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.

• Murtaza Talpur Versus Leopards Courier Services2025 CLD 1141 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-06-03
  consumer protectiongeneral and special damagesunfair trade practicelitigation costmental agonyIslamabad Consumer Courtcompensation
  Summary & questions settled

  This Division Bench of the Islamabad High Court disposed of criminal appeals concerning the scope of powers of the Islamabad Consumer Court under the Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995 to grant general and special damages, alongside litigation costs. The core legal question was whether the Islamabad Consumer Court is empowered to award damages beyond the mere return of consideration, such as compensation for mental torture, agony, and expenses. The court held that Section 9(3) of the Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995 uses the broad term 'any damage or loss', which encompasses all forms of damage or loss suffered as a consequence of an unfair trade practice, provided such damages are duly proved through evidence. The court laid down the principle that the Consumer Court possesses the jurisdiction to award general and special damages as well as litigation costs after conducting a proper inquiry and recording evidence, thereby preventing multiplicity of proceedings, and set aside the contrary view in previous case law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Islamabad Consumer Court is empowered under Section 9(3) of the Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995 to award general and special damages for mental torture, agony, and financial loss?
  • Does the phrase 'any damage or loss' in Section 9(3) of the Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995 restrict compensation solely to the return of consideration paid?
  • Can a consumer court award litigation costs to a successful party in a complaint arising out of an unfair trade practice?
  • Is a consumer required to institute a separate civil suit for the recovery of special or general damages, or can such claims be adjudicated by the Consumer Court?
  Read full judgment →
• The MD /CEO United Insurance Company of Pakistan Limited, Lahore Versus The President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan2024 CLD 931 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-05-31Read full judgment →
• Civil Aviation Authority of Pakistan Versus LTH JV2024 CLD 1055 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-07-22Read full judgment →
• Meezan Bank Limited Versus The President Islamic Republic of Pakistan2022 CLD 291 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-12-21Read full judgment →
• Saif Power Limited Versus Federation of Pakistan2022 CLD 1382 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-06-06Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Firoz Versus Director General of Trade Organizations2021 CLD 778 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-12-22Read full judgment →
• Saif Ur Rehman Khan Versus Banking Court, Islamabad2021 CLD 690 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-01-19Read full judgment →
• Aehsun M.H. Shaikh Versus Appellate Bench No. IV, Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan2020 CLD 389 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-11-25Read full judgment →
• Polyfine Chempharma (Pvt.) Limited Versus Monopoly Control Authority, Government of Pakistan2015 CLD 764 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-11-12Read full judgment →
• S.M. Baqir Bukhary Versus Standard Chartered Bank2015 CLD 1902 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-03-31Read full judgment →
• Arshad Ali Khan Versus S. M. Ismail2009 CLD 624 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-04-17Read full judgment →
• Najma Sugar Mills Ltd. Through Company Secretary Versus Mega Trading Company through Chief Executive2009 CLD 163 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. Versus Dewan Salman Fibre Limited2009 CLD 1492 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-04-15Read full judgment →
• Umar Akbar Ali Ghumman Versus Mst. Maria Javed Cheema2025 PLD 388 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-19Read full judgment →
• Farhan Khan Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice Division, Islamabad2025 PLD 382 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-23Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Ahmed Versus State2025 PLD 357 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-03
  rapesolitary testimonyDNA evidencedelay in FIRconsentabsence of physical violencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction under section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 for rape, resulting in a sentence of fourteen years rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The core legal questions involved the evidentiary value of a solitary statement of a rape victim, the necessity of corroboration, the impact of delay in registering the first information report, the presence of marks of physical violence, and the legal determination of consent. The Islamabad High Court held that the uncorroborated testimony of a rape victim, if inspiring confidence and reliable, is sufficient to sustain a conviction, and that DNA profiling serves as gold-standard corroborative evidence linking the accused to the offense. The Court further ruled that delay in reporting sexual assault in an honor-based society is natural and does not vitiate the prosecution's case, physical force or marks of injury are not mandatory prerequisites to prove rape, and submission induced by fear does not constitute legal consent. The appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence were upheld.

  Questions settled

  • ,Whether a conviction for rape can be sustained solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim?
  • Does a delay in the registration of an FIR in sexual assault cases inherently render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  • Are visible marks of physical violence mandatory to prove the commission of rape?
  • Does passive submission out of fear amount to legal consent in a charge of rape?
  Read full judgment →
• Brig. (R) Imtiaz Ahmed Versus Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue, Benami Zone-I, Islamabad2025 PLD 347 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Malik Versus O.G.D.C.L., through Managing Director, Islamabad2025 PLD 343 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadeer Versus State2025 PLD 326 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-17
  juvenile offenderAnti-Rape ActJuvenile Justice System ActjurisdictiondiversionGender Based Violence Courtrestorative justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under sections 376(iii) and 377-B of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, passed by a Gender Based Violence Court established under the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021. The core legal question was whether a juvenile offender could be legally tried by a Special Court under the Anti-Rape Act rather than a Juvenile Court under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018. The Islamabad High Court held that a Special Court established exclusively under the Anti-Rape Act lacks jurisdiction to try a juvenile offender unless specifically designated as a Juvenile Court under the Juvenile Act. The Court ruled that trying a juvenile within the adult criminal system violates the legislative intent and protections of the Juvenile Justice System Act. Consequently, the appellate court quashed the trial proceedings and impugned judgment as coram non judice, partially allowed the appeal, and remanded the matter to be entrusted to a competent juvenile court for reference to the Juvenile Justice Committee for disposal through diversion.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Special Court established under the Anti-Rape Act have jurisdiction to try a juvenile offender without being specifically designated as a Juvenile Court?
