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. 37,514 judgments in total from the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

• The Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh, Karachi Versus Abid Ali Jatoi2025 SCMR 1058 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-20
  disabled persons quotaemployment rightsbeneficial legislationjudicial reviewconstitutional equalitycivil service recruitmentnon-discrimination
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns civil petitions for leave to appeal filed by the Province of Sindh against a High Court judgment directing the government to ensure the appointment of disabled/differently-abled persons against a reserved 5% job quota. The core legal question was whether the High Court’s directives, which included cautionary observations to Deputy Commissioners regarding the prioritization of existing applicants, were legally sound and within the court's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s judgment, finding no justification for interference. The Court held that the High Court’s observations were logical guidelines intended to ensure the finality and conclusiveness of the recruitment process. The Court affirmed that the State is constitutionally obligated to eliminate exploitation and ensure equal opportunity for disabled persons. It established that beneficial legislation, specifically the Sindh Empowerment of 'Persons with Disabilities' Act, 2018, must be implemented in letter and spirit to protect the rights of persons with disabilities. The Court emphasized that judicial review is a necessary mechanism to ensure executive compliance with constitutional mandates and statutory obligations regarding equality and non-discrimination in employment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have the authority to issue specific directions to executive authorities to ensure compliance with a statutory job quota for disabled persons?
  • Is the Sindh Empowerment of 'Persons with Disabilities' Act, 2018, considered beneficial legislation that requires strict implementation by the State?
  • Can the judiciary, under its power of judicial review, caution executive officers against ignoring existing applicants in favor of new recruitment processes?
  • Does the Constitution of Pakistan mandate the State to ensure equal employment opportunities for persons with disabilities?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Versus State2025 SCMR 1053 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-12
  murderbenefit of doubtchance witnessesconflict between ocular account and medical evidenceunnatural conduct of witnessesproof of motivecriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while altering his death sentence to imprisonment for life. The core legal questions involved the credibility of chance witnesses, the effect of a material conflict between ocular accounts and medical evidence, unnatural conduct of eye-witnesses, and the proof of alleged motive in a murder case. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of the eye-witnesses, pointing out that their explanation regarding a telephonic call was unproven, their conduct during the incident was unnatural, and a stark conflict existed between the number of injuries stated by them and those revealed by medical evidence. Furthermore, the alleged motive remained unproven. The Court laid down the principle that a single reasonable circumstance creating doubt in the prosecution's case is sufficient for acquittal, and where a case is replete with multiple doubts, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of chance witnesses can be relied upon when their presence at the scene of the crime is not satisfactorily explained?
  • Does a material conflict between the ocular account regarding the number of injuries and the medical evidence warrant the rejection of eye-witness testimony?
  • What is the legal effect on the prosecution's case when close relatives present as eye-witnesses exhibit unnatural conduct by failing to intervene or rescue the victim?
  • Is a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case sufficient to warrant the acquittal of an accused person?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahsan Ali Dawach Versus State2025 SCMR 1041 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-18
  superdarifreezing of propertyNational Accountability Ordinanceinterim custodyCode of Criminal Procedurediscretionary powerspeaking order
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a civil petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of an application for the interim custody (superdari) of a vehicle seized during an investigation under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The core legal question was whether a vehicle subject to a freezing order under the Ordinance could be released on superdari under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Supreme Court held that the application was maintainable, setting aside the lower courts' dismissal. The Court determined that Section 17 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, renders the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, applicable mutatis mutandis to accountability proceedings, provided there is no inconsistency. Since the freezing order merely prohibited the vehicle's transfer, releasing it on superdari—subject to solvent surety and conditions ensuring its production—did not conflict with the Ordinance. The key principle laid down is that courts must exercise discretion reasonably, providing speaking orders that avoid asset deterioration, and that the failure to challenge a freezing order under Section 13 does not bar an application for superdari under Section 516-A.

  Questions settled

  • Can a vehicle frozen under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, be released on superdari under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does the failure to challenge a freezing order under Section 13 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, preclude an accused from seeking interim custody of property under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Are the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, applicable to proceedings under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • What is the requirement for judicial authorities when exercising discretionary powers under the General Clauses Act, 1897?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Versus Shafaqat Ali2025 SCMR 1032 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-27Read full judgment →
• Manzar Abbas Versus State2025 SCMR 1024 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-13
  murderdelay in FIRpost-mortem delaychance witnessbenefit of the doubtblood feudmotiveacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from concurrent judgments of the lower courts convicting the appellants under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased with firearms. The core legal questions involved the credibility of chance witnesses, the effect of unexplained delays in lodging the First Information Report and conducting the post-mortem examination, and the evidentiary value of an abandoned witness statement. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that unexplained delays in the First Information Report and post-mortem examination, coupled with the status of the eye-witnesses as chance witnesses whose presence was doubtful and contradicted by another named witness, rendered the prosecution's case highly suspicious. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, laying down the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right, and that unexplained delays point toward preliminary investigation, consultation, and the planting of witnesses.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report creates a fatal suspicion regarding the prosecution's case?
  • Does a noticeable delay in conducting the post-mortem examination suggest consultation and the planting of eye-witnesses?
  • What is the evidentiary effect of abandoning a material eye-witness who gave a statement contrary to the prosecution's version?
  • Is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt sufficient for extending the benefit of the doubt to an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Pioa Shah Versus Amin Khan2025 SCMR 1018 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-01-13Read full judgment →
• Qayum Nawaz Versus Gulab Khan2025 SCMR 1015 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-04-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Musawar Rafiq Versus State2025 SCMR 1008 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-24
  review petitionbenefit of doubtchain of custodyexplosive substancesillegal confinementappreciation of evidencemiscarriage of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  These review petitions challenge a Supreme Court judgment that previously dismissed criminal petitions against the petitioners' convictions under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question is whether the prior judgment overlooked material evidence and glaring contradictions in the prosecution's case, thereby resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Upon review, the Court found significant discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence regarding the chain of custody of the recovered explosive materials, specifically conflicting testimonies between prosecution witnesses and forensic reports. Furthermore, the Court identified inconsistencies in the complainant's identity and the recovery proceedings, alongside credible defence evidence indicating the petitioners were in illegal custody prior to the alleged recovery. The Court held that these cumulative factors created serious doubts in the prosecution's narrative. Applying the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal, the Court recalled its previous judgment, allowed the review petitions, and acquitted the petitioners of all charges, granting them the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Supreme Court judgment be reviewed if material evidence was overlooked at the time of the original pronouncement?
  • Does a contradiction between prosecution witness testimony and forensic reports regarding the chain of custody of case property entitle an accused to acquittal?
  • Is the existence of prior habeas corpus petitions regarding illegal detention relevant to assessing the credibility of a subsequent criminal recovery case?
  • Does a discrepancy in the complainant's name on recovery memos constitute a sufficient ground to doubt the authenticity of recovery proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Humaira Wazir Versus Muhammad Faisal2025 SCMR 1003 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-07
  family lawdowerNikahnamaleave to appealmisreading of evidenceancestral propertyrecovery of dowry
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment regarding a wife's claims for dower, maintenance, and property recovery. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner had proven the forcible 'snatching' of 25 tolas of gold ornaments and whether she was entitled to a specific house as part of her dower based on a vague entry in her Nikahnama. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court correctly determined that the allegation of snatching was unproven, as the petitioner admitted to voluntarily handing over the jewelry. Furthermore, the Court held that the claim to a specific house was legally unsustainable because the Nikahnama entry regarding 'ancestral property' was vague and failed to identify the specific property claimed. The Court affirmed that it would not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts absent clear misreading or non-reading of evidence, establishing that vague contractual entries in a Nikahnama cannot be enforced against specific, unidentified assets.

  Questions settled

  • Can a wife claim a specific property as dower if the Nikahnama entry regarding ancestral property is vague and lacks specific identification?
  • Does the voluntary handing over of gold ornaments by a wife to her husband constitute 'snatching' for the purpose of a recovery claim?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in family matters?
  Read full judgment →
• The Punjab Employees Social Security Institution, Lahore Versus Javed Iqbal2024 SCMR 559 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-18
  reinstatementregularization of servicedisciplinary proceedingsmala fideevaluation reportscontract employee
  Summary & questions settled

  These petitions arose from a common judgment of the Lahore High Court which set aside the dismissal of a Bio-Medical Engineer (the respondent) and directed the Punjab Employees Social Security Institution (PESSI) to consider his regularization. The respondent, initially appointed on a contract basis, was ignored for regularization while others were regularized. During the pendency of his writ petition and subsequent contempt petitions, PESSI initiated disciplinary proceedings under the Punjab Employees, Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, culminating in his dismissal. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, in dismissing the petitions, observed that the allegations of poor performance and unpunctuality were belied by the respondent's Personal Evaluation Reports from 2009 to 2020, which showed satisfactory performance and punctuality. The Court held that the department's penal actions, initiated only after the respondent filed legal proceedings, established mala fide. Finding no irregularity or perversity in the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court upheld the reinstatement and the direction for regularization.

