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.

• Crescent Bahuman Limited & Another vs Securities And Exchange2025 IHC 570 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Col. (R) Khalil ur Rehman vs Judicial Magistrate, Sec-30, Islamabad West2025 IHC 292 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-28Read full judgment →
• Civil Works Organization (Cwo) through Authorized Officers vs The Land2025 MLD 176 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-10-25Read full judgment →
• Chaudhry Nadeem Amir vs The State & another2025 IHC 178 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-07
  pre-arrest bailbailable offencestatutory rightnon-prosecutionprocedural technicalitiescheatingimpersonation
  Summary & questions settled

  Through the instant petition, the petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 420 and 170 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Koral, Islamabad. The core legal question before the court was whether pre-arrest bail can be refused in a bailable offence on the ground of non-prosecution or non-appearance of the accused before the lower court. The Islamabad High Court held that in cases involving bailable offences, the grant of bail is an absolute statutory right of the accused under Section 496 and Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, leaving the court with no discretion to refuse it. The court laid down the principle that procedural technicalities and non-appearance should not be used to defeat the statutory right to bail in bailable offences, and accordingly confirmed the pre-arrest bail of the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the court has discretion to refuse pre-arrest bail in a bailable offence?
  • Is bail in a bailable offence considered an absolute statutory right of the accused?
  • Can procedural technicalities or non-appearance be used to defeat the right to bail in bailable offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Chaudhary Khurshid Ahmed vs Ex-Officio Justice Of Peace/Additional2025 IHC 112 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Chaudhary Asad Pervaiz & Another vs Federation Of Pakistan & 6 Others2025 IHC 144 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-07Read full judgment →
• Chan Mehboob and another vs Muhammad Yaqoob and others2025 IHC 52 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-01-24Read full judgment →
• Chairman National Accountability Bureau through Prosecutor General NAB2025 IHC 310 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-20
  NAB appeallocus standistatutory interpretationaccountability courtprocedural proprietycriminal appeal maintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal filed by the Deputy Prosecutor General of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) challenging an acquittal order passed by an Accountability Court. The core legal question was whether an appeal under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999, is maintainable when filed by the Deputy Prosecutor General without explicit authorization from the Prosecutor General NAB or the Chairman NAB. The Court held that the appeal was incompetent and dismissed it. The ratio decidendi is that the right to file an appeal under Section 32 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999, is exclusively vested in the Prosecutor General NAB or a person duly authorized by the Chairman NAB. The Court established the principle that the procedural requirements for filing appeals under the NAB Ordinance are mandatory and jurisdictional. Consequently, any appeal instituted by an unauthorized officer lacks the requisite locus standi, rendering the proceedings legally defective and liable to dismissal at the outset to maintain the integrity of the statutory accountability framework.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appeal filed by the Deputy Prosecutor General under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999 maintainable without authorization from the Prosecutor General NAB or the Chairman NAB?
  • Does the failure to obtain proper authorization for filing an appeal under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999 constitute a fatal defect?
  • Are the procedural requirements for filing appeals under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999 considered mandatory and jurisdictional?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Basharat Ali Hanjra and another vs CDA through its Chairman and others2025 IHC 376 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Capital Development Authority, etc vs Full Bench, NIRC, Islamabad, etc2025 IHC 198 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-11Read full judgment →
• Capital Development Authority vs National Industrial Relations2025 IHC 196 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Capital Development Authority vs Habib Rafique (Private) Limited2025 IHC 448 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-23Read full judgment →
• Capital Development Authority vs Ghulam Mehboob Khokhar2025 IHC 258 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-22Read full judgment →
• Capital Development Authority through Chairman, Islamabad vs Syed2025 CLC 486 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-01-25Read full judgment →
• Capital Development Authority (CDA) vs Muhammad Nawaz and others2025 IHC 462 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-27Read full judgment →
• Cantonment Board Nowshera through Executive Officer and another vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary Religious Affairs and Interfaith Harmony, Islamabad and others2025 IHC 268 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Bushra Hussain vs Chairman, Arbitration Council, etc2025 IHC 364 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-26Read full judgment →
• Bushra Bibi, Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi vs The State etc, The State & Another2025 IHC 24 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-01-31
  issuance of summonsprima facie caseiddat periodmarriage during iddatprivate complaintquashing of proceedingsmens rea
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of a writ petition and a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging decisions of lower forums regarding the issuance of summons in a private criminal complaint for contracting a marriage during the Iddat period, allegedly constituting offences under sections 496 and 496B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the legality of summoning accused persons, the determination of mens rea, the validity of the Iddat period, and compliance with mandatory procedural requirements. The Islamabad High Court held that at the stage of issuing process or summons, a court is only required to see if a prima facie case is made out and should not delve into a detailed appreciation of evidence or the merits of the case. The court partially allowed the petitions by setting aside the issuance of summons under section 496B PPC due to non-compliance with the special procedure under section 203C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, but upheld the summons and continuation of proceedings under section 496 PPC, leaving all factual and legal objections to be raised before the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a court is required to evaluate the detailed merits and evidence of a case at the stage of issuing summons on a private complaint?
  • Does the issuance of summons by a trial court in a criminal complaint amount to an infringement of the accused's rights or a determination of guilt?
  • Whether non-compliance with the specific procedure prescribed under section 203C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiates the issuance of summons for an offence under section 496B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can an accused challenge the issuance of process by entering into a detailed appraisal of the merits of the allegations rather than pointing out a jurisdictional error or illegality?
  Read full judgment →
• Brig. (R) Imtiaz Ahmed vs Deputy Commissioner In-Land Revenue, Benami2025 IHC 84 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Bilal Munir Abbasi vs Inspector General of Police, Islamabad and others2025 IHC 564 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-08-04Read full judgment →
