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.

• Shoaib Ullah Cheema Versus Additional Registrar of Companies, SECP2019 SCMR 306 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-01-15
  winding upmaintainability of appealdirect appeal to Supreme Courtofficial liquidatorintra-court appealcompany judgepost-winding up orders
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before a larger bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed a key jurisdictional question regarding the maintainability of direct appeals under Section 10(1) of the Companies Ordinance 1984. The appellant sought the removal of an official liquidator, but the High Court dismissed his application. A preliminary objection was raised that direct appeals to the Supreme Court under Section 10(1) lie exclusively against original winding-up orders, while all subsequent or interim orders in winding-up proceedings must be appealed via Intra-Court Appeals under Section 10(2) before a High Court Division Bench. Resolving conflicting precedent between *Kamaluddin Qureshi* (PLD 2009 SC 367) and *Ibrahim Shamsi* (2005 SCMR 1450), the Supreme Court held that the phrase 'where the company ordered to be wound up' paired with 'any order, decision or judgment' encompasses both the winding-up order itself and any subsequent orders passed after a company has been ordered to be wound up. Overruling *Kamaluddin Qureshi*, the Court reaffirmed *Ibrahim Shamsi*, holding that post-winding-up orders are directly appealable to the Supreme Court under Section 10(1).

  Questions settled

  • Does a direct appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 10(1) of the Companies Ordinance 1984 lie against orders passed after a company has been ordered to be wound up?
  • Whether post-winding-up orders passed by a Company Judge must be challenged through an Intra-Court Appeal under Section 10(2) of the Companies Ordinance 1984 or directly before the Supreme Court under Section 10(1)?
  • What is the statutory scope and meaning of the phrase 'where the company ordered to be wound up' in Section 10(1) of the Companies Ordinance 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Television Corporation Limited Versus Commissioner Inland Revenue (Legal) Ltu, Islamabad2019 SCMR 282 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-10-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Versus State2019 SCMR 2054 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-10-17
  criminal appealidentification of accusedacid attackmurderous assaultItlaf-i-Salahiyyat-i-Udwhouse trespassconcurrent findingscredibility of witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal arises from the conviction of the petitioner for murderous assault, Itlaf-i-Salahiyyat-i-Udw, and house trespass, resulting in concurrent sentences and fine, which were upheld by the High Court. The core legal question involved the credibility of the victim's identification of the assailant during a winter morning acid attack and the reliability of the prosecution evidence. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on a proper appraisal of evidence, noting that the victim's immediate recognition of the neighbor-petitioner was reliable and corroborated by cross-examination and supporting witnesses. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the identification of an assailant by the victim in the early morning hours can be considered reliable despite adverse weather conditions?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts be interfered with by the Supreme Court when based on proper appraisal of evidence?
  • Whether the testimony of an injured prosecutrix is sufficient to maintain a conviction for violent assault without independent corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif Versus State2019 SCMR 2033 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-10-16
  narcotics controlcriminal appealdeath sentence commutationforensic samplingconscious knowledgeappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed upon the appellant for the transportation of a large quantity of charas concealed within a vehicle. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution's sampling method (taking samples from bundles rather than each individual piece) was sufficient to prove the narcotic nature of the entire consignment, and whether the appellant, a driver, could be held criminally liable despite claiming ignorance of the contraband. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's evidence was consistent and reliable, and that sampling from each bundle was sufficient for forensic proof, rejecting the argument that samples were required from every individual piece. Regarding culpability, the Court found the appellant's plea of ignorance unconvincing. However, the Court exercised judicial discretion regarding the sentence, noting that while the quantity of narcotics was significant, the death penalty was excessive. The Court upheld the conviction but commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life, granting the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Is it legally necessary for the prosecution to take forensic samples from each individual piece of contraband, or is sampling from bundles sufficient?
  • Can a driver be held criminally liable for transporting narcotics concealed in a vehicle if they claim ignorance of the contraband?
  • Does the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment entitle a convict to the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif Versus State2019 SCMR 2029 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-10-18
  criminal investigationpolice independencejudicial interferencequashing of proceedingsseparation of powerssubmission of challan
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a High Court order that dismissed the appellant's petition under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which sought to quash criminal proceedings initiated against him. The core legal question concerns the extent of judicial authority to direct the police to submit a challan against specific individuals and the permissible scope of judicial interference in the investigative process. The Supreme Court held that the investigation of a criminal case falls within the exclusive domain of the police, and courts cannot insist that a challan be submitted against any particular person. The Court emphasized that the functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping, and that undue interference by the judiciary in the police's investigative duties violates the principle of separation of powers. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's impugned order, and quashed the pending proceedings against the appellant, noting that the lower courts had acted contrary to established legal principles regarding the independence of the investigating agency.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court legally direct the police to submit a challan against a specific person?
  • Does the judiciary have the authority to interfere in the investigative process of the police during a criminal case?
  • Under what circumstances can proceedings be quashed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Al-Khair Gadoon Ltd. Versus The Appellate Tribunal2019 SCMR 2018 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-01-21
  Central Excise Dutyshow cause noticetax evasionad valorem assessmentretail price assessmentappellate jurisdictionsubstantial compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns tax appeals filed by Al-Khair Gadoon Ltd. challenging show cause notices issued by the Revenue for alleged evasion of Central Excise Duty. The core legal questions were whether citing an incorrect section of the Central Excises Act, 1944, in a show cause notice vitiates the entire recovery proceedings, and whether the High Court should adjudicate issues not previously raised before the Appellate Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the mere citation of a wrong provision of law in a show cause notice does not automatically invalidate the proceedings, provided the recipient was not prejudiced in their defense and the issuing authority possessed the requisite legal jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the focus should be on whether substantial compliance occurred and if the party had sufficient notice of the allegations. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's decision and remanded the case to the Appellate Tribunal to determine the mixed questions of law and fact, including the validity of the notices and the timing of the goods' manufacture, to ensure justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the citation of a wrong provision of law in a show cause notice automatically vitiate the recovery proceedings?
  • What criteria determine whether a show cause notice is legally valid despite containing incorrect statutory references?
  • Is it appropriate for an appellate court to decide mixed questions of law and fact that were not previously adjudicated by the tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Selling of National Assets Including PIA at Throwaway Price Versus2019 SCMR 1952 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-09-03Read full judgment →
• Justice Qazi Faez Isa Versus The President of Pakistan2019 SCMR 1875 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-09-17
  recusal of judgesFull CourtCode of Conductpersonal interestconstitutional petitionbias
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an application seeking the constitution of a Full Court comprising eligible judges and requesting the recusal of certain bench members in a constitutional petition, based on the alleged prospective and contingent possibility of personal advantage regarding the future office of the Chief Justice of Pakistan. The core legal question concerns whether a judge is required to recuse himself based on a contingent, speculative, and future interest rather than an existing, tangible, personal, or pecuniary interest. The Supreme Court held that the involvement of any existing tangible, palpable, personal, or pecuniary interest justifies recusal, whereas contingent, prospective, and speculative interests do not constitute disqualifying factors under the Code of Conduct or judicial oath. However, two learned members of the bench voluntarily recused themselves for personal reasons to safeguard the dignity and sanctity of the institution, and the Court directed that the file be placed before the Chief Justice of Pakistan for constituting a Full Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a judge should recuse himself from hearing a case based on a contingent, prospective, and speculative future interest?
  • Does Article 4 of the Code of Conduct of Judges require recusal in the absence of an existing tangible, palpable, personal, or pecuniary interest?
  • Whether the possibility of a future benefit or advantage four years later constitutes a disqualifying factor for a judge?
  Read full judgment →
• Hashmat Ullah Versus State2019 SCMR 1730 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-08-07
  National Accountability Ordinancecriminal breach of trustentrustment of propertyinvestment fraudcivil disputedishonest intentionaccountability court
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, for failing to pay profits and return investments to individuals who had invested in his business. The core legal question was whether such business investment arrangements, where profits were initially paid but later ceased, constituted criminal offences of corruption or corrupt practices under the Ordinance. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was unsustainable, setting aside the lower courts' judgments and acquitting the appellant. The Court clarified that the offence of criminal breach of trust, as defined in the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and incorporated into the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, requires the 'entrustment' of property. Investment of money in a business does not amount to entrustment. Furthermore, the Court established that where an accused has paid profits for a duration, it negates the existence of initial dishonest intention, rendering the matter a civil dispute concerning the rendition of accounts rather than a criminal offence. Consequently, the absence of entrustment and dishonest intent precluded criminal liability.

  Questions settled

  • Does the investment of money in a business constitute 'entrustment of property' for the purposes of establishing criminal breach of trust?
  • Can a failure to pay profits on a business investment be prosecuted as a criminal offence under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Is initial dishonest intention a necessary ingredient for establishing criminal liability in cases involving the cessation of profit payments to investors?
  • Does the payment of profits for a period of time negate the existence of initial dishonest intention in a business dispute?
  Read full judgment →
• Chief Commissioner Inland Tax, through Rto,Zone-I, Federal Board of Revenue, Hyderabad Versus Ghulam Mustafa Mari, Ex-Inspector, Income Tax, Revenue Division, FBR, Hyderabad2019 SCMR 1657 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-03-12
  res judicatapast and closed transactionservice tribunalillegal appointmentsupreme court judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal granting a de-novo inquiry to the respondent, an ex-inspector whose appointment was initially terminated due to a lack of educational qualifications, a termination that had been upheld by the Supreme Court in 2005. Despite the matter being a past and closed transaction, the executive authorities subsequently reinstated the respondent following a directive from the Prime Minister Secretariat, before later removing him again. The core legal question was whether executive authorities could re-open a case after it had been finally adjudicated by a judgment of the Supreme Court inter partes. The Supreme Court held that further action was barred by res judicata and the doctrine of past and closed transactions, and that executive authorities cannot unilaterally ignore a judgment of the Court on the basis of presumed mistakes or extraneous directives. The appeal was accordingly allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether executive authorities can re-open a service matter after it has been finally decided by a judgment of the Supreme Court?
  • Does a passing remark in a judgment laying down no rule of law serve as a binding precedent for executive action?
  • Can an executive authority unilaterally ignore a judgment of the Supreme Court on the basis of a presumed mistake?
  Read full judgment →
• Faizan Ali Versus State2019 SCMR 1649 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-05-29
  narcoticscharaschain of custodybenefit of doubtsafe custodytampering of evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose out of a case under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, where the appellant was allegedly apprehended with ten packets of charas concealed in a motorcar. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Act, sentencing him to ten years' rigorous imprisonment, which the High Court subsequently altered to a conviction under Section 9(b) and reduced the sentence to time already undergone. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the prosecution had established the safe custody, transmission, and identity of the seized narcotics beyond reasonable doubt. Reappraising the evidence, the Supreme Court noted significant discrepancies between the initial recovery claims and the physical property produced in court, as well as the absence of testimony establishing safe chain of custody or seal integrity during transmission. Holding that the prosecution's case was full of doubts, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does failure to prove the safe custody and transmission of seized narcotics entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt?
  • Can a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 be sustained when the physical property produced in court contradicts the description in the recovery memorandum?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue,Rto, Rawalpindi Versus Trillium Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd.,Rawalpindi2019 SCMR 1643 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-01-31
  income taxpenaltytax payableretrospective applicationstatutory interpretationwithholding taxdefault in filing return
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals regarding the interpretation of the term "tax payable" within the Table appended to Section 182(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, specifically regarding penalties for failing to file income tax returns on time. The core legal question was whether "tax payable" refers to the tax remaining to be deposited with the return or the total tax liability for the year, and whether a 2011 legislative Explanation expanding this definition could be applied retrospectively to tax years 2008 and 2009. The Supreme Court held that the Explanation, which increased the penal liability, operates prospectively and cannot retrospectively impose a larger penalty for past defaults. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision, ruling that for the relevant tax years, the penalty must be calculated based on the tax payable at the time of filing, which was nil due to withholding tax deductions. The principle laid down is that penal provisions imposing increased liability must be interpreted narrowly and cannot be applied retrospectively unless the statute explicitly warrants such an interpretation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term "tax payable" in Section 182(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 refer to the total tax liability or only the tax remaining to be deposited with the return?
  • Can an explanation inserted into a statute by the Finance Act 2011 be applied retrospectively to increase penal liability for tax years prior to its enactment?
  • Is a penalty for failure to file an income tax return calculated based on total tax chargeable or the tax payable with the return?
  Read full judgment →
• Fawad Ali Versus State2019 SCMR 1641 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-07-25
  condonation of delaylimitationcancellation of bailproclaimed offendernon-bailable warrantipso facto cancellation of bailcriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from Criminal Miscellaneous Applications seeking condonation of a 45-day delay in filing criminal petitions that sought the cancellation of bail granted to the private respondents. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the applications for condonation of delay, finding no valid or sufficient grounds, and consequently dismissed the main petitions as time-barred. On the merits, the Court observed that the petitions were misconceived. It reiterated and affirmed the settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that where an accused person who has been admitted to bail subsequently fails to appear, leading to a declaration as a Proclaimed Offender or the issuance of unexecuted non-bailable warrants for his arrest, such declaration or issuance of warrants ipso facto operates as a cancellation of the bail previously granted. The court cited established precedents confirming that no separate petition for cancellation of bail is necessary once non-bailable warrants or proclaimed offender status intervene.