  • What is the effect of trying a juvenile offender within the adult criminal trial framework rather than under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018?
  • Can a criminal case against a juvenile involving a scheduled offense under the Anti-Rape Act be disposed of through diversion mechanisms under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018?
  • What is the legal consequence when trial proceedings against a juvenile are conducted by a court lacking proper jurisdiction under the juvenile laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Iza Nowak through Authorised Representative Anz Versus Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) through Director General (DG), FIA, Islamabad2025 PLD 315 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-12-28Read full judgment →
• Basit Shuja Versus Rauf Klasra2025 PLD 306 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-29Read full judgment →
• National Commission for Human Rights of Pakistan Versus United Bank Limited2025 PLD 303 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-11
  National Commission for Human Rightspension disputestatutory jurisdictionservice rightsintra court appealfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal challenges the judgment of a learned Single Judge in Chambers who allowed a writ petition filed by United Bank Limited (UBL) and set aside an order issued by the National Commission for Human Rights (NCHR). The core legal question was whether the NCHR possesses the statutory jurisdiction to adjudicate pension-related employment disputes of a private sector bank employee. The court held that the NCHR's mandate is restricted to investigating human rights violations, abetment thereof, or negligence by public servants, and it lacks the authority to intervene in contractual pension disputes or encroach upon the domain of specialized forums. The appeal was dismissed in limine, establishing the principle that employment and pension disputes of private sector employees do not fall within the statutory purview of the NCHR.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the National Commission for Human Rights has the jurisdiction to adjudicate pension-related disputes of private sector bank employees?
  • Does the statutory mandate of the National Commission for Human Rights extend to contractual employment disputes?
  • Can the National Commission for Human Rights intervene in matters falling within the domain of specialized legal forums and tribunals?
  Read full judgment →
• Prof. Dr. Qamar-Ul-Wahab Versus Federation of Pakistan2025 PLD 293 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-12-02Read full judgment →
• Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi Versus State2024 PLD 41 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-10-26Read full judgment →
• Shahab Saqib Versus Sadaf Rasheed2023 PLD 34 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-05-03Read full judgment →
• Noman Ahmed Versus Capital Development Authority2022 PLD 75 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-06-14Read full judgment →
• Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation Versus Ednan Syed2022 PLD 273 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-03Read full judgment →
• Tehreem Aamir Versus Additional District Judge-III, (West), Islamabad2021 PLD 422 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-04-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Masood Chishti Versus Chairman, National Accountability Bureau, Islamabad2021 PLD 350 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-01-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed Awan Versus State2020 PLD 98 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-10-09
  dishonour of chequecriminal revisionappellate court dutyreappraisal of evidenceSection 489-F PPCdishonest intentionfair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which convicted the petitioner under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for dishonoring a cheque. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the essential ingredients of the offence, specifically the dishonest intention and the validity of the underlying liability, and whether the appellate court fulfilled its duty to reappraise the evidence. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of Section 489-F, as the cheque amount did not correspond to the actual financial liability, and the circumstances suggested coercion rather than dishonest intent. Furthermore, the court held that the appellate court failed to exercise its statutory duty under Section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by not independently discussing the evidence or providing logical reasoning. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted. The judgment establishes that appellate courts must independently reappraise evidence and record detailed reasons for their decisions in criminal appeals.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential ingredients that must be proved to secure a conviction under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is an appellate court in a criminal case required to independently reappraise the evidence even if the appellant's counsel does not argue the merits?
  • Does a failure by the first appellate court to discuss incriminating evidence and provide independent reasoning constitute a legal error?
  Read full judgment →
• Labbaik (Pvt.) Ltd. Versus Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority2020 PLD 343 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-03-16Read full judgment →
• JZ Enterprises Pvt. Limited Versus Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Communication, Government of Pakistan2020 PLD 306 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-01-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Syeda Irshad Fatima Rizvi Versus Bashir Ahmad2020 PLD 184 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-09-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Syeda Irshad Fatima Rizvi Versus Bashir Ahmad2020 PLD 129 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-09-03Read full judgment →
• State Versus DR. Firdous Ashiq Awan2020 PLD 109 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-11-25
  criminal contemptpending proceedingssub judice rulefair trialunconditional apologyfreedom of expressionadministration of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment addresses two criminal contempt petitions initiated against high-ranking executive officials—Dr. Firdous Ashiq Awan, Special Assistant to the Prime Minister, and Ghulam Sarwar Khan, Federal Minister for Aviation—following press conferences and television appearances where they made statements regarding bail granted to Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif. The core legal question was whether the statements made by the executive functionaries during the pendency of judicial proceedings constituted criminal contempt by tending to prejudice the determination of pending matters, obstruct the administration of justice, and undermine public confidence in the courts. The Islamabad High Court held that the respondents' statements and attempts to create a perception of extraordinary favors constituted criminal contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, and Article 204 of the Constitution. However, considering the unconditional apologies tendered by the contemnors and the general lack of societal awareness regarding criminal contempt in pending matters, the court exercised restraint and withdrew the proceedings without imposing a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does public criticism or commentary by government officials on a matter pending before a court constitute criminal contempt?
  • Does the submission of an unconditional apology automatically result in the discharge of contempt notices against an alleged contemnor?
  • What is the legal onus of proof in contempt of court proceedings compared to ordinary criminal trials?
  • Can the High Court entertain applications and grant urgent relief on holidays or outside regular court hours?