• Bahria Town (Pvt) Limited vs Yasir Ali etc2025 IHC 546 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-07-17Read full judgment →
• Babar Shehzad vs Federation Of Pakistan Through Ministry Of Interior, Islamabad Etc2025 IHC 438 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-24Read full judgment →
• Aziz Ur Rehman vs The State, etc2025 IHC 482 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-25
  illegal dispossessioncriminal revisionprocedural irregularitySection 200 Cr.P.C.summary dismissalpolice inquiry reportpossession dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad-East, which dismissed a complaint filed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The core legal question was whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the complaint without adhering to mandatory procedural requirements for inquiry. The High Court held that the Impugned Order was void ab initio due to significant procedural irregularities. Specifically, the Trial Court failed to comply with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, by not recording the complainant's statement on oath in open court, and accepted a vague police report that failed to conduct an in-depth inquiry into the possession of the disputed property. The court set aside the dismissal order and remanded the matter for a fresh inquiry. The key principle laid down is that a Trial Court must strictly adhere to the mandatory procedural requirements of Section 200 Cr.P.C. and ensure that police reports submitted during the inquiry stage are comprehensive, detailed, and based on an in-depth investigation, rather than vague or superficial assessments.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure to record a complainant's statement on oath in open court under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render a dismissal order void?
  • Is a Trial Court legally required to ensure police reports submitted during a complaint inquiry are comprehensive and based on in-depth investigation?
  • Can a criminal complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 be summarily dismissed solely on the ground of a pending civil dispute?
  Read full judgment →
• Atif Hussain vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defense and others2025 IHC 510 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Asif ur Rehman vs Ministry of Science of Technology & another2025 IHC 582 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-08-25Read full judgment →
• Asif Mehmood vs Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Health Services2025 IHC 560 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-19Read full judgment →
• Asia Bibi vs The State, etc2025 IHC 304 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-05
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausepolice disclosurefurther inquirysupplementary statementinadmissibility of confession
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Asia Bibi, sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 337 registered under sections 302, 365, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Khanna, Islamabad. The petitioner was nominated in a supplementary statement eight days after the FIR was lodged. The Islamabad High Court examined the arguments and the evidentiary value of the material collected during investigation, noting that disclosures made by an accused while in police custody are inadmissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and that no eyewitnesses or incriminating recoveries directly linked the petitioner to the offense. The Court held that since the offense under Section 365 did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the case otherwise warranted further inquiry under Section 497(2), the continued incarceration of the petitioner served no useful purpose. The Court accordingly allowed the bail petition, admitting the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing surety bonds, with the observation that findings were strictly tentative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether disclosure made by an accused while in police custody has any evidentiary value?
  • Does an offense under Section 365 of the Pakistan Penal Code fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  • When can a case be considered one for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Asghar Mehmood vs Ministry of Defence Production, Government of Pakistan & others2025 IHC 260 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-22Read full judgment →
• Arshad Iqbal vs The State and another2025 IHC 124 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-10
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausefurther inquiryidentification paradesupplementary statementnon-nomination in FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by the Petitioner in connection with FIR No. 786/24, involving offences under Sections 302, 365, 381-A, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the Petitioner, who was not nominated in the FIR and against whom no identification parade was conducted, was entitled to the concession of bail despite the offences falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the Petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that deeper appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage and that implicating an accused through a supplementary statement without a disclosed source is legally deprecated. The Court affirmed the principle that even in cases falling within the prohibitory clause, bail may be granted if the case against the accused requires further inquiry into their guilt, particularly when the accused is not named in the FIR and no identification parade has occurred.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere fact that an offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically disentitle an accused from the grant of bail?
  • Is it permissible for a court to conduct a deeper appreciation of facts at the bail stage?
  • Can an accused be denied bail solely on the basis of a supplementary statement when they were not named in the initial FIR and no identification parade was held?
  Read full judgment →
• Arshad Aqeel Awan vs National Cooperative Housing Society and others2025 IHC 410 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-20Read full judgment →
• Arbab Imam Dino Samoon vs Tahir Yaqoob Bhatti, etc2025 IHC 50 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-01-27Read full judgment →
• Amna Fayyaz vs Additional District Judge (West), Islamabad, etc2025 IHC 180 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-19Read full judgment →
• Ameer Khan vs The State & other2025 IHC 220 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-09Read full judgment →
• Aman Ullah Khan, Ibrar Hussain, Ghazala Shaheen vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2025 IHC 58, 2025 PLD Islamabad 274 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-12-03Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank Limited, etc vs Full Bench National Industrial Relations2025 IHC 554 · Islamabad High Court
  procedural irregularitycurable defectaccess to justicequasi-judicial proceedingswrit jurisdictionfair trialtechnicalitiespleadings
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges an order passed by the National Industrial Relations Commission, which dismissed the petitioner’s appeal on the technical ground that it was signed by only one attorney rather than two. The core legal question was whether a quasi-judicial body can dismiss an appeal on a procedural technicality without affording an opportunity to rectify the alleged defect. The High Court held that the dismissal was legally unsustainable. The court ruled that procedural lapses, such as deficiencies in signing or verifying pleadings, are curable and do not vitiate legal proceedings unless they result in demonstrable prejudice or impinge upon the forum's jurisdiction. The court emphasized that the primary duty of judicial and quasi-judicial bodies is to adjudicate matters on their merits rather than stifling proceedings on technical formalities. Procedural rules are intended to facilitate the administration of justice, not to defeat substantive rights. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commission with directions to decide the appeal on its merits after allowing the petitioner to rectify the procedural defect.