  Questions settled

  • Does the issuance of non-bailable warrants for an accused person admitted to bail ipso facto result in the cancellation of their bail?
  • Whether declaring a bailed accused a Proclaimed Offender automatically operates as cancellation of his bail?
  • Can a petition for cancellation of bail be maintained when non-bailable warrants against the accused remain unexecuted due to non-appearance?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Shah Versus State2019 SCMR 1394 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-06-24
  criminal appealqatl-e-amdbenefit of doubtacquittal of co-accusedreappraisal of evidencesupreme court
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the High Court judgment affirming the appellants' convictions for qatl-e-amd and murderous assault, with their death sentences altered to imprisonment for life. The core legal question concerns the safety of maintaining convictions based on tainted eyewitness testimony and inconsistent prosecution evidence when identically placed co-accused have already been acquitted. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions, holding that where prosecution witnesses have been found unworthy of reliance regarding co-accused, their evidence cannot be safely used to sustain identical charges against the remaining appellants, and forensic inconsistencies further compound the unreliability of the case. The key principle laid down is that the benefit of doubt must be extended to accused persons where the prosecution fails to establish participation beyond reasonable doubt in the face of widespread acquittals of identically placed co-accused and corroborative forensic contradictions.

  Questions settled

  • Can prosecution evidence rejected with respect to acquitted co-accused be relied upon to sustain convictions of identically placed appellants?
  • Whether contradictions between ocular testimony and forensic evidence warrant the extension of benefit of doubt to the accused?
  • Is it safe to maintain convictions in cases marked by a large number of accused and an over-implication in the crime report?
  Read full judgment →
• State Versus Muhammad Kaleem Bhatti2019 SCMR 1321 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  National Accountability Bureaufine recoverydefault imprisonmentforfeiture of assetsspecial lawdouble jeopardystatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns whether a convict, having served a sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of a fine imposed under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, remains liable to pay the fine and whether assets can be forfeited to satisfy that fine. The High Court had previously held that serving the default sentence absolved the convict of liability, viewing further recovery as double jeopardy. The Supreme Court rejected this, holding that a sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine is a punishment for non-payment, not a substitute for the fine itself. Consequently, the liability to pay the fine persists even after the default sentence is served. Furthermore, the Court clarified that recovery of fines under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 is governed by Section 33-E of that Ordinance, which operates as a special law and is not restricted by the limitation period set out in Section 70, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court set aside the High Court's judgments, affirming that assets remain subject to forfeiture if the fine remains unpaid.

  Questions settled

  • Does serving a sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of a fine absolve a convict from the liability to pay the fine?
  • Is a sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine a substitute for the fine itself?
  • Does Section 70 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 control the recovery of fines imposed under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999?
  • Can assets be forfeited to satisfy a fine after a convict has served the sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of that fine?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mukhtar Mai Versus Abdul Khaliq2019 SCMR 1302 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-06-13
  criminal review petitionreview jurisdictionre-appraisal of evidencejudicial fallibilitySupreme Court of Pakistanscope of review
  Summary & questions settled

  These criminal review petitions were filed against a common judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which had previously disposed of criminal appeals and a suo motu case concerning a gang rape incident. The petitioner sought a review based on several formulations regarding the re-appraisal of evidence, including the necessity of corroboration for a rape victim's testimony, the impact of tribal Jirga involvement, and the use of modern forensic techniques like DNA. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court could re-evaluate evidence and the merits of a case under its review jurisdiction. The Court held that review jurisdiction under Article 188 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is limited and does not permit the re-appraisal of evidence or a rehearing of the matter as if it were an appeal. The key principle laid down is that the power of review is restricted to correcting patent mistakes, glaring omissions, or obvious errors of law or fact that are self-evident, and cannot be invoked to challenge the merits of a final judgment. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court's review jurisdiction under Article 188 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 permit the re-appraisal of evidence?
  • Is a review petition maintainable for the purpose of rehearing a case on its merits?
  • What are the specific grounds required to invoke the review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Hussain Versus State2019 SCMR 1290 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-07-11
  criminal appealsuicide bombingcircumstantial evidenceconfession before policeanti-terrorismbenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the High Court upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant for his alleged involvement in suicide bombings at the Pakistan Naval War College, Lahore, which resulted in multiple deaths and injuries. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on the circumstantial evidence and a confessional statement produced during the trial. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of the doubt. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove any of the incriminating pieces of circumstantial evidence, including the alleged recovery of items and the connection to the crime scene, and further held that an unsigned confessional statement made before the police under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 is inadmissible when no other independent evidence connects the accused to the offense. The key principle laid down is that a conditional confession before police under terrorism laws cannot be acted upon in the complete absence of corroborative supporting evidence connecting the accused to the crime.

  Questions settled

  • Is an unsigned confessional statement made by an accused while in police custody admissible in evidence under section 21-H of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on the basis of a police confession when all other pieces of circumstantial evidence fail to connect the accused with the alleged offense?
  • What are the mandatory statutory conditions for the admissibility of a confession made before the police under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Arsalan Masih Versus State2019 SCMR 1152 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-06-03
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausefurther inquirybail as rulecircumstantial evidencecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's refusal to grant post-arrest bail to two petitioners, Arsalan Masih and Muhammad Nadeem, in a case involving offences under sections 457, 380, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the nature of the evidence and the statutory provisions governing bail. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition as not pressed regarding the first petitioner. Regarding the second petitioner, the Court held that the case against him for the offence under section 457, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, required further inquiry due to the absence of direct evidence. Furthermore, the Court held that the offences under sections 380 and 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, where bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. The Court established that prior registration of a similar case without conviction does not justify denying bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the registration of a similar case without a conviction constitute sufficient grounds to deny post-arrest bail?
  • Are the offences under sections 380 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • When does a case qualify for further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the absence of direct evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary M/O Defence, Government of Pakistan Versus Ghufran Ali2019 SCMR 113 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-07-27
  service lawdepartmental inquiryconfessional statementfinancial improprietydisciplined forceservice tribunalmisconduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Service Tribunal, which had set aside the removal from service of the respondent, a government employee, on the grounds that witnesses were not examined in his presence during departmental proceedings. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal erred in ignoring the respondent's clear, recorded confessional statements regarding financial impropriety merely because of a procedural lapse in witness examination. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal misdirected itself by focusing exclusively on the technicality of witness examination while disregarding the respondent's explicit admissions of guilt made before the inquiry officer. The Court observed that the respondent failed to substantiate claims that his confessions were obtained under duress. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's judgment, and upheld the penalty of removal from service. The key principle laid down is that in disciplinary proceedings involving corruption within a disciplined force, a voluntary and unretracted confession before an inquiry officer carries significant weight and cannot be discarded solely on technical procedural grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Can a service tribunal set aside a disciplinary penalty solely on the ground that witnesses were not examined in the presence of the accused, despite the existence of a clear confessional statement?
  • Does a confession made before an inquiry officer in departmental proceedings lose its evidentiary value if the accused later claims it was made under duress without having raised such a grievance during the proceedings?
  • Is a technical procedural lapse in a departmental inquiry sufficient to override an admission of guilt regarding financial impropriety?
  Read full judgment →
• Collector of Customs Versus Faisal Enterprises2019 SCMR 1126 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-05-14
  customs valuationtransaction valuein-bondingex-bondinggoods declarationunder-invoicingimport duty
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a dispute concerning the customs valuation of imported HR Steel Sheets. The core legal question was whether the imported goods should be assessed for customs duty based on the actual transaction value under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1969, or under the alternate valuation methods provided in Section 25(5) based on an endorsement of secondary quality by appraising staff during in-bonding. The Supreme Court held that when goods can be assessed on the basis of the transaction value—the actual price paid or payable as reflected in invoices and letters of credit—recourse to subsection (5) or other alternate valuation methods of Section 25 does not arise. The Court laid down the principle that customs valuation must primarily be based on the actual transaction value under Section 25(1), and alternate methods under subsequent subsections of Section 25 can only be invoked when the transaction value cannot be determined or is genuinely disputed as an outcome of under-invoicing or damaged goods where claims were raised with the supplier.

  Questions settled

  • Whether customs duty is to be assessed on the basis of the actual transaction value under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1969, when invoices and letters of credit reflect the actual price paid?
  • When does the occasion arise to have recourse to alternate valuation methods under subsections (5), (6), (7), (8) and (9) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969?
  • Does an endorsement by appraising staff regarding secondary quality at the time of in-bonding override the actual transaction value disclosed in import documents?
  Read full judgment →
• Super Engineering Versus Commissioner Inland Revenue, Karachi2019 SCMR 1111 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-04-24
  presumptive tax regimenormal tax regimeretrospective operationvested rightsfiscal statute interpretationassociation of personswithholding tax
  Summary & questions settled

  These direct appeals challenge a common judgment of the High Court of Sindh concerning whether the appellants, registered as Associations of Persons (AOPs) and engaged in manufacturing auto parts, were subject to the normal tax regime or the presumptive tax regime for the tax year 2008 under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The core legal question was whether the amendment introduced in subsection (6A) of section 153 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 by the Finance Act, 2008—which restricted exemptions from the presumptive tax regime to 'companies' rather than 'any person'—applied retrospectively to the tax year 2008. The Supreme Court held that the amendment could not be applied retrospectively to impair vested rights that had accrued at the culmination of the tax year on 30th June 2008. The Court laid down the principle that procedural or machinery provisions in fiscal statutes cannot be given retrospective operation if they prejudicially affect vested rights or impose new liabilities for a completed tax period, affirming that the appellants were entitled to file their returns under the normal tax regime.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an amendment substituting 'any person' with 'a company' in section 153(6A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 applies retrospectively?
  • Can procedural provisions in a fiscal statute be applied retroactively if they affect vested rights accrued at the culmination of a tax year?
  • Whether manufacturers registered as an Association of Persons are entitled to the normal tax regime under section 153(6A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 for the tax year 2008?
  Read full judgment →
• H.M. Extraction Ghee and Oil Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. Versus Federal Board of Revenue2019 SCMR 1081 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-05-15
  tax credittax exemptionadvance income taxexemption certificatefiscal interpretationrefund of taxindustrial undertaking
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the interpretation of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, specifically whether a taxpayer entitled to a 100% tax credit under Section 65D is entitled to an exemption certificate under Section 159 regarding advance income tax collection under Section 148. The core legal question was whether a "tax credit" and an "exemption" are legally synonymous for the purposes of obtaining an exemption certificate. The Supreme Court held that they are conceptually distinct; an exemption operates at the stage of assessment, potentially eliminating it, whereas a tax credit operates post-assessment at the recovery stage. Consequently, the Court ruled that Section 159(1)(a) does not authorize the issuance of exemption certificates for tax credits. The key principle laid down is that tax credits and exemptions are not interchangeable in fiscal statutes, and the former does not trigger the procedural mechanisms designed for the latter. Despite ruling against the taxpayers on the legal interpretation, the Court issued mandatory directions for the prompt refund of advance taxes collected where no ultimate tax liability exists, citing the need to prevent unjust retention of funds by public functionaries.