  Questions settled

  • Whether disciplinary proceedings initiated as a retaliatory measure after an employee files a writ petition constitute mala fide on the part of the department?
  • Can an employee be dismissed for poor performance and unpunctuality when their official Personal Evaluation Reports show satisfactory performance and punctuality?
  • Is a regular inquiry necessary to decide allegations of poor performance spanning several years when such allegations are disputed?
  Read full judgment →
• 2024 SCMR 402024 SCMR 40 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-11-08Read full judgment →
• Hasnain Salim alias Sunny Versus State2024 SCMR 2024 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-05-16
  acid attackanti-terrorism jurisdictionscheduled offencepublic fearheinous crimeterrorismcorrosive substance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition against a judgment involving an acid attack on a female student, which resulted in severe disfigurement and loss of sight. The core legal question was whether the act of throwing acid, which caused public fear and insecurity, falls within the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, specifically under the Third Schedule. The Court held that while not all acid attacks are acts of terrorism, the specific circumstances of this case—where the attack occurred in a public setting, targeted a student, and was intended to instill widespread fear and insecurity among the populace—qualified it as an act of terrorism. The Court emphasized that the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, is designed to address heinous crimes that disrupt societal order. The ratio established is that the classification of an acid attack as terrorism depends on the intent, the impact on public order, and the potential to create a sense of fear in the community. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, finding the prosecution's evidence against the petitioner reliable and sufficient to sustain the conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does an acid attack automatically constitute an act of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • What factors determine whether an acid attack falls within the jurisdiction of an Anti-Terrorism Court?
  • Can an offence be tried by an Anti-Terrorism Court even if it does not meet the strict definition of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Is an acid attack that creates widespread fear and insecurity in the community triable as a scheduled offence under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman Khan Kanju Versus Election Commission of Pakistan through Secretary, Islamabad2024 SCMR 1902 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-08-12Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Alam Versus State2024 SCMR 156 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-10-12
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of the doubtinterested witnessescorroborationocular accountmedical evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition, later converted into an appeal, arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining the petitioner's conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while altering his death sentence to imprisonment for life on two counts for the murder of two persons in a private complaint. The core legal question was whether the uncorroborated testimony of related and interested eye-witnesses, whose statements had already been disbelieved regarding an acquitted co-accused assigned a similar role, could legally sustain the petitioner's conviction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that where eye-witness testimony has been disbelieved to the extent of a co-accused on the same set of evidence, it cannot be relied upon to convict another accused without independent, strong corroborative evidence. The Court laid down the principle that the benefit of any reasonable doubt arising from contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, unreliability of motive, and lack of corroboration must be resolved in favour of the accused, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and the petitioner's acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of interested witnesses can form the basis of a conviction when they have been disbelieved regarding a co-accused assigned a similar role?
  • Does a contradiction between the ocular account regarding the firing distance and the medical evidence of blackening and charring discredit the prosecution case?
  • Is independent corroboration mandatory when the ocular testimony against an accused comes from a single set of discredited or doubtful witnesses?
  • Whether an accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right when material inconsistencies shadow the prosecution story?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi Versus State2024 SCMR 1284 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-12-22
  post-arrest bailOfficial Secrets Actcypher telegramfurther inquirygenuine electionsfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, former Prime Minister Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi and former Foreign Minister Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Qureshi, sought leave to appeal against the orders of the Islamabad High Court declining them post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 5 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act 1923 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the alleged communication and wrongful retention of the contents of a classified diplomatic cypher telegram. The core legal question examined by the court was whether there were reasonable grounds to believe the petitioners committed an offence under clause (b) of Section 5(3) of the Official Secrets Act 1923, or if sufficient grounds existed for further inquiry into their guilt under a tentative assessment of the record. The Supreme Court held that there was insufficient incriminating material at this tentative stage to demonstrate that the information was communicated to the public in the interest of a foreign power or related to defense installations and affairs, and thus the High Court's refusal of bail was perverse. The court laid down the principle that in cases lacking reasonable grounds for believing the commission of a non-bailable offense under the Official Secrets Act 1923, bail ought to be granted for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and further noted that incarceration of political figures during election periods should be weighed against the necessity of ensuring genuine elections and the fundamental rights of voters.

  Questions settled

  • Whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused committed an offense under clause (b) of Section 5(3) of the Official Secrets Act 1923 at the tentative assessment stage?
  • Does the wrongful communication of official information without proof of intention to benefit a foreign power warrant the denial of bail under the Official Secrets Act 1923?
  • Whether the incarceration of political candidates during an election period affects the requirement for holding genuine elections under the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin Versus State2024 SCMR 128 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-11-01
  murdermitigating factorunproven motivedeath penaltyimprisonment for lifeocular testimonyICCPRright to life
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment arises from a jail petition and a criminal petition seeking enhancement of sentence, both impugning the Lahore High Court's judgment that maintained the conviction of the accused for murder under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, but altered his death sentence to imprisonment for life. The core legal questions involved whether the ocular testimony was corroborated by medical evidence, whether delay in the FIR was fatal to the prosecution's case, and whether the unproven motive warranted the reduction of the death sentence to life imprisonment in light of domestic jurisprudence and international human rights obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings regarding the ocular account and medical corroboration were unexceptionable, and affirmed that the absence of a proven motive serves as a mitigating factor justifying the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life, which aligns with the constitutional right to life and international standards restricting capital punishment to the most serious crimes. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the unproven motive of a crime can be considered a mitigating factor to reduce the sentence from death to imprisonment for life?
  • Does delay in lodging the FIR vitiate the prosecution's case where the delay is sufficiently explained by the hospitalization of the injured victim?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the consistency and credibility of ocular and medical evidence in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• WAPDA through Chairman Versus Alam Sher2023 SCMR 981 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-03-28Read full judgment →
• Public Interest Law Association of Pakistan Versus Province of Punjab through Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Lower Mall, Lahore2023 SCMR 969 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-02-02Read full judgment →
• Zakir Mehmood Versus Secretary, Ministry of Defence (D.P), Pakistan Secretariat, Rawalpindi2023 SCMR 960 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-04-12
  Federal Service Tribunalimposition of costsfrivolous litigationsection 12(2) C.P.C.special costsservice appealcosts of litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter addresses whether the Federal Service Tribunal, while deciding an appeal under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 or an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, possesses the power to award costs. The core legal question concerns the extent of the Tribunal's jurisdiction to impose costs on litigants. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal, being deemed a civil court exercising powers akin to a first appellate court under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, possesses the inherent and statutory powers to award actual, compensatory, and special costs, including under the Costs of Litigation Act, 2017. The key principle laid down is that courts and tribunals must regularly exercise their discretionary powers to impose reasonable costs to curb frivolous and vexatious litigation, thereby protecting judicial resources and ensuring the efficient administration of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Service Tribunal has the power to award costs while deciding a service appeal or an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can special costs be imposed without an upper limit under the Costs of Litigation Act, 2017 by courts and tribunals in Islamabad?
  • What principles govern the award of actual, compensatory, and special costs by an appellate civil court and the Federal Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Kauser Parveen Versus Kasb Bank2023 SCMR 890 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-02-22
  recovery decreebanking courtmortgaged propertycourt auctionsale certificatethird-party rightsobjection petitionexecution proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the Lahore High Court order dismissing the appellants' appeal against a Banking Court order relating to the execution of a recovery decree and the auction of mortgaged property. The core legal questions involve whether co-owners could be deprived of proprietary rights via court auction and whether the auction was vitiated by the auction purchaser's failure to deposit the balance amount within fifteen days. The Supreme Court held that the Banking Court acted within its competence under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, and that a confirmed court auction sale and issued sale certificate create vested third-party rights that cannot be defeated by belated objections or the setting aside of underlying decrees, particularly where objectors had prior knowledge of proceedings and failed to raise timely pleas. The court established that special laws like the 2001 Ordinance govern execution procedures without strict adherence to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and that bona fide third-party auction purchasers are protected once a sale becomes absolute.

  Questions settled

  • Whether co-owners in a mortgaged property can be deprived of their proprietary rights through a court auction conducted in execution of a banking court decree?
  • Was the auction vitiated due to the alleged failure of the auction purchaser in making the payment of the balance amount within the stipulated fifteen-day period?
  • Can an auction sale and a subsequent sale certificate be set aside after the sale has become absolute and third-party rights have intervened?
  • Whether a party is permitted to improve its case beyond what was originally set up in the pleadings before the lower forums?
  Read full judgment →
• Aqil Versus State2023 SCMR 831 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-02-16
  murdercapital punishmentimprisonment for lifeinjured eye-witnessrelated witness versus interested witnessocular testimonymedical evidencediscrepancies versus contradictionsunproven motive
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the petitioner, Aqil, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while converting his death sentence into imprisonment for life on two counts for the murder of his mother-in-law and sister-in-law. The core legal questions addressed by the Supreme Court relate to the reliability of related and injured eye-witnesses, the distinction between a related witness and an interested witness, the evidentiary value of ocular testimony versus medical evidence, and the legal effect of an unproven motive. The Supreme Court held that the testimony of an injured eye-witness who is natural and present at the scene is highly reliable, that relationship to the deceased does not make a witness 'interested' unless they stand to gain from the accused's conviction, and that trustworthy ocular evidence takes precedence over medical opinion and unproven motive. The Court laid down the principles distinguishing minor discrepancies from fatal contradictions in witness statements and reaffirmed that corroborative evidence such as recovery and motive is not strictly essential where direct ocular testimony is confidence-inspiring.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a related eye-witness should be discarded solely on the ground of their relationship with the deceased?
  • What is the distinction between a related witness and an interested witness in criminal jurisprudence?
  • Does a failure to prove the motive part of the prosecution case render the direct ocular account unreliable?
  • How do minor discrepancies in witness statements differ from fatal contradictions affecting the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation Versus Mst. Razia Ameer2023 SCMR 826 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-03-06
  Group insuranceLiquidated damagesInsurance Ordinance 2000Delayed insurance claimImplied terms of contractLegal heirsInsurance repudiation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute between the State Life Insurance Corporation and the legal heirs of a deceased government employee regarding the payment of liquidated damages for a delayed insurance claim. The core legal question was whether the legal heirs were entitled to claim liquidated damages under Section 118 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, despite the absence of such a provision in the specific insurance contract and the insurer's initial repudiation of the claim. The Supreme Court held that the insurer was liable for liquidated damages. The Court reasoned that Section 118 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, mandates that payment of liquidated damages for late settlement of claims is an implied term of every insurance contract, which cannot be overridden by the absence of an express clause. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that legal heirs possess the standing to claim these benefits under the scheme of group insurance. The principle established is that statutory provisions regarding liquidated damages for delayed insurance payments operate as implied terms, and insurers cannot evade this liability through malfeasance or by citing the absence of specific contractual clauses.

