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.

• Akber-Ud-Din vs Headmaster Government High School Reshun and others2023 SCMR 1133 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-04-14
  abuse of processrejection of plaintfrivolous litigationtime-barred suitcivil revisioncharacter certificatedamages
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a civil litigation initiated by the appellant against a government school regarding the contents of a character certificate issued to him in 1995. The appellant, having been expelled for cheating, sought damages through multiple lawsuits filed decades later. The core legal question concerned whether the appellant's subsequent suit for damages, filed in 2012, was maintainable or constituted an abuse of the court's process. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to reject the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court held that the litigation was frivolous, vexatious, and hopelessly time-barred, representing a clear abuse and misuse of the judicial process. The Court emphasized that courts must prevent the squandering of public resources and judicial time on meritless, repetitive litigation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs, and the appellant was ordered to pay financial penalties to the respondents for the unnecessary and endless litigation imposed upon the school and its staff.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 when a suit is hopelessly time-barred?
  • Does the initiation of repetitive and meritless litigation constitute an abuse of the process of the court?
  • Are courts empowered to impose costs on litigants who engage in frivolous and vexatious litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Aish vs State and othersPLJ 2023 SC (Cr.C.) 192 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-09-26
  murdercriminal appealcapital punishmentappreciation of evidencefalsus in uno falsus in omnibusindependent corroborationbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant Aish challenged the Lahore High Court judgment that altered his death sentence under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to imprisonment for life for murder. The core legal question was whether the uncorroborated testimony of eye-witnesses, which was disbelieved regarding multiple co-accused who were consequently acquitted, could legally sustain the conviction of the remaining appellant without independent corroborative evidence. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, holding that when eye-witness testimony is rejected regarding several co-accused who actively participated in the crime, such evidence cannot be used to convict another accused in the absence of independent corroborative evidence. The key principle laid down is that discredited eye-witness testimony cannot form the basis of a conviction without independent corroboration.

  Questions settled

  • Can uncorroborated eye-witness testimony sustain a conviction when the same witnesses have been disbelieved regarding co-accused who were acquitted?
  • Whether evidence disbelieved against several co-accused who actively participated in an occurrence can be used against another accused without independent corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Aina Haya vs Principal Peshawar Model Girls High School-I, Peshawar and others2023 SCMR 198 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-20
  attendance requirementacademic institutionshumanitarian groundsjudicial interferencecompassion in lawleave to appealstudent expulsion
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a constitutional petition dismissed by the High Court regarding a student's eligibility to sit for the 10th class final examination. The petitioner was expelled from school for continuous absence and non-payment of fees, accumulating only 45% attendance during the academic year. The petitioner contended that her absence was due to getting married and sought relaxation of attendance rules on humanitarian grounds. The core legal question was whether the court could grant relief on compassionate or humanitarian grounds in direct violation of a clear statutory provision requiring minimum attendance. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, holding that Explanation (a) to Rule-2 of Chapter-IV of the Calendar of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education NWFP, 1995 unambiguously mandates a 66% attendance requirement for female students without margin for relaxation. The Court reiterated that judicial relief based on compassion or hardship can only be extended within the scope of the relevant law, and courts lack jurisdiction to sidetrack clear statutory mandates.

  Questions settled

  • Can courts interfere in the administrative and policy matters of academic institutions absent a blatant violation of law or fundamental rights?
  • Can judicial relief be granted on humanitarian or compassionate grounds in direct breach of an unambiguous legal rule?
  • Does a court have jurisdiction to relax or ignore the mandatory 66% attendance requirement prescribed under the Calendar of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education NWFP, 1995?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahtisham Ali vs The State2023 SCMR 975 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-03-22
  pre-arrest bailconstructive liabilitycommon intentionmala fideextraordinary relieffurther inquiryparental rightscriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal was filed by the petitioner seeking pre-arrest bail in a case involving allegations of attempted murder, theft, and causing hurt, registered under Sections 324, 380, 427, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The complainant, the petitioner's father, alleged that his children forcibly dispossessed him of his property and caused injuries to relatives. The core legal question was whether the petitioner met the extraordinary criteria for pre-arrest bail, specifically the demonstration of mala fide intentions or ulterior motives by the prosecution. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the medical evidence and eyewitness accounts supported the prosecution's version. The Court reiterated that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy intended to protect innocent persons from victimization and requires proof of mala fides or an abuse of process. The Court also emphasized the principle of constructive liability under Section 34 PPC, noting that common intention does not require every accused to perform an overt act by their own hand.

  Read full judgment →
• Ahtisham Ali vs StatePLJ 2023 SC (Cr.C.) 212 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-03-22
  pre-arrest bailconstructive liabilitycommon intentioncriminal petitionmala fideextraordinary relieffurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal challenged the Sindh High Court's order refusing pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who was accused alongside others of offences including theft, dispossession, and causing injuries under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner satisfied the stringent criteria for the grant of pre-arrest bail, specifically regarding the presence of mala fide intent or ulterior motives by the complainant. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the criminal proceedings were initiated to humiliate or disgrace him. The Court emphasized that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary equitable remedy, not a substitute for post-arrest bail, and is reserved for cases where the accused establishes that the arrest is sought for ulterior motives and that the case warrants further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Furthermore, the Court clarified the scope of constructive liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, noting that common intention requires a prearranged plan, which was supported by the evidence presented.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential parameters for the grant of pre-arrest bail in criminal cases?
  • Does the principle of constructive liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 require an accused to perform an overt act by their own hand?
  • Is pre-arrest bail a substitute for post-arrest bail in ordinary criminal cases?
  • What must a petitioner demonstrate to establish that a criminal case was lodged with mala fide intention or ulterior motives?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahtisham Ali s/o Mehboob Ali vs The State2023 SCP 109 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-03-22
  pre-arrest bailconstructive liabilitycommon intentionmala fidecriminal petitionextraordinary relieffurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal challenged the dismissal of pre-arrest bail regarding an FIR registered under Sections 324, 380, 427, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner was entitled to the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail based on claims of mala fide and ulterior motives by the complainant. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to establish any mala fide intention or ulterior motive behind the complainant’s actions. The Court affirmed that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy, not a substitute for post-arrest bail, and is reserved for situations where arrest is sought to humiliate or disgrace an innocent person. The Court reiterated that a petitioner must satisfy the conditions of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, by showing reasonable grounds for believing they are not guilty and that the case warrants further inquiry. Furthermore, the Court clarified that constructive liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 arises where there is a common intention and active participation or assistance in the commission of a criminal act.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential parameters for the grant of pre-arrest bail in criminal cases?
  • Does the principle of constructive liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 require an accused to perform an overt act with their own hand?
  • Is pre-arrest bail a valid substitute for post-arrest bail in ordinary criminal cases?
  • What must a petitioner demonstrate to establish that an FIR was lodged with mala fide intention or ulterior motives?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Shakeel Bhatti and others vs The State and others2023 SCMR 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-03-16
  pre-arrest bailcancellation of bailSection 489-F PPCdishonoured chequecommercial transactioncommercial integrityperverse orderleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  Criminal petitions for leave to appeal were filed before the Supreme Court seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent by the High Court in a case registered under Section 489-F, P.P.C. The complainant and respondent had entered into a share purchase agreement and addendum for the sale of a sugar mill. After taking possession and management, the respondent stopped payment on a post-dated cheque for the balance sale consideration, alleging the complainant failed to furnish requisite NOCs, leading to registration of the FIR. The Supreme Court examined whether the respondent's conduct demonstrated dishonest intent warranting bail cancellation. The Court held that establishing an absence of commercial integrity amounting to dishonesty under Section 489-F, P.P.C. requires evidence assessable only at trial. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that interference with a grant of bail in appellate jurisdiction requires the order to be perverse or made in clear disregard of settled legal principles, neither of which was established. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused and the petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the absence of commercial integrity constituting dishonesty under Section 489-F, P.P.C. can be determined at the bail stage without recording evidence at trial?
  • Under what specific grounds may the Supreme Court interfere in its appellate jurisdiction to cancel an order granting bail?
  • What constitutes a 'perverse order' in the context of the law governing cancellation of bail?
  • Can pre-arrest bail granted in a cheque dishonour case under Section 489-F, P.P.C. be cancelled where the element of dishonesty is not presently apparent from the record?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Shakeel Bhatti and others vs State and othersPLJ 2023 SC (Cr.C.) 166, 2023 PSC (Crl.) 83 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-03-16
  pre-arrest bailcancellation of baildishonoured chequecommercial transactionSection 489-F PPCappellate jurisdictioncontractual dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order granting pre-arrest bail to the respondent in a criminal case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving a dishonoured cheque issued pursuant to a commercial share purchase agreement. The core legal question was whether the respondent's act of stopping payment on the cheque, amidst a dispute over the fulfillment of contractual obligations, constituted the requisite dishonesty for an offence under Section 489-F, thereby warranting the cancellation of pre-arrest bail. The Supreme Court held that the determination of dishonesty and the assessment of commercial integrity in such complex contractual disputes are matters for trial rather than the bail stage. The Court declined to interfere with the High Court's order, noting that the impugned order was not perverse, arbitrary, or in disregard of established bail principles. The key principle laid down is that the appellate court will not interfere with the grant of bail unless the order is perverse, capricious, or ignores material evidence, and that factual disputes regarding contractual performance and intent are generally reserved for trial.

  Questions settled

  • Under what specific grounds will the Supreme Court interfere with an order granting bail in its appellate jurisdiction?
  • Is the determination of 'dishonesty' under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 a matter to be decided at the bail stage or at trial?
  • Does a dispute over the fulfillment of reciprocal contractual obligations automatically negate the element of dishonesty required for an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Ali and another vs The State2023 SCMR 781 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-12-13
  narcoticscase propertyexhibition of evidencebenefit of doubtsafe custodyadverse inferencelife imprisonmentacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the conviction of the appellants under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for which they were sentenced to life imprisonment. The primary legal question addressed by the Court was the effect of the prosecution's failure to produce and exhibit the recovered contraband (case property) and the vehicle used in the crime during the trial. The Court examined various provisions of the Police Rules 1934, the Lahore High Court Rules and Orders, and the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the safe custody and production of evidence. The Court held that in narcotics cases, where sentences are stringent, the prosecution must produce the case property in court to establish its existence and identity. Failure to do so without a plausible explanation allows for an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, ruling that the non-production of the narcotics created a reasonable doubt, entitling the appellants to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Ali and another vs StatePLJ 2023 SC (Cr.C.) 176 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-12-13
  case propertynon-production of contrabandsafe custodysafe transmissionbenefit of doubtcontrol of narcotic substancesadverse inference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal, brought by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentences awarded to the appellants under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. The core legal question addressed is the evidentiary effect of the prosecution's failure to produce and exhibit the recovered contraband (case property) and the alleged vehicle during trial. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellants. The Court held that the case property forms the primary material evidence in narcotics prosecutions, and its unexplained non-production creates a fatal flaw in the prosecution case. Under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, the withholding of best evidence without plausible justification leads to an adverse inference that no such material existed. The Court reiterated that in cases involving stringent statutory penalties, the standard of proof is strictly enforced, and any single reasonable doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect of the prosecution failing to produce and exhibit the recovered contraband in Court during a narcotics trial?
  • Can a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 be sustained solely on a chemical report when the primary case property was never exhibited before the trial Court?
  • What adverse inference arises under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 when the prosecution fails to produce the case property without plausible explanation?
  Read full judgment →
• Afiya Shehrbano Zia & others vs The Hon'ble Supreme Judicial Council &2023 SCP 186, 2023 PLD Supreme Court 510 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-06-27
  Supreme Judicial Counciljudicial accountabilitymisconductretirement of judgeconstitutional petitioncase management
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 raised core questions regarding the jurisdiction of the Supreme Judicial Council over judges who retire or resign while complaints are pending, and whether the Supreme Court can issue case-management guidelines to structure the Council's discretion. The Supreme Court held that Article 209 applies exclusively to judges currently holding office, and the sole action permissible upon a finding of misconduct is removal from office, rendering proceedings impossible and abated once a judge retires or resigns. The Court further held that it would be inappropriate to issue prescriptive guidelines or directions to regulate the Council's docket or internal case management, as the Council must retain the flexibility to control its own affairs. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine, affirming that the constitutional scheme does not contemplate post-retirement inquiries or judicial micromanagement of the Council's internal procedures.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 209 of the Constitution apply to a judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court who has already retired or resigned?
  • Can the Supreme Judicial Council proceed with a pending complaint or reference against a judge after he has ceased to hold office?
  • Whether the Supreme Court can issue directions or guidelines to structure the Supreme Judicial Council's discretion regarding the priority, listing, and hearing of complaints?
  Read full judgment →
• Adeel Manzoor vs The State and others2023 SCMR 967 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-02-21
  pre-arrest bailmala fidesuppression of factscriminal breachconsistency of role
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court declining pre-arrest bail to the petitioner Adeel Manzoor in case FIR No. 647 dated 07.04.2022 registered under sections 380 and 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Sundar District Lahore. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail in light of mala fide on the part of the complainant, suppression of material facts regarding family litigation over dowry articles, and the principle of consistency with a co-accused whose bail was confirmed. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, confirming the pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner. The Court laid down the principle that where the complainant suppresses material facts and background civil litigation between relatives out of mala fide, and the petitioner's case is at par with a co-accused granted relief, pre-arrest bail ought to be confirmed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when the complainant suppresses material facts and background civil litigation?
  • Does the principle of consistency apply when the role of the petitioner is at par with a co-accused whose bail has been confirmed?
  • Can suppression of family disputes and prior court proceedings in an FIR establish mala fide for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Adeel Manzoor vs State and othersPLJ 2023 SC (Cr.C.) 219 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-02-21
  pre-arrest bailmala fidesuppression of factscriminal breachdowry articles execution
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition impugning the order of the Lahore High Court declining pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, Adeel Manzoor, in case FIR No. 647 registered under Sections 850 and 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 relating to allegations of theft of household articles. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner has established sufficient mala fide and ulterior motives on the part of the complainant to warrant the confirmation of pre-arrest bail, particularly considering prior family litigation, an ex-parte decree for the recovery of dowry articles, the visit of the court bailiff on the date of occurrence, and the suppression of material facts in the FIR. The Supreme Court held that the suppression of vital facts by the complainant, coupled with the parity of the petitioner's case with a co-accused whose bail was not challenged, established mala fide. Consequently, the petition was converted into an appeal and allowed, confirming the pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that the suppression of material facts and civil litigation history between parties in a criminal complaint can establish mala fide, entitling the accused to pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the suppression of material facts in an FIR by the complainant can establish mala fide for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the principle of parity apply when determining the pre-arrest bail of an accused whose role is identical to a co-accused?
  • Can prior civil litigation and execution proceedings regarding dowry articles affect the bona fides of a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Shahid Zuberi, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan, Muqtedir Akh_4b2c98492023 SCP 275, 2023 SCMR 2028 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-09-08
  recusal of judgeconflict of interestjudicial independenceaudio leaks commissionrule of necessityjudicial biascode of conduct for judgesseparation of powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment decides Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 3932 of 2023, filed by the Federal Government seeking the recusal of Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial from a Bench hearing Constitution Petitions Nos. 14 to 17 of 2023. These petitions challenged the notification constituting a Presidential Inquiry Commission to probe leaked audio recordings, including one allegedly involving a relative of the Chief Justice. The Federal Government argued recusal was required under Article IV of the Code of Conduct for Judges due to a conflict of interest. The Supreme Court dismissed the application, holding that conflict of interest requires a direct, certain, real, and immediate financial, proprietary, or personal interest in the subject matter. The Court found no such direct interest was established. It reiterated that under Pakistani jurisprudence and Islamic principles, a judge's conscience determines recusal unless direct disqualification exists, and unproven or speculative allegations cannot compel withdrawal. The Court condemned the recusal plea as an unmeritorious attempt to delay constitutional adjudication and compromise judicial independence.