  Read full judgment →
• Mulana Allah Wasaya Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice2019 PLD 62 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-07-04
  constitutional petitionfinality of prophethoodKhatm-e-NubawatQadiani groupnon-Muslim minoritiesreligious identityElections Act 2017
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of a batch of constitutional petitions concerning amendments made by the Elections Act, 2017, specifically addressing concerns over provisions related to the Qadiani and Lahori groups and the protection of the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad (PBUH). The core legal questions involved the constitutional status of these groups as non-Muslims, the necessity of maintaining clear religious identities, and whether legislative changes inadvertently diluted prior statutory protections. The court held that the state must safeguard the constitutional definition of Muslims and non-Muslims, ensure proper declarations of faith in public service and state documentation, and protect religious symbols and the finality of prophethood. The key principles laid down include the mandatory requirement for accurate religious disclosure to prevent deception, the supremacy of Islamic injunctions in legislation regarding religious identity, and the state's duty to balance the rights of minorities with the religious sensitivities and beliefs of the Muslim majority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Islamic State can permit non-Muslim citizens to pose themselves as Muslims or utilize exclusive Islamic symbols and epithets?
  • Does requiring citizens to disclose their personal faith and religion infringe upon the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Whether the Parliament or executive authorities can enact laws that frustrate or dilute the provisions and amendments of the Constitution?
  • Is it mandatory for the state to maintain separate databases and require declarations of faith for induction into public services and official documentation?
  Read full judgment →
• Shuja Sharif Versus Fop2019 PLD 491 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-04-19Read full judgment →
• Afzal Khan Shinwari Versus Federation of Pakistan2019 PLD 422 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-04-15Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited Versus Abdul Sattar Siddiqui2019 PLD 352 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-02-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Idrees Versus Colonel Joseph Emmanuel2018 PLD 355 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-05-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Maroof Begum Ahmed Versus Ijaz-Ul-Haq2018 PLD 341 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-07-11Read full judgment →
• Dr. Farooq Sattar Versus Election Commission of Pakistan2018 PLD 300 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-06-11Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Ahsan-Ud-Din Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior2018 PLD 182 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-03-09
  locus standiaggrieved personpublic interest litigationpost-retirement benefitsexecutive authorityconstitutional petitioncontempt petitionjudges privileges
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment by the Islamabad High Court addresses multiple writ petitions and a criminal original petition concerning security provisions, vehicle entitlements, and post-retirement benefits of the former Chief Justice of Pakistan, Mr. Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. The core legal questions involve the locus standi of the petitioners—lawyers seeking security on behalf of the former Chief Justice and a taxpayer challenging state-provided vehicle benefits—the interpretation of Article 207(3) of the Constitution regarding post-retirement restrictions on judges, the legality of executive dispensations for vehicles under the Rules for the Use of Staff Cars, 1980, and the applicability of the Supreme Court Judges (Leave, Pension and Privileges) Order, 1997. The court held that the petitioners lacked locus standi as aggrieved persons, that Article 207(3) only restricts professional advocacy rather than personal rights, and that executive orders bypassing cabinet approval or granting benefits beyond the Presidential Order of 1997 are unlawful. The key principles laid down include the strict interpretation of aggrieved person status in writ jurisdiction, the limits of executive authority regarding discretionary spending as enunciated in the Mustafa Impex case, and that superior court judges are exclusively entitled to privileges expressly sanctioned by the relevant Presidential Orders.

  Questions settled

  • Whether lawyers or bar association members have the locus standi under Article 199 of the Constitution to maintain a writ petition seeking security and official vehicles on behalf of a retired judge who has not approached the court himself?
  • Does Article 207(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan bar a retired judge of the Supreme Court from claiming personal legal rights or remedies other than practicing law as an advocate?
  • Whether executive orders granting vehicle privileges to retired judges outside the framework of the Supreme Court Judges (Leave, Pension and Privileges) Order, 1997 are lawful without prior cabinet approval?
  • Does a taxpayer qualify as an aggrieved person with locus standi to challenge state-allocated vehicle benefits and security arrangements provided to a retired constitutional functionary?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Raza Versus Federation of Pakistan2017 PLD 64 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-01-05Read full judgment →
• Neo TV/Messrs Fun Information Network (Pvt) Ltd. Versus PEMRA through Chairman2017 PLD 48 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-11-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Versus Shahida Perveen2017 PLD 375 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-08-16Read full judgment →
• Islah-Ud-Din Chaudhry Versus Sardar Muhammad Naseer Abbasi2017 PLD 356 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-07-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sohail Kiyani Versus Raja Muhammad Anwar2017 PLD 162 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-03-27Read full judgment →
• Gen. (R) Pervez Musharraf Versus State2013 PLD 66 · Islamabad High Court · 2013-04-18
  pre-arrest bailhouse arrest of judgesterrorismprohibitory clausemala fidepolice investigationproclamation of offender
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by General (R) Pervez Musharraf in respect of an F.I.R. registered under section 344/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the confinement of judges of superior courts following the imposition of a Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) on November 3, 2007. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for the grant of pre-arrest bail, considering the allegations, the applicability of terrorism-related provisions, and his failure to join the police investigation. The Islamabad High Court held that the acts attributed to the petitioner, which involved confining judges and creating widespread fear and insecurity, prima facie attracted the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, thereby bringing the case within the prohibitory clause. Furthermore, the court found an absence of mala fide on the part of the complainant or police and noted the petitioner's non-cooperation with the investigation. Consequently, the Islamabad High Court declined the pre-arrest bail and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether confining judges of superior courts and disrupting the judicial system attracts offences under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Is pre-arrest bail maintainable when an accused fails to join the police investigation as directed by the court?