  Questions settled

  • Is a taxpayer entitled to a 100% tax credit under Section 65D of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, eligible for an exemption certificate under Section 159?
  • What is the conceptual difference between a tax credit and a tax exemption in the context of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • Does the term 'exempt' in Section 159(1)(a) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, encompass tax credits?
  • Can the state retain advance income tax collected under Section 148 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, when the taxpayer is entitled to a 100% tax credit?
  Read full judgment →
• Independent Media Corporation(Pvt.) Limited Versus Province of Sindh2019 SCMR 1053 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-05-22
  sales tax on servicesdefault surchargeamnesty notificationSindh Revenue BoardFederal Board of Revenueretrospective exemptionrepeal and saving
  Summary & questions settled

  These civil petitions for leave to appeal assail a judgment of the High Court of Sindh concerning sales tax on advertising services under the Sindh Sales Tax Ordinance, 2000. The core legal questions involved whether the Sindh Revenue Board possessed the statutory authority to issue an exemption notification waiving penalties and default surcharges for tax periods prior to the enactment of the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011, and whether the Federal Board of Revenue retained the authority to collect past sales taxes on behalf of the province after the establishment of the Sindh Revenue Board. The Supreme Court converted the petitions into appeals and allowed them, holding that the Sindh Revenue Board, with the approval of the Government of Sindh, validly issued the exemption notification covering arrears under the repealed Ordinance, and that administration and recovery powers vested in the Sindh Revenue Board upon its creation under the Sindh Revenue Board Act, 2010. The key principle laid down is that taxing authorities and provincial governments cannot unilaterally undermine or restrict the scope of unrevoked exemption notifications issued within their statutory competence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Sindh Revenue Board has the power to exempt penalties and default surcharges for tax periods predating the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011?
  • Does the Federal Board of Revenue retain jurisdiction to collect provincial sales tax on services after the establishment of the Sindh Revenue Board?
  • Can the Government of Sindh contest the validity of its own unrevoked exemption notification in court?
  Read full judgment →
• Somaid Versus Ali Gohar alias Gohar Zaman2019 SCMR 1008 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-04-30
  dying declarationcriminal appealbenefit of doubtmurder convictionappreciation of evidencedeath sentencefirst information report
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns cross-appeals arising from a criminal conviction for murder. The complainant challenged the High Court's reduction of the death sentence to life imprisonment, while the convict challenged the conviction itself, primarily arguing that the prosecution's case rested on an unreliable dying declaration. The core legal question was whether a conviction can be safely maintained when the authenticity and authorship of the dying declaration, which serves as the foundation of the prosecution's case, are shrouded in mystery due to conflicting witness testimony regarding who recorded the statement. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was unsafe. It reasoned that while a dying declaration is an exception to the rule of direct evidence, the prosecution must demonstrate beyond a shadow of doubt that it contains the declarant's words without extraneous influence. Because the witness who purportedly recorded the statement denied doing so, and the actual recorder remained unidentified, the court could not verify the declaration's veracity. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, and acquitted him.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained based on a dying declaration when the identity of the person who recorded it remains unverified and disputed by the prosecution witnesses?
  • Is a dying declaration admissible without the testimony of the person who recorded the declarant's words?
  • What is the standard of proof required for a dying declaration to form the sole basis of a criminal conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad Versus Horizon International, Karachi2018 SCMR 960 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-02-06
  customs dutyburden of proofimport restrictionscertificate of originmisdeclarationfactual disputeremand
  Summary & questions settled

  The Federation of Pakistan appealed a High Court judgment which held that textile products imported by the respondents were not subject to the import restrictions on Indian goods under the Import Policy Order, 2016. The High Court had ruled that the Customs authorities bore the burden of proving the Indian origin of the goods, and that the importers' failure to prove the claimed Chinese origin was inconsequential. The Supreme Court of Pakistan reversed this decision, holding that under the Customs Act, 1969 and the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, the primary burden of proof regarding the origin of imported goods lies on the importer, who possesses the relevant documentation and knowledge. The Court observed that the Customs authorities are empowered to demand information to satisfy themselves of the lawful importability of goods. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to resolve the factual dispute regarding the origin of the goods.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proving the country of origin of imported goods lie upon the Customs authorities or the importer?
  • Can the High Court resolve a serious factual dispute regarding the origin of imported goods in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Do the provisions of the Customs Act 1969 empower Customs authorities to demand documentation from importers to verify the lawful importability of goods?
  Read full judgment →
• Commandant, Frontier Constabilary, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar Versus Gul Raqib Khan2018 SCMR 903 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-01-29
  civil servantservice of PakistanFrontier ConstabularyFederal Service Tribunalconstitutional jurisdictionterms and conditions of serviceArticle 212service grievance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns whether employees of the Frontier Constabulary (FC) are civil servants, thereby necessitating that service-related grievances be adjudicated exclusively by the Federal Service Tribunal rather than through the High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the FC employees' terms and conditions of service, regulated by the North-West Frontier Constabulary Act, 1915 and the North-West Frontier Constabulary Rules, 1958, satisfy the criteria for 'civil servant' status under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court held that FC employees are indeed civil servants. Applying the tests established in Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2006 SC 602), the Court determined that because the FC performs sovereign functions related to the protection of frontiers—a duty directly connected to the affairs of the Federation—and because their service conditions are governed by statutory rules, they fall within the definition of the 'service of Pakistan.' Consequently, the Court ruled that the High Court lacks jurisdiction over their service disputes, and the exclusive remedy lies with the Federal Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Are employees of the Frontier Constabulary considered civil servants under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction over service disputes involving employees of the Frontier Constabulary?
  • Do the duties performed by the Frontier Constabulary constitute service in connection with the affairs of the Federation?
  • Can the High Court exercise writ jurisdiction in service matters governed by the North-West Frontier Constabulary Act 1915?
  Read full judgment →
• Asad Iqbal Versus Pakistan Rangers Sindh2018 SCMR 798 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-11-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mansha Versus State2018 SCMR 772 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-02-07
  qatl-i-amddishonest improvementseyewitness testimonyappraisal of evidencebenefit of doubtcorroborative evidencemedical evidencerecovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by leave was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by appellant Muhammad Mansha, challenging the judgment of the Lahore High Court which altered his conviction from Section 302(b) to Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and reduced his sentence to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment. The trial court had acquitted three co-accused, and the High Court acquitted another co-accused on the ground that the eyewitnesses made dishonest improvements to align their testimony with medical evidence. The core legal questions were whether an accused could be convicted on the same evidence already disbelieved against co-accused without independent corroboration, and whether medical evidence or uncorroborated weapon recovery can serve as corroborative proof. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant, holding that testimony marred by dishonest improvements is untrustworthy, evidence disbelieved qua one accused cannot be accepted against another without strong independent corroboration, medical evidence only supports injury details without establishing identity, and recovery of a firearm without matching crime empties holds no corroborative evidentiary value.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on the testimony of eyewitnesses who have made dishonest improvements to align their statements with medical evidence?
  • Can the prosecution evidence disbelieved qua co-accused be relied upon to convict another accused without strong and independent corroboration?
  • Does medical evidence serve as independent corroborative evidence establishing the identity of the accused?
  • Can the recovery of an alleged crime weapon constitute corroborative evidence when no crime empty is recovered or matched through forensic analysis?
  Read full judgment →
• Younus Habib Versus Imranur Rashid2018 SCMR 705 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-02-16
  evacuee trust propertyland acquisitionproprietary titleMartial Law Regulation No. 57vesting of propertypublic purposedefunct association
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over the proprietary title of land in Deh Okewari, Karachi, originally owned by the Karachi Panjrapore Association. The appellants, claiming through tenants (Haris), challenged the title of the respondents, who are allottees of the Works Cooperative Housing Society (WCHS) deriving title from the Karachi Development Authority (KDA). The core legal questions involved the status of the Association as an evacuee entity, the validity of 1954 land acquisition proceedings for the Police Lines, and the status of the land as evacuee trust property. The Supreme Court held that the 8 acres of land were validly acquired by the Federal Government in 1954, and the remaining land was validly transferred by the Evacuee Trust Property Board to the KDA. The Court affirmed that once land is acquired by the government, it vests absolutely and may be utilized for alternative public purposes. Furthermore, the Court held that the Haris’ lease was invalid due to the Association being defunct, and that Martial Law Regulation No. 57 nullified prior judicial orders regarding such properties. The appeals were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can evacuee trust property be compulsorily acquired by the government for a public purpose?
  • Does the acquisition of land for a specific public purpose become void if the purpose is subsequently changed to a housing society?
  • Does the taking of possession under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 vest title absolutely in the government?
  • What is the effect of Martial Law Regulation No. 57 on prior judicial orders concerning evacuee trust property?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar Versus General Manager (Personnel) Pakistan Railways2018 SCMR 64 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-11-16Read full judgment →
• Contempt Proceedings Against Senator Nehal Hashmi Versus2018 SCMR 556 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-02-01
  contempt of courtjudicial independencescandalizing the courtunconditional apologyparliamentary disqualificationcontempt of court ordinancejudicial authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns contempt of court proceedings initiated against Senator Nehal Hashmi following a public speech in which he issued threats against judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and members of a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) tasked with investigating corruption allegations. The core legal question was whether the respondent's conduct constituted contempt of court under the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions, and whether his belated unconditional apology warranted leniency or acquittal. The Court held that the respondent's speech was a deliberate attempt to obstruct, interfere with, and prejudice the judicial process, thereby bringing the Court into disrepute and hatred. The Court rejected the apology as an afterthought, noting it was submitted only after the prosecution had closed its evidence. Consequently, the Court convicted the respondent for contempt, sentencing him to imprisonment and a fine. The judgment affirms the principle that an apology for contempt is not automatically accepted but is subject to the Court's satisfaction regarding its bona fides, and that conviction for such contempt entails disqualification from Parliament under the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unconditional apology for contempt of court require automatic acceptance by the court?
  • Does a conviction for contempt of court result in disqualification from being a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)?
  • Can public threats against judges and court-appointed investigative teams constitute contempt of court?
  • Is an apology submitted at the conclusion of contempt proceedings considered bona fide?
  Read full judgment →
• CDA Versus Hashwani Hotels Ltd.2018 SCMR 401 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-09-25Read full judgment →
• Orangzaib Versus State2018 SCMR 391 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-12-04
  abduction for ransomextortionalteration of convictionsentence reductioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the appellant's conviction for abduction for ransom under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, following his acquittal of a murder charge under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution failed to produce evidence linking the appellant to the actual abduction, the demand for ransom, or the recovery of the victim's body. The sole evidence against the appellant was that he drove the vehicle containing the confined victim when the ransom was collected. The Supreme Court held that driving the vehicle under such circumstances did not constitute abduction for ransom but instead fell squarely under the definition of extortion under Section 383 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, punishable under Section 384. Consequently, the Court altered the conviction to extortion, reduced the sentence to the maximum statutory period of three years, and ordered the appellant's immediate release as he had already served twelve years in custody.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted of abduction for ransom under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if there is no evidence of their involvement in the abduction or the demand for ransom?
  • Does driving a vehicle containing a confined victim during the collection of ransom constitute the offence of abduction for ransom or the offence of extortion under Section 383 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What is the maximum sentence that can be awarded for an offence of extortion under Section 384 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Rustam Versus State2018 SCMR 384 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-12-04
  abduction for ransomacquittalbenefit of doubtsuo motu noticecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a case where the appellant Rustam and co-accused Asif Hussain and Salah-ud-Din were tried for abduction for ransom under section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The trial court convicted them, but upon appeal, the High Court maintained Rustam's conviction while acquitting Asif Hussain and Salah-ud-Din. Rustam appealed to the Supreme Court, which subsequently issued a show-cause notice to the acquitted co-accused regarding their acquittal. The core legal question was whether the acquittal of the co-accused by the High Court warranted interference and setting aside after a significant lapse of time and in the absence of an appeal against acquittal. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution evidence against the acquitted co-accused was deficient, the recovery of cash was inconsequential, and no appeal against acquittal had been filed by the State or complainant for about twelve years. Consequently, the Supreme Court discharged the notice issued to the acquitted co-accused, upholding the principle that weak evidence and delayed interference do not justify setting aside an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an acquittal by the High Court should be set aside when the prosecution evidence is deficient?
  • Can a notice for enhancement or setting aside of acquittal be discharged after a long lapse of time when no appeal against acquittal was filed by the State or complainant?
  • Is recovery of cash legally consequential when it is not connected with the alleged offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Atta-Ur-Rehman Versus State2018 SCMR 372 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-12-05
  terrorismocular evidencetest identification paradesentence reductionjoint liabilitydeath penaltycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal concerns the conviction of the appellants for their involvement in a terrorist attack on a Rangers party in Karachi, resulting in two deaths and five injuries. The core legal question was whether the evidence, particularly the ocular account and identification parade, sufficiently established the appellants' guilt, and whether the death sentences imposed by the lower courts were appropriate given the circumstances. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions, finding the ocular evidence consistent and corroborated by medical testimony, despite minor irregularities in the identification parade. However, the Court exercised judicial discretion regarding sentencing. Noting that the prosecution failed to attribute specific fatal injuries to individual accused persons and that forensic evidence regarding firearm matching was misconstrued by the lower courts, the Supreme Court held that the death penalty was not warranted. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals regarding the convictions but reduced the death sentences to imprisonment for life. The principle laid down is that where multiple accused are involved in a joint act and specific fatal injuries cannot be attributed to individuals, the imposition of the death penalty should be avoided in favor of life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Does an irregularity in a test identification parade, such as failing to change dummies, vitiate the entire proceeding?
  • Is the death penalty appropriate when specific fatal injuries cannot be attributed to individual accused persons in a joint criminal act?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on ocular evidence when the FIR does not initially name the culprits?
  Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Khalida Azhar Versus Viqar Rustam Bakhshi2018 SCMR 30 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-11-07
  inheritancegift deedagricultural landmutationburden of proofpartitionmesne profits
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Islamabad High Court dismissing the appellant's suit for a declaration and partition of her late father's estate. The core legal questions involve the validity of a registered gift deed executed by the legal heirs regarding a residential property, the authenticity of agricultural land gift mutations, and claims of benami ownership over other assets. The Supreme Court held that the appellant failed to impeach the duly registered gift deed of the residential house, which was executed by all legal heirs including the appellant and corroborated by marginal and official witnesses, nor did she substantiate claims regarding other movable assets. However, regarding the agricultural lands, the Court held that the respondent failed to prove the essential ingredients of a valid Islamic gift and the authenticity of the mutation proceedings independent of mere entries. The Court concluded that the residential gift is valid, while the agricultural lands remain part of the estate subject to inheritance and mesne profits. The key principle laid down is that while registered gift deeds supported by consistent contemporaneous conduct and witness testimony are sustainable, mutation entries regarding agricultural land cannot substitute for strict proof of the essential ingredients of a gift under law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a registered gift deed executed by multiple co-heirs can be successfully challenged after a prolonged delay without cogent evidence of fraud?
  • Is a mere revenue mutation entry sufficient to prove a valid gift of agricultural land without establishing the essential ingredients of offer, acceptance, and delivery of possession?
  • Whether a party denying signatures on a registered document is bound to permit handwriting expert comparison?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Madiha Younus Versus Imran Ahmed2018 SCMR 1991 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-09-03
  custody of minorsvisitation rightswelfare of minorsmatrimonial litigationchild maintenanceparental responsibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Sindh regarding the custody and visitation rights of two minor children, Huzaifa Imran and Aashad Imran, following the dissolution of the matrimonial relationship between their parents, Mst. Madiha Younus and Imran Ahmed. The core legal question concerned the determination of custody arrangements and visitation rights that best serve the welfare of the minors. Upon the parties reaching a mutual compromise, the Supreme Court of Pakistan disposed of the petition by formalizing a detailed visitation schedule. The Court held that the minors shall remain in the custody of the mother, with specific, structured visitation rights granted to the father, including alternate weekends, portions of summer and winter vacations, and specific arrangements for Eid festivals. Furthermore, the Court directed the father to bear all educational and miscellaneous expenses, alongside a monthly maintenance payment for each minor. The key principle laid down is that in custody disputes, the court prioritizes the welfare of the minors and encourages parental cooperation to ensure children maintain meaningful relationships with both parents without prejudice.