  Questions settled

  • What constitutes a disqualifying 'conflict of interest' requiring a judge's recusal from a bench?
  • Whether an unverified audio leak mentioning a judge's relative creates a direct legal or personal interest disqualifying the judge from hearing constitutional challenges to an Inquiry Commission?
  • Does the rule of necessity apply to permit a judge to sit on a bench when no valid ground for disqualification exists?
  • Whether the determination to recuse on grounds of conflict of interest or bias rests ultimately with the discretion and conscience of the judge concerned?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Jan vs Ministry of Defence through its Secretary, Islamabad and others2023 SCP 194, 2023 PLC (C.S) 1456, 2023 SCMR 1451 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-04-04
  service appeallimitationactus curiae neminem gravabitex debito justitiaeprocedural justiceFederal Service Tribunalwrit petition conversiondismissal in limine
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal challenges the Federal Service Tribunal's (FST) dismissal of a service appeal on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner, a civil servant, initially filed a writ petition before the High Court, which was subsequently converted into a service appeal and remitted to the FST. The FST dismissed the appeal in limine, citing it as time-barred based on the date of receipt, ignoring the procedural timeline of the High Court's remittance. The Supreme Court held that the FST erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds. Relying on the legal maxims actus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of the court shall prejudice no one) and ex debito justitiae, the Court emphasized that a litigant should not suffer due to procedural delays or administrative oversights attributable to the court. The Supreme Court set aside the FST’s order, ruling that the Tribunal was obligated to decide the matter on its merits rather than resorting to a technical knock-out, and remanded the case for a fresh decision after hearing both parties.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Service Tribunal dismiss an appeal on limitation grounds when the delay was caused by the administrative transfer of the case from the High Court?
  • Does the principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit prevent a court from penalizing a litigant for procedural delays caused by the court's own actions?
  • Is a Service Tribunal required to decide a remitted case on merits rather than dismissing it in limine on technical grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Amin and 2 others vs National Accountability Bureau and others2023 PLD Supreme Court 252 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-17
  NAB OrdinanceState Bank of Pakistanrestructured loanrescheduled loandefaulted loanquashment of referenceSection 31-Deconomic justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from petitions for leave to appeal challenging a judgment of the Sindh High Court regarding a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference against company directors and bank officers following a debt restructuring/rescheduling agreement. The core legal question was whether NAB could initiate an inquiry, investigation, or prosecution involving a defaulted, restructured, or rescheduled loan without obtaining prior permission or a reference from the Governor of the State Bank of Pakistan under Sections 31-C and 31-D of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999. The Supreme Court allowed the directors' appeals and dismissed NAB's petitions, holding that Section 31-D provides broad protection against NAB proceedings regarding defaulted or rescheduled loans absent a reference from the Governor of the SBP. The Court established that 'restructuring' includes 'rescheduling' and that unilateral NAB interference in SBP-approved loan arrangements undermines central bank authority, economic stability, and the legislative objective of safeguarding fiscal governance. Consequently, all proceedings and the reference against the petitioners were quashed for lack of lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Is a reference or permission from the Governor of the State Bank of Pakistan required under Section 31-D of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 before NAB can initiate proceedings regarding a defaulted or rescheduled loan?
  • Does the term restructuring include rescheduling for the purposes of Sections 31-C and 31-D of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999?
  • Are proceedings and a reference initiated by NAB in violation of Section 31-D of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 subject to quashment?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid vs The State2023 SCP 178, PLJ 2023 SC (Cr.C.) 343, PLJ 2023 SC (Cr.C.) 265, 2023 SCMR · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  murderocular evidenceprompt FIRlife imprisonmentprivate security guardSection 340(2) CrPCmitigating circumstancesmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard a criminal appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which maintained the appellant's conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder but commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment. The incident arose from an altercation over a Rs. 10 wagon fare, during which the appellant, a private security guard, fatally shot the deceased with a pump-action gun. The core legal questions involved the reliability of natural ocular evidence from related witnesses, the effect of an unproven motive, and whether carrying an official security weapon off-duty entitled the appellant to mitigation for an act at the spur of the moment. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that prompt FIR lodging and trustworthy ocular evidence corroborated by medical evidence were sufficient to sustain the conviction. The Court emphasized that under the Punjab Private Security Companies (Regulation and Control) Rules 2003, security guards cannot carry official weapons off-duty, ruling out further sentence mitigation.

  Questions settled

  • Is trustworthy ocular evidence from related witnesses sufficient to sustain a murder conviction under Section 302(b) PPC?
  • Does the non-appearance of an accused as their own witness under Section 340(2) CrPC affect a defense plea raised under Section 342 CrPC?
  • Can a private security guard who illegally carries an official weapon off-duty claim mitigation of sentence for an act committed at the spur of the moment?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Jatoi vs Chief Minister Sindh through Principal Secretary, Chief2023 PSC 86 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  civil servicepromotionperson-specific postseniority-cum-fitnessservice appealjurisdiction of service tribunallimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a Service Tribunal judgment setting aside the BPS-20 promotion of the appellant in the Health Department, Government of Sindh. The core legal questions involved whether the Service Tribunal lacked jurisdiction under Section 4(b) of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act 1973; whether the departmental appeal was time-barred; and whether creating a person-specific post and amending rules for an individual civil servant to the exclusion of eligible seniors violated the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the jurisdictional bar under Section 4(b) applies only when a departmental authority determines the 'fitness' of civil servants considered for promotion; it does not bar appeals where eligible candidates were ignored altogether. The Court further held that the departmental appeal was not time-barred. On the merits, the Court laid down that creating person-specific posts, amending rules tailored for a single individual, and promoting a junior civil servant without considering other eligible seniors violates Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Does the bar under Section 4(b) of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act 1973 apply where the departmental authority fails to consider eligible senior civil servants for promotion altogether?
  • Is the creation of a person-specific post and tailored rule amendment for a single civil servant's promotion constitutional under Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution?
  • Can a competent authority promote a junior civil servant without considering the comparative merit of eligible seniors in the same cadre?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar and 2 others vs The Judicial Commission Of Pakistan and others2023 PLD Supreme Court 32 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-08-17
  Additional JudgesJudicial Commission of Pakistannon-confirmationoriginal jurisdictionFundamental Rightslegitimate expectationindependence of judiciaryParliamentary Committee on Judges
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of two constitutional petitions and a civil review petition filed by former Additional Judges of the Lahore High Court aggrieved by their non-confirmation or non-extension as permanent judges. The core legal questions examined the maintainability of petitions under Article 184(3) of the Constitution challenging non-confirmation, the applicability of the doctrine of legitimate expectation under the post-18th Amendment framework of Article 175A, and whether reasons must be disclosed for denying extension or confirmation. The Supreme Court held that Additional Judges do not possess a constitutional tenure or security of tenure comparable to Permanent Judges, and non-confirmation does not infringe any Fundamental Rights to attract the original jurisdiction of the Court under Article 184(3). The Court further held that under the current constitutional mechanism established by the 18th Amendment, a legitimate expectation for confirmation only arises after endorsement by the majority of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan, and that confidentiality of the Commission's proceedings serves institutional interests and prevents stigmatization. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Additional Judge of a High Court has a Fundamental Right to be confirmed as a Permanent Judge?
  • Can the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution be invoked against the non-confirmation of Additional Judges?
  • Does the doctrine of legitimate expectation apply to the confirmation of Additional Judges in the absence of a recommendation by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan?
  • Is there a legal obligation to disclose reasons for the non-recommendation or non-confirmation of Additional Judges by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs The State etc2023 SCP 248, 2023 SCMR 2081 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-08-11
  pre-arrest bailfurther inquirycivil disputedelay in FIRcriminal intimidation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan via a petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 447, 427, 511, 109, 148, 149, 435, and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail in light of a delayed FIR, pending civil litigation regarding property ownership, general allegations, and the applicability of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and confirmed the pre-arrest bail. The Court laid down that liberty is a precious constitutional right not to be curtailed on bald and vague allegations, that pre-arrest bail is justified when civil disputes underlie criminal charges creating room for further inquiry, and that the merits of a case can be examined while granting pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when a criminal case arises from an underlying civil dispute over land ownership and possession?
  • Does a significant unexplained delay in lodging the first information report justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Can liberty guaranteed under the Constitution be taken away merely on bald and vague allegations?
  • Whether the merits of a case can be touched upon by the court while considering an application for pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman and others vs Secretary, Ministry of Communication and others2023 PLC (C.S) 949 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-08-18
  deputationistsservice lawspecial allowancevested rightparity of payterms and conditions of servicepublic exchequer
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged an Islamabad High Court judgment that dismissed the petitioners' claim for special allowances equivalent to those granted to regular employees of the National Highways and Motorways Police. The petitioners, who served as deputationists, argued they were entitled to the same special allowance of one month's pay as regular staff, citing a 1997 Prime Minister's approval. The core legal question was whether deputationists possess a vested right to claim the same financial benefits and allowances as regular employees, despite distinct terms and conditions of service. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners, as deputationists, were governed by specific terms and conditions distinct from regular employees and were already receiving separate benefits, such as deputation allowances and promotions. The Court affirmed the High Court's dismissal, ruling that no legal right existed for the petitioners to claim the special allowance reserved for regular staff. The judgment establishes that deputationists cannot claim parity with regular employees regarding allowances when their service terms are distinct and they already receive separate compensatory benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Can deputationists claim the same special allowances as regular employees when their terms and conditions of service are distinct?
  • Does a Prime Minister's approval for allowances to regular employees automatically extend to deputationists?
  • Is a deputationist entitled to parity of pay and benefits with regular employees in the absence of a specific legal provision?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman and others vs Abdul Rehman and others Respondent_ Secretary, Ministry of Communication etc_2023 PLJ SC 58 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  deputationistsservice lawspecial allowancevested rightterms and conditions of serviceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged an Islamabad High Court judgment that dismissed the petitioners' claim for special allowances equivalent to those received by regular employees of the National Highways and Motorways Police (NH&MP). The petitioners, who served as deputationists, argued they were entitled to the same special allowances as regular staff, citing a 1997 Prime Minister's approval. The core legal question was whether deputationists possess a vested legal right to claim the same financial benefits and allowances as regular employees of the NH&MP. The Supreme Court held that deputationists and regular employees constitute distinct categories with separate terms and conditions of service. The Court found that the petitioners were already receiving specific deputation benefits and failed to establish any legal right to the additional allowances claimed. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court's dismissal, affirming that no infringement of a vested right occurred and that the petitioners' claim lacked merit, as the special allowances were exclusively intended for regular employees.