  • Whether the absence of established mala fide on the part of the complainant disentitles an accused from claiming pre-arrest bail?
  • Does an offence falling within the prohibitory clause restrict the grant of discretionary pre-arrest bail relief?
  Read full judgment →
• Ikram Ullah Versus State2009 PLD 9 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-06-16
  post-arrest bailprinciple of consistencyfacilitating escape from custodycorruptionstatutory delaybail granted
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.171 dated 11-4-2008 registered under sections 223 and 224 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sections 5(2)/47 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, alleging facilitation of under-trial prisoners escaping from police custody. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on merits and based on the principle of consistency given that a co-accused with a similar role had already been granted bail. The court held that since the petitioner had been in custody, the investigation was complete, trial had not progressed, most offences were bailable, no evidence supported the illegal gratification charge, and a co-accused at par had been granted bail, further incarceration would serve no useful purpose. The petition was consequently allowed, establishing that the principle of consistency applies when co-accused at par are granted bail, and pre-trial incarceration should not be used as a punishment when trial progress is stagnant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail on the principle of consistency when a co-accused with a similar role has already been granted bail?
  • Does further incarceration of an accused serve any useful purpose when investigation is complete and there is no progress in the trial?
  • Can bail be granted when the prosecution fails to collect supporting evidence for allegations of illegal gratification?
  Read full judgment →
• Khan Afsar Versus State2009 PLD 7 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-04-28
  post-arrest bailidentification paraderobberyprohibitory clausetentative assessmentbail refusal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, who was charged with offences under sections 392, 395, 400, and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an armed robbery at a currency exchange in Islamabad. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite being identified in an identification parade and having incriminating recoveries, including cash and a vehicle, linked to him. The Islamabad High Court held that the petitioner failed to make out a case for bail. The court reasoned that at the bail stage, only a tentative assessment of the evidence is permissible, and deeper appreciation of evidence is prohibited. Given that the petitioner was identified by the complainant, incriminating recoveries were made, and the offences fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the court determined there was sufficient material to connect the accused to the crime. Consequently, the bail petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permitted at the bail stage?
  • Does the recovery of stolen property and identification of the accused constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail for offences falling under the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a bail petition be granted when the accused is implicated in offences falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Arshad Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad2009 PLD 61 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-02-10Read full judgment →
• Hashwani Hotels Limited through General Manager Versus Capital Development Authority, Islamabad through Chairman2009 PLD 50 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-11-25Read full judgment →
• Wi-Tribe Pakistan Limited Versus Federation of Pakistan through Federal Secretary, Information Technology and Telecom, Islamabad2009 PLD 41 · Islamabad High Court · 2009-01-21Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Elahi Versus Zulaikhan Bibi2009 PLD 4 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-03-28Read full judgment →
• Umer Mujeeb Shami Versus Chief Commissioner, Islamabad Capital Territory, Islamabad2009 PLD 33 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-12-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq Sulehria Versus District and Sessions Judge, Islamabad2009 PLD 32 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-05-26Read full judgment →
• Maulana Abdul Malik Wazir Versus Election Commission of Pakistan through Secretary2009 PLD 19 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-09-29Read full judgment →
• Dr. Shahid Bashir Versus Pakistan Medical Dental Council through Secretary, Islamabad2009 PLD 13 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-10-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamshad Bibi Versus Bushra Bibi2009 PLD 11 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-04-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim Akhtar Versus Mst. Rashim Bibi2009 PLD 1 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-05-14Read full judgment →
• Miss Kiran Arif Mian Versus Miss Kinza Khalid2008 PLD 11 · Islamabad High Court · 2008-04-08Read full judgment →
• [The Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2025 and Transfer of Appeals from2025 IHC 396 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ahmed Alias Bhutto vs The State2025 IHC 518 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-26
  narcotics recoverychain of custodycharascontrol of narcotic substancesstatutory presumptionpolice witnessesjail appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail appeal arises from a judgment passed by the Special Judge CNSA/ASJ East, Islamabad, convicting the appellant under Section 9(1)(3)(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to nine years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine following the alleged recovery of 1120 grams of charas. The core legal questions involve whether the prosecution successfully established the recovery, maintained an unbroken chain of custody, and whether the non-association of private witnesses vitiated the proceedings. The Islamabad High Court held that the testimonies of the official witnesses were consistent, the chain of custody of the narcotic substance remained intact with seals unimpaired, and the absence of private witnesses does not invalidate recovery where police witnesses are credible. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 remained unrebutted by the appellant. The key principles laid down emphasize that official witnesses can suffice in narcotics cases if confidence-inspiring, and that safe custody and transmission via Register No. XIX and road certificates are crucial for establishing the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-association of private witnesses vitiate a narcotics recovery when police witnesses are consistent and credible?
  • Whether the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of custody for the transmitted narcotic sample?
  • How does the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 operate when the accused fails to lead defense evidence?
  • Are entries in Register No. XIX and the road certificate relevant for proving the safe custody and transmission of case property?