  Questions settled

  • Are legal heirs entitled to claim liquidated damages under Section 118 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000?
  • Does the absence of an express clause for liquidated damages in an insurance contract negate the statutory right to such damages under the Insurance Ordinance, 2000?
  • Do legal heirs have the standing to initiate proceedings for the recovery of insurance claims and liquidated damages under the Insurance Ordinance, 2000?
  Read full judgment →
• Divisional Superintendent, Postal Services, D.G. Khan Versus Nadeem Raza2023 SCMR 803 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-01-17
  service tribunalmisappropriationmoral turpitudeproportionality testdisciplinary proceedingscivil servantquantum of punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the scope of the Federal Service Tribunal's authority to reduce penalties imposed by a department on a civil servant. The respondent, a Mail Peon, was removed from service for misappropriating government funds. The Tribunal, while affirming the finding of misappropriation, reduced the penalty to a reduction in pay scale, citing the temporary nature of the embezzlement. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the Tribunal's interference with the departmental penalty was lawful. The Court held that the Tribunal's power to modify penalties under Section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 is not unlimited and must be exercised judiciously. The Court established that interference is only permissible if the penalty is contrary to law or 'shockingly disproportionate' to the proved misconduct, applying the test of proportionality. Because the respondent's act involved moral turpitude, the Court found the Tribunal's reduction of the penalty to be arbitrary and unjustified. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and restored the original penalty of removal from service.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have the authority to reduce a penalty imposed by a department on a civil servant?
  • Under what circumstances can a court or tribunal interfere with the quantum of a penalty imposed by a competent authority?
  • Is the test of proportionality applicable when reviewing penalties imposed for misconduct involving moral turpitude?
  • Does the temporary nature of misappropriation mitigate the severity of the misconduct for a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• President National Bank of Pakistan Versus Waqas Ahmed Khan2023 SCMR 766 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-01-16Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue Zone-I, Regional Tax Office, Quetta Versus Hajvairy Steel Industries (Pvt.) Limited, Quetta2023 SCMR 681 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-01-30
  sales taxspecial proceduresteel re-rolling millsnon obstante clausecharging provisionprecedentleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal filed by the Commissioner Inland Revenue against three concurrent decisions of lower appellate fora and the High Court in favor of the respondent steel re-rolling mill concerning sales tax liability for tax years 2013 to 2016. The core legal question was whether the general charging provisions and subsequent amendments under section 3(1A) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 override the special procedure and overriding non obstante clauses prescribed under section 71 of the Act read with the Sales Tax Special Procedures Rules, 2007. The Supreme Court held that the special procedure providing a fixed rate of sales tax on electricity consumption for steel re-rollers constitutes a final discharge of their sales tax liability and prevails over general provisions, and that prior decisions declined leave do not necessarily constitute binding precedents without identity of applicable statutory provisions and tax years. The Court dismissed the petitions, affirming the concurrent findings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether section 3(1A) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 overrides the special procedure prescribed under section 71 of the said Act for steel re-rolling mills?
  • Does the payment of sales tax at fixed rates through electricity bills under the Sales Tax Special Procedures Rules, 2007 amount to a final discharge of tax liability?
  • When does an earlier order of the Supreme Court declining leave to appeal constitute a binding precedent under Article 189 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Television Corporation Versus Noor Sanat Shah2023 SCMR 616 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-09-27
  suit for damagestortious liabilityvicarious liabilityeconomic lossmaster and servantcivil court jurisdictionservice dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court challenged the Islamabad High Court's judgment upholding lower fora decisions that decreed a suit for damages filed by the respondent against the appellant corporation. The respondent, an employee of the appellant, had to repeatedly approach the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) to secure the implementation of a favourable service order, incurring economic loss and mental agony. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a suit for damages in tort against a state-owned corporate entity, whether corporations can be held vicariously liable for the tortious acts of their employees, and the jurisdiction of civil courts over such claims in the absence of specific legislation. The Supreme Court held that civil courts have plenary jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 to entertain suits for damages for tortious breaches causing pure economic loss, and that the appellant was vicariously liable for the actions of its employees committed during the course of employment. The Court laid down that employers are vicariously liable for torts closely connected to an employee's duties when it is fair, just, and reasonable to do so.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil court has jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to entertain a suit for damages for tortious acts in the absence of specific legislation regulating pure economic loss?
  • Can a state-owned corporate entity be held vicariously liable for the tortious acts and omissions of its employees committed during the course of their employment?
  • Whether an employer can be held liable for failing to implement orders of a competent forum, thereby causing financial loss and mental agony to an employee?
  Read full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan through Chairman Federal Board of Revenue FBR House, Islamabad Versus Zahid Malik2023 SCMR 603 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-12-26
  misconductdepartmental inquiryright of cross-examinationfair trialnatural justiceservice tribunalefficiency and discipline rulesreinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which converted a civil servant's major penalty of dismissal from service into a minor penalty of stoppage of one increment and ordered reinstatement. The respondent had been proceeded against for misconduct under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The core legal questions centered on whether the inquiry proceedings suffered from fatal defects due to the failure to examine witnesses or afford the right of cross-examination, and whether the Tribunal erred in law by converting the penalty instead of remanding the matter. The Supreme Court held that the inquiry was conducted in blatant violation of Rule 6 of the 1973 E&D Rules and fundamental principles of natural justice, as no witnesses were examined and the accused was denied the right to cross-examine. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's judgment, ruling that cross-examination is a valuable, vested right and a component of the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution. Remand cannot be claimed merely to cure deliberate procedural omissions or lacunas in a defective inquiry. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a departmental inquiry conducted without recording oral evidence and denying the accused the right to cross-examine witnesses violates the rules and principles of natural justice?
  • Does an accused civil servant have a vested right to cross-examine witnesses and the departmental representative during disciplinary proceedings?
  • Can a case be remanded to the lower authorities solely to cure procedural flaws and deliberate omissions committed by the inquiry officer during a departmental inquiry?
  • Does the failure to provide an opportunity for cross-examination in a departmental inquiry infringe upon the fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Hammad Nabi Versus Inspector General of Police Punjab, Lahore2023 SCMR 584 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-11-02Read full judgment →
• Amir Muhammad Khan Versus State2023 SCMR 566 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-01-18
  benefit of the doubtmurderocular account and medical evidencedelayed FIRunproved motivecriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court which maintained the appellant's conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his grandfather, while altering his death sentence to imprisonment for life. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, given glaring contradictions between the ocular account, medical evidence, and site plan, alongside an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and an unproved motive. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgments, holding that significant contradictions, negated eyewitness testimony, and suspicious circumstances surrounding the investigation created deep reasonable doubts regarding the guilt of the accused. The key legal principle laid down is that the prosecution must prove its case through unimpeachable evidence, and even a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contradictions between the ocular account and medical evidence are sufficient to create reasonable doubt warranting the acquittal of an accused?
  • Does an unexplained delay of several hours in lodging the First Information Report cast doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a recovery of a weapon of offence made from an open and easily accessible place?
  Read full judgment →
• Collector of Customs, Model Customs Collectorate, Peshawar Versus Waseef Ullah2023 SCMR 503 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-07-06
  customs duty exemptionhybrid electric vehiclesstatutory regulatory ordertax interpretationfiscal statuteadministrative circular
  Summary & questions settled

  These civil petitions arose from a common judgment of the Peshawar High Court which answered custom references in favor of the respondents. The Federal Government had exempted customs duty, sales tax, and withholding tax on the import of Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs) under a notification (S.R.O. 499(I)/2013). Subsequently, an Assistant Collector of Customs issued a circular restricting the exemption exclusively to fully hybrid vehicles with larger batteries, leading to show cause notices and tax recovery orders against importers. The core legal question was whether the executive circular could restrict or alter the plain terms of the exemption notification. The Supreme Court held that the exemption notification applied to HEVs falling under the specified PCT code without drawing distinctions regarding battery size or vehicle condition, and that an administrative circular could not lawfully introduce new conditions or narrow the scope of a statutory exemption. The Court dismissed the petitions, laying down the principle that fiscal exemption notifications must be interpreted strictly according to their plain language in favor of the taxpayer once conditions are met, and administrative authorities cannot expand or curtail statutory exemptions through subordinate circulars.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an administrative circular can restrict or alter the scope of a statutory exemption notification issued under the Customs Act 1969?
  • How should fiscal exemption notifications be interpreted when the statutory language is plain and unambiguous?
  • Whether the exemption on import of Hybrid Electric Vehicles under S.R.O. 499(I)/2013 is restricted only to fully hybrid vehicles with larger batteries?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz Akmal Versus State2023 SCMR 421 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-01-09
  statutory delaybailright to fair trialdue processlawyer strikesprofessional conductexpeditious trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the denial of bail to an accused in a murder case, primarily on the ground of statutory delay under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The petitioner contended that his trial had exceeded the two-year statutory limit for detention without conclusion. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could re-assert the ground of statutory delay after having previously withdrawn a bail application based on the same ground. The Supreme Court held that the petition was not maintainable, affirming that once a bail application based on statutory delay is withdrawn, that specific ground cannot be re-agitated in subsequent proceedings, as established in precedent. While dismissing the petition, the Court emphasized the fundamental right to a fair trial and due process. It laid down the principle that trials of detained accused persons should not be delayed by lawyer strikes or the absence of complainant counsel, mandating that trial courts must proceed expeditiously and may appoint alternative counsel if the accused's lawyer is absent, ensuring the liberty of the accused is not compromised.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused re-assert the ground of statutory delay for bail if a previous bail application based on the same ground was withdrawn?
  • Is a trial court obligated to adjourn proceedings due to the absence of the complainant's advocate?
  • Does a trial court have the authority to appoint another advocate if the accused's counsel is absent and causing trial delays?
  • Does the right to a fair trial and due process prohibit the indefinite adjournment of trials due to lawyer strikes?
  Read full judgment →
• Amanullah Khan Versus Hospital Director, KTH (Mti), Peshawar2023 SCMR 418 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-12
  upgradationpromotionvested rightservice rulesnon-joinder of necessary partiescivil petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's claim for upgradation from BPS-9 to BPS-17. The core legal question revolves around whether an employee can claim upgradation as a matter of right, with retrospective effect, and how upgradation is distinguished from promotion. The Supreme Court held that upgradation is not a vested right but stems from a policy decision intended to alleviate stagnation by granting a higher pay scale without changing duties, unlike a promotion which involves advancement in rank. The Court further noted that the petitioner's case was duly considered and rejected by the Board of Governors because he lacked the requisite eligibility under service rules, his case was distinguishable from another employee, and his writ petition suffered from non-joinder of necessary parties. The petition was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is upgradation of a post considered a vested right for an employee?
  • What is the distinction between upgradation and promotion in service matters?
  • Can an employee claim upgradation with retrospective effect and parity with another employee without fulfilling eligibility rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Badshah Versus Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Cabinet Block, Constitution Avenue, Islamabad2023 SCMR 407 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-12
  civil servicedismissal from servicejudicial reviewdoctrine of proportionalitymisconductpassport fraudadministrative discretioncompulsory retirement
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal challenged a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that upheld the petitioner’s dismissal from service. The petitioner, a civil servant, faced charges of unauthorized absence and obtaining multiple passports while misrepresenting his profession to travel abroad without departmental permission. Before the Tribunal and the Supreme Court, the petitioner did not contest the findings of misconduct but requested the conversion of his dismissal into compulsory retirement, citing his mother's illness. The core legal question was whether the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate or unreasonable under the doctrine of judicial review. The Supreme Court held that while courts may review administrative discretion for proportionality and reasonableness, the gravity of the petitioner's misconduct—specifically passport fraud and unauthorized travel—justified the dismissal. The Court distinguished this case from precedents involving minor infractions, emphasizing that deterrent punishment is essential for gross misconduct to maintain institutional discipline. Consequently, the Court found the punishment proportionate and refused to interfere with the administrative decision, dismissing the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Is the doctrine of proportionality applicable to the judicial review of disciplinary actions taken against civil servants?
  • Does the possession of multiple passports by a civil servant without departmental permission constitute gross misconduct warranting dismissal?
  • Can a court interfere with a disciplinary penalty if the punishment is found to be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin Versus The Director General, Pakistan Post Office, Islamabad2023 SCMR 394 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-01-09
  leave to appealdepartmental competitive exameligibility criteriaage limitright to equalityequal protection of lawnegative equalityservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, serving in the Pakistan Post Office Department, sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing their appeals against the departmental authority's refusal to grant them permission to appear in the departmental competitive exam for the posts of Assistant Superintendent due to being over the age limit of 45 years. The core legal question was whether the petitioners could claim eligibility based on the right to equality under Article 25 of the Constitution by alleging that another ineligible person had previously been permitted to appear in the exam. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that Article 25 guarantees the equal protection of law and not the equal protection of lawlessness, and that a prior illegality or violation of law in favor of one person does not confer a legal right on others to demand similar unlawful treatment. The key principle laid down is that the right to equality cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality or bypass mandatory statutory eligibility criteria.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 guarantee the right to claim a benefit that was granted to another person in violation of the law?
  • Can a candidate claim exemption from mandatory recruitment eligibility criteria on the ground that another ineligible person was previously allowed to compete?
  • Does a previous unlawful act or administrative irregularity create a binding precedent for claiming similar relief under the principle of non-discrimination?
  Read full judgment →
• Summit Bank Limited, Lahore Versus M. M. Brothers, Proprietorship Concern2023 SCMR 374 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-04Read full judgment →
• Divisional Superintendent Postal Services Faisalabad Versus Khalid Mahmood2023 SCMR 354 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-06
  back benefitsregularization of serviceadmission of liabilityOrder XII Rule 6 CPCapprobate and reprobateService Tribunal powerscondonation of delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from civil petitions for leave to appeal filed by Postal Services against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal granting back benefits/arrears to regularized employees. The central issue was whether the petitioners could challenge a Tribunal judgment that was passed based on their own unambiguous admissions in written comments and during oral hearings that the respondents' services were regularized from initial appointment and arrears would be paid upon availability of funds. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions and refused leave to appeal. The Court held that under Section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973, the Service Tribunal is deemed to be a Civil Court with powers under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Applying Order XII Rule 6 CPC, a court may dispose of a matter based on clear, specific, and unconditional admissions made by a party to cut short litigation. Having admitted liability and promised payment of arrears, the petitioners were barred from resiling under the doctrine of approbate and reprobate (quod approbo non reprobo).

