to requisition proceedings from a Labour Court under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  Read full judgment →
• All Pakistan SRBC Workers Union Versus National Industrial Relations Commission2015 PLC 210 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-03-11
  trade union registrationdefinition of workmanlocus standiindustrial relationsrival trade unionNational Industrial Relations Commissionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a registered trade union challenging the concurrent orders of the National Industrial Relations Commission authorities registering a rival trade union representing T.V. Engineers of Shalimar Recording and Broadcasting Company Limited. The core legal questions involved whether T.V. Engineers fall within the definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, and whether an existing trade union has the locus standi to object to or challenge the registration of another trade union. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the members of the respondent union were indeed workmen as their primary duties were not managerial or administrative. Furthermore, the Court laid down the principle that the registration of a trade union is strictly a matter between the applicant union and the Registrar, and neither the employer nor an existing rival trade union has any locus standi under the scheme of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 to intervene in registration proceedings or file an appeal against an order of registration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether T.V. Engineers employed in an establishment fall within the definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Does an existing registered trade union have the locus standi to object to the registration of a rival trade union before the Registrar?
  • Can an existing trade union maintain an appeal against the registration of another trade union under Section 12 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • What is the proper test to determine whether an employee qualifies as a workman under labor laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Jubilee Life Insurance Company Limited Versus Office of the President of Pakistan (Public)2025 CLD 827 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-22Read full judgment →
• Zaver Petroleum Corporation (Pvt.) Limited Versus Saif Energy Limited2025 CLD 695 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-10-24Read full judgment →
• National Highway Authority Versus Sardar Muhammad Ashraf D Baloch (Private) Limited2025 CLD 230 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-01-22Read full judgment →
• Multi National Venture Development (Pvt.) Limited Versus Defence Housing Authority2025 CLD 1871 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-02-14Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Amir Hussain Versus Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan2025 CLD 1323 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-30Read full judgment →
• Engro Corporation Limited Versus2025 CLD 1211 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-19Read full judgment →