  Read full judgment →
• Zohaib Arif vs Chief Commissioner, Ict, Islamabad, etc2025 IHC 118 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-28Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan Tahir, etc vs Rafaqat Ali, etc2025 IHC 20, 2025 PCRLJ 780 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-01-27
  re-summoning witnessfilling lacunacriminal revisioninvestigating officerjust decision of the caserape trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Islamabad-East/Special Anti-Rape Court, whereby an application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 filed by the complainant for summoning and re-examining an Investigating Officer, Sikandar Sadiq, A.S.I. (PW-5), was allowed. The petitioners argued that the impugned order improperly permitted the prosecution to fill gaps or lacunas in its case after a considerable lapse of time and violated the scope of re-examination under Article 133 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The core legal question addressed was whether re-summoning and re-examining the witness amounted to filling a prosecution lacuna and whether it was essential for a just decision of the case. The Islamabad High Court held that since the documents sought to be proved were already part of the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, re-summoning the initial investigating officer did not introduce new material or fill a lacuna, but was essential to meet the ends of justice and reach a proper conclusion.

  Questions settled

  • Does the re-summoning and re-examination of an initial investigating officer under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 amount to filling up a lacuna in the prosecution case?
  • When is the re-summoning of a witness considered essential for the just decision of a case under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Can a witness who has already been examined and cross-examined be recalled to prove documents already annexed with the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Zarai Taraqiat Bank Ltd. through its President/Senior Vice President vs Riaz2025 IHC 502 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Zakir Ullah vs The State, etc2025 IHC 164 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-04
  narcoticschain of custodybenefit of doubtcriminal appealacquittalevidentiary discrepanciessafe transmission
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the possession of narcotics under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt given the alleged evidentiary discrepancies and the failure to establish a secure chain of custody for the recovered contraband. The Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with material contradictions, including the failure to produce the register entry for the deposit of contraband in the Malkhana and the inability of witnesses to consistently describe the recovery. Relying on the principle that the chain of custody must be unbroken from seizure to laboratory analysis, the Court found that the prosecution failed to prove safe transmission and custody of the narcotics. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, holding that the prosecution's evidence was unreliable and that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right, leading to his acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure to produce the register entry for the deposit of contraband in the Malkhana create a fatal gap in the prosecution's chain of custody?
  • Is a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case sufficient to entitle an accused to acquittal?
  • Does a break in the chain of custody regarding the transmission of representative samples render a chemical examiner's report unreliable for conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Zaka Ud Din Dewan vs Federation Of Pakistan, Etc2025 IHC 94 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-14Read full judgment →
• Zahida vs The State2025 IHC 254 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-22
  post-arrest bailnarcotics recoveryControl of Narcotics Substances Actprohibitory clausedrug traffickingwomen in drug trade
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Zahida, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of a large quantity of Charas from her possession. The Islamabad High Court examined the record and noted that a huge quantity of narcotics was recovered, prima facie connecting the petitioner to an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court emphasized the rising menace of drug trafficking, the exploitation of women and children by drug cartels as carriers, and the societal hazard posed by narcotics. Relying on established jurisprudence, the Court held that leniency on the ground of gender is unwarranted in heinous narcotics cases, as it would encourage the drug trade. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail petition and directed the trial court to conclude the trial within two months, clarifying that all observations were tentative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when an accused is apprehended with a huge quantity of narcotics falling within the prohibitory clause?
  • Does the involvement of a female accused in narcotics trafficking entitle her to bail on humanitarian grounds or leniency?
  • What is the effect of tentative assessment of evidence at the bail stage in narcotics cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahid Hussain, Sole Proprietor of Trade International and another vs National Tariff Commission, Government of Pakistan, etc2025 IHC 386 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-13Read full judgment →
• Zahid Ayub Khan vs Shahid Ayub Khan, etc2025 IHC 204 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-24Read full judgment →
• Zafarullah Khan & others vs Federation of Pakistan through Federal2025 IHC 556 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Yousaf Mahmood Qureshi vs Additional District Judge-Xi, West, Islamabad2025 IHC 138 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-07Read full judgment →
• Yasmeen Bibi vs Zeeshan Ali and others2025 IHC 472 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-24Read full judgment →
• Waqar Ahmad Saleem Qazi, Faisal Durrani. vs National University of Modern Languages and others2025 IHC 308 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Usman Shumail vs The State, etc2025 IHC 248 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-18
  post-arrest bailcybercrimeblackmailingharassmentPrevention of Electronic Crime Actprohibitory clausesexually explicit videos
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 21, 22, 22-A, and 24 of the Prevention of Electronic Crime Act, 2016 read with Sections 34 and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code, alleging the illegal recording, dissemination, and public exhibition of sexually explicit videos and pictures of a minor victim to blackmail and harass her and her family. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the accusations, the recovery of incriminating digital material, and the applicability of the prohibitory clause. The Islamabad High Court held that the petitioner prima facie shared objectionable materials, was connected to the heinous cybercrime offense which poses a hazardous threat to society, and fell within the exception to the rule of granting bail. Consequently, the court dismissed the post-arrest bail petition, laying down that courts may depart from the ordinary rule of granting bail in appropriate cases where victims are subjected to severe extortion, blackmail, and sexual harassment via social media.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused involved in transmitting sexually explicit content to blackmail a minor is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does the offense of uploading nude or sexual content on social media fall within the exceptions to the rule of granting bail?
  • Can the court deny bail despite the punishment being less than ten years imprisonment when the victim is subjected to severe extortion?