  Questions settled

  • Can a quasi-judicial body dismiss an appeal solely on the ground of a procedural defect in signing without providing an opportunity to rectify it?
  • Does a defect in the authorization or signing of a memorandum of appeal render the appeal incompetent or non-maintainable?
  • Are procedural irregularities that do not affect the merits of a case or the jurisdiction of the court curable at any stage of the proceedings?
  • Does the dismissal of an appeal on a technicality without addressing the merits violate the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Alia Sufian vs Federation of Pakistan through ministry of Commerce, etc2025 IHC 492 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-24Read full judgment →
• AIOU vs Prof. Dr. Syed Zafar Ilyas, etc2025 IHC 552 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-07-22Read full judgment →
• Ahsan Ali Gardezi vs The State2025 IHC 374 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-12
  child sexual abusechild witnessrationality testCCTV evidenceforensic reportadmissibility of evidencesexual abuse
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 377-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the sexual abuse of a minor. The core legal questions concerned the admissibility and reliability of child witness testimony and the evidentiary status of CCTV footage obtained from private premises without the testimony of the property owner. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence. The Court held that the child victim was a competent witness, having passed the "rationality test" by demonstrating sufficient intelligence to comprehend questions and provide coherent answers. Furthermore, the Court established that CCTV footage, when authenticated by a forensic report from the National Forensic Agency, is admissible per se under Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and Section 4(2) of the National Forensic Agency Act 2024, rendering the testimony of the private premises' owner unnecessary. The judgment emphasized that corroborative evidence, including forensic analysis and consistent victim testimony, sufficiently proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Is a child witness competent to testify if they demonstrate sufficient intelligence to understand questions and provide rational answers?
  • Does the admissibility of CCTV footage from private premises require the testimony of the property owner if a forensic report confirms its integrity?
  • Can a conviction for sexual abuse be sustained based on the testimony of a child witness corroborated by forensic analysis of CCTV footage?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed, etc vs Ministry of Interior through its secretary, etc2025 IHC 494 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-26Read full judgment →
• Agha Intesar Yunus vs Federal Investigation Agency, etc2025 IHC 526 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-07-11Read full judgment →
• Advance Learner Academy vs Additional District & Sessions Judge, Islamabad-West & others2025 IHC 202 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Adnan Hamayun vs Arjumand Jahangir and another2025 IHC 194 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-11
  appeal against acquittaldishonoured chequeguarantee chequeburden of proofbenefit of doubtPakistan Penal Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Trial Court acquitting respondent No.1 of an offense under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in respect of a dishonoured cheque. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the essential ingredients of Section 489-F, including that the cheque was issued dishonestly for the repayment of a loan or fulfillment of an obligation. The Islamabad High Court held that an undisputed endorsement on the reverse of the cheque proved it was issued as a guarantee relating to the sale of a vehicle rather than for a loan, and noted substantial contradictions and improvements in the appellant's testimony at trial. The court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and that findings of an acquittal will not be interfered with unless perverse or arbitrary, reaffirming that any single loophole in the prosecution's case inures to the benefit of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a cheque issued merely as a guarantee attracts liability under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What is the scope of interference by an appellate court in an appeal against an order of acquittal?
  • Does a material contradiction or improvement in the complainant's testimony at trial create a fatal loophole in the prosecution case?
  • Where the prosecution fails to establish the foundational loan or outstanding obligation, can an offense under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained?
  Read full judgment →
• Adeel Nawaz vs Attiqur Rehman2025 IHC 318 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-09Read full judgment →
• Abual Hasnat Muhammad Zulqarnain & 22 others vs Muhammad Shabbir2025 IHC 334 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-02
  service tribunal jurisdictionsuo motu powersquo warrantodue processcoram non judiceconstitutional petitionjudicial serviceservice of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Islamabad Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, which, while deciding a service appeal, suo motu set aside a government notification reconstituting the Tribunal itself. The core legal questions were whether the Tribunal possessed suo motu jurisdiction to adjudicate matters outside the scope of the appeal, whether it could exercise quo warranto powers, and whether it violated due process by passing orders without hearing affected parties. The Court held that the Tribunal acted without jurisdiction and its order was coram non judice. It affirmed that statutory tribunals are creatures of law with limited powers, lacking suo motu authority and the constitutional power to issue quo warranto, which is exclusive to the High Court. Furthermore, the Tribunal violated Article 10A of the Constitution by condemning parties unheard. The key principles laid down are that jurisdiction cannot be enlarged by judicial overreach, that suo motu powers must be expressly conferred by statute, and that the right to a fair trial and due process is mandatory in all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does a service tribunal possess inherent suo motu jurisdiction to adjudicate matters not specifically raised in an appeal?
  • Can a service tribunal issue a writ of quo warranto to challenge the validity of its own reconstitution?
  • Is a judicial order passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to affected parties void as coram non judice?
  • Are members of the Islamabad Judicial Service considered to be in the service of Pakistan under Article 212 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Khan vs Azhar Rabbani and others2025 IHC 400 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-29
  Section 145 Cr.P.Ccivil court jurisdictionstatus quo orderquashing of criminal proceedingsbreach of peacedisputed property possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenged orders passed by an Assistant Commissioner and an Additional Sessions Judge regarding the sealing and possession of a disputed property under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are sustainable when a civil court is already seized of the matter and has issued orders regulating possession or maintaining status quo. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that once a competent civil court is seized of a property dispute and has issued interim restraining orders or status quo orders, the dispute falls outside the jurisdiction of a magistrate under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and magistrates cannot override civil court orders. The key principle laid down is that criminal proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot be initiated or maintained when civil litigation concerning the same subject matter is already pending and civil court orders regarding possession or status quo are in operation, though preventive measures under Sections 107 and 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 may be taken to prevent a breach of the peace.

  Questions settled

  • Whether proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are sustainable when a civil court is already seized of the subject matter and has issued a status quo order?
  • Can a magistrate or executive authority override civil court orders regulating the possession of property through proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the proper legal course to maintain public peace when civil litigation regarding the title and possession of property is already pending between the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah vs The State, etc2025 IHC 104 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-12
  criminal appealexplosive substancesbenefit of doubtchain of custodySection 342 statementprosecution sanctionsafe custodyacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, by the Special Judge, ATC, Islamabad. The core legal questions concern whether the prosecution proved the recovery of explosive substances beyond reasonable doubt and whether procedural lapses—specifically regarding witness testimony, chain of custody, and the absence of mandatory government sanction—vitiated the conviction. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, citing significant contradictions in the testimony of the Bomb Disposal Squad official, the failure to record his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and an unexplained five-day delay in transmitting samples to the laboratory, which compromised the chain of custody. Furthermore, the Court noted that the mandatory government sanction for prosecution was neither exhibited nor put to the accused during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The judgment reaffirms the principle that any lacuna in the prosecution's case entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to record a witness's statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, undermine the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained if the mandatory government sanction for prosecution under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, is not exhibited or put to the accused during the Section 342 examination?
  • Does an unexplained delay in transmitting forensic samples to the laboratory create a fatal break in the chain of custody?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal when the prosecution fails to prove the recovery of incriminating material beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Saeed vs Mrs. Mamooni K. Mohsin Ali Khan, etc2025 IHC 192 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman Kahout vs Sajid Mahmood Chishti2025 IHC 284 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed Khan vs The State & another2025 IHC 274 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-24
  criminal revisionseized propertyreturn of vehiclescustody of propertypersonal belongingscustoms actcode of criminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed under Sections 435/439 read with Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, assailing an order passed by the Special Judge Customs, Taxation and Anti-Smuggling, whereby the petitioner's application for the return of seized personal articles and a vehicle taken into custody during his arrest under the Customs Act, 1969 was partially dismissed. The core legal question was whether personal belongings and a vehicle seized at the time of arrest, which lack any direct nexus to the alleged offence, can be indefinitely retained by the investigative authorities as case property. The Islamabad High Court held that articles not forming part of the case property or lacking evidentiary value to the crime should not be unnecessarily withheld from their rightful owner. The court set aside the impugned order to the extent of the denied items, directing their release subject to surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that mere seizure at the time of arrest, without a specific demonstrated connection to the offence, does not justify the continued retention of personal property.