  Questions settled

  • Are deputationists entitled to the same special allowances as regular employees of the National Highways and Motorways Police?
  • Does a deputationist have a vested legal right to claim financial benefits not explicitly included in their terms and conditions of service?
  • Can a court interfere with the denial of special allowances when the petitioners are already receiving separate deputation benefits?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman alias Muhammad Zeeshan vs The State and others2023 SCMR 884 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-02-02
  pre-arrest bailfurther inquirydelay in FIRrule of consistencyliberty of a personcriminal assault
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan through a petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under sections 337-A(ii)/337-L(2)/147/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the allegations of causing injury, an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, and the grant of bail to co-accused. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, confirming the pre-arrest bail. The Court held that the unexplained delay in FIR registration, the rule of consistency vis-a-vis co-accused, and the absence of criminal history brought the case within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key legal principles laid down are that an individual's liberty is a precious right not to be curtailed on bald allegations, that merits can be examined during pre-arrest bail consideration, and that a case for further inquiry arises when mala fides, delay, and broader implication by the complainant are prima facie apparent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR creates a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted on the rule of consistency when co-accused with similar roles have already been granted bail?
  • Whether the merits of a case can be touched upon by the Court while considering a petition for pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the curtailment of personal liberty require stronger grounds than bald allegations of a crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman @ Muhammad Zeeshan vs The State and others2023 SCP 48 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-02-02
  pre-arrest baildelay in FIRrule of consistencyfurther inquiryliberty of personover-implicationSection 497(2) CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 assails the decision of the Lahore High Court denying pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in a criminal case registered under Sections 337-A(ii), 337-L(ii), 147, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail where the FIR was lodged after an unexplained five-day delay, co-accused with similar roles had been granted pre-arrest bail, and the petitioner's identity/name was subsequently altered. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail. The Court held that an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR indicates prior consultation and deliberation, giving rise to the possibility of over-implication by throwing a wider net. It laid down that the liberty of a person is a precious right that cannot be curtailed merely on bald allegations, that merits of a case can be tentatively touched upon when deciding pre-arrest bail, and that the case fell within Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 as requiring further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained inordinate delay of five days in registering an FIR warrants the grant of pre-arrest bail on grounds of deliberate consultation?
  • Can the merits of a criminal case be tentatively touched upon by the court while deciding an application for pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the grant of pre-arrest bail to co-accused with similar roles entitle a petitioner to pre-arrest bail under the rule of consistency?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed vs The State and another2023 SCP 246, 2023 SCMR 1948, PLJ 2023 SC (Cr.C.) 287 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-08-24
  pre-arrest baildishonour of chequeSection 489-F PPCprohibitory clauseSection 497 Cr.P.C.absconsionrecovery of moneydelay in lodging FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution assailed the Lahore High Court's order declining pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in a case registered under Section 489-F PPC at Police Station Shadbagh, Lahore. The allegation was that the petitioner issued two dishonoured cheques following a transaction for iron. The petitioner asserted that the cheques were given as surety in a joint business rather than for repayment of a loan or fulfillment of an obligation, pointing to a civil suit for rendition of accounts and an unexplained three-year delay by the complainant in lodging the FIR. The Supreme Court observed that Section 489-F PPC is not intended for the recovery of money and that whether the cheques fell within the section's scope required evidence at trial. Holding that the offence carries a maximum punishment of three years and does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., where bail is the rule, and noting that absconsion alone cannot defeat relief, the Court converted the petition into an appeal and confirmed the petitioner's pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Section 489-F PPC can be utilized as a tool for the recovery of an alleged monetary debt?
  • Whether absconsion alone is a sufficient ground to deny pre-arrest bail when a prima facie case is made out?
  • Is the grant of bail the rule in offences carrying a maximum punishment of three years that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qudoos vs Commandant Frontier Constabulary, Khyber2023 PLC (C.S.) 629 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-04
  Frontier Constabularycivil servantsFederal Service Tribunalremand of casejurisdictionact of court prejudices no oneex debito justitiae
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing an application for the resurrection of a service appeal filed by an employee of the Frontier Constabulary. The core legal question concerned whether employees of the Frontier Constabulary are civil servants entitled to approach the Federal Service Tribunal, and whether the Tribunal erred in refusing to adjudicate the matter remitted to it by the High Court. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding that Frontier Constabulary employees are civil servants and that when a High Court remits a writ petition to the Tribunal to be treated as a service appeal in light of binding precedents, the Tribunal is bound to decide the matter on merits rather than dismissing it on technical grounds of limitation or lack of a separate restoration application. The key principle laid down is that courts and tribunals must rectify procedural errors under the maxims actus curiae neminem gravabit and ex debito justitiae to ensure that no party suffers due to court oversight or technicalities.

  Questions settled

  • Whether employees of the Frontier Constabulary have the status of civil servants and can approach the Federal Service Tribunal for their service disputes?
  • Whether the Federal Service Tribunal can refuse to entertain a matter remitted to it by the High Court pursuant to a binding judgment of the Supreme Court?
  • Whether a party should suffer prejudice due to a procedural omission or mistake on the part of a court or tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Nafey vs Muhammad Rafique and others2023 SCP 272, 2023 SCMR 2096 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-08-09
  Local Bodies ElectionsElection disqualificationCNICAge qualificationNomination papersStatutory interpretationElection Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged the High Court of Balochistan's decision upholding the disqualification of the petitioner from contesting Local Bodies Elections. The core legal question was whether a candidate’s age for election qualification is determined by the Computerized National Identity Card (CNIC) or school records, and whether a post-election correction of the CNIC can cure a disqualification existing at the time of filing nomination papers. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was disqualified because, on the last date for filing nomination papers, his CNIC indicated he was under the statutory age of twenty-one years. The Court affirmed that under the Balochistan Local Government (Election) Rules 2013, the CNIC is the definitive document for establishing credentials, and school records are irrelevant for this purpose. Furthermore, the Court established that a candidate must possess the requisite qualifications on the date of filing nomination papers; subsequent corrections to the CNIC cannot retrospectively validate a candidacy that was disqualified at the time of filing. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is the age of a candidate for local government elections determined by the Computerized National Identity Card or by school records?
  • Must a candidate possess the required statutory qualifications on the date of filing nomination papers?
  • Can a post-election correction of a Computerized National Identity Card cure a disqualification that existed at the time of filing nomination papers?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq (Deceased) through LRs vs Fazal ur Rehman and others2023 PSC 115 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-06-30
  customary lawlimited estatetermination of limited estatelast full ownerQuranic sharersTable of ResiduariesSunni law of inheritanceMuslim Personal Law Shariat Application Act
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil appeals arising out of inheritance litigation regarding property held by a female under customary law. The property was originally owned by one Naaju, whose son Abdul Ghafoor inherited it to the exclusion of his sister Mst. Roshnae. Upon Abdul Ghafoor's issueless death in 1921, Mst. Roshnae held the property as a limited owner under customary law until gifting it in 1964. Collaterals subsequently sued for their Islamic law shares. The core legal questions involved the effect of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962 and its 1964 Amendment Act on limited estates, as well as the order of succession under Sunni law regarding whether a full sister excludes remoter collaterals. The Supreme Court held that by virtue of the 1964 Amendment omitting section 7(2) of the 1962 Act, the 1962 Act applied retrospectively to terminate limited estates even where the last full owner died before 1962. Consequently, Mst. Roshnae inherited a 1/2 share as a Quranic sharer and the remaining 1/2 share as a superior residuary under Serial No. 6 of the Table of Residuaries, excluding remoter collaterals under Serial No. 13. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and upheld the gift.

  Questions settled

  • Does the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962 apply to terminate limited estates where the last full owner died prior to the commencement of the Act?
  • Who qualifies as the 'last full owner' for the purpose of devolution of property upon the termination of a life estate under section 5 of the 1962 Act?
  • Does a full sister exclude descendants of a true grandfather in the Sunni Table of Residuaries?
  Read full judgment →
• A. Rahim Foods (Pvt) Limited, Competition Commission of Pakistan vs K&N’s Foods (Pvt) Limited and others, . Rahim Foods (Pvt) Limited and another2023 SCP 161, 2024 PLJ SC 46, 2023 CLD 1001, 2023 PLD Supreme Court 516 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-05-10
  deceptive marketing practicespassing offinjurious falsehoodcopycat packagingparasitic copyingunregistered trademarklocus standi of quasi-judicial bodyconfusing similarity
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil appeals under Section 44 of the Competition Act 2010 arising from a judgment of the Competition Appellate Tribunal regarding deceptive marketing practices. The dispute concerned whether Rahim Foods' use of copycat packaging and an unregistered trademark constituted 'fraudulent use' under Section 10(2)(d) and 'distribution of false or misleading information' under Section 10(2)(a) of the Act. The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, affirming the Tribunal's decision. The Court held that Section 10(2)(d) codifies the common law tort of passing-off, where 'fraudulent use' means intentional and dishonest use inferred from circumstances, covering confusingly similar packaging without requiring prior trademark registration. The test for deceptive similarity is that of an unwary ordinary purchaser of average intelligence and imperfect recollection based on leading characteristics as a whole. Section 10(2)(a) codifies injurious falsehood, requiring direct misrepresentation regarding the rival undertaking's goods rather than misrepresentation regarding one's own goods. Finally, the Competition Commission lacks locus standi to appeal modifications of its own quasi-judicial orders.

  Questions settled

  • Is registration of a trademark or packaging required to establish deceptive marketing practices under Section 10(2)(d) of the Competition Act 2010?
  • What legal standard and perspective are applied to determine whether product packaging or labelling is confusingly or deceptively similar under Section 10(2)(d) of the Competition Act 2010?
  • Does copycat packaging intended to pass off one's own goods as those of another constitute distribution of false or misleading information under Section 10(2)(a) of the Competition Act 2010?
  • Does the Competition Commission of Pakistan have the locus standi to appeal before the Supreme Court against an order of the Competition Appellate Tribunal modifying or setting aside its quasi-judicial decision?
  Read full judgment →
• (Re: Independent and Transparent Investigation into the Murder of Renowned Journalist, Mr. Arshad Sharif in Kenya) vs Not2023 SCP 60 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-02-13
  suo motucriminal investigationinternational cooperationdiplomatic channelsSpecial Joint Investigation TeamMutual Legal Assistancejournalist murder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the suo motu proceedings regarding the murder of journalist Arshad Sharif in Kenya. The Supreme Court reviewed reports from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Special Joint Investigation Team (SJIT) concerning the progress of the investigation and challenges regarding international cooperation. The core legal questions addressed were the appropriate diplomatic channels for seeking foreign assistance in a criminal investigation and the scope of the SJIT's inquiry. The Court held that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs must prioritize liaising with Kenyan authorities to resolve their reluctance to cooperate, utilizing established diplomatic channels under the Mutual Legal Assistance Act, 2011, before considering United Nations involvement. The Court further directed the SJIT to expand its probe to include the motivations behind the deceased's departure from Pakistan, the reasons for his expulsion from Dubai, and the unauthorized release of the fact-finding committee's report. The principle established is that domestic investigative bodies must exhaust formal diplomatic mechanisms for international cooperation before seeking external international intervention, while maintaining a comprehensive scope of inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the crime.