  Read full judgment →
• Usama Najam vs The State and another2025 IHC 428 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-03
  post-arrest bailcriminal breach of trustabscondencehabitual offendertentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Islamabad High Court through a post-arrest bail petition filed by Usama Najam in case FIR No. 515 dated 03.06.2024 registered under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Shalimar, Islamabad, relating to an alleged criminal breach of trust involving the non-delivery of a booked vehicle and misappropriation of funds. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner, who is a habitual offender involved in multiple similar cases and a reported absconder, is entitled to post-arrest bail. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that sufficient incriminating material prima facie connected the petitioner to the offense, and that his status as a habitual offender and fugitive disentitled him to the concession of bail. The key principle laid down is that an accused person who is a habitual offender, has previous criminal records, or is an unexplained absconding fugitive from law loses normal entitlements to bail notwithstanding other merits of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused who is a habitual offender and involved in multiple similar cases is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • What is the effect of an accused person's abscondence on their right to obtain post-arrest bail?
  • Does the involvement of an accused in multiple other criminal cases constitute a valid ground for the denial of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited (UBL) vs Nouman-Ul-Haq2025 IHC 172 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-12Read full judgment →
• Umer Tehsin vs The State & another2025 IHC 524 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-07-17
  post-arrest bailarmed robberyidentification paradeprohibitory clausefirearm injurytentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  The Petitioner sought post-arrest bail in FIR No. 226/2025 registered under Sections 394, 411, and 337-F(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 for armed robbery, causing firearm injury, and related offences. The core legal question was whether the Petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given his non-nomination in the FIR, subsequent positive identification in an identification parade, recovery of crime proceeds, and the applicability of the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Islamabad High Court held that the Petitioner was not entitled to bail, as he was positively identified in a lawful identification parade, specific roles involving violence were attributed to him corroborated by medical and ballistic evidence, and 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, a tentative assessment of evidence is sufficient, and positive identification coupled with credible incriminating material and gravity of the offence disentitles an accused to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when an accused is positively identified in an identification parade with a specific role attributed to him?
  • Does the proximity of time and distance between two different FIRs alone conclusively establish alibi at the bail stage?
  • Does an offence under Section 394 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • What is the evidentiary value of recovering unmarked currency when coupled with a voluntary chain of custody at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Umar Sultan vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2025 IHC 78 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-17Read full judgment →
• Umar Akbar Ali Ghumman vs Mst. Maria Javed Cheema etc2025 IHC 338 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-25Read full judgment →
• Tops Foods and Beverages through General Manager and another vs Rizwan Ali and others2025 PLC 100 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-10-31
  disciplinary proceedingsnatural justiceindustrial disputetermination of serviceworkmanindoor management principleNIRCmisconduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenges orders passed by the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) which set aside the termination of respondent No. 1, an employee of the petitioner company. The core legal questions concern whether the disciplinary inquiry conducted by the private employer satisfied the requirements of natural justice and whether the NIRC correctly invalidated the dismissal order on grounds of procedural irregularity and lack of authorization. The High Court held that the NIRC’s findings were unsupported by the evidence, which demonstrated that the respondent was served with charge sheets, participated in inquiry proceedings, and was afforded an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. The Court ruled that disciplinary proceedings by private employers are not criminal trials and do not require the strict procedural adherence of a court of law. The principle of natural justice is satisfied by providing notice and a fair opportunity to defend; there is no legal requirement for a second show-cause notice or personal hearing in private employment. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the dismissal was duly authorized under the principle of indoor management, thereby setting aside the NIRC’s impugned orders.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of natural justice in private disciplinary proceedings require a second show-cause notice or a personal hearing?
  • Are the strict procedural requirements of a criminal trial applicable to disciplinary proceedings conducted by a private employer?
  • Does the principle of indoor management apply to the authorization of dismissal orders by a company?
  • Are the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 applicable to private sector employees?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Asif Akhter Hashmi and others2025 IHC 326 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-29
  Section 265-K CrPCacquittalmisappropriation of fundsEvacuee Trust Property Boardfair trialprosecution negligenceselective prosecution
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an order passed by the Special Judge Central-II, Islamabad, which acquitted the respondents under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding allegations of misappropriating Evacuee Trust Property Board funds. The core legal question was whether the acquittal was sustainable when the prosecution had failed to challenge the prior acquittal of co-accused individuals who held identical roles in the same transaction. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the acquittal was legally sound. The court established that the prosecution cannot selectively target specific board members for a unanimous, joint decision when other participants in the same transaction have already been acquitted without challenge. Furthermore, the court affirmed that Section 265-K, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 empowers a trial court to acquit an accused at any stage if there is no probability of conviction, regardless of whether a formal charge has been framed. The court emphasized that the right to a fair and timely trial precludes the state from subjecting individuals to indefinite criminal proceedings due to its own negligence and inaction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court acquit an accused under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before a formal charge has been framed?
  • Is the state precluded from prosecuting specific individuals for a joint decision when co-accused with identical roles have been acquitted without challenge?
  • Does the lack of a formal charge after a significant delay justify the acquittal of an accused under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mehmood, Shazia Munir, Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited vs Shazia Munir2025 IHC 440 · Islamabad High Court
  sexual harassmentworkplace harassmentprobationary employeereinstatementjurisdictional overreachFederal Ombudsmandelay in reportingcorroborative evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment decides multiple interlinked writ petitions challenging the orders of the Federal Ombudsman for Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace and the President's Secretariat. The respondent, a probationary officer at Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited (ZTBL), was terminated from service during her probation. Following her termination, she filed a complaint under the Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010, alleging sexual harassment by her immediate supervisor (the petitioner). The Ombudsman found the petitioner guilty, imposed a major penalty of removal from service, and ordered the respondent's reinstatement. The High Court set aside the Ombudsman's orders, holding that the complainant failed to provide any corroborative evidence, independent witnesses, or CCTV footage, and that her 14-day delay in reporting, coinciding with her termination, cast serious doubt on the complaint's veracity. Crucially, the Court ruled that the Federal Ombudsman lacks the statutory jurisdiction under the Act of 2010 to order the reinstatement of an employee or interfere with departmental disciplinary proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Ombudsman for Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace have the statutory jurisdiction to reinstate an aggrieved person back into service?