  Questions settled

  • What specific visitation schedule can be ordered by the court to balance the rights of parents in a custody dispute?
  • Is a father legally obligated to bear educational and miscellaneous expenses for minors in addition to monthly maintenance?
  • Can the court formalize a compromise between parents regarding the custody and visitation of minor children?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Baz Khan Gaadhi Versus Muhammad Ramzan2018 SCMR 1952 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-07-05
  dual citizenshipnomination papersfalse affidavitgeneral electionsdisqualificationconcealment of facts
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had accepted a constitutional petition allowing Respondent No. 1 to contest the General Elections, 2018. The core legal question was whether a candidate who held dual citizenship and concealed foreign travel history while submitting a false declaration on oath in nomination papers was eligible to contest elections. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, setting aside the High Court's judgment. The Court held that a candidate who holds foreign citizenship at the time of filing nomination papers and makes a false statement or conceals material facts such as foreign travel history and dual nationality in the mandatory affidavit is liable to be disqualified from contesting elections. The key principle laid down is that the submission of a false affidavit or concealment of material facts before a Returning Officer renders a candidate liable to disqualification.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a candidate who holds dual citizenship at the time of filing nomination papers is eligible to contest elections?
  • Does the filing of a false affidavit or making a false declaration on oath before a Returning Officer entail disqualification?
  • What are the legal consequences of concealing foreign travel history in an election affidavit?
  Read full judgment →
• Bahria Town Versus Government of Punjab2018 SCMR 1864 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  forest landencroachmentdemarcationrecord of rightsexchange of landsuo motu jurisdictionrevenue record
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a long-standing dispute regarding alleged encroachments upon the Rukh Takht Pari forest land by Bahria Town, with conflicting claims concerning the total area of the forest—whether it measures 2210 acres or 1741 acres—and the validity of previous demarcation reports and land exchanges. The core legal question revolves around determining the true acreage of the forest land, whether prior settlement and exchange mutations based on an area of 1741 acres were legally sustainable, and whether this Court should resolve title disputes or leave them to pending civil and revenue forums. By a majority of two to one, the Supreme Court held that the total area of Takht Pari is 2210 acres, that previous exchanges based on the erroneous lower acreage were void, and directed a fresh coordinated demarcation by the Forest Department, Revenue Department, and Survey of Pakistan, alongside a NAB investigation. The key principle laid down is that official records of rights and historical gazetteers establishing forest acreage override erroneous demarcation reports, and transactions based on factual misrepresentations regarding government land are legally ineffective.

  Questions settled

  • What is the correct method to determine the true acreage of a reserved forest when conflicting revenue records and historical gazetteers are presented?
  • Can a land exchange between a private housing entity and the government, based on erroneous demarcation and lower acreage figures, be sustained?
  • Whether the Supreme Court can determine disputed questions of title and property boundaries in human rights or suo motu proceedings instead of leaving them to civil courts?
  • Do previous settlement reports and mutated exchanges attain finality if they are founded upon a material misrepresentation or miscalculation of land area?
  Read full judgment →
• Bourbon Maritime (Pvt.) Ltd. Versus M.V. Salaj2018 SCMR 1828 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-09-12
  admiralty jurisdictionstatutory priorityport duespossessory liensale proceedsmarkupport authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal addressed the competing priority claims between a port authority and maritime lienholders over the sale proceeds and accrued profits of a vessel sold under the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court. The core legal questions involved the scope and effect of statutory powers of detention and sale under the Port Qasim Authority Act, 1973, whether filing an admiralty suit preserves or waives statutory priority, and the treatment of markup awarded on such claims. The Supreme Court converted the leave petition into an appeal and held that while the Port Qasim Authority enjoys statutory priority over the sale proceeds and accretions up to the amount of its actual principal claim, any markup awarded on the claim does not enjoy the same priority and is subject to general rules of distribution. The appeal was allowed, and the decrees were modified to direct the pro-rata and prioritized disbursement of the excess funds among the remaining decree holders.

  Questions settled

  • What priority is to be accorded to a port authority's claim for amounts due and payable under the Port Qasim Authority Act, 1973?
  • What is the nature of a suit filed by a port authority under section 23 of the Port Qasim Authority Act, 1973 in relation to its statutory powers?
  • What is the effect on a port authority's statutory priority when it files and obtains a decree in an admiralty suit?
  • Does markup awarded on a port authority's decretal claim enjoy the same priority as the principal statutory claim?
  Read full judgment →
• Al-Noor Sugar Mills Limited Versus Federation of Pakistan2018 SCMR 1792 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-02-26Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Karachi Versus Pakistan Beverages Limited, Karachi2018 SCMR 1544 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-06-14
  Sales Tax Actdiscretionary poweradministrative lawmonitoringstatutory interpretationInland Revenue Officertax evasion
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the interpretation of Section 40B of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, specifically whether the power to post Inland Revenue officers to monitor a registered person's premises must be time-bound. The appellant, the Commissioner Inland Revenue, challenged the High Court's observation that such an order must specify a timeframe, arguing that the statute imposes no such limitation. The Supreme Court held that while Section 40B confers discretionary power, such discretion is not unfettered and must be exercised in accordance with administrative law principles. The Court reasoned that the statutory power to 'monitor' is purpose-driven and cannot be indefinite; once the purpose is achieved or the ground for monitoring is exhausted, the authority must cease. Consequently, the Court affirmed that an order under Section 40B must contain a reasonable timeframe, as the nature of discretionary statutory power requires that it be exercised within defined limits, subject to reassessment or extension if legitimate grounds persist. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the necessity of a time-bound exercise of this statutory power.

  Questions settled

  • Does the power to post Inland Revenue officers under Section 40B of the Sales Tax Act 1990 allow for indefinite monitoring of a registered person's premises?
  • Is the discretionary power conferred by Section 40B of the Sales Tax Act 1990 subject to the requirement of being time-bound?
  • Can a statutory discretionary power be exercised without any limitation or timeframe?
  Read full judgment →
• Farrukh Shahzad Versus Commissioner Inland Revenue (Legal) Rto, Rawalpindi2018 SCMR 1375 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-04-10Read full judgment →
• Government of Pakistan through Secretary Revenue Division/CBR House, Islamabad Versus Muhammad Junaid Talat2018 SCMR 1305 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-05-07
  tax evasioninformant rewarddefinite informationincome taxtax defaulterFederal Tax Ombudsman
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal addresses the entitlement of an informant to claim a monetary reward under government reward orders for allegedly providing definite information regarding tax evasion. The respondent had published an article pointing out that Pakistani seafarers working on foreign flagships were not paying income tax, leading the tax department to raise demands and issue ex parte assessments. The respondent claimed a reward, which led to conflicting departmental decisions and recommendations by the Federal Tax Ombudsman, subsequently upheld by the High Court. The core legal question was whether general information regarding non-payment of tax by a category of persons constitutes 'definite information' of tax evasion qualifying the informant for a reward. The Supreme Court held that mere failure to pay tax or drawing attention to tax defaulters does not amount to tax evasion, which strictly requires the concealment of income through deceitful or manipulative means. The Court laid down the principle that an informant is entitled to a reward only upon supplying specific information that uncovers concealed income and leads to the detection of actual tax evasion, thereby setting aside the impugned judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Does pointing out a category of persons failing to pay tax constitute definite information of tax evasion?
  • What distinguishes tax avoidance or failure to pay tax from tax evasion under taxation laws?
  • Is an informant entitled to a reward for merely drawing the tax department's attention to general tax defaults without uncovering concealed income?
  Read full judgment →
• Syeda Sakina Riaz Versus Federation of Pakistan2018 SCMR 1272 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-06-01
  family pensionqualifying servicepensionary benefitsservice lawfamily assistance packagestatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, the widow of a deceased University of Karachi employee, challenged the denial of family pension benefits following her husband's death after five years of service. The University denied the claim on the basis that the deceased had not completed the minimum ten-year qualifying service required under Section 26 of the University of Karachi Service Pension Statute, 1972. The appellant argued that the Prime Minister's Family Assistance Package, adopted by the University, entitled her to such benefits. The core legal question was whether the Family Assistance Package could override the statutory requirement of minimum qualifying service for pension eligibility. The Supreme Court held that the right to pension is inherently tied to the rendition of service and cannot be equated with an insurance policy. The Court ruled that the Family Assistance Package merely enhances the quantum of pension payable under existing law and cannot convert non-pensionable service into pensionable service. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the minimum qualifying service threshold remains a mandatory prerequisite for any pensionary claim, and the appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Prime Minister's Family Assistance Package override the requirement of minimum qualifying service for pension eligibility?
  • Is the rendition of minimum qualifying service a mandatory prerequisite for claiming family pension?
  • Can the Family Assistance Package convert non-pensionable service into pensionable service?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Ikramullah Khan Versus Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Agricultural University, Peshawar2018 SCMR 1191 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-04-12
  service matteracademic appointmentdoctorate evaluationweed scienceteaching experienceexpert opinionSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the selection and appointment of respondents Nos. 6 and 7 to the post of Associate Professor (BS-20) in Weed Science at Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Agricultural University, Peshawar, arguing that they lacked a doctorate and the requisite ten years of teaching experience in Weed Science. The core legal question concerned whether the doctoral degrees and teaching experience of respondents Nos. 6 and 7 qualified them for the post in question. The Supreme Court held that the dissertations, research work, and academic history of the respondents conclusively demonstrated that their doctorates pertained to Weed Science, notwithstanding the literal text of their degree certificates, and that they possessed the requisite teaching experience. The Court laid down the principle that in determining the specific field of a doctoral degree, the substance of the candidate's research and dissertation is determinative rather than the mere title or text printed on the degree, and courts cannot substitute expert academic evaluations.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the text of a doctoral degree or the research dissertation is determinative of the specific field of specialization?
  • Can courts substitute the evaluation and recommendation of expert academic committees and selection boards in specialized appointments?
  • Whether regular teaching experience is calculated from the date of initial appointment or the date of subsequent regularisation when determining eligibility for promotion?
  Read full judgment →
• Hashim Qasim Versus The State2017 SCMR 986 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-04-12
  circumstantial evidenceretracted confessionjuvenile offenderbenefit of doubtmurdersodomycapital punishmentlast seen evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court upholding the conviction and death sentence of the appellant Hashim Qasim, alongside the life imprisonment and sentences of co-accused Khayam Khurshid and Shoaib Ahmed, for offenses including murder, sodomy, and kidnapping. The core legal question concerns the reliability of circumstantial evidence, a retracted judicial confession by a juvenile, private sniffer dog evidence, last-seen evidence, and a belatedly set-up motive in a capital case. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and acquitted all the accused, holding that the prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence with a broken chain of links, an uncorroborated and legally flawed retracted confession, inadmissible sniffer dog evidence, and an unestablished motive. The key principle laid down is that in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must form an unbroken chain pointing unmistakably to the guilt of the accused, and a retracted confession of a juvenile without proper procedural safeguards and independent corroboration cannot sustain a capital conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retracted judicial confession of a juvenile sustain a conviction on a capital charge without strong independent corroboration?
  • Is evidence obtained through private sniffer dogs legally admissible under the Qanun-e-Shahdat Order or general criminal jurisprudence in Pakistan?
  • What is the required standard of proof for circumstantial evidence in cases involving capital punishment?
  • Whether the benefit of acquittal extended to appealing accused can be extended to non-appealing co-accused whose case is indistinguishable?
  Read full judgment →
• Army Welfare Trust (Nizampur Cement Project), Rawalpindi Versus Collector of Sales Tax (Now Commissioner Inland Revenue), Peshawar2017 SCMR 9 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-10-14
  sales tax exemptionappellate jurisdictionquestion of lawcollection of excess sales taxtribunal statusfactual findingsstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the scope of the High Court's appellate jurisdiction under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, and the interpretation of Section 3B regarding the collection of excess sales tax. The petitioner challenged a High Court judgment that reversed an Appellate Tribunal's decision, which had found that the petitioner did not collect sales tax on exempted supplies. The Supreme Court first addressed a procedural objection, ruling that the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is not a 'court' under Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution, thereby necessitating a petition for leave to appeal rather than a direct appeal. On the merits, the Court held that the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 is strictly limited to questions of law. The High Court erred by overturning the Appellate Tribunal's factual findings without evidence. The Court affirmed that Section 3B of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 requires actual collection of tax from consumers, not merely a notional calculation in internal pricing. The appeal was allowed, and the Appellate Tribunal's order was restored.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal a 'court' for the purposes of Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to overturn factual findings of the Appellate Tribunal under Section 47 of the Sales Tax Act 1990?
  • Does Section 3B of the Sales Tax Act 1990 apply to notional sales tax calculations in internal pricing where no tax was actually collected from consumers?
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be filed against a High Court judgment that sets aside an order of a tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Federal Public Service Commission Versus Anwar-Ul-Haq (Private Secretary) Islamabad2017 SCMR 890 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-09-30
  upgradationcivil servantservice tribunal jurisdictionpromotionlength of servicesubstantive grade
  Summary & questions settled