  Questions settled

  • Can a party challenge a court or tribunal's order that was passed on the basis of its own clear and unambiguous admission?
  • Does the Service Tribunal have the powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to dispose of an appeal on admissions under Order XII Rule 6?
  • Does the doctrine of approbate and reprobate prevent a department from disputing a commitment made in its written comments before a tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ghaffar (Deceased) Versus Arif Muhammad2023 SCMR 344 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-11-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qudoos Versus Commandant Frontier Constabulary, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar2023 SCMR 334 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-04
  Frontier Constabularycivil servantsFederal Service Tribunalremand of caseactus curiae neminem gravabitex debito justitiaeservice appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing an application for the resurrection of a service appeal filed by an employee of the Frontier Constabulary. The core legal question concerned the proper procedure and effect of remanding a matter to the Service Tribunal after prior conflicting rulings regarding the status of Frontier Constabulary employees as civil servants. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding that once a High Court remands a writ petition to the Service Tribunal to be treated as a service appeal pursuant to settled law—specifically recognizing F.C. employees as civil servants—the Tribunal is bound to adjudicate the matter on merits rather than dismissing it on procedural or limitation grounds. The Court emphasized the maxim "actus curiae neminem gravabit" and the inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to rectify procedural oversights and ensure that no party suffers due to court or tribunal errors.

  Questions settled

  • Whether employees of the Frontier Constabulary are civil servants entitled to approach the Federal Service Tribunal for service disputes?
  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to entertain and decide service appeals filed by Frontier Constabulary employees?
  • What is the legal effect when a High Court remands a constitutional petition to the Service Tribunal to be treated as a pending service appeal?
  • Can the Service Tribunal dismiss a remanded matter on limitation grounds when the case was transmitted pursuant to a judicial remand order?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Faraz Versus State2023 SCMR 308 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-01-09
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationperverse orderinvestigating officer opinionocular accountdouble murdermisuse of bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal petition filed by the complainant challenging the High Court’s order granting post-arrest bail to the respondent, who is accused of murdering his two brothers. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in granting bail based on a second investigation report that contradicted the initial findings and the prompt FIR. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s order was perverse, as it relied on the bald opinion of an Investigating Officer that lacked support from concrete, admissible material, while ignoring the substantive ocular account and medical evidence linking the respondent to the fatal injury. The Court established that an Investigating Officer's opinion possesses persuasive value only when grounded in cogent, verifiable data. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that bail may be cancelled, even after trial commencement, if the granting order is perverse, ignores material evidence, or if the accused is misusing the concession to hamper trial proceedings. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the respondent's bail was recalled.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court cancel bail after the commencement of the trial?
  • Does the opinion of an Investigating Officer regarding the innocence of an accused bind the court if it lacks supporting material?
  • Is an order granting bail considered perverse if it ignores material evidence of the accused's involvement?
  • Can bail be cancelled if the accused is misusing the concession to hamper trial proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Chief Engineer, Gujranwala Electric Power Company (GEPCO), Gujranwala Versus Khalid Mehmood2023 SCMR 291 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-03
  compulsory retirementlaw of limitationvoid orderregular inquiryservice appealgrievance petitionabatement of proceedingsdisciplinary action
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges the Lahore High Court’s dismissal of writ petitions concerning the compulsory retirement of an employee. The core legal questions involved whether the respondent’s grievance petition was maintainable following the abatement of his service appeal in the Supreme Court, and whether the employer’s appeals before the Labour Appellate Tribunal were correctly dismissed as time-barred. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the lower court's decision. The Court held that the employer’s failure to prosecute the appeals and the significant, unexplained delay in filing them justified their dismissal. The Court emphasized that the law of limitation is not a mere technicality but a fundamental legal requirement; parties cannot sleep on their rights and subsequently label an order 'void' to bypass limitation periods. Additionally, the Court noted that while regular inquiries are generally required for major penalties involving disputed facts, the employer’s procedural negligence in the appellate process precluded judicial interference. The Court also clarified that the mere acceptance of terminal dues does not automatically estop an employee from challenging an unlawful termination.

  Questions settled

  • Does the abatement of a service appeal in the Supreme Court preclude an employee from seeking alternative remedies in a Labour Court?
  • Can a party invoke the doctrine that 'no limitation runs against a void order' to excuse an inordinate delay in filing an appeal?
  • Does the acceptance of terminal dues by an employee automatically estop them from challenging an order of compulsory retirement?
  • Is a regular inquiry mandatory in all disciplinary proceedings involving major penalties?
  Read full judgment →
• SDO, PESCO Daudzai Sub-Division Ring Road, Peshawar Versus Wadan Sher2023 SCMR 236 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-08-25Read full judgment →
• Director General Central Directorate of Savings Versus Abid Hussain2023 SCMR 2100 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-12-08
  withholding taxnational savings schemesTribal Areasconstitutional petitionIncome Tax Ordinancestatutory obligationalternate remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from appeals against a judgment of the High Court which had declared the deduction of withholding tax on national saving certificates by the National Saving Centre in Para Chinnar to be unconstitutional, on the ground that the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 had not been extended to the then Tribal Areas. The core legal question was whether withholding tax could be legally deducted on returns from national savings certificates held by residents of the Tribal Areas, and whether constitutional petition under Article 199 was maintainable bypassing alternate statutory remedies. The Supreme Court held that the Directorate of National Savings has a mandatory statutory obligation under section 151 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 to deduct withholding tax on yield from national saving schemes, regardless of where the investor resides, because the income does not accrue in the Tribal Areas and the Directorate is bound by federal fiscal laws. Furthermore, the Court held that constitutional jurisdiction could not be invoked when disputed questions of fact existed and an adequate statutory remedy for refund was available under the Ordinance. The appeal was allowed and the High Court judgment was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Central Directorate of National Savings is under a statutory obligation to deduct withholding tax on profit from national saving certificates under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • Can a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution be maintained when an adequate and efficacious remedy is available under the relevant tax statute?
  • Whether disputed questions of fact regarding residence and purchase of certificates can be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Federal Government of Pakistan through Ministry of Defence Rawalpindi Versus Mst. Zakia Begum2023 SCMR 2092 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  land acquisitioncompensationmarket valuepotential valuereview petitionrevenue classification
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a review petition filed by the Federal Government of Pakistan against a previous judgment concerning the compensation awarded for acquired land. The core legal question revolves around whether the High Court's valuation of the acquired land, which applied a uniform rate rather than disparate agricultural or revenue classifications, was supported by evidence and legal principles. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that revenue classifications are irrelevant for calculating compensation for land acquired for a single project, and that using such classifications for small parcels undermines their true potential value. The Court affirmed the uniform valuation based on the willing buyer, willing seller formula and available amenities. Furthermore, the key principle laid down is that the calculation of potential value should not be left to the arbitrary discretion of courts or collectors, and there is a dire need for legislative guidelines to standardize the determination of market and potential values in land acquisition cases.

  Questions settled

  • Whether revenue classifications of land are relevant for calculating compensation when land is acquired for a single project?
  • Can the calculation of potential value of acquired land be left to the discretionary assessment of courts and collectors without statutory guidelines?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a uniform valuation of acquired land based on the willing buyer and willing seller formula?
  Read full judgment →
• Cantonment Board Peshawar, Peshawar Cantt. Versus Raco Advertisers2023 SCMR 2075 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-06-13
  arbitration awardwrit jurisdictionexhaustion of remediesalternative dispute resolutionconstitutional petitiondisputed questions of factArbitration Act 1940
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that remanded an arbitration dispute to the arbitrator via writ jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether a party can bypass the statutory remedies under the Arbitration Act, 1940, to challenge an arbitration award through a constitutional petition. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition. The Court ruled that the Arbitration Act provides a comprehensive, self-contained mechanism for challenging arbitration awards, including provisions for remitting or setting aside awards. Consequently, the High Court’s interference was improper because the respondent failed to exhaust the adequate alternative remedies available under the Arbitration Act. The Court emphasized the principle that writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is not intended for adjudicating disputed questions of fact or circumventing specific statutory procedures. By invoking the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, affirming that parties must adhere to the procedural framework established by the relevant arbitration law rather than seeking extraordinary judicial intervention.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court entertain a writ petition to challenge an arbitration award when statutory remedies under the Arbitration Act 1940 are available?
  • Does the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies preclude a party from seeking relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 when an alternative remedy exists?
  • Can disputed questions of fact regarding the calculation of amounts be adjudicated within the writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Are the arbitration provisions of the Cantonments Act 1924 applicable to general contractual disputes not involving compensation claims?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir Versus State2023 SCMR 190 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-31
  murderprivate complaintocular evidencerelated witnessesmedical evidence conflictunproved motivelife imprisonmentinvestigation by ASIbenefit of doubtenhancement of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard criminal petitions arising out of a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in a private complaint case. The trial court had sentenced the petitioner to death, but the High Court altered the sentence to imprisonment for life while acquitting a co-accused. The petitioner sought acquittal, while the complainant sought enhancement of sentence to death and reversal of the co-accused's acquittal. The Supreme Court examined the reliability of the ocular account, minor discrepancies regarding firing distance versus medical evidence (blackening), the effect of unproven motive and inconsequential weapon recovery, and the legality of investigating officers' ranks. Dismissing all petitions and refusing leave to appeal, the Court held that trustworthy ocular testimony by natural, related witnesses takes precedence over minor medical discrepancies. Furthermore, an Assistant Sub-Inspector lacks legal authority to investigate murder cases under Section 302 PPC. Unproven motive and inconsequential recovery justified the reduction of the death penalty to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Does an Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) have the legal authority to conduct an investigation in a murder case under Section 302 PPC?
  • Whether minor discrepancies between ocular testimony regarding firing distance and medical evidence regarding blackening can warrant the rejection of credible eyewitness testimony?
  • Can the testimony of eyewitnesses be discarded merely on the basis of their relationship with the deceased?
  • Is the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment justified when the prosecution fails to prove motive and the recovery of the weapon of offence is inconsequential?
  Read full judgment →
• Munawar Bibi Versus State2023 SCMR 1729 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-08-03
  pre-arrest bailrule of consistencyprohibitory clausefurther inquirytheftliberty of subjectcriminal justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court order refusing pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in a case involving theft. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, an elderly woman accused of theft, was entitled to pre-arrest bail despite allegations of admitting guilt and the existence of a specific role in the FIR. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and confirmed the pre-arrest bail. The Court held that because the co-accused, who faced similar allegations, had already been granted post-arrest bail, the rule of consistency mandated similar treatment for the petitioner. Furthermore, the Court observed that the offence under Section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, making the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception. It was established that the liberty of a person is a precious right, and where a case requires further inquiry, pre-arrest bail is appropriate to avoid unnecessary incarceration.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule of consistency apply to the grant of pre-arrest bail when a co-accused with a similar role has been granted bail?
  • Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception for offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the merits of a case be considered by the court while deciding an application for pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaseen Versus Secretary, Ministry of Interior and Narcotics Control, Narcotics Control Division, Islamabad2023 SCMR 1691 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-07-25Read full judgment →
• Jawad Ahmad Mir Versus Prof. Dr. Imtiaz Ali Khan, Vice Chancellor, University of Swabi, District Swabi, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2023 SCMR 162 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-18
  quo warrantostopgap arrangementlook-after chargeVice Chancellor appointmentpublic officewrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenged the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing a writ petition filed against a notification authorizing the Vice Chancellor of Swabi University to look after the affairs of the office of Vice Chancellor, Women University Swabi as a stopgap arrangement pending a regular appointment. The core legal questions involved whether assigning look-after charge as a temporary stopgap arrangement violated the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Universities Act 2012, whether an outgoing Vice Chancellor has a vested right to extension, and the principles governing the issuance of a writ of quo warranto. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, holding that look-after or acting charge assigned due to administrative exigency as a temporary stopgap arrangement does not confer a substantive right and does not amount to usurpation of public office. The Court reiterated that a writ of quo warranto lies to challenge illegal occupation of public office, requiring strict adherence to legal standards rather than serving meddlesome interlopers or proxies.