  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained delay in reporting workplace harassment when the complaint coincides with the employee's termination?
  • Can a probationary employee's services be terminated without assigning any reason under the Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited Staff Regulations 2005?
  • Whether an order of the Ombudsman finding an employee guilty of harassment can be sustained solely on uncorroborated allegations without independent witnesses or available surveillance footage?
  Read full judgment →
• Yasir Mehmood vs Jamshed Ahmed Subhani & Another2025 IHC 128 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-25
  dishonest issuance of chequecriminal liabilityburden of proofmens reaacquittal appealnegotiable instrumentdishonour of cheque
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the acquittal of the respondent by the trial court in a case registered under Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the dishonor of a cheque. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the essential ingredients of the offence, specifically the dishonest intent and the issuance of the cheque for the repayment of a loan or fulfillment of an obligation. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove these fundamental elements. The court observed that the complainant provided no written agreement or documentary evidence to substantiate the alleged financial obligation, and the respondent’s claim that the cheque was provided as security remained plausible. The court affirmed that mere dishonor of a cheque does not automatically create criminal liability under Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, without proof of the underlying obligation and dishonest intent. Consequently, the appellate court found no illegality in the trial court's acquittal, as the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere dishonor of a cheque automatically create criminal liability under Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What are the essential ingredients required to prove an offence under Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a conviction under Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained in the absence of proof regarding the underlying obligation or loan?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Abbas Khan vs Federation of Pakistan, Pakistan Navy (PNS), etc2025 IHC 250 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-21Read full judgment →
• Tanveer Ahmed vs The State2025 IHC 320 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-23
  narcotics smugglingconscious possessionchain of custodyrepresentative samplingjail appealchemical examiner reportcontrol of narcotic substances
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail appeal arises from a judgment passed by the Trial Court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine. The core legal question involved was whether the prosecution successfully established the recovery of a large quantity of narcotics, the safe chain of custody, and conscious possession beyond a reasonable doubt. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction, holding that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, compliance with representative sampling principles, unbroken chain of custody, and positive FSL reports conclusively proved the charge. The key principles laid down include the application of the doctrine of conscious possession regarding illicit substances found within a vehicle under a defendant's control, the requirement for an unbroken chain of custody in narcotics cases, and the adherence to representative sampling procedures.

  Questions settled

  • Does the person in control of a vehicle bear the burden under the doctrine of conscious possession for illicit substances found therein?
  • Is an unbroken chain of custody from the place of recovery to the forensic laboratory essential in narcotics cases?
  • Can a mere denial in a statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 displace convincing prosecution evidence when the accused fails to examine himself under Section 340(2)?
  • What is the effect of complying with representative sampling procedures on the admissibility of chemical analysis reports?
  Read full judgment →
• Talib Hussain, etc vs Faiz Alam, etc2025 IHC 18, 2025 PLJ Islamabad 97, 2025 CLC 970 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-03Read full judgment →
• Tafseer Hussain Tarabi Through Legal Heirs etc vs Muhammad Rafique2025 IHC 342 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-09Read full judgment →
• Syeda Naveed Abbas vs Mst. Hina Anwar and 3 others2025 IHC 484 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-24Read full judgment →
• Syed Tahir Zahoor vs Muhammad Iqbal another2025 IHC 186 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-28
  appeal against acquittaldouble presumption of innocenceSection 342 CrPCincriminating evidenceforgerycheatinghandwriting expertmisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by the complainant against the judgment dated 30.09.2023 of the Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Islamabad-East, which acquitted respondent No.1 of charges under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 PPC relating to the alleged preparation and use of a forged sale agreement for residential property. The High Court reviewed the record and determined that the prosecution failed to provide handwriting expert analysis or corroborative evidence proving the alleged forged signatures. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to confront the accused with key documentary evidence during his examination under Section 342 Cr.P.C., rendering such evidence inadmissible. Reiterating established principles, the Court held that an appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court's judgment is perverse, arbitrary, or based on a misreading of evidence causing a miscarriage of justice. Acquittals confer a double presumption of innocence. Finding no illegality or misreading of facts by the trial court, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can incriminating documentary evidence that was not put to an accused person during their examination under Section 342 Cr.P.C. be used against them?
  • Under what circumstances will an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal passed by a trial court?
  • Does an acquittal enhance the presumption of innocence of an accused person?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Qalb e Abbas vs The State and another.2025 IHC 534 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-08-01
  Official Secrets Actdigital evidencechain of custodyconfessional statementrecovery memocriminal appealacquittalburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Sections 3 and 4 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, for allegedly communicating secret information to a foreign agent. The core legal questions concern the admissibility and reliability of digital evidence, the necessity of independent witnesses for recovery, and the procedural validity of a confessional statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Islamabad High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Key evidentiary failures included the non-production of recovered items, the absence of independent witnesses, and the lack of forensic proof establishing the transmission of classified data. The Court emphasized that digital evidence, particularly when compromised by malware, requires rigorous authentication and chain-of-custody verification to be admissible. Furthermore, the Court noted that the appellant's confessional statement was procedurally flawed and that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the alleged foreign agent or the occurrence of any unauthorized communication. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, affirming that the burden of proof rests solely on the prosecution.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to produce and exhibit recovered items during trial create a presumption that such items do not exist?