  The Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) challenged a decision of the Federal Service Tribunal (FST) which had set aside an order declining the respondent's representation for the grant of BPS-19 and re-designation as Senior Private Secretary. The core legal question was whether the respondent civil servant was entitled to upgradation to BPS-19 based on length of service calculations under specific Office Memorandums. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that upgradation is distinct from promotion, does not amend terms and conditions of service, and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Furthermore, the Court held that the Service Tribunals lack jurisdiction to entertain issues relating to the upgradation of civil servants, and the respondent did not meet the requisite qualifying length of service in the substantive grade for the claimed grade enhancement. The key principles laid down are that upgradation is personal to incumbents of isolated posts to address stagnation and does not constitute a promotion, and that Service Tribunals lack jurisdiction over upgradation disputes.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal involving the issue of upgradation of a civil servant?
  • Is upgradation of a post considered a promotion under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Can a civil servant claim upgradation to a higher grade as a matter of right based on length of service in lower grades?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Farhat Abbas Versus DR. Mehmood-Ul-Hassan2017 SCMR 86 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-10-24
  service lawmedical faculty appointmentpromotion criteriasubordinate legislationultra viresPMDC regulationsacademic qualification
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns Civil Appeals against a Peshawar High Court judgment that set aside the promotion of Dr. Farhat Abbas to Associate Professor of Cardiology. The core legal question was whether an Assistant Professor holding general medical qualifications (FCPS in Medicine) was eligible for promotion to Associate Professor of Cardiology under the Regulations for the Appointment of Faculty Professorial Staff/Examiners/Principals/Deans/Administrative Staff in Undergraduate and Postgraduate Medical and Dental Institutions of Pakistan, 2011. The Supreme Court held that Regulation 19 of the 2011 Regulations explicitly permits candidates who possess general postgraduate qualifications and have attained the post of Assistant Professor in a sub-specialty to be promoted to higher academic ranks, including Associate Professor, without requiring a specific sub-specialty degree. The Court emphasized that the High Court erred in setting aside the promotion, as the Regulations were validly framed under the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Ordinance, 1962, and no grounds were established to declare them ultra vires. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and dismissed the underlying writ petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Does Regulation 19 of the Regulations for the Appointment of Faculty Professorial Staff/Examiners/Principals/Deans/Administrative Staff in Undergraduate and Postgraduate Medical and Dental Institutions of Pakistan, 2011 allow for the promotion of an Assistant Professor with general medical qualifications to the post of Associate Professor in a sub-specialty?
  • Can a court set aside a promotion based on medical faculty regulations without establishing that the relevant regulation is ultra vires to the parent statute?
  • Is a candidate who has already attained the post of Assistant Professor in a sub-specialty required to hold a specific sub-specialty degree for subsequent promotion to Associate Professor under the 2011 Regulations?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail Versus State2017 SCMR 713 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-01-30
  capital punishmentmurderconfession versus admissionmitigating circumstancesmotiveappellate reduction of sentencesolitary witness testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and death sentence under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his brother, arising from a trial court judgment confirmed by the High Court. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the eyewitness testimony, the legal distinction between a judicial confession and an admission of guilt, the procedural safeguards required for recording confessions, and whether an admission alone can sustain a capital sentence when the prosecution fails to prove the alleged motive. The Supreme Court held that while the ocular account of the widow remained reliable to sustain the conviction, the lower courts erred in treating the appellant's statements as a formal, voluntary confession under the law. The Court laid down that an admission of guilt made after claiming trial cannot substitute for a strict judicial confession, cannot be recorded on oath, and is insufficient on its own to warrant the death penalty, particularly where mitigating circumstances and unproven motives exist. Consequently, the conviction was upheld, but the death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an admission of guilt made by an accused during trial can be treated as a valid judicial confession to sustain a capital sentence?
  • Can a confession recorded on oath under section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be considered admissible in evidence?
  • What are the mandatory procedural safeguards and precautions required for recording a voluntary confession in a criminal trial?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive warrant the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Al-Tech Engineers and Manufacturers Versus Federation of Pakistan2017 SCMR 673 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-01-31
  duty drawbackvested rightcustoms dutyexported goodsexemptionletter of creditpast and closed transaction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court concerning the reduction of duty drawback rates on exported goods. The appellant, a manufacturer and exporter, claimed duty drawback at a higher rate under an earlier notification, despite a subsequent notification reducing the rate, on the ground that letters of credit were opened prior to the second notification, thereby creating a vested right. The core legal question was whether section 31A of the Customs Act, 1969, which restricts vested rights regarding exemptions on imported goods, also applies to duty drawbacks granted on exported goods under section 21(c) of the Act. The Supreme Court held that section 31A applies strictly to customs duties on imported goods and does not extend to duty drawbacks on exports under section 21(c). Consequently, the principle of vested rights and past and closed transactions enunciated in the Al-Samrez case remains applicable. The Court allowed the appeal, directing the customs authorities to scrutinize the export documents to determine the existence of binding legal commitments prior to the subsequent notification.

  Questions settled

  • Does section 31A of the Customs Act, 1969 apply to duty drawbacks granted on exported goods under section 21(c) of the Act?
  • Does a subsequent notification reducing the rate of duty drawback affect a vested right acquired through a binding legal commitment concluded prior to its issuance?
  • What constitutes a binding legal commitment for the creation of a vested right to claim a specific rate of duty drawback?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Shahid Hussain Versus State2017 SCMR 616 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-02-22
  fake travel agencyHajj fraudbail refusalconstitutional directivesMinistry of Religious Affairsunauthorized tour operatorspublic interest litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their pre-arrest or bail petition by the Peshawar High Court, having been charged under sections 419, 420, and 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for running a fake travel agency and defrauding citizens seeking to perform Hajj. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the gravity of the systemic fraud involving unauthorized Hajj tour operators. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners were well-connected to the prima facie crime and that courts must treat religious frauds differently to curb the increasing menace. The Court laid down the principle that unauthorized Hajj and Umrah tour operations constitute serious systemic fraud requiring strict judicial notice, and issued comprehensive mandatory directives under Articles 184(3), 187, and 5(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to the Ministry of Religious Affairs, law enforcement agencies, and provincial authorities to ensure public awareness, strict regulatory oversight, and prevention of illegal travel agencies.

  Questions settled

  • Whether accused persons involved in running a fake Hajj travel agency and defrauding the public are entitled to the concession of bail?
  • Can the Supreme Court issue binding directives to federal and provincial authorities under Articles 184(3) and 187 of the Constitution to curb systemic frauds related to unauthorized religious tour operators?
  • What are the statutory and constitutional obligations of the Ministry of Religious Affairs and law enforcement agencies in preventing fraudulent Hajj and Umrah travel schemes?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Noman Versus State2017 SCMR 560 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-01-12
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryterrorismpolice investigationfalse implicationliberty of citizenfair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought bail after being charged with terrorism-related offenses involving the possession of explosive substances and arms. The petitioner contended that he was abducted by law enforcement personnel from his residence prior to the alleged arrest, supporting this claim with a contemporaneous police record (Rescue-15) and subsequent complaints to police authorities, which were ignored. The investigation revealed that the police failed to investigate the petitioner's abduction claim or verify his alleged connection to militant groups. The Supreme Court held that the investigation was one-sided, lacked impartiality, and failed to address vital aspects of the case, thereby creating reasonable doubt regarding the petitioner's involvement. The Court emphasized that while courts must be vigilant against terrorism, they must also protect citizens from false implication and police malpractice. Finding the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under the relevant criminal procedure provisions, the Court granted bail, establishing that bail is a right when the prosecution's case is tainted by procedural failure and lack of investigation into exculpatory evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a case is susceptible to further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the investigation is one-sided and ignores exculpatory evidence?
  • Is it the duty of superior police officers to investigate allegations of abduction made by an accused when supported by police records?
  • Does the failure of the police to investigate a credible claim of prior abduction by the accused entitle the accused to bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif Versus State2017 SCMR 486 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-01-18
  murdercriminal appealappreciation of evidenceinterested witnessesacquittalcorroborationbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for murder, though converting the death sentence to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the testimony of interested and related eye-witnesses, whose presence at the crime scene appeared unnatural and whose statements were disbelieved regarding co-accused who were acquitted, could safely form the basis of a capital conviction or imprisonment without independent, unimpeachable corroboratory evidence. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant, holding that once prosecution witnesses are disbelieved regarding a co-accused, they cannot be relied upon against another co-accused without strong, independent corroboration. The Court laid down the principle that the credibility of witnesses is indivisible in such circumstances, and highlighted fatal flaws in the prosecution's case including unnatural conduct of alleged eye-witnesses, withholding of best available independent evidence, doubtful identification in the dark, unestablished motive, and inconclusive forensic evidence regarding blood-stained weapons.