  Questions settled

  • What conditions are necessary for the High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto against a public office holder?
  • Does assigning temporary look-after charge as a stopgap arrangement create a substantive right or constitute usurpation of a public office?
  • Can an outgoing public official whose tenure has expired claim an extension of service as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tahir Versus Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-II, Regional Tax Office, Abbottabad2023 SCMR 149 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-31
  Provincially Administered Tribal AreasIncome Tax OrdinanceConstitutional LawPresidential OrderTax RefundTribal Area StatusLegislative Competence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had set aside an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding a tax refund claim. The appellant, a resident of a Provincially Administered Tribal Area adjoining Mansehra District, sought a refund of income tax deducted for tax years 2011-2013, arguing that the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, was not applicable to his area under Article 247(3) of the Constitution. The core legal question was whether the President's order under Article 247(6) of the Constitution, declaring the area to have ceased to be a tribal area, effectively rendered the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, applicable to the region. The Supreme Court held that the President's exercise of power under Article 247(6) fundamentally altered the status of the area from a tribal area to a non-tribal area. Consequently, the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, became automatically applicable, rendering the tax levy valid. The Court affirmed that Article 247(6) powers are distinct from Article 247(3) extension powers, and the change in status negated the need for specific notification under Article 247(3).

  Questions settled

  • Does an order issued by the President under Article 247(6) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, declaring an area to cease to be a tribal area, automatically extend the application of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 to that area?
  • Is there a legal distinction between the President's power to change the status of a tribal area under Article 247(6) and the power to extend laws to a tribal area under Article 247(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can income tax be validly levied in an area that has ceased to be a tribal area pursuant to a Presidential Order under Article 247(6) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) Versus Jawad Khan2023 SCMR 1381 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-05-08
  legitimate expectationpromissory estoppelconstitutional petitionwrit jurisdictionrecruitment processpublic functionariesfairness in administration
  Summary & questions settled

  The civil petitions for leave to appeal arose from a consolidated judgment of the Peshawar High Court allowing writ petitions filed by respondents. The respondents had applied for the post of Customer Service Executive (CSE) at NADRA, successfully qualified the test and interview, but were instead appointed as Data Entry Operators (DEOs) on a temporary basis, relying on promises of future appointment to the advertised posts. The core legal questions involved whether contractual employees or candidates aggrieved by administrative non-fulfillment of recruitment promises can invoke constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 199, and whether the doctrines of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel apply to compel public authorities to adhere to representations made during recruitment. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly entertained the petitions and granted relief because the respondents were not challenging service termination or seeking regularization, but rather enforcing a legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel arising from a recruitment process. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, affirming that public functionaries must act fairly, equitably, and in accordance with representations made.

  Questions settled

  • Whether candidates who qualified for an advertised post but were appointed to a lower post on a promise of future appointment can invoke the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Does the doctrine of legitimate expectation apply to compel public authorities to fulfill explicit promises or assurances made during a recruitment process?
  • When can the doctrine of promissory estoppel be invoked against state functionaries and government authorities?
  • Are judgments barring contractual employees from challenging termination or seeking regularization applicable to candidates seeking enforcement of initial recruitment promises?
  Read full judgment →
• Collector Customs, Model Customs Collectorate, Peshawar Versus Muhammad Ismail2023 SCMR 1319 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-05-11Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmed Versus State2023 SCMR 1299 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-06-01
  possession of explosivesofficial witnessescredibility of witnessesSection 340(2) CrPCburden of proofanti-terrorismappreciation of evidencedefence plea
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged the conviction of the petitioner under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for the possession of explosive materials. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of official witnesses in the absence of public witnesses, the impact of minor discrepancies in prosecution evidence, and the evidentiary weight of an accused's failure to testify on oath when raising a specific defence plea. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Court held that the testimony of official witnesses is as credible as that of private witnesses unless specific animus is proven. It further established that minor discrepancies in evidence should be ignored if the prosecution's case, read as a whole, possesses a "ring of truth." Crucially, the Court affirmed that when an accused raises a specific defence plea, their failure to appear on oath under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitutes withholding the best evidence, thereby weakening the defence. Consequently, the conviction was maintained as the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Is the testimony of official witnesses inherently unreliable in the absence of public witnesses?
  • Does the failure of an accused to appear on oath under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 weaken a specific defence plea?
  • Should minor discrepancies in prosecution evidence lead to the rejection of the entire case?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused to prove a specific defence plea once the prosecution has discharged its initial burden?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid Versus State2023 SCMR 1278 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-06-06
  murderocular evidencerelated witnessesmedical evidenceprivate security guardcriminal appealimprisonment for life
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court which maintained the conviction of the appellant under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased following a dispute over fare payment, while altering his sentence from death to imprisonment for life. The core legal questions involved the credibility of related ocular witnesses, the corroborative value of medical and recovery evidence, the implication of the appellant's failure to depose on oath under section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the incident occurred at the spur of the moment to warrant mitigation of sentence. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the ocular account was natural, consistent, and confidence-inspiring, and that the unauthorized carriage of a service weapon by a security guard in violation of the Punjab Private Security Companies (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2003 precluded any leniency. The court reaffirmed that trustworthy ocular testimony alone is sufficient for conviction and that medical evidence is corroborative in nature.

  Questions settled

  • Whether un-rebutted ocular evidence alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder?
  • Does the failure of an accused to depose on oath under section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 lead to an adverse inference?
  • Whether the unauthorized carriage of a weapon by a security guard constitutes a mitigating circumstance for reduction of sentence?
  • What is the evidentiary weight and status of medical evidence vis-a-vis ocular testimony in criminal trials?
  Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank Limited Versus Federation of Pakistan through Collectorate of Customs, Peshawar2023 SCMR 1258 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-05-30
  bank guaranteedemand guaranteecustoms dutylimitation periodstandalone contractgovernment dueswrit of prohibition
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a High Court judgment that dismissed a constitutional petition seeking to prevent the Customs Department from encashing expired bank guarantees. The core legal question was whether the Customs Department could enforce bank guarantees after their specified expiry dates, invoking the principle that no limitation period applies to the recovery of government dues under the Customs Act, 1969. The Supreme Court held that a bank guarantee is an autonomous, standalone contract between the guarantor and the beneficiary, governed strictly by its own terms, including validity periods. The Court clarified that the obligation of a bank under a guarantee is distinct from the underlying liability of the principal debtor. Consequently, the Customs Department's statutory power to recover government dues without limitation under the Customs Act, 1969, does not extend to the enforcement of expired bank guarantees against a guarantor. The Court established that once a guarantee expires without a valid demand, the guarantor is discharged from liability, and the beneficiary cannot rely on statutory recovery provisions to bypass the contractual expiry terms.

  Questions settled

  • Can a beneficiary encash a bank guarantee after its express expiry date?
  • Does the statutory power to recover government dues under the Customs Act, 1969, override the expiry terms of a private bank guarantee?
  • Is a bank guarantor liable for the principal debtor's obligations after the expiry of the guarantee contract?
  • Does the principle of no limitation for government dues apply to the enforcement of bank guarantees against a third-party guarantor?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Azam Waheed Versus The Collector of Customs through Additional Collector of Customs, Karachi2023 SCMR 1247 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-06-07
  customs valuationvaluation rulingtransaction valueprovisional assessmentalternate remedyexhaustion of remediesinterim orders merger
  Summary & questions settled