  Questions settled

  • Must formal diplomatic channels under the Mutual Legal Assistance Act, 2011 be exhausted before seeking United Nations assistance in a criminal investigation?
  • What specific areas of inquiry must a Special Joint Investigation Team cover when investigating the murder of a journalist abroad?
  Read full judgment →
• (i) Ansar, (ii) Maqsood Ahmed, (iii) Mumtaz Ahmed (In JP 405_2021) (iv) Nasir, and (v) Nisar Ahmed vs The State etc2023 SCP 108 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  dacoity with murdervicarious liabilityocular accountidentification paradecriminal liabilitySection 396 PPCappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition challenged the conviction of the petitioners for dacoity with murder under Sections 302, 324, and 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the scope of vicarious liability under Section 396 PPC, the impact of minor evidentiary discrepancies, and whether the acquittal of a co-accused necessitates the acquittal of others. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that Section 396 PPC establishes an independent, statutory liability for all members of a group of five or more committing dacoity if murder occurs during the commission, regardless of which individual fired the fatal shot. The Court affirmed that minor discrepancies in witness testimony do not invalidate the prosecution's case if the ocular account remains consistent and reliable. Furthermore, the Court clarified that identification parades are merely corroborative evidence and are not mandatory for conviction when other reliable evidence exists. The Court distinguished the petitioners' case from the acquitted co-accused, noting that the acquittal was based on specific, non-arbitrary findings regarding that individual's identification.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of one co-accused on the same set of evidence automatically entitle other co-accused to acquittal?
  • Is it necessary to identify the specific individual who fired the fatal shot to convict all members of a group for dacoity with murder under Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the failure to conduct an identification parade render a conviction unsustainable if the ocular evidence is otherwise reliable?
  • What are the essential ingredients required to invoke Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• (Grant Of Additional 20 Marks To Hafiz-E-Quran While Admission In Mbbs/Bds Under Regulation 9 (9) Of The Mbbs And Bds (Admission House Job And Internship) Regulations, 2018). vs Not2023 SCP 99 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-04-04
  suo motu jurisdictionmaster of the rosterHafiz-e-Quran additional marksmedical college admissionsinterim orderjudicial proprietyfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This suo motu case was initiated to examine whether Regulation 9(9) of the MBBS and BDS (Admissions, Examinations, House Job and Internship) Regulations, 2018, which allowed the grant of twenty additional marks to candidates who had memorized the Holy Quran, violated Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan. During the proceedings, the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council informed the Court that the 2018 Regulations were no longer in force and that the current Medical and Dental Undergraduate Education (Admissions, Curriculum and Conduct) Regulations, 2021 did not grant any additional marks to Hafiz-e-Quran candidates, rendering the primary issue infructuous. Furthermore, the Court addressed an interim order passed by a two-member bench which had travelled beyond the scope of the lis to invoke suo motu jurisdiction regarding bench constitution and the powers of the Chief Justice as the master of the roster. The Supreme Court held that suo motu powers can solely be invoked by the Chief Justice of Pakistan, and recalled the interim order as being without jurisdiction and violative of binding precedent. The suo motu case was accordingly disposed of as infructuous.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the grant of additional marks to Hafiz-e-Quran candidates for admission to MBBS and BDS degrees violates Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Can a bench of the Supreme Court independently invoke suo motu jurisdiction without the recommendation or order of the Chief Justice of Pakistan?
  • Whether the Chief Justice of Pakistan is exclusively the master of the roster for the constitution of benches?
  • What is the legal status of an interim order passed by a judicial bench that travels beyond the subject matter of the lis before it?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqaruddin vs State etcPLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 40 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-11-19
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtretraction of testimonyacquittalnon-compoundable offencesaffidavitprosecution case
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellant for house trespass, abduction, murderous assault, and rape. Following a trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to death and various terms of imprisonment. During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, the complainant and the victims submitted affidavits stating that the allegations were based on misunderstandings and that no such offences had occurred. The High Court accepted these affidavits, acquitted the appellant of compoundable offences, and reduced the sentences for non-compoundable offences. The core legal question was whether the High Court, having accepted the victims' and complainant's retraction of the allegations, was justified in maintaining convictions for non-compoundable offences rather than acquitting the appellant entirely. The Supreme Court held that once the High Court accepted the affidavits as truthful, the prosecution's case collapsed entirely. Consequently, the Court set aside the remaining convictions and acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of doubt. The key principle established is that if a court accepts the veracity of a complainant's and victim's retraction of allegations, it must reject the prosecution's case in its entirety rather than selectively maintaining convictions for non-compoundable offences.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court maintain a conviction for non-compoundable offences after accepting the complainant's and victims' affidavits that the allegations were factually incorrect?
  • Does the acceptance of a retraction of allegations by the complainant and victims necessitate the acquittal of the accused in its entirety?
  • Is it legally consistent to partially accept the truthfulness of a complainant's affidavit while upholding convictions for non-compoundable offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan Shaikh vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Interior2022 SCMR 270 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-10
  service tribunalseniority listfederal investigation agencycadre bifurcationservice rulesleave to appeal declined
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition assails the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding the seniority list of the Federal Investigation Agency. The core legal question concerns whether the Immigration wing and the Investigation group constitute separate distinct cadres or a single group under the applicable rules, and whether a combined seniority list is lawful. The Supreme Court held that under rule 12 of the Federal Investigation Agency (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1975, immigration is part of the Investigation group and no separate immigration group has been validly created by the Federal Government, thereby upholding the combined seniority list and dismissing the petition. The key principle laid down is that the power to add to or modify service groups within the Federal Investigation Agency vests exclusively in the Federal Government under rule 12 of the relevant rules.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Immigration wing and the Investigation group of the Federal Investigation Agency constitute separate distinct cadres under the law?
  • Does the Federal Government have the exclusive power to add to or modify service groups under rule 12 of the Federal Investigation Agency (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1975?
  • Can a combined seniority list of the Investigation group including immigration officers be maintained in the absence of a distinct group created by the Federal Government?
  Read full judgment →
• Zakia Begum and others vs Nasir-Ul-Islam Khan and others2022 SCMR 2130 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-03-31
  InheritanceSharia LawBona fide purchaserTransfer of Property ActQuranic sharesWillsOstensible owner
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns civil and criminal appeals arising from a High Court judgment regarding the inheritance of an estate and the validity of registered wills. The core legal questions were whether the wills executed by the deceased parents were compliant with Sharia and whether Sharia-ordained inheritance rights take precedence over the protection afforded to bona fide purchasers under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The Supreme Court held that the wills were invalid as they were unconscionable instruments favoring sons to the detriment of the daughters' Quranic shares, violating Sharia principles. However, the Court upheld the rights of bona fide purchasers under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, finding they acted in good faith based on unchallenged revenue records. The Court established that while wills cannot be used to defeat Quranic inheritance rights, bona fide purchasers are protected when they rely on ostensible ownership derived from unchallenged documents. The Court directed the sons to compensate the daughters for their shares in the sold properties in monetary terms.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a will that favors certain legal heirs to the detriment of others' Quranic shares is compliant with Sharia?
  • Does the protection afforded to a bona fide purchaser under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, prevail over the inheritance rights of Quranic heirs?
  • What are the essential ingredients required to claim the protection of a bona fide purchaser under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?
  • Can a will executed during the lifetime of a testator be treated as a valid testamentary instrument under Section 2(h) of the Succession Act, 1925?
  Read full judgment →
• Zakia Begum and another.,Shams-ui-Islam Khan and others. vs Nash--ui-2022 SCP 318 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  InheritanceSharia LawBona fide purchaserTransfer of Property ActTestamentary successionQuranic sharesOstensible owner
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns civil and criminal appeals challenging a High Court judgment regarding the inheritance of properties left by the late Abdul Salam Khan and Jameela Begum. The core legal questions were whether the registered wills executed by the deceased were compliant with Sharia and whether the protection under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, applied to bona fide purchasers of the suit properties. The Supreme Court held that the wills were void as they unconscionably favored the sons to the detriment of the daughters' Quranic inheritance rights. However, the Court affirmed the High Court’s decision to protect the bona fide purchasers, finding they acted in good faith based on unchallenged revenue records. The Court directed the sons to compensate the daughters for their respective shares in the sold properties, including interest. The judgment establishes that testamentary instruments violating Sharia inheritance principles are void, while emphasizing that the equitable doctrine of bona fide purchaser under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, remains available to transferees who reasonably rely on ostensible ownership.

  Questions settled

  • Are wills that favor specific heirs to the detriment of others compliant with Sharia?
  • Does the equitable protection under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, apply to purchasers who rely on unchallenged mutations?
  • Can a court order monetary compensation for inheritance shares when the underlying property has been sold to a bona fide purchaser?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahid vs The State2022 SCMR 50 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-21
  sexual abusechild abusedelay in FIRtestimony of minor victimcorroboration of victim testimonysection 377-B PPCleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a High Court judgment upholding the petitioner's conviction and sentence under Sections 377-B and 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C.) for sexually abusing a seven-year-old minor victim. The core legal questions pertained to whether the uncorroborated testimony of a minor victim is sufficient to maintain a conviction, whether delay in registering the FIR in sexual assault cases invalidates the prosecution, and if the absence of physical injury on the victim undermines the charge. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, holding that the testimony of a sexual assault victim, if found independent, unbiased, and confidence-inspiring, is sufficient for conviction without direct corroboration, as such crimes are typically committed in private. The Court further ruled that delay in lodging an FIR in sexual assault matters is not material owing to the severe trauma, shame, and stigma involved, and that the absence of physical injury on a minor victim does not defeat the prosecution where resistance was absent or unfeasible.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of a minor victim of sexual assault can form the sole basis for conviction if found confidence-inspiring?
  • Is a delay in lodging an FIR in sexual assault cases fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Whether the absence of physical injury marks on a minor victim's body invalidates a charge of sexual abuse?
  Read full judgment →
• Zaheer Ahmad vs The State, etc2022 SCP 168, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 191, 2022 SCMR 1477 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-04-29
  post-arrest bailblasphemyreligious offensesWhatsApp groupforensic analysisprohibitory clausedeeper appreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition seeks leave to appeal against the refusal of post-arrest bail by the Lahore High Court in a case involving offenses under sections 295-A, 298-C, 295-B, 295-C, 34, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 11 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail given the allegations of disseminating proscribed religious material through a WhatsApp group. The Supreme Court held that prima facie sufficient incriminating material was available on record connecting the petitioners to the crime, and deeper appreciation of evidence is unwarranted at the bail stage. The petitions were accordingly dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused, while directing the trial court to proceed uninfluenced by prior observations.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be granted when forensic evidence prima facie connects the accused to the dissemination of proscribed religious material?
  • Does a deeper appreciation of evidence and factual aspects fall within the domain of the trial court rather than the bail stage?
  • Whether the Punjab Holy Quran (Printing and Recording) Act, 2011 excludes the application of Pakistan Penal Code provisions regarding derogatory religious material?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar lqbal vs The State2022 SCP 136, 2022 KLR Supreme Court Cases 272, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 255, · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-05-27
  Control of Narcotic Substancespoppy strawpoastmorphine percentagechemical examiner reportquantum of punishmentcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the High Court which maintained the appellant's conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentence of imprisonment for life for the alleged transportation of 1650 kilograms of poppy straw. The core legal question revolved around whether the recovered material constituted a narcotic substance within the meaning of the law, given that the chemical examiner's report indicated a grinded mixture of straws, seeds, and stalks without determining the percentage of morphine. The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, maintaining the conviction but reducing the sentence of imprisonment for life to the period already undergone. The Court held that when poppy straw is recovered in a grinded mixture form, the substance falls under Section 2(t)(iii) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, requiring proof that it contains more than 0.2 percent of morphine, and in the absence of such determination, the quantum of punishment cannot be sustained at the maximum level.

  Questions settled

  • Whether all parts of a mowed poppy plant constitute a narcotic substance regardless of whether it is in its natural capsule form or a grinded mixture?
  • Is the determination of morphine percentage mandatory by a Chemical Examiner when poppy straw is recovered in a grinded mixture form?
  • Does poppy straw recovered as a mixture fall under Section 2(t)(iii) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can official testimonies of police and excise witnesses be solely relied upon to sustain a conviction in narcotics cases without corroboration from private witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal and others vs Naseer Ahmed and others2022 SCMR 2006 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-01
  second appealscope of second appealconcurrent findings of factbona fide purchaserspecific performanceagreement to sellre-appraisal of evidencemisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged the Lahore High Court's judgment in a second appeal arising from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The trial court and first appellate court concurrently found that the subsequent purchasers were bona fide purchasers for value without notice and that the vendor's wife was not a party to the agreement, granting only recovery of advance money against the vendor. The High Court, however, re-appraised the evidence, reversed these concurrent findings, and decreed specific performance. The core legal question was whether the High Court exceeded its limited jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by re-appraising evidence and interfering with concurrent findings of fact. The Supreme Court held that a second appeal lies only on questions of law, and concurrent findings of fact based on proper reading of relevant and admissible evidence are immune from scrutiny unless vitiated by non-reading or misreading. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the appellate court's decree.

  Questions settled

  • What is the scope and limitation of a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • When can a decision on an issue of fact be considered contrary to law so as to warrant interference in second appeal?
  • Can a High Court re-appraise evidence and reverse concurrent findings of fact of the courts below in a second appeal?
  • Under what circumstances is a finding of fact immune from scrutiny by the High Court in second appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Yasir Aftab vs Irfan Gull and others2022 SCP 368 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-11-30
  local government electionsnomination papersdeclaration of assetssubstantial defectReturning Officerelectoral disqualificationstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the rejection of nomination papers for local government elections in Sindh due to the alleged non-disclosure of assets. The core legal questions were whether a pre-election declaration of assets is mandatory under the Sindh Local Government Act, 2013, and whether nomination papers can be rejected for omissions in such declarations. The Supreme Court held that a pre-election declaration is indeed required. However, it clarified that the Returning Officer must follow a two-step process under Rule 18(3) of the Sindh Local Councils (Election) Rules, 2015. First, the officer must determine if a defect is of a "substantial nature"; if not, the objection must be overruled. Second, if the defect is substantial, the officer retains discretion to allow the candidate to remedy the defect "forthwith." The Court emphasized that local government elections should foster broad participation, and technical, non-deliberate omissions should not automatically result in disqualification. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the High Court for reconsideration in light of these principles.

  Questions settled

  • Is there a mandatory requirement for a candidate to declare assets in nomination papers for local government elections in Sindh?
  • Does the Returning Officer have the discretion to allow a candidate to remedy a substantial defect in nomination papers?
  • What is the two-step process a Returning Officer must follow when evaluating objections to nomination papers under the Sindh Local Councils (Election) Rules, 2015?
  • Can a nomination paper be rejected for a defect that is not of a substantial nature?
  Read full judgment →
• Yar Muhammad and others vs Mst. Sameena Tayab and others2022 SCMR 1592 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-12-07
  land allotmentproprietary rightsbona fide purchasercollusion and fraudrevenue recordstatus-quosecond review petitionIslamabad Oustees Scheme
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside a Board of Revenue order, effectively invalidating the petitioners' proprietary rights to state land. The core legal questions involved whether the disputed land was available for allotment under the Islamabad Oustees Scheme and whether the subsequent purchaser could be considered a bona fide purchaser. The Supreme Court held that the land was not available for allotment, as the petitioners held valid, pre-existing rights confirmed by prior judicial pronouncements. The Court determined that the allotment to the respondents and the subsequent sale were the result of collusion and fraud involving revenue officials. Consequently, the Court ruled that the second review petition entertained by the Board of Revenue was legally incompetent. The Court established that property subject to a valid, subsisting claim and an active status-quo order cannot be legally allotted to third parties, and a purchaser acquiring land through fraudulent revenue entries cannot claim the protection of a bona fide purchaser. The impugned High Court judgment was set aside, restoring the petitioners' rights.