  Questions settled

  • Whether personal belongings seized at the time of arrest can be retained indefinitely by the investigating agency without proof of a nexus to the alleged offence?
  • Can articles that are not instrumentalities or proceeds of a crime be withheld under Sections 516-A and 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does mere seizure and possession at the time of arrest justify the continued retention of a vehicle and personal items by the state?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadeer vs The State and another2025 IHC 54 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-12-16
  juvenile offenderjuvenile justice systemanti-rape actjurisdictiondiversionrestorative justicegender based violence courtquashment of proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of a Gender Based Violence Court convicting the appellant under sections 376(iii) and 377-B of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question addressed is whether a Special Court established under the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021 has jurisdiction to try a juvenile offender without being specifically designated as a Juvenile Court under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018. The Islamabad High Court held that a Special Court under the Anti-Rape Act lacks jurisdiction to try a juvenile unless specifically designated as a Juvenile Court, and proceedings conducted otherwise against a juvenile are coram non judice and void. The court laid down the principle that trials of juvenile offenders must strictly adhere to the protective and rehabilitative framework of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, emphasizing restorative justice, diversion mechanisms, and the parens patriae doctrine rather than retributive adult sentencing.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Special Court established under the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021 has the jurisdiction to try a juvenile offender without being specifically designated as a Juvenile Court?
  • Does the failure to conduct a trial of a juvenile within the framework of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018 render the proceedings coram non judice?
  • Can a case involving a juvenile offender be referred to the Juvenile Justice Committee for disposal through diversion when the complainant has expressed a desire to pardon the accused?
  • How do the overriding clauses of the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021 and the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018 apply in the case of a juvenile accused of a scheduled sexual offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hanan Tunio vs Federation of Pakistan and others2025 IHC 460 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs The State, etc2025 IHC 168 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-24
  criminal appealacquittalbenefit of doubtcircumstantial evidencemurderdouble innocencerecovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad-West, which acquitted the respondents of charges under Section 302/201/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had presented sufficient, trustworthy evidence to warrant a conviction, or if the trial court correctly extended the benefit of doubt to the accused. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, who were not eyewitnesses, and noted that the Call Detail Record (CDR) lacked necessary authentication. Furthermore, the court held that the recovery of a weapon, absent other corroborative evidence, is insufficient for conviction. The court affirmed that the benefit of reasonable doubt must be extended to the accused as a right, not a concession. Emphasizing the principle of "double innocence" attached to an acquittal, the court concluded that no grounds existed to interfere with the trial court's well-reasoned judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of a weapon of offence, without corroborative evidence, constitute sufficient proof for conviction?
  • Is the benefit of doubt a right of the accused or a concession granted by the court?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a Call Detail Record (CDR) that lacks a certificate of ownership or voice identification?
  • Does the principle of 'double innocence' apply to an appeal against an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz, etc vs The State2025 IHC 158 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-20
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryAnti-Terrorism Actcriminal conspiracytentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a criminal case registered at Police Station Secretariat, Islamabad, facing numerous charges including rioting, assault on public servants, dacoity, and offences under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail given that they were not nominated with specific roles in the FIR, were arrested later on the disclosure of co-accused, and their case fell within the scope of further inquiry. The Islamabad High Court held that since no specific role was attributed to the petitioners in the FIR and their involvement required further inquiry, and considering that indefinite incarceration serves no purpose when the trial conclusion is not in sight, the petitioners successfully made out a case for bail. The court laid down the principle that where an accused is not assigned a specific role in the FIR and is arrested subsequently on a co-accused's disclosure, their complicity falls under further inquiry, warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused not specifically nominated with an overt act in the FIR is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does the arrest of an accused on the disclosure of a co-accused after the incident make the case one of further inquiry?
  • Can bail be granted when the conclusion of the trial is not in sight and indefinite incarceration serves no useful purpose?
  Read full judgment →
• A.S. Babar Hashmi vs Federation of Pakistan Etc2025 IHC 120 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-20
  civil servant promotionante-dated promotionwrit jurisdictionservice tribunalvested rightArticle 212terms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  The Petitioner, a civil servant, filed a writ petition seeking ante-dated promotion to BS-21 and BS-22, alleging that the Central Selection Board (CSB) arbitrarily deferred his promotion despite his seniority. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses jurisdiction to adjudicate upon promotion grievances of civil servants and whether promotion constitutes a vested right. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. It affirmed that promotion is not a vested right of a civil servant, as it is based on selection and fitness. Furthermore, the Court ruled that matters pertaining to the terms and conditions of service, including promotion, fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunals. Consequently, the High Court is barred from assuming jurisdiction in such matters under Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The petition was dismissed accordingly, emphasizing that administrative tribunals are the appropriate forums for such service-related disputes.