  This batch of civil petitions for leave to appeal arises from a common judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which had set aside the Customs Appellate Tribunal's order and restored lower forum decisions favoring the Collector of Customs. The core legal questions involved the legality of applying Valuation Ruling No. 216 of 2010 for imported Chinese tiles, the applicability of transaction value under section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969, the requirement to exhaust alternate statutory remedies under section 25D of the Customs Act before invoking constitutional jurisdiction, and whether the limitation period for finalizing provisional assessments under section 81 of the Customs Act applies when consignments were released pursuant to interim court orders that ultimately lapsed. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly reversed the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that importers must exhaust alternate remedies under section 25D rather than bypassing them via writ petitions, and that interlocutory orders merge into and lapse with final dismissals of proceedings. The Court laid down the principles regarding the exhaustion of alternate remedies, the non-survival of interlocutory orders post-final adjudication, and the proper application of valuation rulings under the Customs Act.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an aggrieved person can bypass the statutory remedy of review under section 25D of the Customs Act, 1969 to directly challenge a Valuation Ruling through a constitutional petition?
  • Does an interlocutory order survive after the main proceedings or writ petition comes to an end?
  • Whether the limitation period for finalizing provisional assessments under section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969 applies when goods were released under interim court orders?
  • Can a mere calculation sheet issued for payment of duties be challenged independently as an appealable order under section 193 of the Customs Act, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Jamaluddin Versus State2023 SCMR 1243 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-05-29
  pre-arrest bailpost-arrest bailfurther inquiryfundamental rightsprinciple of consistencyliberty of citizencriminal justice administration
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for pre-arrest and post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving charges under sections 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the allegations of a murderous assault, the non-vital nature of the injuries sustained, and the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. The Supreme Court held that the case fell within the ambit of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, necessitating further inquiry into the guilt of the accused. The Court emphasized that the liberty of a citizen is a precious right guaranteed by the Constitution, which cannot be curtailed based on vague allegations. The Court further held that where co-accused share similar roles, denying bail to one on technical grounds while granting it to another would be illogical, as the former would immediately be entitled to post-arrest bail on the principle of consistency. Consequently, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail for one petitioner and granted post-arrest bail to the other.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of consistency apply when considering bail for co-accused who have been ascribed the same role in a criminal case?
  • Can bail be granted where the injuries sustained by the complainant are on non-vital parts of the body and there is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR?
  • Does a case fall within the ambit of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the applicability of the charged offense is questionable pending trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Mohammad Aslam Khaki Versus Khawaja Khalid Farooq Khan2023 SCMR 1208 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-06-19
  writ jurisdictioncharitable endowmentpublic interest litigationallotment of plotsintra-court appealconstitutional interpretationpark conversionelite capture
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the dismissal of a writ petition concerning the illegal allotment of a second plot by the National Police Foundation (NPF) to its Managing Director, which was designated as a park/green area. The core legal questions were whether the NPF is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution and whether the Supreme Court should entertain an appeal directly despite the availability of an intra-court appeal under the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. The Court held that the NPF, established by the government and managed by senior government officers, is a public entity amenable to writ jurisdiction. It allowed the appeal, declaring the allotment of the second plot illegal as it violated the NPF's rules restricting beneficiaries to one plot and involved the unlawful conversion of public land. The Court established that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be ousted by statutory provisions in matters of public importance. Furthermore, it affirmed that public land designated for parks cannot be converted for private use, emphasizing that charitable foundations must strictly adhere to their mandates to prevent elite capture and mal-administration.

  Questions settled

  • Is the National Police Foundation amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the availability of an intra-court appeal under the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, absolutely oust the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to entertain a direct appeal under Article 185 of the Constitution?
  • Can a designated park or green area in a housing scheme be legally converted into a residential plot for private allotment?
  • Does the allotment of a second plot to an individual by a charitable foundation violate the principle of social justice when the foundation's rules restrict beneficiaries to a single plot?
  Read full judgment →
• Kashmali Khan Versus Mst. Malala2023 SCMR 1176 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-05-18Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA), Islamabad Versus Pakistan Broadcasters Association2023 SCMR 1043 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-11-10
  delegation of powerselectronic media regulationsuspension of licensestatutory interpretationadministrative discretionPEMRA
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a decision of the High Court of Sindh concerning the delegation of powers by the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority under the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002. The core legal question was whether the Authority could lawfully delegate its power to suspend broadcast media licenses under section 30 to its Chairman pursuant to section 13 without framing governing rules and without properly structuring its discretion. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the power of delegation under section 13 must be interpreted and applied in an interlocking manner, requiring the Authority to scale its functions by importance and impose strict conditions through rules for high-tier powers like license suspension. The Court laid down the principle that discretionary statutory delegation must be exercised through a structured, contextual approach where the threshold for imposing conditions rises proportionally with the importance of the delegated power, rendering unconditioned blanket delegations of critical powers legally unsustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority delegate its power to suspend broadcast media licenses to the Chairman under section 13 of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 without framing rules?
  • Whether the discretion to delegate powers under section 13 of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 is to be read literally and disjunctively or as an interlocking whole?
  • Does the power to suspend a broadcast media licence under section 30 of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 fall within the top tier of importance regarding statutory delegation?
  • Can the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority make a blanket delegation of its suspension powers without imposing conditions through rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Tariq Mahmood Versus Province of Punjab2023 SCMR 102 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-11-29Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue Versus Jahangir Khan Tareen2022 SCMR 92 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-09-15
  show cause noticewrit jurisdictiondelegation of powerpremature petitiontax assessmentexhaustion of remediesjurisdictional error
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a Lahore High Court judgment that quashed a show-cause notice issued by an Additional Commissioner of Inland Revenue to the respondent regarding unexplained agricultural income. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its constitutional writ jurisdiction to quash a show-cause notice at a premature stage, and whether the issuing officer possessed the requisite delegated authority under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the writ petition was premature. The Court emphasized that when a special law provides a hierarchy of remedies, parties must first exhaust those forums. It held that jurisdictional objections should be raised before the tax authority, which must then establish its delegated powers under Section 210 of the Ordinance before proceeding on the merits. The Court further mandated that the Federal Board of Revenue must ensure all notifications having the force of law are published in the official gazette to prevent unnecessary litigation. The matter was remanded to the Additional Commissioner for compliance with these procedural requirements.

  Questions settled

  • Should a High Court exercise writ jurisdiction to quash a show-cause notice at a premature stage?
  • Must a tax authority establish the conditions of delegated authority under Section 210 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 before proceeding on the merits of a case?
  • Is a taxpayer required to raise jurisdictional objections before the tax authority issuing a show-cause notice prior to approaching the High Court?
  • Are notifications issued by the Federal Board of Revenue having the force of law required to be published in the official gazette?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Noor Jehan Versus Saleem Shahadat2022 SCMR 918 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-03-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ajmal Versus State2022 SCMR 88 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-07
  qatl-i-amdsudden fightheat of passionmitigation of sentencesolitary blow
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellant under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and his sentence of death by the trial court, which was modified by the High Court to imprisonment for life. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the facts of the case attract the provisions of section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, specifically regarding sudden fight, lack of premeditation, and absence of undue advantage. The Supreme Court held that the incident occurred without premeditation during a sudden altercation over a money dispute in the heat of passion, with a solitary blow delivered without undue advantage or cruel manner, thereby fulfilling the requirements of Exception 4 of the erstwhile section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The court laid down the principle that cases falling within the exceptions to the old section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 attract section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, warranting a reduction in sentence. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed, converting the conviction to section 302(c) and reducing the sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an offence committed during a sudden fight without premeditation attracts section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Do the exceptions under the erstwhile section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 apply to determine liability under section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does delivery of a solitary blow without undue advantage in a sudden quarrel constitute a case for lesser punishment under qatl-i-amd?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz Versus Abdul Hameed (Deceased)2022 SCMR 842 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-12-08Read full judgment →
• Zilla Muhammad Versus Kifayat Ali2022 SCMR 754 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-12-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid Afridi Versus State2022 SCMR 676 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-08
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationcriminal conspiracyco-accused statementconcurrent jurisdictionmisuse of bailanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, sought the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted by the Peshawar High Court to the respondent in a criminal case registered under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, 109, 427, 353, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 7 of the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the High Court’s grant of bail was erroneous and whether sufficient grounds existed for its cancellation. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the respondent had misused the concession of bail, tampered with evidence, or absconded. The Court emphasized that considerations for granting bail and cancelling bail operate on different footings, and courts are generally reluctant to interfere with bail orders absent compelling reasons. Furthermore, the Court clarified that a co-accused's statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot be used against another accused without corroborative material, and that the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court and High Court regarding bail is concurrent.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential considerations for the cancellation of bail?
  • Can a statement of a co-accused recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used against another accused in isolation?
  • Does the High Court have concurrent jurisdiction with the Sessions Court to hear a bail application?
  • What are the essential ingredients to establish a charge of conspiracy under section 107 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Basher Ahmed (Deceased) Versus Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue, Lahore2022 SCMR 620 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-10-26Read full judgment →
• Ikram Ullah Khan Yousafzai, Excise and Taxation Officer, Peshawar Versus Dr. Rizwan Ullah2022 SCMR 576 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-02-10
  constitutional jurisdictionregistration of FIRofficial actsstatutory presumptionalternate remedyproperty tax recoverywrongful confinement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition against a Peshawar High Court order directing the registration of a criminal case against Excise and Taxation officials who detained a medical officer to recover outstanding property tax. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, correctly ordered the registration of a criminal case against state functionaries acting under a warrant, despite the existence of factual disputes and alternate remedies. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in exercising its constitutional jurisdiction to direct the registration of a criminal case when factual controversies existed and alternate statutory remedies were available. The Court emphasized that state functionaries, while subject to judicial vigil, are entitled to the statutory presumption of regularity in official acts under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The Court set aside the impugned order, ruling that allegations of misconduct during the execution of a warrant should be addressed through appropriate forums, such as a private complaint, rather than through constitutional petitions, thereby upholding the principle that constitutional jurisdiction should not be invoked where alternate remedies exist.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction to direct the registration of a criminal case when factual controversies exist?
  • Does the existence of alternate statutory remedies preclude the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction for the registration of a criminal case?
  • Are state functionaries executing a warrant entitled to the statutory presumption of regularity in official acts?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Jatoi Versus Chief Minister Sindh through Principal Secretary, Chief Minister Secretariat, Karachi2022 SCMR 550 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-10
  civil service promotionperson-specific postseniority-cum-fitnessequal protection of lawservice tribunal jurisdictiondepartmental promotionarbitrary exercise of power
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal concerns the legality of a promotion granted to the appellant, Abdul Sattar Jatoi, to the post of Director (BPS-20) in the Health Department, Government of Sindh. The core legal question is whether the government can create a person-specific post and amend rules to promote a single civil servant while ignoring the seniority and eligibility of other batch-mates, and whether the Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear such a grievance. The Supreme Court held that the promotion was illegal, as the competent authority failed to consider all eligible candidates, violating the principles of merit and equality. The Court affirmed that the creation of person-specific posts and the arbitrary selection of one individual for promotion, while bypassing senior batch-mates, constitutes a violation of Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution. The Court further held that the Service Tribunal has jurisdiction when the grievance is the failure to consider eligible candidates for promotion, rather than a challenge to the 'fitness' of a candidate already considered by a selection board. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear an appeal where a civil servant challenges the promotion of a junior colleague on the grounds that the authority failed to consider all eligible candidates?
  • Is it legally permissible for a government department to create a person-specific post and amend promotion rules solely to accommodate a single civil servant?
  • Does the bar in Section 4(b) of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act 1973 against challenging 'fitness' apply when the departmental authority never considered the aggrieved party's case for promotion?
  • Is a civil servant an 'aggrieved person' if they are ignored for promotion while a junior batch-mate is promoted through the creation of a special post?
  Read full judgment →
• Salman Khan Versus State2022 SCMR 515 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-13
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clauseqatl-bis-sababqatl-i-khatacriminal procedurebail discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the High Court of Balochistan's order denying post-arrest bail to the petitioner, a member of the Eagle Squad, in a criminal case involving charges under sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the allegations and the statutory classification of the offence. The Supreme Court observed that the incident, involving the petitioner firing at a vehicle during routine duty, appeared to constitute qatl-bis-sabab under section 322 or qatl-i-khata under section 319, rather than qatl-i-amd under section 302. The Court held that since the offence under section 322 falls outside the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and there were no exceptional circumstances justifying continued detention, the petitioner was entitled to bail. The Court established that where the facts do not prima facie support a charge falling within the prohibitory clause, bail should be granted unless specific exceptions apply.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence under section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be denied to an accused when the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and no exceptional circumstances exist?
  • Is an offence under section 319 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 bailable?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabbir Versus Quaid-E-Azam University through Vice-Chancellor, Islamabad2022 SCMR 487 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-20
  industrial relationslabour courtcoram non judicede facto doctrinesunset lawretrospective effectinterregnum periodservice appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the validity of Labour Court judgments rendered during the interregnum following the repeal of the Industrial Relations Act, 2008. The core legal questions were whether the Labour Court retained jurisdiction after the Act's expiry on 30.04.2010, and whether the de facto doctrine could validate judgments passed during this period. The Supreme Court held that the Labour Court, being a creature of the repealed Act, ceased to exist on 30.04.2010. Consequently, judgments rendered on 24.11.2010 were coram non judice and void. The Court established that the de facto doctrine requires the existence of a public office; since the Labour Court was abolished, the doctrine could not validate the proceedings. While the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 is a procedural law with retrospective effect from 01.05.2010, it does not retroactively validate acts performed by a non-existent forum. The Court affirmed that during the interregnum, the appropriate remedy lay under ordinary civil laws, not the defunct Labour Court, thereby maintaining the High Court’s order setting aside the Labour Court’s decisions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the de facto doctrine apply to validate acts of a tribunal that has ceased to exist due to the repeal of its enabling statute?
  • Can a Labour Court exercise jurisdiction after the repeal of the Industrial Relations Act, 2008?
  • Is the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 a procedural law that applies retrospectively to validate proceedings initiated under the repealed Industrial Relations Act, 2008?
  • What is the legal status of judgments rendered by a Labour Court during the interregnum period between the repeal of the Industrial Relations Act, 2008 and the promulgation of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  Read full judgment →
• Moulvi Din Muhammad Versus Bibi Shakira2022 SCMR 47 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-02Read full judgment →
• Sakhi Jan Versus Qamar Ali Khan2022 SCMR 422 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-28Read full judgment →
• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Versus Sher Aman2022 SCMR 406 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-18
  regularizationcontract employeesproject employeesmaster and servantconstitutional jurisdictionvested rightKhyber Pakhtunkhwa
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan addresses a batch of civil appeals challenging decisions of the Peshawar High Court that ordered the reinstatement and regularization of various respondents previously employed on a contract basis or within specific development projects in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The core legal question centered on whether project and contract employees possess a vested or enforceable right to be regularized in government service upon the conclusion of their respective projects, and whether the High Court could grant such relief in its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned judgments, holding that contract and project employees have no automatic right to regularization in the absence of an enabling statutory provision, and that their employment is strictly governed by the terms of their contracts and project policies. The Court reiterated that the relationship between corporate entities/projects and their employees is governed by the principle of 'master and servant', and that the High Court erred in stepping into the domain of the executive to force regularization or alter mutually agreed contractual terms without lawful backing.