  Questions settled

  • Can interested and related eye-witnesses be relied upon to convict an accused when they have already been disbelieved with respect to co-accused in the same transaction?
  • Does the withholding of best available independent witnesses at trial draw an adverse inference against the prosecution case?
  • Whether an inconclusive report from the Chemical Examiner and Serologist regarding blood-stained weapons can serve as corroboratory evidence without matching blood groups?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the medical evidence regarding the time of death and the ocular account of the occurrence are in direct conflict?
  Read full judgment →
• Controller of Military Accounts (RC) Education Cell, Rawalpindi Versus Muhammad Zafar, Assistant Professor2017 SCMR 482 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-01-19
  pay protectionad hoc employeesurplus civil servanttermination of serviceservice appealFederal Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition filed by the department against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had set aside the withdrawal of pay protection previously granted to respondent No. 1, an assistant professor. The core legal question was whether an ad hoc civil servant whose service was terminated pursuant to a government decision and who accepted a lower post is entitled to the benefit of pay protection under Section 11-A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The Supreme Court held that ad hoc employees are civil servants within the meaning of the law and that respondent No. 1 was rendered surplus pursuant to a government decision rather than any disciplinary action, thereby fulfilling all requirements of Section 11-A. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the respondent was legally entitled to the protection of the pay he was drawing in his higher post prior to his adjustment to the lower post.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ad hoc civil servant qualifies as a civil servant entitled to the benefit of pay protection under Section 11-A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Is an employee whose ad hoc service is terminated pursuant to a government decision and who is accommodated in a lower post entitled to pay protection?
  • Can a department lawfully recall a benefit of pay protection once granted to an employee under Section 11-A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Versus State2017 SCMR 390 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-08-03
  dishonour of chequestay of criminal proceedingscivil and criminal proceedingsSection 489-F PPCfinancial obligationinterim injunctioncriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a dispute regarding the dishonor of a cheque issued by the respondent to an educational institution as security for a loan facility. The respondent, having availed the loan, subsequently challenged the underlying agreement in a civil suit, alleging coercion, and sought to stay the criminal proceedings initiated under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Lahore High Court had ordered a stay of the criminal proceedings pending the outcome of the civil suit. The Supreme Court, upon review, noted that the respondent had issued the cheque voluntarily to satisfy a financial obligation and that no interim injunction from the civil court was in force at the time of the cheque's dishonor. The Court held that there is no universal principle requiring criminal proceedings to be stayed merely because a civil suit involving related subject matter is pending. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, ruling that the stay of criminal proceedings was unjustified, and allowed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Is there a universal principle that criminal proceedings must be stayed whenever a civil suit involving similar subject matter is pending?
  • Can a court grant a stay of criminal proceedings when such relief was not formally prayed for by the party?
  • Does the pendency of a civil suit regarding the validity of an underlying agreement automatically invalidate criminal proceedings for the dishonour of a cheque issued pursuant to that agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zarina Khan Versus Mst. Farzana Shoaib2017 SCMR 330 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-11-25
  relationship of landlord and tenantagreement to selltenancy agreementtentative rent orderstriking off defencecantonments rent restriction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Sindh High Court, which had set aside an order of the Rent Controller striking off the respondent-tenant's defence under section 17(9) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, and remanded the matter for framing issues regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant. The core legal question was whether the mere execution of an agreement to sell alongside a tenancy agreement terminates the relationship of landlord and tenant, and whether the Rent Controller is legally bound to frame an issue on such relationship before passing a tentative rent order. The Supreme Court held that the expiry of a tenancy period or the existence of an agreement to sell does not ipso facto terminate the relationship of landlord and tenant unless specific performance is attained, and the Rent Controller is not bound as a rule of thumb to frame issues on a denied relationship prior to issuing a tentative rent order. The Court laid down the principle that possession received under a tenancy agreement retains that character until the sale agreement is fully executed or enforced, justifying tentative rent orders and striking off defence upon non-compliance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the mere execution of an agreement to sell terminates the relationship of landlord and tenant?
  • Is the Rent Controller bound to frame an issue regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant before passing a tentative rent order?
  • Does the expiry of a fixed-term tenancy automatically alter the tenant's status when an agreement to sell is simultaneously executed?
  Read full judgment →
• Sohail Waqar alias Sohaila Versus State2017 SCMR 325 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-08-22
  post-arrest baildouble murderprohibitory clauseocular accountmedical evidenceabscondencebail stage
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who is accused in a double murder case registered under FIR No. 150 of 2013. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite being specifically nominated in the FIR with a direct attribution of firing at the deceased, and having remained a fugitive from law for a significant period. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, noting that he was specifically named in the FIR, the police investigation found him guilty, and he had absconded. The Court further held that alleged discrepancies between ocular accounts and medical evidence are matters for deeper appreciation of evidence, which is not permissible at the bail stage. The key principle laid down is that where an offense falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the accused is specifically implicated with a clear role, bail should be refused, leaving the determination of guilt to the trial court after recording evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permissible at the bail stage?
  • Does an offense falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically disentitle an accused to bail?
  • Can an accused who has remained a fugitive from law be granted bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain Versus Administrator Thal Development Authority2017 SCMR 281 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-09-16
  leave to appealcondonation of delayrestoration of appealdismissal for non-prosecutionregular second appealsufficient cause
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition seeks leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing applications for the restoration of a Regular Second Appeal and for condonation of delay. The petitioners had instituted a civil suit which was dismissed, and subsequent appeals up to the High Court level also failed. The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution in 2005. An initial restoration application filed shortly thereafter was returned due to an unattested affidavit, but the petitioners failed to cure the defect for six years. When they finally refiled along with an application for condonation of delay, the High Court dismissed both as the delay remained unexplained and unsupported by sufficient cause. The Supreme Court evaluated the record and held that the petitioners were neither serious nor vigilant in prosecuting their case and that the High Court was justified in refusing condonation. The Supreme Court laid down that a party seeking condonation of delay must explain the entire period of delay and show sufficient cause, and failure to do so warrants the dismissal of restoration applications without interfering on technicality grounds when gross negligence is established. The petition was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay of six years in removing office objections on a restoration application constitutes sufficient cause for condonation of delay?
  • Is the High Court justified in dismissing an application for restoration of an appeal where the applicant has shown gross negligence and lack of vigilance?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere under Article 185(3) of the Constitution with an order refusing to condone delay in the absence of any illegality or jurisdictional defect?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Aziz Versus Government of Punjab through Chief Secretary, Services and General Administration2017 SCMR 21 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-03-11
  disciplinary proceedingsremoval from servicebogus transfer ordersbriberysimultaneous proceedingsservice lawcodal formalities
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two petitions challenging a consolidated judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which upheld the removal from service of the petitioners following disciplinary proceedings under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006. The petitioners were accused of preparing and obtaining bogus transfer orders in exchange for bribes. The core legal question was whether the petitioners' removal from service could be maintained despite their exoneration in separate criminal proceedings conducted by the Anti-Corruption Establishment (ACE) authorities. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings are distinct and independent processes. The Court affirmed that the conclusion of criminal proceedings does not override or invalidate the findings of disciplinary proceedings. Furthermore, the Court found that the disciplinary process had been conducted in accordance with all codal formalities and that substantial evidence supported the allegations of bribery and misconduct. Consequently, the Court ruled that no substantial question of law of public importance existed to warrant interference under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Can disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings proceed simultaneously and independently?
  • Does an exoneration in criminal proceedings automatically invalidate a penalty imposed in disciplinary proceedings?
  • Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to interfere in a Service Tribunal judgment where no substantial question of law of public importance is raised?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Pervaiz Versus Ejaz Ahmad2017 SCMR 206 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-12-30
  out-of-turn promotioncivil servantssenioritypast and closed transactionconstitutional petitionreview petitionsports policyfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves multiple civil review petitions and applications filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by police personnel challenging the withdrawal of their out-of-turn promotions and accelerated promotions granted under Section 8-A of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, and the Punjab Police Sports Policy, 1982. The core legal questions pertained to whether out-of-turn promotions and sports-based accelerated promotions are unconstitutional, whether a repealed or omitted statute can be reviewed for constitutionality, and whether such promotions constitute past and closed transactions protected from judicial review. By a majority of four to one, the Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions, holding that out-of-turn promotions are void ab initio, violate fundamental rights and the constitutional scheme of civil service, and cannot be saved under the doctrine of past and closed transactions. The Court further held that accelerated promotions under the Sports Policy to the extent of bypassing merit are equally unsustainable, though recognizing awards or rewards for gallantry or sports achievements. The review petitions were accordingly dismissed with directions to streamline seniority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether out-of-turn promotions granted under Section 8-A of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, are unconstitutional and void ab initio?
  • Can rights acquired under a statute that is subsequently omitted or repealed be protected as past and closed transactions when the statute itself is declared unconstitutional?
  • Whether accelerated promotions granted under the Police Sports Policy violate the constitutional scheme of civil service appointments and promotions?
  • Do judgments declaring a law unconstitutional apply retrospectively to undo promotions and re-fix seniority of civil servants?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Versus State2017 SCMR 1932 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-05-10
  post-arrest bailabetmentfurther inquirycriminal conspiracycontradictory statementsmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was not named in the initial FIR but was later implicated through statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, alleging abetment. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, noting significant discrepancies between the statements of witnesses regarding the location and circumstances of the alleged conspiracy. Specifically, the Court observed that the witnesses provided conflicting accounts of where the petitioner instigated the co-accused, and no overt act was attributed to the petitioner regarding the actual commission of the murder. Finding that the evidence against the petitioner required further investigation, the Court held that the case fell within the scope of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner, establishing the principle that material contradictions in witness statements regarding the prosecution's theory of conspiracy warrant the grant of bail for further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant discrepancy in witness statements regarding the location of an alleged conspiracy constitute grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be granted where no overt act is attributed to the accused in the commission of the murder?
  • Is a case considered one of further inquiry when the prosecution's witnesses provide conflicting accounts of the conspiracy?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq Versus Inspector-General of Police Punjab Lahore2017 SCMR 1880 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-08-28
  civil servicedismissal from servicedisciplinary inquiryunauthorized absencePEEDA Actmajor penaltyprocedural fairness
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the dismissal of a police official for unauthorized absence from duty. The appellant challenged his dismissal, arguing that the penalty was disproportionate and that the procedure mandated by the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, was violated. The core legal question was whether the competent authority could dispense with a formal inquiry without recording sufficient reasons or possessing documentary evidence to justify such action, and whether the major penalty of dismissal was appropriate for a seven-day absence. The Supreme Court held that the dismissal order was unsustainable because the authority failed to record reasons for dispensing with the inquiry as required by Section 5 of the Act, nor did it provide the appellant an opportunity to defend his absence. The Court established that terminal punitive actions against civil servants require a proper inquiry unless specific statutory conditions for dispensation are strictly met and documented. Consequently, the Court set aside the dismissal, ordered reinstatement, and directed the department to conduct a fresh inquiry into the allegations of willful absence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a competent authority dispense with a formal inquiry under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, without recording reasons?
  • Is a major penalty of dismissal justified for a short period of absence without conducting a formal inquiry?
  • Does the failure to provide an opportunity to defend against allegations of absence invalidate a dismissal order?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarfraz Versus State2017 SCMR 1874 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-07-31
  narcotics recoverycharaschemical examiner reportsite plan contradictiondelay in sending samplesleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of the petitioner's criminal appeal by the High Court, which had upheld his conviction and sentence under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 for the recovery of 5 kilograms of Charas. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the ocular account, the effect of minor discrepancies in the site plan and delay in sending samples to the forensic laboratory, and the applicability of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a shadow of doubt through consistent and trustworthy recovery witnesses corroborated by a positive Chemical Examiner report, that minor discrepancies in the site plan do not vitiate the recovery, that rules regarding the transmission of samples are directory rather than mandatory, and that section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 ousts the applicability of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a clerical mistake or minor contradiction in the site plan vitiate a narcotics recovery proved by consistent ocular testimony?
  • Are the departmental rules regarding the transmission of sample parcels to a forensic agency directory or mandatory?
  • Does section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 exclude the application of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in narcotics cases?
  • Is a statement made by an accused person in police custody regarding co-accused admissible in evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ul Haq Versus Muhammad Asghar2017 SCMR 1841 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-08-28
  written statementspecific performancecivil revisionleave to appealprocedural delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a civil revision upholding the closure of the petitioners' right to file a written statement in a suit for specific performance. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in exercising its powers under Order VIII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to close the right of the defendants to file a written statement after multiple adjournments and failure to comply within the prescribed timeframe. The Supreme Court held that the trial court rightly exercised its jurisdiction as the petitioners were granted ample opportunities over several months without offering any lawful justification for the delay. The key principle laid down is that where the law prescribes a timeframe for performing an act such as filing a written statement, it must be adhered to unless cogent reasons and lawful justification are presented for an extension.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court is justified in closing the right to file a written statement under Order VIII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 after repeated defaults?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 with concurrent findings on procedural defaults where no jurisdictional defect is shown?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal alias Zafarullah Khan Versus State2017 SCMR 1721 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-05-08
  murderqatl-i-amdcapital punishmentmitigating circumstancessudden provocationplea of self-defencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The instant criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and confirming his death sentence for the murder of the deceased following a dispute over cattle damaging crops. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of evidence regarding the plea of self-defence and the determination of whether mitigating circumstances warranted the commutation of the death sentence. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellant through consistent ocular testimony, medical evidence, and the appellant's own admission of his presence and firing at the spot during his examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, while failing to substantiate the plea of self-defence. However, considering that the incident occurred on the spur of the moment due to sudden provocation without premeditation, involving a single gunshot without repetition and no prior motive, the Court partly allowed the appeal by commuting the death sentence to imprisonment for life while maintaining the conviction and compensation order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the uncorroborated plea of self-defence raised under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be sustained without producing evidence or appearing as a witness on oath?
  • Does a sudden quarrel over cattle damaging crops, resulting in a single gunshot without premeditation, constitute a mitigating circumstance warranting the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Whether concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the High Court regarding the guilt of an accused in a murder case warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Collector of Customs (Export) Versus Saifuddin2017 SCMR 1714 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-05-17
  regulatory dutyexport dutygoods declarationcustoms exportcharging sectionharmonious interpretationvested rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal addresses whether the respondent was liable to pay regulatory duty on the export of copper, aluminum, and brass scrap pursuant to a notification issued by the Federal Government under section 18(3) of the Customs Act, 1969. The core legal questions involved the legality of imposing regulatory duty on exports alongside the general bar in section 18(2), the relevance of the date of goods declarations under sections 31 and 131, and the applicability of section 31A regarding contracts concluded prior to the notification. The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, holding that section 18(3) serves as a valid exception to the general rule under section 18(2) against export duty, and that regulatory duty is chargeable based on the date of filing the goods declaration under sections 31 and 131. The Court established that goods declarations filed prior to the notification are exempt from regulatory duty, whereas those filed on or after the notification date are subject to it, while subsequent administrative amendments to declarations regarding vessel changes do not alter the relevant date for duty determination.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Government is empowered under section 18(3) of the Customs Act, 1969 to levy regulatory duty on goods exported from Pakistan notwithstanding section 18(2)?
  • What is the relevant date for the determination of the rate of duty on goods exported under sections 31 and 131 of the Customs Act, 1969?
  • Does a subsequent amendment to a goods declaration regarding particulars other than the core 'particulars of the goods' affect the date for determining the applicable rate of duty?
  • What is the scope and application of section 31A of the Customs Act, 1969 in relation to the date of conclusion of a contract or opening of a letter of credit?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Versus State2017 SCMR 1645 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-05-16
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtcorroborationacquitted co-accusedocular testimonyfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusrejection of motive
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby the appellant Muhammad Afzal's death sentence for Qatl-i-amd under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code was reduced to imprisonment for life. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a conviction on a capital charge can be sustained on the same ocular testimony that led to the acquittal of co-accused, in the absence of independent corroborative evidence and reliable motive. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, holding that where co-accused attributed similar active roles and firearm injuries are acquitted on the same set of evidence, and the prosecution's motive and recovery evidence fail, independent corroboration is legally necessary to maintain a conviction, and the failure thereof entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for murder can be maintained on the same ocular account that resulted in the acquittal of co-accused attributed similar roles?
  • Is independent corroborative evidence required when co-accused facing the same trial and similar allegations have been acquitted?
  • Does the rejection of the prosecution's motive part of the occurrence damage the case sufficiently to warrant the acquittal of the appellant on a capital charge?
  Read full judgment →
• Al-Haj Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd. Versus Collector of Customs, Model Customs Collectorate (MCC)2017 SCMR 1598 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-05-22Read full judgment →
• Fancy Foundation Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Karachi2017 SCMR 1395 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-04-13
  income taxadventure in the nature of tradecapital gaincharitable trustburden of proofbusiness incomeimmovable property
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns whether the profit derived from the sale of immovable property by a charitable trust constitutes "income from business" or a non-taxable capital gain under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The appellant, a registered charitable foundation, purchased property in 1963 and sold it in 1995, claiming the surplus was an exempt capital gain. The tax department contended the transaction was an "adventure in the nature of trade," thus taxable as business income. The Supreme Court held that the transaction was not an adventure in the nature of trade. The Court established that while no universal test exists, "business" generally requires a continuous, systematic course of activity. The burden of proof rests on the tax department to demonstrate that a transaction constitutes a trading adventure; mere intention to resell or appreciation in value does not convert a capital asset realization into business income. Consequently, the Court found the department failed to discharge its burden, set aside the lower court's judgment, and ruled the profit was not liable to income tax.