  Questions settled

  • Is a second review petition against an order of review legally competent?
  • Can land subject to a subsisting status-quo order be legally allotted to third parties under a government scheme?
  • Can a purchaser be considered a bona fide purchaser if the underlying title was acquired through collusive and fraudulent revenue entries?
  • Does a prior judicial determination of proprietary rights preclude subsequent administrative allotment of the same land to others?
  Read full judgment →
• World Health Organization, (Who), Islamabad vs Muhammad Ansar Iqbal2022 PLJ SC 148 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-12-15
  State immunityDiplomatic immunityArbitration clauseAcademic exercisePrecedential valueCivil jurisdictionOut of court settlement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment concerning the applicability of state immunity in a civil suit filed against the World Health Organization (WHO). The petitioner contended that the civil court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit due to an arbitration clause in the contract requiring dispute resolution via UNCITRAL rules, and further argued that the High Court had misapplied the State Immunity Ordinance 1981. During the proceedings, the petitioner informed the Supreme Court that the underlying dispute had been settled out of court and the respondent had withdrawn the suit. Consequently, the Supreme Court determined that addressing the complex legal questions regarding the scope and limits of diplomatic and state immunity would constitute an academic exercise. The Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and set aside the High Court's judgment. Crucially, the Supreme Court ruled that the set-aside judgment shall have no precedential value under Article 201 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, thereby preventing the lower court's findings on immunity from binding future litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Should a court refrain from deciding complex legal issues regarding state immunity when the underlying dispute has been settled out of court?
  • Can a judgment that is set aside by the Supreme Court retain any precedential value under Article 201 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Waseem Zeb Khan vs The Chairman, National Accountability Bureau, Nab2022 SCMR 1260 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-25
  post-arrest bailfinancial fraudNational Accountability Bureauwhite-collar crimecriminal liabilityinvestigative delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of the High Court to grant post-arrest bail to the petitioner, who was accused of participating in a large-scale financial fraud involving a fake company, Space Construction Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner allegedly acted as a Senior Director, soliciting investments from the public under the guise of lucrative monthly profits, resulting in approximately 1,700 victims losing Rs. 1.7 billion. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given his claims of innocence and the delay in filing the reference by the National Accountability Bureau. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's active role in soliciting deposits, as evidenced by witness statements and the establishment of an office, outweighed his unsubstantiated claims of being a victim himself. The Court affirmed that where there is formidable evidence of involvement in a major financial scam, bail is not warranted. Furthermore, the Court expressed concern regarding the investigative agency's failure to recover assets, arrest co-accused, and file the reference in a timely manner.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a petitioner claiming to be a victim of a financial scam is entitled to bail when witness statements implicate them as a perpetrator?
  • Does the failure of the National Accountability Bureau to file a reference within a reasonable time automatically entitle an accused to bail?
  • Can an accused person's claim of innocence be sustained in the face of consistent witness statements regarding their active participation in a fraudulent scheme?
  Read full judgment →
• Waqas Nazir and others vs The State & another2022 SCP 22, 2022 SCMR 955, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 74, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 311 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-02-21
  post-arrest bailcourt premises violenceAnti-Terrorism ActShajjah-i-Khafifahdiscretion of High Courtleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the High Court's refusal to grant post-arrest bail to petitioners involved in a violent clash between rival property developer factions inside the Rawalpindi District Court Complex. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail on the grounds that offences were largely bailable, injuries were minor (Shajjah-i-Khafifah under Section 337 A(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860), Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 was inapplicable, and continuous detention served no purpose. The Supreme Court of Pakistan refused leave to appeal and upheld the High Court's order denying bail. The Court laid down the principle that District Courts are a vital tier of the judicial system where judges, staff, and advocates must feel completely safe and secure. Violence, disruption, and display of force within court premises merit strict legal consequences, and the Supreme Court rarely interferes with discretionary orders denying bail unless they are manifestly untenable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether violent clash and disruption of court proceedings within a court complex disentitles accused persons to post-arrest bail?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's discretionary denial of bail where the order is not manifestly untenable?
  • Whether minor injuries alone dictate the grant of bail when acts committed cause widespread terror and disruption in court premises?
  Read full judgment →
• Uzma Naveed Chaudhary, etc. vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2022 SCP 261 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-07-27
  sexual harassmentworkplace harassmentconstitutional jurisdictiongender equalityright to dignityright to livelihoodadministrative lawservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions filed against a High Court judgment regarding sexual harassment allegations at the workplace. The core legal questions involved whether the High Court could interfere with concurrent factual findings of the Federal Ombudsman and the President, and whether the President’s order enhancing punishment was legally sustainable despite the High Court's finding of insufficient reasoning. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with concurrent factual findings absent misreading of evidence. Furthermore, the Court clarified that reasons for enhancing punishment need not be listed under a separate heading but can be integrated into the overall discussion. The Court emphasized that victims of sexual harassment should not be penalized for delays in reporting, given the social and cultural taboos surrounding such incidents. The judgment establishes that the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010, is grounded in fundamental constitutional rights, including dignity, equality, and the right to a safe working environment. Consequently, the Court restored the President's order, modifying the punishment to compulsory retirement to ensure effective implementation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Federal Ombudsman and the President in its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Is a separate heading or listed form required for the reasons provided by an appellate authority when enhancing a penalty?
  • Should a complaint of sexual harassment be dismissed solely on the ground of delay in reporting?
  • Does the right to a safe working environment constitute a fundamental right under the Constitution of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Umer Khan vs The State and another2022 SCMR 216, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 35 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-01
  post-arrest bailchild pornographynon-prohibitory clauseelectronic crimescriminal justicebail discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the Peshawar High Court's order denying post-arrest bail to the petitioner, who was charged under Section 22(1) of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, for sharing child pornographic content on Facebook. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite the offence not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the nature of the accusation. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that while the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause, the grant of bail is not an absolute right. The Court emphasized that child pornography is a grave social evil that threatens morality and child safety. Consequently, the Court ruled that the nature of the accusation and the material evidence collected justified refusing bail, even for non-prohibitory offences, and further noted that the petition was time-barred without sufficient explanation for the delay.

  Questions settled

  • Is the grant of bail an absolute right for offences falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the nature of an accusation and its impact on society justify the refusal of bail for a non-prohibitory offence?
  • Does the absence of a specific victim in a child pornography case entitle an accused to bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Umer Khan vs State and anotherPLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 45 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-01
  post-arrest bailchild pornographyPrevention of Electronic Crimes Actprohibitory clauseForensic Science Laboratorycyber crimeleave to appeallimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the High Court's refusal of post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 22(1) of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016. The petitioner was accused of sharing child pornographic content on Facebook through his mobile phone. The petitioner sought bail on grounds of false implication, lack of direct evidence, non-association of victims, and that the offence carried a maximum sentence of seven years, thus falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, refusing leave to appeal. It held that while the offence falls outside the prohibitory clause, the grant of bail in non-prohibitory clause offences is not an absolute rule. Considering the grave societal impact of child pornography, its threat to minors, and the incriminating forensic evidence linking the petitioner's device and profile to the content, the case fell within the exceptions to granting bail. Additionally, the petition was barred by limitation.

  Questions settled

  • Is the grant of bail in offences falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. an absolute rule of law?
  • Can post-arrest bail be refused for offences under Section 22(1) of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016 based on the heinous nature and societal impact of child pornography?
  • Does the non-association of a specific victim warrant the grant of bail where the allegation is solely the dissemination of child pornographic material via electronic means?
  Read full judgment →
• Umar Zaman vs The State2022 SCMR 2093 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-09-28
  narcotics controlsafe custodysafe transmissionbenefit of the doubtcriminal appealchemical examineracquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant Umar Zaman challenged his conviction and sentence under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which had been upheld by the High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the prosecution successfully established the safe custody and safe transmission of the narcotic sample parcels from the time of recovery until their delivery to the Chemical Examiner. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower courts' judgments, and acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of the doubt. The holding establishes that failure by the prosecution to produce the Moharrar Malkhana to prove safe custody and the official who transported the samples to prove safe transmission creates fatal doubts regarding the integrity of the recovered substance, precluding a conviction beyond a shadow of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-production of the Moharrar Malkhana to prove safe custody of narcotic samples vitiate the conviction?
  • What is the legal effect on the prosecution's case when the safe transmission of sample parcels to the Chemical Examiner remains unestablished?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal when the prosecution fails to prove the intact custody and transmission of recovered narcotics?
  Read full judgment →
• The Postmaster General, Karachi and another vs Arshad Ali2022 SCP 206, 2022 SCMR 1796 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-08-02
  departmental inquirymisconductsupervisory negligencecriminal acquittalcivil servicereinstatementembezzlement
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants challenged a Federal Service Tribunal (FST) judgment that reinstated the respondent, a former officiating Head Postmaster, with back benefits. The respondent had been dismissed from service under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, following an inquiry into a massive savings bank account fraud at his post office. The respondent argued that he was not directly involved in the embezzlement and had been acquitted by an Accountability Court. The Supreme Court observed that the respondent, as Head Postmaster, was bound by his job description to supervise savings bank accounts and maintain vigilance. His failure to detect or report the fraud constituted gross supervisory negligence and misconduct. The Court held that departmental disciplinary proceedings are distinct from criminal trials, as the former aim to maintain institutional discipline and efficiency rather than establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, acquittal in a criminal trial does not automatically exonerate a civil servant from departmental action. The appeal was allowed, and the FST's judgment was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of a civil servant in a criminal trial automatically bar or invalidate departmental disciplinary proceedings based on the same facts?
  • What is the distinction between the standard of proof and objectives of a criminal trial versus a departmental inquiry?
  • Can a supervisory officer be held liable for misconduct and dismissed from service for failing to detect and report financial fraud committed by subordinate staff?
  Read full judgment →
• The Postmaster General Sindh Province, Karachi & Others vs Syed Farhan2022 SCP 102, 2022 SCMR 1154, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 961 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-05-13
  service lawmisconductnegligencequantum of punishmentmajor penaltyminor penaltymisappropriationsupervisory dutyservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which converted a respondent's major penalty of removal from service into a minor penalty of withholding promotion for one year. The respondent, a Junior Accountant at GPO Karachi, was found negligent in his supervisory duties, failing to detect a misappropriation of Rs. 42,40,000/- by a subordinate. While the Tribunal found no direct evidence of the respondent's involvement in the embezzlement, it noted his failure to follow the Post Office Manual Volume-IV. The Supreme Court examined the philosophy of punishment, balancing retributivism and reformation. It held that while the Tribunal has discretionary power under Section 5 of the Service Tribunal Act 1973 to modify penalties, such discretion must be exercised judiciously and the penalty must be proportionate to the gravity of the negligence. The Court concluded that a one-year withholding of promotion was insufficient for negligence involving public funds. Consequently, the Court modified the penalty to withholding of promotion for three years to ensure a deterrent effect.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Service Tribunal can substitute a major penalty with a minor penalty if the employee is found negligent but not directly involved in embezzlement?
  • What is the scope of discretionary power vested in the Service Tribunal under Section 5 of the Service Tribunal Act 1973 regarding the modification of penalties?
  • How should the principle of proportionality be applied when determining a minor penalty for a civil servant's contributory negligence in financial misappropriation cases?
  • Does the lack of direct involvement in fraud exonerate a supervisory officer from a major penalty if their inefficiency facilitated the commission of the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• The Federation of Pakistan Chamber of Commerce, Karachi, etc vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Labour and Human Resources Department Govt. of Sindh, Karachi, etc2022 PSC 669, 2022 PLD Supreme Court 298, 2022 PLC 124 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-26
  minimum wagesMinimum Wages Boardstatutory powersultra vires notificationlabour welfareSindh Minimum Wages Actright to livelihood
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenged the judgment of the Sindh High Court, which upheld a notification issued by the Government of Sindh unilaterally fixing the minimum wage for unskilled adult and juvenile workers at Rs. 25,000 per month. The Minimum Wages Board had recommended an increase to Rs. 19,000 per month. The core legal question was whether the provincial government had statutory authority under the Sindh Minimum Wages Act, 2015 to fix or alter the minimum rates of wages independently, bypassing the recommendations and reconsideration mechanism of the Minimum Wages Board. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court judgment and declaring the impugned notification ultra vires and devoid of legal effect. The Court held that the government's power to declare minimum wages is strictly contingent upon the Board's recommendations. If dissatisfied, the government can only refer the matter back to the Board under Section 6(1)(b) of the Act and cannot unilaterally alter the recommended wage rates.

  Questions settled

  • Can the provincial government unilaterally fix or increase minimum wages without following the recommendation mechanism of the Minimum Wages Board under the Sindh Minimum Wages Act, 2015?
  • Do the terms 'subject to such exceptions' or 'modifications' under Section 6 of the Sindh Minimum Wages Act, 2015 empower the government to alter the substantive wage figures recommended by the Minimum Wages Board?
  • What is the lawful course of action for the provincial government when it disagrees with the minimum wage rate recommended by the Minimum Wages Board?
  Read full judgment →
• The Director Military Lands and Cantonment Regional Headquarters, Multan and another vs Lt. Cola (R) Shahid Ahmed Khan and others2022 PSC 1223 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-04-28
  Cantonment landconversion premiumcommercial useleasehold rightsadministrative determinationfactual findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over the applicable premium rate for converting residential property to commercial use within a Cantonment area. The core legal question was whether the respondent, a leasehold owner, was liable to pay a 100 percent premium due to alleged unauthorized commercial use prior to sanction, or the standard 50 percent premium, and whether that premium should be calculated based on rates applicable at the time of the initial application or at the time of the actual sanction. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the factual determination by the Cantonment Executive Officer—confirming no unauthorized commercial use existed—was binding. Consequently, the Court held that the premium rate applicable at the time the sanction for conversion was formally granted was the correct basis for calculation. The judgment establishes that administrative authorities cannot challenge their own verified factual determinations without evidence, and that in the absence of specific policy provisions to the contrary, conversion premiums are rightfully assessed based on the rates prevailing at the time of the grant of sanction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Cantonment authority challenge its own prior factual determination regarding unauthorized property use?
  • Is the premium for converting residential property to commercial use in a Cantonment area calculated based on the date of application or the date of sanction?
  • Does the absence of evidence of unauthorized commercial use preclude the imposition of a higher penalty premium?
  Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income Tax vs M/s Dye Chemical Industries (Pvt)2022 SCP 326 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  minimum taxfiscal incentivestax exemptioneconomic reformsnon-obstante clausestatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns whether respondent taxpayers were entitled to an exemption from the minimum tax on income under section 80D of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, by relying on section 6 of the Protection of Economic Reforms Act, 1992, and clause 122C, Part-I of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the fiscal incentive under clause 122C, promulgated in 1987, qualified for protection under the 1992 Act, which only protects economic reforms implemented on or after November 7, 1990. The Supreme Court held that the respondents were not entitled to the exemption. The Court reasoned that section 80D of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, is a non-obstante provision that overrides prior exemptions. Furthermore, the protection afforded by section 6 of the Protection of Economic Reforms Act, 1992, is strictly limited to fiscal incentives announced or implemented on or after November 7, 1990. Since the incentive in clause 122C was promulgated in 1987, it falls outside the scope of the Act's protection.