  Questions settled

  • Do contract or project employees have an automatic right to regularization upon the completion or cessation of a project?
  • Can the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan order the regularization of contract employees in the absence of statutory backing?
  • Are employees of a company created under a Memorandum of Understanding governed by the principle of master and servant?
  • Does a constitutional court possess the authority to alter terms and conditions of employment contracts agreed upon by the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar Versus Mst. Razia Sultana2022 SCMR 360 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iltaf Khan Versus Basheer2022 SCMR 356 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-26
  defamationtaking of cognizanceCourt of Sessionmagisterial routenon-obstante clausecriminal complaintquashing of process
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner instituted a criminal complaint under section 500 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 directly in the Court of Session for defamation, which was summoned by the Sessions Judge. The Peshawar High Court quashed the process on the ground that the Court of Session could not take direct cognizance without following the procedure under section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The petitioner appealed, arguing that section 502-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, introduced via Act IX of 2004, contained a non-obstante clause that excluded the conventional magisterial route for trial of defamation offences. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the non-obstante clause in section 502-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 only conferred trial jurisdiction upon the Court of Session notwithstanding the quantum of sentence, but did not dispense with the procedural mechanism and bar under section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 regarding the institution and taking of cognizance. The petition was dismissed and leave was declined, while clarifying that the complainant could present the complaint before the Area Magistrate for onward transmission.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Court of Session can take direct cognizance of a criminal complaint for defamation under section 500 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 without routing it through a Magistrate?
  • What is the scope and effect of the non-obstante clause in section 502-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 regarding the procedure provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 bar the Court of Session from taking original cognizance of an offence triable by a Magistrate?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jameel Versus Abdul Ghafoor2022 SCMR 348 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-09-29Read full judgment →
• Dildar Ahmad Versus State2022 SCMR 264 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-04
  pre-arrest bailbenefit of doubtsuppression of injuriesmedical board reportprohibitory clausefurther inquirycriminal justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged the Lahore High Court's order declining pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in a criminal case registered under sections 337-F(v)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given conflicting medical reports and the alleged suppression of injuries sustained by the petitioner. The Supreme Court observed that the initial medical examination and the District Standing Medical Board report suggested the possibility of fabrication regarding the complainant's injury, and noted that the complainant failed to appear before the Provincial Standing Medical Board for a third examination. Furthermore, the Court found that the petitioner had sustained five injuries which were prima facie suppressed by the prosecution. Holding that these factors created a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case, the Court ruled that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt at the bail stage. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and confirmed the pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that the truthfulness of the accusation should be determined by the Trial Court after evidence is recorded.

  Questions settled

  • Can the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused at the bail stage?
  • Does the suppression of injuries sustained by an accused entitle them to the concession of bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Report on Behalf of Shehri-Citizens Versus Federation of Pakistan2022 SCMR 253 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  amenity landillegal allotmentpublic parkco-operative housing societyejusdem generiscancellation of leasemunicipal land
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the legality of the grant, allotment, and lease of 200 acres of amenity land known as Gutter Baghicha, located at Manghopir Road, Karachi, which belongs to the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation (KMC) for use as a public park, to the KMC Officers' Co-operative Housing Society Limited for housing and commercial purposes. The core legal question was whether the statutory provisions and rules invoked—specifically Section 45(5)(i) of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1979 and Rule 10 of the Sindh People's Local Council (Land) Rules, 1975—permitted the alienation of public amenity land for the housing needs of KMC employees. The Supreme Court held that the grant, allotment, and lease were entirely illegal, without lawful authority, and void ab initio, as amenity land cannot be diverted for residential or commercial housing schemes, and Section 45(5)(i) is strictly confined to educational, religious, and charitable institutions or public-benefit purposes ejusdem generis. The Court set aside all related departmental approvals, resolutions, allotment letters, lease deeds, and consequential sub-allotments, directing the immediate resumption of the land for its designated amenity purpose as a public park.

  Questions settled

  • Whether amenity land reserved for a public park can be legally allotted or leased to a housing society for residential and commercial purposes?
  • Does Section 45(5)(i) of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1979 authorize the grant of municipal land for the housing needs of government or municipal employees?
  • Can subordinate rules override the substantive provisions of a statute regarding the disposal of municipal property?
  Read full judgment →
• Niamatullah Khan Versus Federation of Pakistan2022 SCMR 238 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  public parkencroachmentland useeasementary rightsmunicipal authorityillegal constructionKidney Hill Park
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves various civil and criminal miscellaneous applications concerning the encroachment and unauthorized use of public park lands in Karachi, specifically Kidney Hill Park and other designated park areas. The core legal questions concern the validity of licenses or allotments for religious structures within public parks, the rights of adjacent property owners to access park land, and the authority of municipal bodies to permit such encroachments. The Court held that public parks must be maintained according to their approved layout plans, which do not permit the construction of mosques or other permanent structures. The Court declared the license for a mosque in Kidney Hill Park illegal, ordered the removal of unauthorized mosques and structures, and mandated the restoration of park land. Furthermore, the Court ruled that adjacent property owners possess no easementary rights to open gates into public parks, directing the removal of such gates and the construction of boundary walls. The key principle established is that public park land is inalienable for private or unauthorized religious construction, and municipal authorities lack the legal power to alter land use contrary to approved master plans.