  Questions settled

  • Is promotion to a higher grade a vested right of a civil servant?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate service-related promotion disputes under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Do matters concerning the determination of fitness for promotion fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of Service Tribunals?
  Read full judgment →
• Zaver Petroleum Corporation (Pvt.) Limited vs Saif Energy Limited2024 IHC 204, 2025 PLD Islamabad 219 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-10-24Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Ahmed Malik vs Malik Saif ur Rehman and another2024 IHC 286 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-12-16Read full judgment →
• Zafarullah Shaheen vs National University of Modern Languages (Num L)2024 IHC 242, 2025 MLD 882 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-12-05Read full judgment →
• Zafar Mehmood vs Muhammad Najeeb and another2024 IHC 48 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-03-27
  dishonour of chequeacquittal appealfinancial obligationburden of proofreasonable doubtsecurity cheque
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal under Section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed by the appellant against the acquittal of respondent No. 1 by the Judicial Magistrate, Islamabad (East), in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant claimed he lent Rs. 20,000,000 in cash to the respondent, who subsequently issued four cheques that were dishonoured. The respondent contended that the cheques were blank security cheques given to a third party and denied any financial relationship with the appellant. The High Court upheld the acquittal, holding that to constitute an offence under Section 489-F, the prosecution must prove the cheque was issued with dishonest intention towards repayment of a loan or fulfillment of an obligation. Since the appellant failed to produce any documentary evidence of the cash transaction, his financial capacity, or bank withdrawal receipts, the existence of a valid underlying obligation was not established. The Court affirmed that mere possession of a cheque is insufficient for conviction without proof of the underlying debt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the mere possession or issuance of a dishonoured cheque is sufficient to secure a conviction under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without independent proof of an underlying loan or obligation?
  • What are the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence of dishonest issuance of cheque under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • On whom does the burden of proof lie to establish the existence of a financial transaction or obligation when the accused denies having any business relations with the complainant in a cheque dishonour case?
  Read full judgment →
• Yusra Medical & Dental College (Private) Limited through its Chief2024 IHC 256 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-10-30Read full judgment →
• Wi-Tribe (Pvt.) Ltd. through Head of Legal and Regulatory Affairs vs Pakistan Telecommunication Authority through Chairman2024 CLC 937 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-12-21Read full judgment →
• Waqas Ahmed Langah vs Ministry of Overseas Pakistanis and Human2024 IHC 186 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-09-27Read full judgment →
• Wajid Mehmood vs Muhammad Hanif and another2024 IHC 194, 2025 PLJ Islamabad 50 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-09-11Read full judgment →
• Waheed Ashraf vs Federation of Pakistan, etcPTCL 2024 CL. 726 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-02-19Read full judgment →
• Waheed Ashraf vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Revenue2024 PLJ Islamabad 135 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Vifor (International) Ag, Vifor (International) Ltd. and Vifor (International)2024 IHC 288 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-10-31Read full judgment →
• Umair Wasi Chaudhary vs The Election Commision of Pakistan and others2024 IHC 52, 2024 CLC 1265 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-04-05Read full judgment →
• The State vs Said Jan Afridi, etc2024 IHC 168, 2025 MLD 454 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-05-21
  money launderingpredicate offencetax evasionretrospective applicationSection 265-K Cr.P.C.proceeds of crimedue process
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged an acquittal order passed by a Special Judge (Customs, Taxation & Anti-Smuggling) under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, regarding charges under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010. The core legal question was whether criminal prosecution for money laundering, predicated on tax evasion under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could proceed without a prior, concluded determination of tax liability by tax authorities, and whether the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 could apply retrospectively to transactions occurring before the inclusion of specific tax offences in its Schedule. The Court held that the prosecution was premature and groundless. It ruled that a predicate offence must be established through the tax hierarchy before money laundering charges can be initiated. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 cannot operate retrospectively to punish acts committed before the relevant amendments. Consequently, the Court upheld the acquittal, establishing the principle that criminal prosecution for money laundering based on tax evasion requires a prior, conclusive finding of tax evasion by competent tax authorities.

  Questions settled

  • Can criminal prosecution for money laundering based on tax evasion proceed without a prior, concluded determination of tax liability by tax authorities?
  • Does the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 apply retrospectively to predicate offences committed before their inclusion in the Schedule of the Act?
  • Is a prior determination of tax evasion by the tax hierarchy a mandatory prerequisite for initiating money laundering proceedings under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010?
  • What constitutes 'reasonable grounds to believe' for the purpose of initiating an investigation under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Mr. Irfan Nawaz Memon, District Magistrate and three others2024 IHC 22, 2024 PLD Islamabad 256 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-03-01
  criminal contemptpreventive detentionmaintenance of public orderobstruction of justicefundamental rightsrule of lawlibertyabuse of authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses contempt of court proceedings initiated against the District Magistrate of Islamabad, the Senior Superintendent of Police, the Divisional Police Officer, and the Station House Officer for repeatedly issuing and soliciting unlawful preventive detention orders under the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 against political workers and leaders, notably Shehryar Afridi, in direct defiance of judicial verdicts passed by the Islamabad High Court and the Lahore High Court. The core legal question concerns whether the executive authorities' systematic and synchronized reissuance of detention orders to frustrate court-ordered releases and prevent detainees from accessing justice constitutes criminal contempt of court. The Islamabad High Court held that the respondents' contumacious conduct, lack of bona fides, and deliberate circumvention of judicial orders amounted to an obstruction of the administration of justice and brought the justice system into disrepute. The court convicted the District Magistrate, Senior Superintendent of Police, and Station House Officer of criminal contempt under Article 204 of the Constitution and the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, sentencing them to varying terms of simple imprisonment and fines, while discharging the notice against the Divisional Police Officer. The key principle laid down is that public officials cannot exercise statutory powers in a colorable manner to nullify court judgments, and that executive defiance of judicial orders concerning fundamental rights and personal liberty constitutes a substantial detriment to the administration of justice punishable as criminal contempt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the reissuance of preventive detention orders under the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 after superior courts have set aside previous orders on the same grounds constitute criminal contempt of court?
  • Whether public officials can justify the issuance of unlawful detention orders and disobedience of court orders on the ground of following recommendations made by a District Intelligence Committee?
  • Can the executive branch of the state defeat court-ordered bail and release by manufacturing fresh security reports to continually incarcerate an accused person?
  • Whether the test for mens rea in criminal contempt proceedings involving the disobedience of judicial orders is objective based on the effect of the contemnor's actions?
  Read full judgment →
• The State of Libya through its Head of Mission in Pakistan vs Civil Judge2024 IHC 190, 2025 PLD Islamabad 1 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-09-27Read full judgment →
• The Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer M/s The United Insurance2024 IHC 92, 2025 PLJ Islamabad 79 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• The Imperial Electric Company (Private) Limited vs M/s Zhongxing Telecom2025 IHC 6, 2024 IHC 274, 2025 CLD 420 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-12-20
  arbitration awardlimitation periodfiling of awardcivil revisionmaintainability of appealpecuniary jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from an order of the Additional District Judge, Islamabad, holding that an arbitration award filed by the arbitrator was barred by limitation under Article 178 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908. The core legal question was whether the 90-day limitation period prescribed in Article 178 applies when an arbitrator files an award in court either on their own or upon a party's request, rather than upon a formal application filed by a party seeking a court direction to the arbitrator. The Islamabad High Court held that Article 178 exclusively governs applications filed by parties seeking a court direction for the arbitrator to file the award, and prescribes no time limit for an arbitrator filing the award upon a party's request or on their own initiative. The Court also held that an appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 is not maintainable against such an order, but exercised its discretion to convert the appeal into a civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, setting aside the impugned order.