  Questions settled

  • Does the sale of a single property by a charitable trust constitute an 'adventure in the nature of trade' under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
  • On whom does the burden of proof lie to establish that a transaction is an 'adventure in the nature of trade'?
  • Is the intention to resell property at a profit, by itself, conclusive proof of an 'adventure in the nature of trade'?
  • Does the appreciation in value of a capital asset upon its realization constitute taxable business income?
  Read full judgment →
• Said Zaman Khan Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence2017 SCMR 1249 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-08-29
  Field General Court Martialjudicial reviewcoram non judicemala fidesPakistan Army Actfair trialconstitutional petitiondeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses multiple civil petitions for leave to appeal challenging death sentences awarded to civilians by Field General Court Martials (FGCM) under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, as amended. The core legal questions concerned whether these trials violated the fundamental rights to a fair trial and due process under Articles 10 and 10A of the Constitution, and whether the FGCMs lacked jurisdiction or acted with mala fides. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the convictions were valid. The Court affirmed that the convicts were subject to the Pakistan Army Act and that the FGCMs were properly constituted. The ratio established that while the High Court and Supreme Court possess judicial review jurisdiction over military court proceedings on grounds of coram non judice, lack of jurisdiction, or mala fides, this power does not permit the court to act as an appellate body to re-examine evidence or merits. Procedural irregularities, absent proof of prejudice, do not invalidate such trials.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court, in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, re-evaluate evidence or sit in appeal over the findings of a Field General Court Martial?
  • What are the specific grounds upon which the proceedings, convictions, and sentences of a Field General Court Martial can be challenged through judicial review?
  • Does the bar under Article 199(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 preclude judicial review of convictions awarded by a Field General Court Martial?
  • Is a trial by a Field General Court Martial vitiated by procedural irregularities if the accused was afforded the opportunity to defend themselves in accordance with the Pakistan Army Act Rules, 1954?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Mushahid Shah Versus Federal Investment Agency2017 SCMR 1218 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-05-15
  banking court jurisdictionexclusive jurisdictionspecial law versus general lawdishonoured chequenon obstante clauseoverlapping jurisdictionreading down statutefundamental rights equalityfinancial institutions recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves appeals and petitions concerning whether Banking Courts established under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 possess exclusive jurisdiction to try offences related to finances, to the exclusion of Special Courts under the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984, ordinary criminal courts under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and investigation by the Federal Investigation Agency under the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974. The core legal question addresses the interplay between special laws, general laws, and overlapping penal provisions, particularly regarding dishonoured cheques and breaches of finance agreements. The Supreme Court held that the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 is a special law that overrides inconsistent provisions in general laws and earlier or broader special enactments, such as the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984 and the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The ratio decidendi is that where an act by a customer constitutes an offence under section 20 of the 2001 Ordinance, exclusive jurisdiction vests in the Banking Courts, and allowing concurrent jurisdiction or unfettered choice of forum would violate fundamental rights to equality and protection of law under Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The Court laid down the principles of reading down, harmonious interpretation, and the pre-eminence of specific legislative intent in resolving conflicts between special statutes.

  Questions settled

  • Do Banking Courts constituted under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 have exclusive jurisdiction over offences covered under section 20 thereof to the exclusion of Special Courts under the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984?
  • Whether section 20(4) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 overrides section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 in cases involving the dishonour of cheques issued towards the repayment of a finance?
  • Does the conferment of concurrent jurisdiction or unguided choice of forum between multiple special courts violate Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • How should conflicting non obstante clauses in two special statutes be construed and resolved by the courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Asghar Ali Versus Government of Punjab through Secretary (Colonies) Bor, Lahore2017 SCMR 118 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-09-29Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Balochistan Concrete and Block Works Ltd.2017 SCMR 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-11-25Read full judgment →
• Anti-Corruption Establishment, Punjab Versus National Accountability Bureau through Chairman NAB2016 SCMR 92 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-08-31
  transfer of caseNational Accountability Ordinanceanti-corruptionmala fidesexoneration of accusedabuse of authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a petition filed by the Anti-Corruption Establishment (ACE) Punjab challenging the transfer of a criminal case involving land fraud from the Special Judge Anti-Corruption to the Accountability Court upon the application of the Chairman National Accountability Bureau (NAB) under Section 16-A(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The core legal question concerned the scope and legality of the Chairman NAB's power to transfer cases and subsequently exonerate accused persons without proper investigation or formal trial proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the exercise of discretion by the then Chairman NAB in transferring the case and exonerating certain accused was tainted with mala fides and contrary to statutory provisions. The Court ruled that once a case is transferred under Section 16-A(a), it is deemed a reference under Section 18 and NAB has no power to unilaterally exonerate accused persons. The appeal was allowed, the previous purported exonerations were declared void, and the record was remitted to the Special Judge Anti-Corruption to proceed with the trial, while directing NAB to investigate the misuse of authority by its former officials.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Chairman NAB can seek the transfer of a criminal case under Section 16-A(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 for mala fide reasons?
  • Does the transfer of a case to an Accountability Court under Section 16-A(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 empower NAB to unilaterally exonerate nominated accused persons?
  • What is the legal effect of an application submitted under Section 16-A(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 once transmitted to a court?
  • Can public office holders in NAB be investigated for misusing their authority to grant undue favors under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  Read full judgment →
• Chairman Federal Board of Revenue Versus Iqbal Hussain Shaikh2016 SCMR 773 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-11-11
  civil service senioritydeputationcivil servants seniority rulesreview jurisdictionappointment by transferincome tax groupservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns Civil Review Petitions filed against a Supreme Court judgment regarding the seniority of civil servants inducted into the Income Tax Group after serving on deputation. The core legal question was whether the seniority of these officers should be reckoned from the date of their initial deputation or from the date of their formal, regular induction into the transferee group, specifically under Rule 4 of the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules 1993. The Court held that the previous judgment erroneously relied on precedents concerning Office Memorandums and the Esta Code, which were inapplicable given the clear mandate of Rule 4. The Court ruled that seniority for civil servants appointed by transfer must be reckoned from the date of their regular appointment to the transferee service or cadre. Consequently, the Court allowed the review petitions, set aside the earlier judgment, and dismissed the original appeals. The key principle laid down is that Rule 4 of the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules 1993 is the governing provision for such seniority, precluding the use of earlier departmental practices or memoranda to determine seniority dates.

  Questions settled

  • Does Rule 4 of the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules 1993 require seniority for civil servants appointed by transfer to be reckoned from the date of regular appointment in the transferee department?
  • Can seniority of deputationists be backdated to the date of their initial deputation when the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules 1993 are applicable?
  • Are previous Supreme Court judgments based on Office Memorandums and the Esta Code applicable to cases governed by the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules 1993?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmad Chatta Versus Iftikhar Ahmad Cheema2016 SCMR 763 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-01-25
  election petitionnomination papersnon-disclosure of assetsspouse propertiesreturned candidatefalse declarationRepresentation of the People Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under Section 67(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 challenged the judgment of the Election Tribunal, which had dismissed the appellant's election petition against the returned candidate. The core legal questions involved whether the returned candidate deliberately concealed bank accounts and the assets of his spouse in his nomination papers, and whether such non-disclosure warrants declaring the election void under the law. The Supreme Court held that the respondent deliberately failed to disclose his operative bank account and his spouse's properties, and that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the petition on the grounds of a lack of mens rea and absence of loss to the government exchequer. The Court established that submitting a false or incorrect statement of assets and liabilities of one's own, spouse, or dependents under Section 12 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 violates electoral laws and empowers the Election Tribunal to declare the election of the returned candidate void.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the non-disclosure of bank accounts and spouse's properties in nomination papers renders a candidate's declaration false or incorrect under the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
  • Can an election petition be dismissed solely on the ground that mens rea is not proved for the non-disclosure of assets?
  • What are the powers of the Election Tribunal under Section 76A of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 regarding false declarations of assets and liabilities?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed Versus State2016 SCMR 707 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-01-21
  narcoticscharassampling procedurechemical examinersentence reductioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of 44 kilograms of charas packed in 44 separate packets. The core legal question was whether the appellant could be convicted for the entire quantity of recovered contraband when the prosecution had failed to draw individual samples from each of the 44 packets, instead taking only one consolidated sample of 200 grams. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that, in accordance with established precedent, where separate packets of contraband are recovered, samples must be drawn from each packet to prove its contents. Consequently, only the single packet from which the sample could be linked was considered proven. The Court partly allowed the appeal, converting the appellant's conviction from Section 9(c) to Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and reduced his sentence accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for the entire quantity of recovered narcotics be sustained if the prosecution fails to take separate samples from each individual packet?
  • What is the legal effect of taking a single consolidated sample from multiple distinct packets of recovered contraband?
  • Under what circumstances should a conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 be converted to Section 9(b) of the same Act due to faulty sampling?
  Read full judgment →
• Khurshid Ahmad Versus Rana Mumtaz Ahmad2016 SCMR 679 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-01-13Read full judgment →
• Chairman NAB through Pga NAB Islamabad Versus Muhammad Khalid2016 SCMR 676 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-01-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saadia Versus Mst. Gul Bibi2016 SCMR 662 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-12-18Read full judgment →
• Mujahid Kareem Versus National Bank of Pakistan2016 SCMR 66 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-09-14Read full judgment →
• Taimoor Khan Versus State2016 SCMR 621 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-02-04
  Control of Narcotic Substances Actpoppy strawopiumChemical Examiner reportmorphine percentagecriminal appealnarcotic drug
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the appellants under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for the recovery of 8,000 kilograms of ground poppy. The core legal questions involved the legality of the recovery, the validity of the Chemical Examiner's report, and the definition of 'opium' and 'poppy straw' under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The Supreme Court, by a majority view, dismissed the appeals and maintained the conviction. The bench engaged in a detailed discussion regarding the statutory definitions of narcotic substances, the evidentiary value of expert reports under Section 36 of the Act, and the necessity of ascertaining specific alkaloid percentages in poppy straw recoveries, ultimately holding that crushed poppy heads (poast or doda) fall squarely within the definition of opium and do not require chemical breakdown of morphine percentages.