  Questions settled

  • Does section 80D of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, override prior tax exemptions granted under the same Ordinance?
  • Are fiscal incentives promulgated before November 7, 1990, protected by section 6 of the Protection of Economic Reforms Act, 1992?
  • Is the date of setting up an industrial undertaking relevant to determining eligibility for fiscal incentives protected under the Protection of Economic Reforms Act, 1992?
  Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Lahore and others vs M/s Pepsi Cola2022 SCP 30, 2022 SCMR 1140, PTCL 2022 CL.127, 2022 PSC 664, 2022 PTD 1030 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-02-18
  constitutional jurisdictiontax assessmentvaluation committeeshow cause noticesales taxarbitrary determinationwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from petitions filed by the Commissioner Inland Revenue challenging a Lahore High Court judgment. The High Court had directed the formation of a Valuation Committee to determine the value of 'Concentrate' for tax assessment purposes, effectively staying show-cause notices issued by tax authorities under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, the Federal Excise Act, 2005, and the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The core legal question was whether the High Court properly exercised its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 to intervene in tax proceedings and mandate the use of a statutory Valuation Committee. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s intervention was justified because the tax authorities had arbitrarily determined the value of the goods without utilizing the statutory Valuation Committee as required by law. The Court affirmed that the High Court’s decision to defer action on the show-cause notices pending the Committee's determination was a correct application of the law, preserving the interests of both parties. The Supreme Court declined to grant leave to appeal, dismissing the petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction to direct the formation of a Valuation Committee in tax assessment matters?
  • Is a tax authority permitted to determine the value of goods arbitrarily without recourse to the statutory Valuation Committee?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to stay proceedings on show-cause notices pending the determination of value by a Valuation Committee?
  Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Inland Revenue vs M/s Habib Insurance Company Ltd2022 SCP 328 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-11-03
  insurance businessmanagement expensestax deductionburden of proofcondonation of excess expensesIncome Tax Ordinance 1979Insurance Act 1938
  Summary & questions settled

  The Commissioner Inland Revenue appealed against a High Court judgment favoring an insurance company regarding tax deductions for management expenses. The core legal question was whether an insurance company could exceed statutory management expense limits prescribed under the Insurance Act, 1938, without providing concrete proof of condonation by the Controller of Insurance. The Supreme Court held that while the Insurance Act permits the Controller of Insurance to condone excess management expenses under specific circumstances, the burden of proof rests squarely on the insurer to produce the official order or certificate of condonation. Because the respondent failed to produce any such documentation before the Tribunal, the High Court, or the Supreme Court, the Court found no basis for the High Court to set aside the Tribunal’s decision. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s order, and restored the Tribunal’s decision. The key principle established is that an insurer admitting to exceeding statutory expense limits must affirmatively prove that the Controller of Insurance exercised the power to condone such excess; otherwise, the excess cannot be treated as a valid deduction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proof lie on an insurance company to establish that the Controller of Insurance condoned management expenses exceeding statutory limits?
  • Can an insurance company claim a tax deduction for management expenses that exceed the limits prescribed under the Insurance Act, 1938, without producing an official condonation order?
  • Is the Income Tax Officer authorized to exclude management expenses that exceed the limits prescribed by the Insurance Act, 1938, when no proof of condonation is provided?
  Read full judgment →
• The Chief Secretary, Government Of Balochistan, Quetta and others vs Hidayat Ullah Khan2022 SCMR 39, 2022 PSC 1595 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-14
  service tribunalchange of cadreabsorption of civil servanttransfer and postingcreation of public postcivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a service appeal filed by the respondent seeking absorption and transfer as a Law Officer in the Planning and Development (P&D) Department with back benefits and pay protection, following his initial appointment as a Field Programme Officer (BPS-17) in the Ministry of Health and subsequent devolution under the 18th Amendment. The Balochistan Service Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the authorities to redress the respondent's grievance. The core legal question was whether an employee belonging to a specific cadre in one department can be transferred or absorbed into a newly created post in a different department, and whether change of cadre is permissible in law. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that posting, transfer, absorption, and change of cadre between entirely different departments and cadres are impermissible in law, and newly created public posts must be filled through open advertisement rather than person-specific adjustments. The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and allowed the appeal, laying down the principle that civil servants cannot jump across distinct cadres and departments to occupy newly created posts without following prescribed statutory methods of recruitment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee belonging to one cadre in a department can be transferred or absorbed into a different cadre and department?
  • Does the creation of a new post by a government department permit the direct absorption of a desired individual without open advertisement?
  • Is the change of cadre and jumping between distinct government departments permissible under the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Tajamal Hussain Shah vs The State and another2022 SCP 118, 2022 KLR Supreme Court Cases 281, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 531, 2022 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-04-21
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtplea of alibiocular and medical discrepancyabsconsionmurderappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition, later converted into an appeal, arises from the conviction and sentencing of the petitioner under Section 304(b) PPC to imprisonment for life for the murder of Muhammad Sajjad, as maintained by the High Court. The core legal questions involve evaluating whether material contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, a verified plea of alibi, negative forensic reports, and unproven motive are sufficient to create reasonable doubt, and whether absconsion alone can sustain a conviction. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the petitioner, holding that major discrepancies between the ocular account and medical evidence regarding the entry and exit wounds, coupled with a duly verified plea of alibi supported by defense evidence and an inconsequential weapon recovery, create serious and reasonable doubts in the prosecution case. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a shadow of doubt, absconsion cannot form the sole basis for a conviction, and the benefit of any reasonable doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether material contradictions between the ocular account and medical evidence regarding the entry and exit wounds are sufficient to create reasonable doubt in a criminal case?
  • Can a verified plea of alibi supported by defense evidence outweigh the uncorroborated testimony of prosecution eyewitnesses?
  • Does the absconsion of an accused person for a prolonged period serve as independent proof of guilt to sustain a conviction?
  • Is a negative forensic matching report regarding the recovered weapon sufficient to render the recovery inconsequential?
  Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad vs Khalid Mehmood Alias Khalid Nawaz and others2022 SCMR 1662 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-09-12
  juvenile justicedetermination of ageossification testburden of proofjuvenile courtcriminal trialplea of juvenility
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal, arising from a murder case registered under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, addresses the core legal question of how a plea of juvenility must be established under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. During the trial, the accused belatedly claimed to be a child without providing birth certificates, school records, or NADRA Form-B, relying solely on an ossification test report. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment, holding that an ossification test is not conclusive proof of age and that the heavy burden of proof lies upon the person asserting juvenility to produce positive documentary evidence. The Court established the principle that a belated and unsubstantiated plea of juvenility, unsupported by reliable primary documentation and contradicted by the accused's conduct, cannot be used to claim the benefits of benevolent juvenile legislation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ossification test report can be considered as conclusive proof of age in determining juvenility?
  • Upon whom lies the burden of proof to establish the factum of age under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000?
  • Can an accused claim the benefit of benevolent juvenile legislation without producing reliable documentary evidence of date of birth?
  • Is a belated plea of juvenility raised during trial without primary documentation maintainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahira Batool vs The State & another2022 SCP 214, 2022 PLD Supreme Court 764 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-08-19
  post-arrest baildacoitywomen's rightsprohibitory clausecriminal procedurestatutory provisorule and exception
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the denial of post-arrest bail by the Islamabad High Court in a case involving allegations of dacoity under Sections 395 and 412 PPC. The complainant initially identified the petitioner as a maid who was also a victim of the robbery but later implicated her as an accomplice. The Supreme Court examined the scope of the first proviso to Section 497(1) Cr.P.C., which permits the release of women, minors, or infirm persons on bail even for offences falling within the prohibitory clause. The Court held that for such protected categories, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, regardless of the severity of the offence. Bail can only be refused if there is a likelihood of the accused absconding, tampering with evidence, or repeating the offence. Finding no evidence that the petitioner was a professional criminal or likely to repeat the offence, the Court set aside the High Court's order and granted bail.

  Read full judgment →
• Tahir Naqash and others vs The State and others2022 PLD Supreme Court 385, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 122 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-12
  Ahmadiyya communityblasphemy lawsalteration of chargefreedom of religionhuman dignityprivate worshippenal statute interpretationminority rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a challenge to the alteration of charges against the petitioners, members of the Ahmadiyya community, from Sections 298-B and 298-C to include Sections 295-B and 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The allegations involved styling their place of worship as a mosque, displaying Islamic inscriptions (sha'air-e-Islam), and keeping copies of the Holy Qur'an inside the premises. The core legal question was whether such acts, performed within a private place of worship, attract the offences of defiling the Holy Qur'an or the sacred name of the Holy Prophet. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the addition of Sections 295-B and 295-C. The Court held that these provisions require specific overt acts (actus reus) and criminal intent (mens rea) to defile or desecrate, which were absent. The Court clarified that while public propagation is restricted under Sections 298-B and 298-C, the Constitution and prior precedents protect the right of minorities to profess and practice their religion privately within their own places of worship.

  Read full judgment →
• Syeda Nasreen Zohra (deceased) through L.Rs vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary Communication & Works Department, Lahore and others2022 SCP 64, 2022 KLR Supreme Court Cases 153, 2022 SCMR 890 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-02-07
  land acquisitionstatutory interestcompound interestdate of possessioncompensation awardpenal consequences
  Summary & questions settled

  These consolidated civil petitions arose from a Lahore High Court order determining the period for which the petitioner was entitled to interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The petitioner claimed possession was taken prior to 1980, whereas the Government of Punjab contested the duration of interest calculation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the petitioner had admitted in earlier pleadings that possession was taken on January 21, 1980, rendering that the correct date of possession. The Court held that under Section 31 and Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, the Collector is mandatorily required to tender or deposit compensation upon making an award, failing which compound interest at 8% per annum accrues from the date of possession. The Court clarified that while compound interest ceases to accrue once the principal compensation is deposited, simple interest remains payable on the accrued compound interest until it is fully paid, preventing acquiring departments from delaying outstanding interest payments indefinitely.

  Questions settled

  • Whether compound interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 continues to accrue after the principal compensation amount has been deposited?
  • What is the legal consequence under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 if the Collector fails to tender or deposit the awarded compensation upon making an award?
  • Is a landowner entitled to simple interest on accrued compound interest if the acquiring department delays the payment of outstanding interest after depositing the principal compensation?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Zulfiqar Shah vs The State through Advocate General, Khyber2022 SCP 172, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 639 , 2022 SCMR 1450 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-06-21
  post-arrest bailnarcotics controlsearch warrantdirectory provisionsadmissibility of recoverycontrol of narcotics substances act
  Summary & questions settled

  Syed Zulfiqar Shah filed a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of his post-arrest bail application by the Peshawar High Court and the trial court in a narcotics case registered under section 9(d) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 2019 (KPK Act of 2019). The core legal question was whether conducting a raid and recovering narcotics from a dwelling house without obtaining a search warrant under section 27 of the KPK Act of 2019 vitiates the recovery or warrants the grant of bail. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the provisions of section 27 of the KPK Act of 2019—identical to section 20 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997—are directory in nature. The Court laid down the principle that the non-compliance with the requirement to obtain a search warrant does not render the recovery inadmissible in evidence nor vitiate the trial or automatically entitle an accused to bail, although delinquent officials may face disciplinary or penal action.

  Questions settled

  • Are the provisions of section 27 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 2019, regarding search warrants, mandatory or directory?
  • Does the failure of the police to obtain a search warrant before conducting a raid render the recovered narcotics inadmissible in evidence?
  • Can non-compliance with the search warrant provisions under narcotics laws serve as sole ground for the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • What are the consequences for a police officer who violates the provisions relating to search warrants under the narcotics control laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Raza Hussain Bukhari vs The State through D.A.G., etc2022 SCP 216, 2022 PLD Supreme Court 743 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-08-10
  post-arrest baildelay in trialscheduled offencesbank offencesinherent powersconstitutional jurisdictionfundamental rightsfair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses a petition for leave to appeal arising from the dismissal of a second post-arrest bail application on the ground of delay in the conclusion of a trial under the Offences in respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984. The core legal question is whether the statutory ground for bail based on trial delay under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the CrPC is available in scheduled bank offences governed by Section 5(6) of the Ordinance, and what jurisdiction the High Court holds in this regard. The Supreme Court held that while the Special Court is strictly bound by Section 5(6) of the Ordinance which excludes the statutory provisos of Section 497(1) CrPC, the High Court is not restricted by sub-constitutional legislation. The High Court possesses inherent powers under Section 561-A CrPC and extensive constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 to enforce fundamental rights to liberty, fair trial, and due process under Articles 9, 10A, and 14 of the Constitution. The key principle laid down is that undue and unprolonged pre-trial detention violating fundamental rights permits the High Court to grant bail, using the statutory timeframes in Section 497(1) CrPC as a guide.

  Questions settled

  • Is the statutory ground for bail based on delay in the conclusion of a trial under the third proviso to Section 497(1) CrPC available before a Special Court under Section 5(6) of the Offences in respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984?
  • Can a High Court grant bail on the ground of delay in trial in scheduled offences under the Ordinance by invoking its inherent powers under Section 561-A CrPC or constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199?
  • Does prolonged pre-trial detention infringing the right to a fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution warrant the grant of bail notwithstanding statutory bars under sub-constitutional legislation?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah vs The State2022 PLD Supreme Court 261, 2022 PLD Supreme Court 261 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-21
  post-arrest bailNAB referencebenamidardisproportionate assetsfundamental rightstrial delaytentative assessmentaccountability laws
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order denying post-arrest bail to a former public office holder in a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference involving allegations of corruption and possession of assets disproportionate to known income. The core legal question was whether sufficient incriminating material existed to justify continued detention and whether the trial delay warranted bail. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to provide tangible evidence connecting the petitioner to alleged benamidar properties or demonstrating that assets were disproportionate to income, noting that valuation must be assessed at the time of purchase. Furthermore, the Court found the trial delay inordinate and not attributable to the petitioner. The Court established that the standard for tentative assessment of material for bail in NAB cases is not merely derived from the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 but is rooted in fundamental rights to liberty, dignity, and fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's order and granted bail to the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • What is the standard for tentative assessment of incriminating material when deciding on bail in cases under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999?
  • Are assets acquired by a public office holder to be valued at their current market price or at the time of purchase when determining if they are disproportionate to known sources of income?
  • What are the crucial factors in a criminal law context to determine whether a transaction is benami in character?
  • Does an inordinate delay in the conclusion of a trial, not attributable to the accused, constitute a valid ground for the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Kausar Ali Shah vs Syed Farhat Hussain Shah and others2022 SCP 112, 2022 PCTLR 799, 2022 PLJ SC 308, 2022 PSC 838, 2022 SCMR · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-04-18
  inheritance mutationthird-party rightsacquiescencelimitation periodostensible ownerhousing schemeconcurrent judgments
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from concurrent judgments decreed in favour of the respondents regarding an inheritance dispute over land originally owned by Jalal Shah, who died in 1963. The core legal question concerns whether an heir who remains inactive and challenges a long-standing inheritance mutation only after decades and after valuable third-party rights have been created can succeed in claiming a share in the property. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the lower judgments, holding that an heir who sits idly by, allows long-standing entries to remain unchallenged, and fails to act until third-party rights—such as a developed housing scheme with numerous allottees—are established cannot subsequently claim the property. The Court laid down the principle that the conduct of a claimant, including acquiescence and delay, is material when third-party interests are involved, distinguishing between direct challenges without third-party intervention and cases where third parties have acquired rights in good faith from ostensible owners.