  Questions settled

  • Does the 90-day limitation period prescribed in Article 178 of the Limitation Act, 1908 apply when an arbitrator files an award in court upon a request by a party?
  • Is an order holding an arbitration award to be barred by limitation appealable under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
  • Can a High Court convert an incompetent appeal into a civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  • Is there any period of limitation prescribed for an arbitrator to file an arbitration award in court?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Muhammad vs The Federal Public Service Commission and others2024 IHC 110, 2024 PLJ Islamabad 283, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1546 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-05-27
  Section Officers Promotional Examinationeligibility criteriamaterial misrepresentationdepartmental permission certificateservice reinstatementpublic service commissionconcealment of facts
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises under Section 7(3)(d) of the Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1977, challenging the rejection of the appellant's candidature for the Section Officers Promotional Examination, 2016 (SOPE-2016). The core legal question is whether the appellant possessed the requisite eight years of regular service at the time of application and whether the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) was justified in rejecting his candidature due to his prior dismissal from service and subsequent concealment of this fact. The Court held that the appeal is devoid of merit and dismissed it. The ratio is that the appellant did not meet the eligibility criteria at the time of application because he had been dismissed from service in 2012 and was not reinstated until 2017, meaning he lacked the mandatory eight years of continuous service. Furthermore, the appellant's failure to disclose his dismissal in his application constituted a material misrepresentation. The key principle laid down is that eligibility for competitive examinations is determined based on the candidate's status at the time of application, and material concealment of service history justifies the rejection of candidature.