  Questions settled

  • Whether crushed poppy heads (poast or doda) fall within the definition of 'opium' under Section 2(t) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Is it mandatory for a Chemical Examiner to state the exact percentage of morphine and other alkaloids in the case of recovery of raw or crushed poppy straw or poast?
  • Does a report of a Government Analyst under Section 36 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 serve as conclusive evidence if it remains unrebutted by the defense during trial?
  • Whether the provisions of Section 2(t)(i) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 extend the definition of opium to all parts of a mowed poppy plant excluding seeds regardless of the species?
  Read full judgment →
• Senate through Chairman Versus Shahiq Ahmed Khan2016 SCMR 460 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-11-17Read full judgment →
• Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan Versus Hyderabad Beverage Company Private Limited2016 SCMR 451 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2014-09-26Read full judgment →
• Government of Pakistan M/o Railways Versus Jamshed Hussain Cheema2016 SCMR 442 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-12-07
  upgradation of postswrit jurisdictionpolicy decisionreasonable classificationdiscriminationcivil servantsterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal was filed against the judgment of the Islamabad High Court, which had allowed a constitutional writ petition filed by respondents seeking further post upgradation on grounds of discrimination. The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court possessed writ jurisdiction to interfere in policy decisions regarding post upgradation and scale revisions. It was acknowledged that upgradation does not constitute promotion and is not a term or condition of service under the Civil Servants Act 1973; therefore, it falls outside the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. However, the Court held that the upgradation of pay scales is purely a policy decision within the domain of the competent authority and Federal Government. The Court ruled that policy decisions regarding upgradation cannot be challenged under Article 199 on the plea of discrimination where reasonable classification exists under Article 25. Finding no fundamental right violated, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court judgments.

  Questions settled

  • Does the upgradation of pay scales fall under the terms and conditions of service amenable to the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
  • Can a policy decision of the government regarding upgradation of posts be challenged in writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Does differential upgradation of posts across different categories of employees violate Article 25 of the Constitution where reasonable classification exists?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Raza Fatiana Versus Election Appellate Authority, Local Government, Sahiwal2016 SCMR 439 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-11-18Read full judgment →
• Shahid Perwaiz Versus Galaxo Klin Pakistan Ltd.2016 SCMR 30 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-10-22
  habitual late comingmisconducttermination of servicelabour disputereinstatementindustrial relations
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh which set aside the concurrent findings of the Sindh Labour Court and Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal. The respondent employer had dismissed the appellant from service on grounds of misconduct under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968, specifically for being a habitual late comer. The appellant had arrived late on 223 occasions over a ten-year period and had ignored 26 advisory warning letters. The Labour Court and Appellate Tribunal had ordered his reinstatement with back benefits, but the High Court reversed this, finding the dismissal justified. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether an employee arriving late approximately twice a month over a decade, despite multiple written warnings, constitutes a "habitual late comer" under the law. The Supreme Court held that such persistent and uncorrected conduct indeed constitutes habitual late coming and misconduct under Standing Order 15(3) of the Ordinance of 1968. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee arriving late on 223 occasions over ten years despite receiving 26 advisory warning letters constitutes a habitual late comer under the law?
  • Can persistent unpunctuality by an employee, despite repeated warnings, justify dismissal from service under Standing Order 15 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
  • Does the High Court have the authority under Article 199 of the Constitution to set aside concurrent findings of labour courts if they are based on a misreading of the record?
  Read full judgment →
• Jam Madad Ali Versus Asghar Ali Junejo2016 SCMR 251 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-11-12
  election petitionrecount of voteselection tribunalprima facie caseballot tamperingRepresentation of the Peoples Actelection dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an Election Tribunal's judgment declaring the respondent the returned candidate following a court-ordered recount. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal’s order for a recount was lawful and whether the resulting report justified setting aside the appellant's election. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal’s order for a recount was illegal, as the respondent failed to establish a prima facie case through specific allegations and supporting material. The Court emphasized that a recount is not a routine exercise but a discretionary power to be exercised sparingly to prevent 'roving inquiries.' The Tribunal must be satisfied that a recount is necessary to ensure justice, while respecting the sanctity of the ballot. In this case, the recount results were deemed unreliable because the election record was stored in an insecure facility, and there was no evidence that the discovered 'double stamping' occurred during polling rather than post-election. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment, restoring the appellant as the returned candidate, reaffirming that recount requests must be based on clear, substantiated grounds rather than vague assertions.

  Questions settled

  • What is the threshold for an Election Tribunal to order a recount of votes?
  • Can a recount be ordered in the absence of specific allegations and supporting prima facie material?
  • Does the discovery of double-stamped ballots during a recount automatically invalidate an election result?
  • Is a recount order by an Election Tribunal subject to judicial review if it constitutes a roving inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Beach Luxury Hotels, Karachi Versus Anas Muneer Ltd.2016 SCMR 222 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-12-16
  evacuee propertypublic auctionsettlement authoritiesfraud and misrepresentationinherent powermultiple transferdisplaced persons
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a property dispute concerning the transfer of "Nedous Hotel" via public auction to the Appellant, while the Respondent claimed a portion of the same property based on a separate transfer. The core legal questions involved the jurisdiction of the Settlement authorities to reopen the case following the enactment of Ordinance No. II of 1962, and whether the Respondent was legally entitled to the transfer of two properties. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement authorities retained inherent power to recall orders procured through fraud or misrepresentation. It found that the Respondent had illegally obtained two properties, whereas the law permitted only one. Furthermore, the Court determined that the disputed land was an integral part of the hotel property, not a separate shop, and that the Respondent’s title was invalid. The key principle laid down is that Settlement authorities possess inherent jurisdiction to correct transfers obtained through fraud or concealment of material facts, independent of statutory revisional powers, and that a non-claimant cannot be transferred more than one property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Settlement Department possess inherent power to recall an order procured through fraud or misrepresentation?
  • Can a non-claimant be transferred more than one property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
  • Does the omission of subsections (2) and (4) of section 20 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 by Ordinance No. II of 1962 strip the Settlement Department of the power to correct fraudulent transfers?
  Read full judgment →
• Inayat Bibi Versus Rehana Kausar2016 SCMR 2082 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-03-11Read full judgment →
• Collector of Customs Versus Best Way Cement2016 SCMR 1982 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-04-27
  customs dutysales tax exemptionclassification of goodscement industryoff-highway truckson-highway trucksdefinition of plant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from two connected appeals filed by the Collector of Customs against cement manufacturing enterprises that had imported eighteen Volvo FM 400 trucks. The respondent companies claimed exemption from customs duty in excess of 5% under SRO 575(I)/2006 and 0% sales tax under SRO 530(I)/2005, asserting that the imported trucks were 'Off-Highway' trucks integral to their industrial process and thus fell within the definition of 'plant'. The Custom Examination Staff, however, classified them as 'On-Highway' trucks under PCT Heading 8704.2290, which attracted higher duties. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the distinction between Off-Highway dump trucks, which are specifically designed for difficult mining or quarrying terrains and have a direct nexus to the cement manufacturing process, and On-Highway trucks designed for long-distance highway transportation. The Court held that since the imported Volvo FM 400 trucks were On-Highway trucks and not Off-Highway dump trucks, they did not form part of the 'plant' of the cement factories and were not entitled to the tax exemptions. The appeals were allowed, and the customs authorities were directed to recover the duties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether On-Highway trucks imported by a cement manufacturing company can be classified as 'plant' to claim tax exemptions under SRO 575(I)/2006 and SRO 530(I)/2005?
  • What is the legal distinction between Off-Highway dump trucks and On-Highway trucks for the purpose of determining their integration into an industrial manufacturing process?
  • Does the mere transportation of raw materials by On-Highway vehicles constitute an integral part of the industrial process of a cement factory?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Khan Bhatti Versus Province of Sindh through Provincial Election Commission2016 SCMR 1970 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-08-28Read full judgment →
• Azhar Hayat Versus Karachi Port Trust2016 SCMR 1916 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-06-16Read full judgment →
• Province of Sindh Versus Muhammad Ilyas2016 SCMR 189 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-07-30
  civil servicepolice constablesdismissal from servicelimitationservice of noticereinstatementservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition arose from the dismissal of several police constables who were appointed on a temporary basis for three years. The petitioners (the Province of Sindh) dismissed the respondents on the ground of belated joining, asserting inefficiency under the Police Rules, 1934. The respondents contended they were never served with their appointment letters or subsequent dismissal orders via registered post or any other communication channel, and only obtained them through personal inquiries. The Sindh Service Tribunal reinstated the respondents, which was challenged by the Province on grounds of limitation and merits. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the state failed to produce any evidence showing that either the appointment letters or the dismissal orders were dispatched or communicated to the respondents. Consequently, the Court accepted the respondents' timeline of receipt, holding that their subsequent legal actions were within the limitation period and that no inefficiency could be attributed to them. The petition was dismissed, and the reinstatement was upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a temporary police constable can be dismissed for inefficiency due to belated joining when the department fails to prove service of the appointment letter?
  • How is the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal calculated when the dismissal order is not formally served upon the civil servant?
  • Can an order of dismissal under Rule 12.21 of the Police Rules 1934 be sustained if there is no evidence of communication of the appointment or dismissal orders to the employee?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif Muhammad Hassani Versus Amanullah2016 SCMR 1332 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-04-28Read full judgment →
• Soba Khan Versus State2016 SCMR 1325 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-03-04
  post-conviction bailsuspension of sentencetentative assessment of evidencevicarious liabilityappellate court powersconsistency of evidenceacquittal of co-accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's refusal to suspend the sentence and grant bail to a convict pending appeal. The core legal question is whether an appellate court, under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, should grant bail to a convict by performing a tentative assessment of evidence, particularly when co-accused with similar roles have been acquitted on the same evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in refusing bail. The Court ruled that Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is effectively parallel to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, requiring appellate courts to exercise caution and perform a tentative assessment of evidence to prevent injustice. The Court established that where co-accused, similarly charged and attributed with the same role, have been acquitted on the same evidence, the remaining convict is entitled to the concession of bail unless independent corroborative evidence exists. The Court emphasized that appellate courts must not allow convicts to remain incarcerated if their case is fit for bail, as there is no mechanism to compensate for wrongful imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Is the power of an appellate court to grant bail under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 subject to the same criteria as Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an appellate court perform a tentative assessment of evidence when considering a petition for suspension of sentence pending appeal?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence provide grounds for granting bail to a remaining convict?
  • Is a trial court required to record reasons when disagreeing with a police investigation report?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Hassan Jatoi Versus Faqir Muhammad Jatoi2016 SCMR 1254 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-11-04
  police servicecadreseniority listpolice forceservice tribunalprobation periodstanding orderspolice rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against a Sindh Service Tribunal judgment that declared various branches of the Sindh Police, including the Sindh Reserve Police, as separate cadres. The core legal question was whether these branches constitute distinct cadres or are part of one indivisible police force, and whether the Inspector General of Police could unilaterally issue standing orders altering service conditions without provincial government approval. The Supreme Court held that the Police Force is a single, indivisible entity under the Police Act 1861 and Police Rules 1934. The Court ruled that administrative establishments like the Sindh Reserve Police are not separate cadres. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal’s judgment, declaring the Inspector General’s unauthorized standing orders illegal. The Court established that seniority must be maintained on a centralized basis according to the Police Rules. Furthermore, it laid down the principle that police personnel are deemed confirmed upon the successful completion of their statutory probation period, irrespective of whether a formal notification is issued, to prevent administrative negligence from prejudicing officers' seniority and promotion prospects.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Sindh Reserve Police constitute a separate cadre from the regular police force?
  • Can the Inspector General of Police issue standing orders altering service conditions without the approval of the Provincial Government?
  • Are police personnel deemed confirmed upon completion of the statutory probation period if no formal notification is issued?
  • Is the police establishment under the Police Act 1861 considered a single, indivisible force?
  Read full judgment →
• Phul Peer Shah Versus Hafeez Fatima2016 SCMR 1225 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-04-19Read full judgment →