  Questions settled

  • Does an heir who remains inactive and delays challenging a long-standing inheritance mutation until after third-party rights are created lose the right to claim the property?
  • How does the creation of valuable third-party rights in a disputed property affect a belated claim for inheritance?
  • Is the principle of acquiescence applicable when a claimant stands idly by while a housing scheme is developed on the disputed land?
  • What is the effect of failing to implead third-party allottees whose property rights would be adversely affected by a judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Jamil Ahmad vs Muhammad Salam and others2022 SCMR 282 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-06
  limitationkatchi abadielease regularizationsuit for declarationmaintainabilitySpecific Relief Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a dispute over the lease of a plot of land originally granted by the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation. The appellant challenged the High Court judgment which had restored the Trial Court decision dismissing his suit as time-barred and not maintainable. The core legal questions involved whether a suit for declaration and cancellation of a lease granted ten years prior was barred by limitation, and whether a person out of possession could claim ownership rights under katchi abadie regularization laws based on a purported tenancy. The Supreme Court held that the suit was clearly time-barred and that regularization laws for katchi abadies are intended to benefit landless occupants actually in possession, not landlords seeking personal enrichment through tenants. Consequently, the Court laid down the principle that a person not in possession of land in a declared katchi abadie lacks the requisite legal character under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 to maintain a suit for declaration of ownership over such property.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit seeking declaration and cancellation of a lease filed ten years after its grant is barred by limitation?
  • Can a person claim ownership rights under katchi abadie regularization laws for land not in their actual possession?
  • Does a landlord have the legal character under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 to maintain a suit for declaration of ownership of a plot situated in a declared katchi abadie that is in the possession of a tenant?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Atif Raza Shah vs Syed Fida Hussain Shah and another2022 SCMR 1262, 2022 KLR Supreme Court Cases 235 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-03-02
  power of attorneyfiduciary relationshipconflict of interestsale mutationrepudiation of transactioncivil revisionsupreme court
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the lower courts and the Lahore High Court, which dismissed his challenge and upheld the decree in favor of respondent No. 1, who had successfully challenged a sale mutation executed by his attorney (respondent No. 2) in favor of the attorney's son (the petitioner). The core legal question revolved around whether an agent can transfer the principal's property to his own relative without consent, resulting in a conflict of interest and dishonest concealment. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that an agent stands in a fiduciary relationship, must act in the interest of the principal, and cannot deal on his own account without full disclosure and consent. The Court laid down the principle that where an agent misuses authority, conceals material facts, or creates a conflict of interest to the disadvantage of the principal, the principal is legally entitled to repudiate the transaction under Section 215 of the Contract Act 1872, and the courts may rescind the same.

  Questions settled

  • Can a principal repudiate a transaction where an agent deals on his own account without the principal's consent?
  • What are the core duties of an agent operating under a power of attorney regarding conflict of interest?
  • Does the transfer of property by an attorney to his own son without prior disclosure constitute a dishonest concealment of material facts?
  • Can the concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the misuse of a power of attorney be interfered with under civil revision without proving illegality?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Atif Raza Shah vs Syed Fida Hussain Shah & another2022 PSC 766 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-03-02
  power of attorneyfiduciary relationshipconflict of interestsale mutationrepudiation of transactionmisuse of authority
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a civil petition before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging the dismissal of his civil revision by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the concurrent judgments of the lower courts decreeing the respondent's suit for declaration and permanent injunction and dismissing the petitioner's suit for possession through partition. The core legal question centered on whether an attorney (agent) could validly transfer the principal's property to his own son without the principal's consent, amounting to a conflict of interest and misuse of authority. The Supreme Court held that the agent occupies a fiduciary position and must act advantageously and fairly toward the principal, avoiding any conflict of interest or dishonest concealment. The Court ruled that transferring property to the agent's relative without prior disclosure and consent constitutes misconduct and misuse of authority, entitling the principal to repudiate the transaction. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused.

  Questions settled

  • What are the core duties of an agent under a power of attorney regarding conflict of interest and communication with the principal?
  • Under what conditions does a principal have the right to repudiate a transaction conducted by an agent under Section 215 of the Contract Act 1872?
  • Does the transfer of property by an attorney in favor of his own son without the principal's consent constitute a misuse of authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Athar Hussain Shah vs Haji Muhammad Riaz and another2022 SCP 11, 2022 PSC 449 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-03-02
  specific performancelimitation periodpart performanceshield and sword principlecancellation of sale deeddeclaratory suitrejection of plaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition seeking to set aside three concurrent judgments dismissing the petitioner's third suit for specific performance, cancellation of a sale deed, and a declaration of ownership regarding a piece of land. The core legal question is whether the third suit was barred by limitation and whether adding a declaratory prayer or invoking part performance under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 could save an otherwise time-barred suit for specific performance and cancellation of a deed. The Supreme Court held that once the period of limitation commences, it cannot be stopped or avoided by reformulating reliefs or adding a declaratory prayer where the primary relief is time-barred. Furthermore, section 53-A acts only as a shield for a defendant in possession and cannot be used as a sword or weapon of offence to initiate a suit. Consequently, the Court affirmed the dismissal of the suit as time-barred, declined leave to appeal, and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether once the period of limitation commences it can be stopped or avoided by introducing another cause of action or relief in a suit?
  • Can section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 be utilized as a weapon of offence to assert title or initiate a suit rather than as a shield in defense?
  • Does the addition of a declaratory relief save a suit from being time-barred when the primary reliefs sought are for specific performance and cancellation of a deed filed beyond the prescribed limitation period?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Arshad Ali vs Secretary M/O. Housing & Works, Islamabad and others2022 PLJ SC 144 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-12-22
  seniority listcivil servantsappointment by transferpromotionservice appealfederal service tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged the dismissal of his service appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal regarding a final seniority list of Assistants in the Ministry of Housing and Works. The core legal question was whether civil servants appointed by transfer take seniority over those promoted to the same post in the same calendar year under Rule 6 of the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under the unamended Rule 6, persons appointed by transfer in a particular calendar year rank as a class senior to those appointed by promotion or initial appointment in that same year. The Court laid down the principle that where both transfer and promotion occur in the same calendar year, appointees by transfer (unless transferred at their own request under specific exceptions) hold senior positions over promotees.

  Questions settled

  • Whether persons appointed by transfer in a particular calendar year are senior to those appointed by promotion to such posts in the same year under Rule 6 of the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993?
  • Does a civil servant transferred to another office on their own volition count past service for seniority in the new office?
  Read full judgment →
• Supreme Court Employees Co-Operative Housing Society, Islamabad vs Messrs Marshal Construction Management through Managing Partner and another2022 SCMR 366 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-12-08
  interim injunctionjoint venture agreementbreach of contractrevisional jurisdictionprima facie casebalance of conveniencespecific performance
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged an Islamabad High Court order that set aside lower court decisions dismissing an injunction application filed by the respondent. The dispute arose from a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) for a housing project, which the petitioner terminated due to the respondent's alleged failure to perform contractual obligations and lack of financial capacity. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its revisional jurisdiction to grant an interim injunction. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by failing to consider the three essential ingredients for granting an injunction: a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. The Court found that the respondent failed to demonstrate a prima facie case, particularly given their admission of non-performance and retention of substantial funds. The Court emphasized that interim injunctions must align with the principles of the Specific Relief Act 1877, and where specific performance is not viable, injunctions should be denied. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the lower courts' dismissal of the injunction.

  Questions settled

  • What are the three essential ingredients that must be established for the grant of an interim injunction?
  • Can an interim injunction be granted in a contract dispute where specific performance of the contract cannot be allowed under the Specific Relief Act 1877?
  • Does an order passed on an interlocutory application have a binding effect on the final outcome of the main proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan through its President, Supreme Court Building, Islamabad vs Federation of Pakistan through M/o Interior Islamabad and others2022 SCP 84, 2022 PLD Supreme Court 488 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-05-17
  defalcationArticle 63Apolitical partiesfundamental rightsparliamentary democracyfloor crossingPresidential Reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a Presidential Reference under Article 186 of the Constitution of Pakistan alongside constitutional petitions under Article 184(3), concerning the interpretation and application of Article 63A relating to the defection of parliamentarians. By a majority of three to two, the Supreme Court addressed questions regarding parliamentary floor-crossing, political party cohesion, and fundamental rights. The core legal question centered on how Article 63A of the Constitution should be interpreted in relation to political parties and whether votes cast contrary to party directions should be disregarded. The majority held that Article 63A must be interpreted in a purposive manner aligned with Article 17, protecting the collective rights and cohesion of political parties against defection, which is characterized as a cancer to democracy. Consequently, the Court ruled that the vote of any member cast contrary to party directions must be disregarded, regardless of subsequent defection declarations. The key principle laid down is that Article 63A functions to ensure political party cohesion in the legislative arena, and individual member votes cast in violation of party directions cannot be counted.

  Questions settled

  • How should Article 63A of the Constitution be interpreted in relation to the fundamental rights of political parties under Article 17?
  • Should the vote of a member of a Parliamentary Party cast contrary to party directions be counted or disregarded?
  • Can a declaration of defection under Article 63A serve as a disqualification under Article 63 of the Constitution?
  • Does Article 63A constitute a complete code in itself regarding the procedure and consequences of member defection?
  Read full judgment →
• Summit Bank Limited, Lahore vs M/s M.M. Brothers, Proprietorship Concern,2022 SCP 410 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  execution proceedingscourt auctionproclamation of salenewspaper publicationcompetitive biddingFinancial Institutions Ordinancereserve pricesetting aside sale
  Summary & questions settled

  This Civil Petition for leave to appeal arose from an execution proceeding under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, where mortgaged property of the judgment debtors was sold via court auction to the decree-holder bank as the sole bidder at reserve price. The Lahore High Court set aside the sale and remanded the matter due to the lack of proper publication in widely circulated newspapers. The Supreme Court considered whether the failure of the Executing Court to order newspaper publication under Order XXI, Rule 67 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 vitiated the auction sale. Upholding the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court held that the primary object of execution sale rules is to secure the fair market value through competitive bidding with at least two potential bidders. Although publication under Rule 67(2) may be directory in form, non-compliance causing substantial injustice and prejudice invalidates the sale. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave refused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court auction sale be set aside if the Executing Court fails to publish the proclamation in a widely circulated newspaper causing prejudice to the judgment debtor?
  • Is competitive bidding involving at least two prospective bidders required for conducting a valid public auction under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the failure to comply with the proclamation procedures under Order XXI Rules 54 and 67 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 render an execution sale voidable where injustice has resulted?
  Read full judgment →
• Sui Southern Gas Company Limited and others vs Saeed Ahmed Khoso2022 SCMR 1256 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-03-01
  master and servantnon-statutory rulesconstitutional jurisdictiontermination of serviceregularizationlimited companyreinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a High Court judgment that set aside the termination of Respondent No.1 and directed his reinstatement and regularization. The Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether the High Court correctly exercised its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 in a service matter involving non-statutory rules. The Court observed that the Appellant's employment rules are non-statutory, meaning the relationship between the employer and employee is governed by the principle of master and servant. The Court rejected the Respondent's argument that government shareholding in a limited company transforms its internal rules into statutory ones, distinguishing between statutory corporations and limited companies. It held that since the appointment letter allowed for termination via three months' notice, the termination was lawful under the contract. The Court concluded that a constitutional petition is not the appropriate forum for such service disputes where rules are non-statutory. Consequently, the High Court's judgment was set aside, allowing the Respondent to seek alternative legal remedies.

  Read full judgment →
• Subhanullah vs The State2022 SCMR 1052, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 201, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 673 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-03-08
  safe custody of samplessafe transmissionMalkhana Mohararnarcoticsbenefit of doubtControl of Narcotic Substances Actacquittalchain of custody
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard a petition for leave to appeal against the Peshawar High Court's judgment upholding the petitioner's conviction and life sentence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The primary legal question was whether the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt when it failed to prove the safe custody and safe transmission of the recovered narcotics sample parcels. The Supreme Court observed that the Moharar who allegedly kept the samples in the Malkhana and the police constable who allegedly transported them to the laboratory were never produced as witnesses, leaving their non-production unexplained. The Court held that establishing safe custody in the Malkhana and safe transmission to the chemical examiner is an essential requirement of law. The failure to do so created serious doubt regarding the integrity of the recovered contraband. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the petitioner by extending the benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the prosecution's failure to produce the Moharar and the carrier of sample parcels break the chain of custody in a narcotics case?
  • Can an accused be convicted under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 if safe custody and safe transmission of samples are not proved beyond reasonable doubt?
  • What is the legal effect of withholding material witnesses responsible for safe custody and transmission of narcotic samples without explanation?
  Read full judgment →
• State through A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Peshawar vs Amanat Khan and others2022 PSC (Crl.) 710 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-06
  murderacquittalocular testimonyabsconsionforensic reportleave to appealreappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which acquitted the respondent of a murder charge. The respondent had been convicted by the trial court under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to death for the murder of Javed Ali Shah. The prosecution's case relied on ocular testimony from natural witnesses and the respondent's subsequent absconsion. The High Court overturned the conviction, citing investigative flaws and forensic discrepancies, specifically the incompatibility of the recovered weapon with the crime scene casings. The State challenged this acquittal, arguing that the High Court erroneously prioritized peripheral investigative defects over credible ocular evidence and failed to account for the respondent's absconsion. The Supreme Court, finding merit in the arguments regarding the potential misappreciation of evidence, granted leave to appeal to reappraise the entire evidence. The Court held that the case warrants a comprehensive review to ensure the ends of justice are met, particularly regarding the weight of ocular testimony versus forensic findings.