  • Is digital evidence admissible if the forensic report fails to establish a clear chain of custody or account for malware intrusion?
  • Can a conviction under the Official Secrets Act be sustained without proof of the transmission of classified information to an unauthorized person?
  • Are confessional statements recorded in violation of Section 364(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and relevant High Court Rules admissible?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Kareem ud Din vs Senior Superintendent of Police, Islamabad, etc2025 IHC 294 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-06Read full judgment →
• Syed Hammad Naqvi vs The State2025 IHC 330 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-19
  circumstantial evidencemurderrapeadverse inferencechain of custodybenefit of doubtacquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellants to death and imprisonment for offences including murder, rape, and theft arising from FIR No. 223 dated 23.09.2020. The Islamabad High Court examined the circumstantial evidence, medical reports, and witness testimonies, noting significant gaps including the non-production of key eyewitnesses, contradictions by a court witness, and discrepancies in medical evidence. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence proving the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case on circumstantial evidence due to material contradictions, withholding of primary witnesses, and unreliable recoveries. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the convictions and sentences were set aside, the appellants were acquitted, and the murder reference was answered in the negative, laying down that a conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires an unbroken, faultless chain of proved facts pointing unerringly to the guilt of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted on circumstantial evidence when the prosecution fails to establish a complete and unbroken chain of custody and events?
  • What is the legal effect under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 of withholding key primary witnesses by the prosecution?
  • Whether contradictions between medical evidence and ocular or circumstantial accounts create a sufficient doubt to warrant the acquittal of the accused?
  • Is a recovery of incriminating material reliable when it is not supported by independent witnesses and is contradicted by a court witness?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ashfaq Hussain Shah vs Mst. Ishrat Jabeen & others2025 IHC 324 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-29Read full judgment →
• Syed Asad Ali vs Sheikh Amin Jan and 3 others2025 IHC 352 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-07Read full judgment →
• Syed Akhlaq Hussain vs Chairman NADRA and others2025 IHC 296 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-15
  writ petitionmaintainabilitymaster and servantproforma promotionNADRA regulationsconstitutional jurisdictionservice dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  The Petitioner, a retired employee of the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA), filed a writ petition seeking a direction for proforma promotion to the post of Deputy Director from the date of his eligibility prior to his retirement. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is maintainable by an employee of NADRA for service-related grievances governed by non-statutory regulations, and whether a retired employee can be granted proforma promotion. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that NADRA's service regulations are non-statutory in nature, meaning the relationship between NADRA and its employees is governed by the principle of 'master and servant'. Consequently, the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked for individual service grievances in the absence of a violation of statutory rules. Furthermore, the court noted that a retired employee cannot be granted promotion from a backdate.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 can be invoked by an employee of NADRA for service-related grievances?
  • Do the service regulations framed by NADRA under Section 45 of the NADRA Ordinance 2000 possess statutory status?
  • Can a retired employee be granted proforma promotion from a backdate under the applicable rules?
  • What is the nature of the employment relationship between NADRA and its employees in the absence of statutory rules and regulations?
  Read full judgment →
• Sohail Iqbal Mughal vs The State, etc2025 IHC 478 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-25
  criminal revisionacquittal at any stageSection 265-K Cr.P.C.abuse of processdiscretionary relieftrial court proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order by the Special Judge Central-II, Islamabad, which dismissed the petitioner's application for acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The petitioner, facing charges under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 regarding the unlawful reinstatement of employees, argued that no incriminating evidence existed and that previous acquittals in related cases rendered the current trial an abuse of process. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in refusing to exercise its discretion to acquit the accused at the current stage of proceedings. The Court held that Section 265-K Cr.P.C. provides discretionary relief to be exercised only when there is no probability of conviction. Finding that prosecution evidence was ongoing and the trial was at a stage where culpability could not yet be determined, the Court upheld the dismissal of the acquittal application. The key principle laid down is that trial courts should not prematurely terminate proceedings when prosecution evidence is pending and the potential for conviction remains a matter for trial determination.

  Questions settled

  • Is the power to acquit an accused under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 a mandatory right or a discretionary relief?
  • Can a trial court exercise its power under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to acquit an accused while prosecution evidence is still being recorded?
  • Does the mere existence of prior acquittals in related cases automatically entitle an accused to acquittal in a pending trial under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Sohaib Ali Hashmat vs The State and another2025 MLD 925 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-25
  post-arrest bailemigration offencedishonouring of chequerecovery toolfurther inquirystatutory punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in respect of FIR No. 83 registered for offences under Sections 18 and 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 and Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved whether the absence of a specific date in the FIR, the nature of punishments provided under the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, the return of the disputed amount, and the use of criminal proceedings under Section 489-F as a tool for financial recovery warranted the grant of bail. The Islamabad High Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the ambit of further inquiry, noting that when a statute provides alternative or multiple punishments, the lesser punishment is considered for bail, and that criminal courts cannot use Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for debt recovery where civil remedies are available. The petition was consequently allowed and post-arrest bail was granted to the petitioner subject to furnishing surety bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the absence of a specific date of occurrence in the FIR brings the case within the scope of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Does the provision of alternative punishments under a statute require the court to consider the lesser punishment when deciding on bail?
  • Can criminal proceedings under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be utilized as a tool for the recovery of money where civil remedies are available?
  • Is further incarceration of an accused justified when investigation is complete and the accused is no longer required by the police?
  Read full judgment →