  Questions settled

  • Does a candidate's subsequent reinstatement in service retrospectively satisfy the eligibility criteria for a competitive examination if the candidate lacked the required length of service at the time of application?
  • Can the Federal Public Service Commission reject a candidate's application for concealing material facts regarding their employment history?
  • Is a candidate eligible for a promotional examination if they were dismissed from service during the period required to calculate the mandatory length of service?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Zaheer Hussain Naqvi vs Civil Judge, West Islamabad and others2024 MLD 1527 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-03-29Read full judgment →
• Syed Waqar-ul-Hassan Shah Burkhari and others vs Small Business2024 IHC 182, 2024 CLD 1481 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-09-26Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Ali Bokhari vs Federation of Pakistan etc2024 IHC 176, 2025 PLD Islamabad 48, 2025 PLJ Islamabad 1 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-09-19Read full judgment →
• Syed Baqir Raza Naqvi and two others vs The State2024 IHC · Islamabad High Court · 2024-04-24
  post-arrest bailcontrol of narcotic substancescannabidiolcannabis control and regulatory authorityhashish oilfurther inquirytetrahydrocannabinol
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, relating to the alleged possession and online sale of CBD/Hemp Oil/THC. The core legal question was whether Cannabidiol (CBD) is a substance prohibited under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, or regulated under the Cannabis Control and Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2024, and whether the incomplete chemical analysis and interplay between the two statutes made the case one of further inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Islamabad High Court held that the absence of a quantitative assessment of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in the recovered CBD oil and the unresolved applicability between the 1997 Act and the subsequent 2024 Ordinance rendered the petitioners' case one of further inquiry. The Court laid down the principle that where the chemical nature, THC percentage, and statutory classification of a seized cannabis derivative are ambiguous, and two competing legislative frameworks apply, the accused is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail pending further determination by the laboratory and the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Cannabidiol (CBD) extracted from hemp seed falls within the definition of prohibited cannabis under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Does the possession of Cannabidiol (CBD) attract penal consequences of imprisonment under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 or pecuniary penalties under the Cannabis Control and Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2024?
  • Whether the absence of a quantitative assessment of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in a chemical report makes a narcotics case one of further inquiry warranting post-arrest bail?
  • How do overlapping provisions of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and the Cannabis Control and Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2024 apply to cannabis derivatives?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Asad Ali Shah vs The Chief Editor, daily Jang and others2024 IHC 94, 2024 MLD 446 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-12-04Read full judgment →
• Syed Abdul Basit Shah, The State vs The State & another, Syed Abdul Basit2024 IHC 208, 2025 YLR 101 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-10-07
  criminal appealmurder referencedeath sentencebenefit of doubtcircumstantial evidencesafe custody of samplesinquest proceedingsindivisible evidencePFSA report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected murder reference arose from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-V (East), Islamabad, whereby the appellant was convicted under Sections 302(b)/34 and 201/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentenced to death, and ordered to pay compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The deceased allegedly died in her matrimonial home under suspicious circumstances. The High Court considered whether the circumstantial and medical evidence, alongside forensic reports, proved the charge of murder beyond reasonable doubt in the absence of direct eyewitness testimony. Upon reappraising the record, the High Court held that the prosecution case was riddled with fatal infirmities, including a broken chain of custody for forensic parcels, significant delays and procedural violations under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and contradictory medical findings regarding the cause of death. Applying the settled principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether forensic evidence and expert reports retain legal efficacy when the safe custody and safe transmission of medical samples are compromised by unexplained delays and discrepancies?
  • Whether a failure by the police to strictly comply with the mandatory procedural requirements of Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during an inquest creates fatal doubt in the prosecution case?
  • Can a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained where the medical evidence does not definitively corroborate the alleged mechanism and cause of death?
  • Whether the acquittal of co-accused on the basis of indivisible and uncorroborated evidence necessitates the acquittal of a similarly placed accused facing the same set of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Suriya Altaf and another vs Muhammad Wazir2024 IHC 84, 2024 CLC 1720 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-05-07Read full judgment →
• Sumaira Shaheen and others vs Judge Family Court-East, Islamabad and another2024 IHC 154, 2024 CLC 1801, 2025 PLJ Islamabad 65 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-07-12
  family court proceedingsexpeditious justicewest pakistan family court actconstitutional petitiondelay in family suitsinterim maintenancevideo link evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by petitioner Sumaira Shaheen seeking directions for the Judge Family Court, Islamabad, to expedite proceedings in her family suit and direct the respondent to submit a written statement, invoking the mandatory timelines under the West Pakistan Family Court Act, 1964. The core legal question concerned the systemic delays in family court litigation and the failure to adhere to statutory timelines, infringing upon constitutional guarantees of expeditious justice and the protection of family life. The Islamabad High Court disposed of the petition by issuing comprehensive administrative and judicial directions to streamline family court proceedings through modern information technology, video-linking, E-courts, strict compliance with statutory timeframes for filing written statements, and prompt determination of interim maintenance. The court held that family courts must strictly observe the timelines provided in the West Pakistan Family Court Act, 1964, and laid down principles emphasizing the state's constitutional obligation to ensure inexpensive and expeditious justice for women and children in matrimonial disputes.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can issue general guidelines to family courts for eliminating procedural delays and ensuring compliance with statutory timelines under the West Pakistan Family Court Act, 1964?
  • Is a family court judge bound to decide a family suit within the six-month period mandated under Section 12-A of the West Pakistan Family Court Act, 1964?
  • Can modern technology such as video links and E-courts be utilized by family courts for recording statements and conducting proceedings?
  • What are the legal consequences for a family court judge who fails to conclude a family suit within the statutory timeline?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ahmed Hassan and another vs T & T Employees Cooperative2024 MLD 1897 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-05-07Read full judgment →
• Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd vs Paf Hotel2024 IHC 220 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-11-07Read full judgment →
• Sohail and Company vs Anti Dumping Appellate Tribunal, Islamabad and 22024 IHC 36, 2024 PTD 872 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-03-08
  anti-dumping dutiesdomestic industrysection 12(2) cpcsecond appealremandinjury marginstatutory limitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Islamabad High Court addresses a writ petition and several civil miscellaneous appeals arising from anti-dumping proceedings concerning Offset Printing Ink. The core legal questions involved whether an application under Section 12(2) CPC was maintainable against an appellate tribunal's remand order when a party was allegedly not impleaded, whether a second appeal under Section 70(13) of the Anti-Dumping Duties Act is restricted by the principles of Section 100 CPC, and whether statutory timelines and definitions regarding domestic industry were violated. The court held that while non-impleadment can amount to a ground under Section 12(2) CPC, concurrent and contradictory remedies cannot be pursued simultaneously, rendering the writ petition meritless. Furthermore, the court held that second appeals under Section 70(13) of the Anti-Dumping Duties Act are governed by restrictions akin to Section 100 CPC, barring new factual grounds and reappraisal of evidence. The key principles laid down include that timelines under Sections 36 and 39 of the Anti-Dumping Duties Act are directory rather than mandatory, and that time spent in judicial review is excluded from the calculation of statutory determination periods.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application under Section 12(2) CPC is maintainable against a remand order passed by an appellate tribunal where an interested party was allegedly not impleaded?
  • Does a second appeal under Section 70(13) of the Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015 share the restricted scope of a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  • Are the timelines provided under Section 39 of the Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015 for making a final determination mandatory or directory?
  • Is the time consumed in judicial review proceedings included when calculating the limitation period prescribed under Section 39 of the Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015?
  Read full judgment →
• Siddiqsons Energy Limited vs Private Power and Infrastructure Board (Ppib), and another2024 IHC 68, 2024 CLD 18 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-09-11Read full judgment →
• Siddiq Moti (deceased) through legal heirs vs Appellate Bench Registry, SECP, Islamabad and 02 others2024 IHC 228, 2025 CLD 34 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-11-19Read full judgment →
• Sher Bahadar vs President Islamic Republic of Pakistan and 2 others2024 PLC (C.S.) 1006 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-05-21
  workplace harassmentFederal Ombudsmansexual harassmentgender-based discriminationadministrative grievancesconstitutional petitionNo Objection Certificate
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition arises from an order passed by the President of Pakistan setting aside the Federal Ombudsman's rejection of a workplace harassment complaint and remanding the matter for evidence and hearing. The core legal question is whether an administrative dispute regarding the issuance of a No Objection Certificate and general workplace grievances lacking specific allegations of sexual harassment or gender-based discrimination fall within the definition of 'harassment' under Section 2(h) of the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010. The Islamabad High Court held that a complaint before the Ombudsman must contain specific details of harassment of a sexual nature or gender-based discrimination as defined by the statute and interpreted by superior courts, and cannot be founded on generalized administrative grievances or ordinary dictionary meanings of harassment. The court set aside the President's order, ruling that the Ombudsman correctly rejected the complaint at the outset for failing to meet the statutory threshold.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a complaint lacking allegations of sexual nature or gender-based discrimination falls within the definition of harassment under Section 2(h) of the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010?
  • Can the Federal Ombudsman dismiss a complaint at the outset if it fails to disclose specific details of harassment as required by Rule 5(1)(a) of the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Filing and Disposal of Complaints) Rules, 2013?
  • Does the definition of harassment under the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 cover general administrative disputes and grievances regarding the issuance of a No Objection Certificate?
  Read full judgment →
• Shell Pakistan Limited vs Capital Development Authority and others2024 IHC 70, 2024 MLD 261 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-01-16Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed vs Ig, Islamabad and others2024 IHC 126 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-06-25Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Nazir Ahmed vs Muhammad Azeem2024 IHC 234, 2025 CLD 332 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-10-22Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Zulfiqar vs Malik Sheraz Zafar and others2024 IHC 164, 2024 YLR 2605 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-08-05Read full judgment →
• Sharjeel Javed and others vs The State2024 IHC 152, 2024 MLD 1815 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-07-12
  Anti-Money Laundering Actpredicate offencetax evasionprospective applicationpenal statutequashing of proceedingsIncome Tax Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges an order passed by the Special Court dismissing an application under section 265-K Cr.P.C. in a complaint case under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, stemming from allegations of tax evasion under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The core legal question involves determining whether money laundering proceedings can be initiated retrospectively for tax evasion periods occurring before sections 192 and 192-A of the Income Tax Ordinance were added as predicate offences to the Schedule of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010. The Islamabad High Court held that penal statutes and SROs must be construed strictly and applied prospectively, meaning acts not punishable as predicate offences at the time cannot form the basis of money laundering prosecutions prior to the cut-off date of the notification. The court laid down the principle that penal provisions cannot have retroactive operation without explicit legislative backing and set aside the impugned order, acquitting the appellants while allowing de-novo proceedings for acts falling within the purview of the law post-dating the notification.