  Questions settled

  • Does a municipal authority have the legal power to issue a license for the construction of a mosque on land designated as a public park in an approved layout plan?
  • Do owners of houses adjacent to a public park possess an easementary right to open gates into the park or treat it as their backyard?
  • Can a structure built on public park land be removed if it lacks authorization under the approved layout plan?
  • Is a license for construction on public park land valid if it contradicts the park's master plan?
  Read full judgment →
• Niamatullah Khan Versus Federation of Pakistan2022 SCMR 219 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-12-27
  illegal constructiondemolitioncontempt of courtamenity plotsanti-corruptionencroachmentpublic parks
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses various implementation and compliance reports concerning illegal constructions, encroachments, and the restoration of amenity plots and public parks in Karachi, notably involving Nasla Tower, Tejori Heights, Gutter Baghicha, and Dilkusha Park. The core legal questions pertain to the defiance of court orders by regulatory authorities regarding demolition, the accountability of public officials for illegal approvals and encroachments, and the retrieval of amenity lands from commercial or unauthorized use. The Supreme Court held that officials obstructing demolition or involved in illegal construction are liable for contempt of court and criminal prosecution, ordered the attachment of properties to protect affected allottees, directed the removal of all encroachments on public parks, and mandated the restoration of amenity lands. The key principles laid down include that public officers must act neutrally without political interference, authorities conniving in illegal constructions must face criminal and departmental action, and amenity plots must be strictly preserved for public recreation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether officials of the Sindh Building Control Authority obstructing court-ordered demolitions are liable for contempt of court?
  • Can criminal proceedings and FIRs be ordered against government functionaries and builders involved in approving and constructing illegal buildings?
  • Whether amenity land designated for public parks can be retrieved from commercial encroachment and housing societies?
  • Are allottees of illegally constructed buildings entitled to protection and compensation through the attachment of the underlying land?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Zameen Versus State2022 SCMR 2149 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-10
  narcotic substancessafe custodychemical examiner reportbenefit of doubttampering of evidencecriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant, Shah Zameen, under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court, a decision subsequently upheld by the Peshawar High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the prosecution had successfully established the safe custody and transmission of narcotic sample parcels to the Chemical Examiner, thereby proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Upon review, the Court observed that the prosecution failed to produce evidence regarding the identity of the person responsible for delivering the sample parcels to the laboratory, nor did the Chemical Examiner's report identify the carrier. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the safe transmission of the samples, leaving open the possibility of tampering. Relying on established precedents, the Court ruled that such a defect creates a reasonable doubt regarding the integrity of the evidence. The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and the appellant was acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to identify the person who delivered narcotic samples to the Chemical Examiner create a reasonable doubt?
  • Can a conviction be sustained under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 if the safe transmission of sample parcels is not established?
  • Is the possibility of tampering with evidence sufficient to warrant the acquittal of an accused in a narcotics case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Khan Versus Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore2022 SCMR 2147 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-11
  departmental proceedingsmajor penaltyreduction in rankcriminal acquittalservice mattercivil servantPunjab Police (E&D) Rules 1975
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenges the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which upheld the departmental penalty of reduction in rank imposed on the petitioner, a police official, following allegations of bribery. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's acquittal in criminal proceedings necessitated the setting aside of the departmental penalty imposed for the same underlying conduct. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that acquittal in criminal proceedings does not automatically exonerate a civil servant from departmental consequences. The Court reasoned that departmental proceedings and criminal trials operate on different standards and objectives; the department retains the authority to assess the suitability of a civil servant independently of criminal outcomes. The key principle laid down is that a civil servant cannot escape departmental proceedings or their consequences solely on account of acquittal or exoneration in a criminal charge. The department may still find it inexpedient to retain a servant based on its own fact-finding inquiry, which is inquisitorial in nature and distinct from the procedural requirements of criminal jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does an acquittal in criminal proceedings automatically invalidate a departmental penalty imposed for the same conduct?
  • Can a civil servant escape departmental consequences of misconduct solely because they were acquitted in a criminal case?
  • Is the departmental inquiry process distinct from criminal jurisdiction in terms of assessing a civil servant's suitability for service?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid Versus State2022 SCMR 1954 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-07-27
  post-arrest baildelayed supplementary statementconfessionary videoforensic examinationfurther inquirymurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed to assail an order of the Peshawar High Court dismissing the petitioner's post-arrest bail application in a case registered under sections 302, 324, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given a delayed supplementary statement, lack of recoveries, and an unverified confessionary video. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and granted bail to the petitioner. The holding establishes that a belatedly recorded supplementary statement without disclosed sources, unrecovered weapons from the accused, multiple weapons indicated by crime empties, and an unverified confessionary video lacking forensic analysis constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, making the accused person eligible for post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a belatedly recorded supplementary statement without a disclosed source of information makes a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an unverified confessionary video lacking forensic test and proper production be relied upon as evidence to deny post-arrest bail?
  • Does the recovery of crime empties fired from different weapons bring the case of an accused within the scope of further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fursan Versus State2022 SCMR 1950 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-08-26
  post-arrest bailnarcotic substancesprohibitory clausebail for womenlikelihood of repeating offencecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by a female accused charged with the possession of a significant quantity of methamphetamine under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act 2019. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, being a woman, was entitled to bail under the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, despite the offence falling within the prohibitory clause. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to bail. The Court laid down the principle that while the first proviso to Section 497(1) Cr.P.C. establishes a rule favoring bail for women, minors, and the sick, this is subject to exceptions, including the likelihood of the accused repeating the offence. The Court determined that narcotics trafficking is typically a repetitive, business-like activity, and therefore, the nature of the offence itself provides a sufficient basis to conclude there is a likelihood of repetition, thereby justifying the denial of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 grant an absolute right to bail for women in non-bailable offences?
  • Can the nature of a narcotics offence be considered a ground to deny bail to a woman under the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Are the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to offences under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act 2019?
  Read full judgment →
• Dadu Khan (Deceased) Versus Ghulam Abbas2022 SCMR 1893 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-06-23Read full judgment →
• Pak Leather Crafts Limited Versus Al-Baraka Bank Pakistan Limited2022 SCMR 1868 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-08-04
  limitation periodtime requisitecertified copiesdeeming provisionfinancial institutions recoverybanking courtexclusion of time
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants impugned the dismissal of their appeal by the Sindh High Court under Section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, on the ground of being barred by time. The core legal question was whether the time consumed by a litigant in paying the estimated cost for certified copies can be excluded as "time requisite" under Section 12(5) of the Limitation Act, 1908, and whether mere filing of an application stops the period of limitation. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the "time requisite" under Section 12(5) does not cover the period of delay or inaction by a litigant in paying the required copying fees, and that an application for a certified copy is not effectively complete until the prescribed cost is paid. The Court laid down that Section 12(5) introduces a legal fiction where limitation is computed based on the day intimated for readiness upon proper application, and a litigant cannot indefinitely prolong limitation by delaying the payment of copying costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the time consumed by a litigant in payment of the cost for obtaining certified copies can be excluded under Section 12(5) of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Does the mere filing of an application for certified copies stop the running of the period of limitation without the payment of prescribed copying fees?
  • What is the scope and effect of the legal fiction introduced through subsection (5) of Section 12 of the Limitation Act 1908 regarding the intimation date for delivery of copies?
  • Whether the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001 provides for the issuance of certified copies free of cost?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Habib Versus Mst. Noor Bibi2022 SCMR 1846 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-07-26Read full judgment →
• Niamatullah Khan Versus Federation of Pakistan2022 SCMR 171 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-26
  amenity plotsland use conversionmaster plan violationillegal encroachmentdemolitionNasla TowerTejori Heightsvested rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves various civil miscellaneous applications relating to illegal encroachments, land use violations, and unauthorized commercialization of amenity plots in Karachi. The core legal questions concern whether land designated for amenity purposes in original master plans and layout plans can be altered, converted, or allotted for commercial or residential use, and the legality of constructions and leases on such plots. The Supreme Court held that once a layout plan is prepared providing for specific amenities such as public parks, schools, and playgrounds, those amenities cannot be removed, altered, or converted into private or commercial buildings, as members of the society acquire vested rights therein. The Court ordered the protection of amenity plots, prohibition of commercial activities like marriage halls and parking on them, retrieval of encroached lands, and expedited demolition of unauthorized structures such as Nasla Tower and Tejori Heights, laying down the principle that amenity lands are sacrosanct and cannot be exploited for private or commercial ventures.

  Questions settled

  • Can land designated for amenity purposes in an original layout plan be altered or converted into private or commercial use?
  • Do members of a cooperative housing society acquire vested rights in the amenities provided in the original master plan?
  • Whether land meant for parks, playgrounds, and schools can be legally allotted to private persons for commercial exploitation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shoban Versus State2022 SCMR 1608 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-10-18
  murdermitigating circumstancequantum of sentenceproof of motivedeath sentence conversioncriminal appealself-defence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court confirming the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with other offences. The core legal question was whether the unproven motive alleged by the prosecution could serve as a mitigating circumstance to warrant the reduction of the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while the ocular and medical evidence established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the plea of self-defence was rightly rejected, the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive. The court laid down the principle that the absence of proof of motive constitutes a sufficient mitigating circumstance for determining the quantum of sentence, thereby converting the death penalty into imprisonment for life while maintaining the conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does failure by the prosecution to prove the alleged motive serve as a mitigating circumstance for reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Can a plea of self-defence raised without establishing foundational facts be accepted in a murder trial?
  • Whether the unproven motive in a criminal case affects the substantive conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Inspector General of Police, Quetta Versus Fida Muhammad2022 SCMR 1583 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-04-18Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Ahmed Versus State2022 SCMR 1577 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-04-19
  murderrobberyocular evidencewitness reliabilityinterested witnessappreciation of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the petitioner for murder and robbery. The core legal questions concern the reliability of ocular evidence, the sufficiency of proof regarding the robbery charge, and the impact of witness relationships on testimony credibility. The Supreme Court held that while the prosecution failed to prove the robbery charge due to lack of reliable evidence regarding the recovery of stolen items and the circumstances of the incident, the murder conviction was sound. The Court maintained the conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relying on the consistent and confidence-inspiring testimony of the complainant. Key principles laid down include that the quality of evidence is paramount over quantity, allowing a conviction to rest on a single reliable witness. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the mere relationship of a prosecution witness to the deceased is insufficient to discard their testimony absent proof of enmity or ill-will, and that the substitution of a real culprit with an innocent person in such circumstances is a rare phenomenon.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained on the testimony of a single witness?
  • Does the relationship of a prosecution witness to the deceased automatically render their testimony unreliable?
  • Is a conviction for robbery sustainable if the recovery of stolen items is not proven?
  • Can a conviction be based on the quality of evidence rather than the quantity of witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Tajamal Hussain Shah Versus State2022 SCMR 1567 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-04-21
  murderplea of alibibenefit of the doubtmedical contradictionocular accountabsconsioncriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a murder conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment for life by the trial court, which was upheld by the High Court. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt in light of material contradictions between the ocular and medical evidence, an established plea of alibi, and inconclusive forensic recovery. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the petitioner, holding that major discrepancies regarding the entry and exit wounds, corroboration of the plea of alibi by defense evidence and the investigating officer, and failure to prove motive or connect the weapon through forensic analysis created a strong reasonable doubt. The key principle laid down is that where prosecution evidence suffers from material contradictions, medical inconsistencies, and unproven motive, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right, and mere absconsion cannot substitute independent proof of guilt.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contradiction between the ocular account and medical evidence regarding the entry and exit wounds create a reasonable doubt warranting acquittal?
  • Can absconsion alone serve as sufficient proof to sustain a murder conviction without independent evidence?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a verified plea of alibi supported by defense witnesses and official records?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive weaken the overall case against the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Kausar Ali Shah Versus Syed Farhat Hussain Shah2022 SCMR 1558 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-04-18Read full judgment →
• Niamatullah Khan Versus Federation of Pakistan2022 SCMR 152 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-24Read full judgment →
• Badshah Zamin Versus Siraj Khan2022 SCMR 1471 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-06-02Read full judgment →
• Sohail Ahmad Versus Government of Pakistan through Secretary of Interior Ministry, Islamabad2022 SCMR 1387 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-05-10Read full judgment →
• Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi Versus Farzand Begum2022 SCMR 1383 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-02-09Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal Versus State2022 SCMR 1375 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-05-27
  Control of Narcotic Substancespoppy strawpoastmorphine percentagechemical examiner reportreduction of sentencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant was tried and convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for the alleged possession and transportation of 1650 kilograms of poppy straw, and sentenced to imprisonment for life, which conviction and sentence were maintained by the High Court. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court examined the legal definition of poppy straw, 'poast', and opium, noting that while poppy straw includes all parts of the poppy plant after mowing except seeds, only the capsule, sack, pouch, or 'doda' contains morphine, whereas stems and leaves are often used for animal fodder. Furthermore, where the recovered substance is in a grinded or mixed form, it falls under the category of a mixture requiring the presence of more than 0.2 percent of morphine to constitute a narcotic substance under the law. Because the chemical examiner's report failed to specify the percentage of morphine in the mixed substance, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, maintaining the conviction but reducing the sentence of imprisonment for life to the period already undergone.

  Questions settled

  • What part of the poppy plant constitutes poppy straw under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Whether the percentage of morphine must be ascertained by a Chemical Examiner when recovering poppy straw in a grinded or mixed form?
  • Does every part of the mowed poppy plant contain narcotic substances or morphine?
  • When is a mixture of poppy straw considered a narcotic substance requiring a specific percentage of morphine?
  Read full judgment →
• Niamatullah Khan Advocate Versus Federation of Pakistan2022 SCMR 133 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-25Read full judgment →