  Questions settled

  • Can provisions of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, be applied retrospectively to predicate offences committed before their inclusion in the Schedule?
  • Whether tax evasion under sections 192 and 192-A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, can automatically be classified as money laundering without establishing the existence of proceeds of crime?
  • Does the High Court possess inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to set aside trial court proceedings that are initiated without legal authority?
  • How must penal statutes and SROs introducing new offences or penalties be construed with regard to their temporal application?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamsa Batool vs Federal Service Commission and others2024 IHC 12 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-03-12Read full judgment →
• Shams Ur Rehman vs The State and another2024 YLR 978 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-04-29
  post-arrest bailsecond bail petitiondishonoured chequedelay in conclusion of trialfresh ground for bailstatutory delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a second post-arrest bail petition filed by the accused in FIR No. 926 dated 27.12.2021 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Kohsar, Islamabad. The petitioner sought bail primarily on the ground of non-compliance with the High Court's earlier direction to conclude the trial within one month. The core legal question was whether non-compliance with a time-bound direction for concluding a trial or mere delay in trial constitutes a fresh ground for granting post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that administrative time-frame directions issued for concluding a trial do not form a statutory ground for bail under Section 497, and non-compliance therewith—unless resulting in a shocking, unconscionable, or inordinate delay not attributable to the accused—does not entitle an accused to bail as a matter of right. The key principles laid down are that delay in trial is only a ground for bail if the custody period is shocking and undue hardship is demonstrated, and administrative delay alone cannot override the merits of a criminal case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-compliance of a High Court's direction to conclude a trial within a specified time frame furnish a valid ground for post-arrest bail?
  • Whether delay in the conclusion of a trial by itself entitles an accused person to be enlarged on bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Are directions issued by an appellate or revisional court to conclude a trial within a specific time frame administrative in nature?
  • What constitutes a shocking, unconscionable, or inordinate period of custody sufficient to warrant bail on the ground of delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Hussain Khawaja vs The State and another2024 IHC 284, 2025 PLD Islamabad 212 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-12-23
  post-arrest bailsales tax fraudtax assessmentcriminal prosecutiondue processfundamental rightsstatutory interpretationabuse of power
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail after being implicated in a sales tax fraud case under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, for allegedly aiding a taxpayer by opening bank accounts. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings and pre-trial arrest for tax fraud under Section 33 of the Sales Tax Act can be initiated prior to the determination and assessment of tax liability under Section 11 of the Act. The court held that criminal prosecution and pre-trial steps like arrest cannot precede the mandatory civil adjudication and assessment of tax due, as criminalization under the Act is primarily intended to effectuate recovery and requires a pre-existing determined tax liability. Relying on settled precedent, the court emphasized that initiating criminal proceedings without prior tax assessment violates fundamental due process rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Consequently, the bail application was allowed, and the petitioner was granted bail.

  Questions settled

  • Can criminal proceedings for tax fraud under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 be initiated prior to the determination and assessment of tax liability under Section 11?
  • Whether pre-trial arrest and detention in sales tax cases are lawful before the tax due has been formally assessed?
  • Does the criminalization of recovery under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 necessitate prior civil adjudication?
  • Are offences under Section 33 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 compoundable upon payment of tax due and penalties?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafqat Hussain vs Abdul Hameed and others2024 IHC 24, 2025 PLD Islamabad 97 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-01-22Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ali Zia Khan vs The Arbitration Council through its Chairman etc.2024 IHC 192, 2025 CLC 22 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-09-27Read full judgment →
• Sana Ullah Gondal vs Capital Development Authority and others2024 IHC 248 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-12-06Read full judgment →
• Saira Rubab Nasir and another vs The State and another2024 IHC 86 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-05-22
  pre-arrest bailcorruptioncriminal investigationtentative assessmentfurther inquiryextortionbail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition concerns a request for confirmation of pre-arrest bail by two employees of the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PM&DC) accused of extorting 25% of health allowance arrears from fellow employees. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the allegations of corruption and the prosecution's claim that the petitioners were influential and could tamper with evidence. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, confirming the ad-interim order previously granted. The court reasoned that there was no documentary evidence linking the petitioners to the alleged extortion, and the petitioners held no policy-making authority regarding the release of the allowances. Furthermore, the court noted that out of 133 employees examined, only two made allegations, and the prosecution failed to demonstrate a necessity for arrest or a risk of absconsion. The court established the principle that at the pre-arrest bail stage, only a tentative assessment of the record is permissible, and where the prosecution fails to provide substantial evidence, the case warrants further inquiry rather than incarceration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the absence of documentary evidence linking an accused to an alleged crime warrants the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the fact that only a small fraction of witnesses have implicated an accused in a corruption case justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Is a deep appreciation of evidence permissible at the stage of deciding a pre-arrest bail petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Saad Muhammad Abbasi vs Syed Ejaz Ali, etc2024 IHC 142, 2024 CLD 1099, 2024 MLD 1501, 2024 PLJ Islamabad 315 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-05-31Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Sadiq vs Rana Mubashir Ahmed and another2024 IHC 18, 2024 MLD 1199, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 1194 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-03-13
  criminal revisionIllegal Dispossession Actco-ownersframing of chargeconcealment of factsquashing of complaintSection 265-D CrPCdelay in trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenging the trial court's dismissal of the petitioner's application under Section 265-D of the Cr.P.C. The matter stems from a dispute between brothers over co-owned property, where a private complaint under Sections 3, 4, and 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 was instituted against the petitioner. The petitioner argued that as co-owners with civil litigation pending, the Illegal Dispossession Act was inapplicable and the framing of charges was unwarranted. The Islamabad High Court noted that the petitioner had repeatedly filed multiple revision petitions on identical grounds, concealing prior dismissals and misrepresenting the history of the proceedings to delay the trial. Examining the police inquiry reports and witness statements on record, the Court held that the scope of prematurely terminating proceedings or altering charges under Section 265-D Cr.P.C. is narrow, especially when material showing a probability of conviction exists. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the revision petition and directed the trial court to conclude the trial within three months.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application under Section 265-D Cr.P.C. can be allowed where material on record shows a probability of conviction?
  • Can a party file successive criminal revision petitions on the same grounds after earlier revision petitions seeking quashing were dismissed or withdrawn?
  • Does an acquittal at an intermediary stage under Section 265-K or Section 249-A Cr.P.C. enjoy the same sanctity in revisional proceedings as an acquittal after a full trial?
  Read full judgment →