  Questions settled

  • Does a negative forensic report regarding a recovered weapon necessarily destroy the intrinsic value of credible ocular testimony in a murder case?
  • Can an appellate court acquit a respondent based on peripheral investigative flaws when there is consistent ocular evidence from natural witnesses?
  • What is the legal effect of an accused's absconsion on the prosecution's case when other evidence is present?
  Read full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan vs Mohammad Naeem & others2022 SCP 414 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-11-10
  Civil ReviewConstitution of BenchesTwo Member BenchThree Member BenchModification of High Court JudgmentLeave to AppealSupreme Court RulesDollar Bearer Certificate
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil review petition was filed by the State Bank of Pakistan seeking review of an order dated 04.09.2020 passed by a two-member Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in CPLA No. 146-K of 2019. The earlier Bench, without formally granting leave to appeal, had modified a judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh by reducing the awarded rate of markup from 10% to 2% based on a concession made by respondent No. 1's counsel. The petitioner contended that modifying the Division Bench judgment required hearing before a three-member Bench under the Supreme Court Rules, 1980.

  The Supreme Court accepted the review petition, holding that under Order XI of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, read with Article 191 of the Constitution, a two-member Bench is empowered to grant or dismiss a petition for leave to appeal, but lacks jurisdiction to modify, alter, or amend a Division Bench judgment of a High Court. Such modification requires disposal by a Bench of not less than three Judges. Consequently, the earlier order was recalled and the civil petition was restored to be heard afresh by a three-member Bench.

  Questions settled

  • Can a two-member Bench of the Supreme Court modify or alter a Division Bench judgment of a High Court without granting leave to appeal?
  • Under Order XI of the Supreme Court Rules 1980, what is the minimum bench size required to hear and dispose of an appeal or modify a High Court Division Bench judgment?
  • Does a statement or concession by one party's counsel empower a two-member Bench of the Supreme Court to amend a High Court Division Bench decree at the leave-granting stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Sohail Akhtar vs The State through P.G. Punjab and another2022 SCMR 1447 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-04-27
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryDNA evidencemedico-legal reportpersonal libertydelay in trialsodomy
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order that denied post-arrest bail to the petitioner, who was accused of kidnapping and sodomy. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the conflicting nature of the medical report, which showed no signs of injury, and the DNA report, which implicated the petitioner, alongside the significant delay in trial proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the case fell within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court reasoned that the DNA report could not override the prompt medico-legal report at the bail stage, and the two-day delay in lodging the FIR suggested potential deliberation. Furthermore, emphasizing that personal liberty is a cherished constitutional right that cannot be curtailed indefinitely without exceptional grounds, the Court observed that keeping the petitioner incarcerated for seventeen months without any witness testimony being recorded served no useful purpose. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, leaving the final determination of guilt to the Trial Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does a DNA report automatically override a prompt medico-legal report for the purpose of deciding a bail application?
  • Can a delay in trial proceedings justify the grant of bail even in serious criminal cases?
  • Does a delay in lodging an FIR without plausible justification warrant the grant of bail under the principle of further inquiry?
  • When does a criminal case fall within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Sohail Ahmad vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary Of Interior2022 SCP 154, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 1201, 2022 PLJ SC 332, 2022 PSC 1177, 2022 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-05-10
  service lawnatural justicedouble jeopardydisciplinary proceedingsaudi alteram partemFrontier Constabularyright to fair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This service matter concerns the legality of disciplinary actions taken against a Frontier Constabulary personnel, who was transferred and subsequently reduced in seniority without a show-cause notice or formal inquiry. The core legal question was whether the department could impose multiple punishments for the same alleged offence without adhering to the principles of natural justice or the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. The Supreme Court held that the impugned orders were illegal and set them aside. The Court ruled that disciplinary actions affecting an individual's rights must strictly comply with the principles of natural justice, which mandate that a delinquent be afforded a fair opportunity to be heard and contest allegations before being condemned. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that punishing an individual twice for the same offence violates the constitutional doctrine of double jeopardy. The key principle laid down is that statutory bodies must follow established procedural requirements, including the issuance of show-cause notices and the conduct of regular inquiries, to ensure that disciplinary actions are not arbitrary and that complete justice is served in accordance with the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Can a disciplinary authority impose multiple punishments for the same alleged offence?
  • Is a show-cause notice mandatory before imposing disciplinary punishment on a member of the Frontier Constabulary?
  • Does the doctrine of double jeopardy apply to departmental disciplinary proceedings?
  • Are disciplinary orders passed without providing an opportunity of personal hearing legally sustainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Sindh Irrigation And Drainage Authority vs Government Of Sindh and others2022 SCMR 595, 2022 PSC 876, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 745 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-03-24
  civil servantpublic servantSindh Service TribunalSection 12(2) CPCSindh Water Management Ordinance 2002SIDAjurisdictionmaster and servantdelegation of powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a consolidated judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellants' application filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The private respondents claimed to be employees of the Irrigation Department of the Government of Sindh and sought salary release through the Service Tribunal. The appellants contended that the respondents were public servants employed by the Sindh Irrigation and Drainage Authority (SIDA), an autonomous corporate entity under the Sindh Water Management Ordinance, 2002, and not civil servants. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the Service Tribunal's judgment. The Court held that SIDA is a distinct legal body corporate whose staff are public servants, not civil servants. Furthermore, appointments made by Executive Engineers on deputation without delegated statutory authority conferred no civil servant status. The Court also held that under Section 5 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973, the Service Tribunal exercises powers of a Civil Court and possesses full jurisdiction to decide Section 12(2) CPC applications regarding fraud or misrepresentation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether employees of an autonomous statutory body corporate like SIDA qualify as civil servants under the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Does the Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  • Can an official serving on deputation make valid appointments without express delegation of power from the governing statutory authority?
  • Is an appeal under Section 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973 maintainable by a person who is not a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Hayat vs The State and another2022 SCMR 198, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 99 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-01
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirygeneral roleforensic evidencecriminal justicemurder casebail adjudication
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenges an order of the Peshawar High Court denying post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a murder case registered under sections 302/324/148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the allegations and the forensic evidence. The Supreme Court observed that while the petitioner was accused of firing, the role ascribed was general, lacking specificity regarding the weapon used or the injuries caused. Crucially, the Forensic Science Laboratory report indicated that all 27 recovered empties were fired from a single weapon, creating ambiguity regarding the petitioner's individual culpability. Holding that the case fell within the purview of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court set aside the impugned order and granted bail. The key principle laid down is that where a general role is attributed to an accused and forensic evidence suggests the use of a single weapon, the case warrants further inquiry, entitling the accused to bail pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does a general allegation of firing against multiple accused, where forensic evidence indicates the use of a single weapon, constitute grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution fails to specify the weapon used or the specific injuries caused by the accused in a multi-accused murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Shezan Services (Private) Limited vs Shezan Bakers and Confectioners2022 SCMR 1363 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-06-09
  trademark registrationgoodwilldeceptive similarityidentical trademarkdistinctivenessadverse presumptionintellectual property
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute over the registration of the trademark 'Shezan' in class 29. The respondent, a private limited company, sought registration of the mark based on a 1975 agreement under which its alleged predecessor purchased the goodwill of certain 'Shezan' restaurants and a bakery in Lahore. The appellant, who held seventy-five registered 'Shezan' word and label marks dating back to 1958, opposed the application. The Registrar of Trade Marks and the High Court of Sindh both allowed the registration with territorial limitations, interpreting the agreement as a transfer of trademark rights. The Supreme Court of Pakistan reversed these decisions, holding that the 1975 agreement was for the sale of specific businesses and did not assign or transfer the trademark. The Court ruled that because the respondent was not the proprietor of the mark, and the mark lacked distinctiveness and was identical to the appellant's subsisting registrations, its registration would cause public confusion and violate statutory prohibitions against registering identical or deceptive marks.

  Questions settled

  • Does the sale of a business's goodwill automatically transfer or assign the ownership of its registered trademarks to the buyer in the absence of an express assignment clause?
  • Can a trademark be registered by a subsequent applicant if it is identical to an existing registered trademark in the same class and lacks distinctiveness?
  • Whether an adverse presumption under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984 can be drawn against a party who fails to produce corporate and partnership documents to prove its status as a successor-in-interest?
  Read full judgment →
• Shezan Services (Private) Limited vs Shezan Bakers & Confectioners2022 SCP 132, 2022 CLD 970 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-06-09
  trademark registrationopposition proceedingsgoodwill assignmentdistinctivenessdeceptive similarityrestrictive covenantadverse presumption
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a dispute over the registration of the trademark 'Shezan' in Class 29. The respondent, a private limited company, sought registration of the mark, which was opposed by the appellant, who held seventy-five registered 'Shezan' trademarks dating back to 1958. The Registrar of Trade Marks and the High Court of Sindh had allowed the respondent's application, relying on a 1975 agreement that sold the goodwill of certain Lahore-based restaurants and a bakery to the respondent's alleged predecessor. The Supreme Court of Pakistan analyzed the 1975 agreement and the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1940. The Court held that the agreement merely permitted the localized operation of specific businesses and did not assign or transfer the proprietary trademark rights. Furthermore, the respondent's proposed mark lacked the requisite distinctiveness under Section 6, and registering an identical mark in the same class would cause public deception and confusion, violating Sections 8(a) and 10(1) of the Act. The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the concurrent findings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the sale of the goodwill of a localized business automatically transfer or assign the ownership of a registered trademark associated with it?
  • Can a trademark be registered by a non-proprietor if it lacks distinctiveness and is identical to subsisting registered trademarks in the same class?
  • Whether an agreement restricting the use of a business name to a specific territory permits the registration of that name as a trademark by the licensee?
  • What is the legal effect of failing to produce corporate succession documents when directed by the Court during trademark proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Shereen Zada Khan vs The State, etc2022 PSC (Crl.) 314 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-05-20
  narcotic substancesdeath sentence not confirmedreduction of sentencedestruction of case propertycriminal appealheroin recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from a criminal appeal filed by Shereen Zada Khan against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had partly accepted his appeal, set aside his death sentence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and instead convicted him under Section 9(b) of the same Act, sentencing him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine, while maintaining his conviction under Section 17. The core legal question involved whether the appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced under Section 9(b) after the destruction of the case property without notice led to the setting aside of his initial Section 9(c) conviction, and whether the sentence warranted any further reduction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the appeal was without merit and dismissed it, noting that the appellant had already served out his entire sentence and the impugned judgment of the High Court was not open to exception. The key principle laid down is that where a conviction remains in the field and the appellant has already served the substantive sentence, no purpose is served by further reducing the sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the conviction under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 is sustainable when the case property was destroyed without notice to the accused?
  • Does any purpose lie in reducing a sentence where the appellant has already served out his entire substantive sentence?
  • Can a conviction and sentence under Section 17 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 be maintained if it was not questioned during arguments before the appellate court?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Hassan and others vs Gul Hassan Khan and others2022 SCP 36, 2022 SCMR 1360 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-06
  illegal dispossessionright of cross-examinationfair trialdue processcriminal trialconstitutional petitionfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the Peshawar High Court's judgment that dismissed the petitioners' criminal revision and upheld orders striking down their right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses (PWs 3-5) in a complaint under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The core legal question was whether an accused in a criminal or quasi-criminal trial can be deprived of the fundamental right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses due to non-appearance or delays caused by counsel. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding that the right to cross-examine witnesses is an essential attribute of a fair trial and due process, which cannot be arbitrarily denied. The Court laid down the principle that the concept of striking down the right of cross-examination is alien to criminal jurisprudence, and depriving an accused of the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses violates the fundamental right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 10A of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused in a criminal trial can be deprived of the right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses?
  • Is the concept of striking down a party's right of cross-examination applicable in criminal jurisprudence?
  • Does depriving an accused of the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses violate the fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Afzal vs The State and another2022 SCMR 186 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-12
  post-arrest baillalkaracommon intentionrule of consistencyfurther inquiryleave to appealcriminal jurisprudence
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition by leave to appeal arising from an order of the Lahore High Court declining post-arrest bail to the petitioner under sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was assigned a proverbial lalkara and the role of kicking the deceased persons, and whose co-accused with a similar allegation had been granted pre-arrest bail, was entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of further inquiry and consistency. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the case fell within the scope of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for further inquiry, particularly given the prior disassociation of the petitioner from the main co-accused via a newspaper proclamation and the principle of consistency regarding co-accused granted bail. The Court laid down the principle that liberty is a precious right and a favourite child of law, and that where the nature of a lalkara requires determination at trial and a co-accused with similar role is granted bail, the accused is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused assigned a proverbial lalkara and a role of kicking dead bodies is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry?
  • Does the grant of bail to a co-accused with a similar role entitle another co-accused to bail on the plea of consistency?
  • Can a petitioner be denied post-arrest bail when the question of whether a lalkara was commanding or proverbial requires determination after recording evidence at trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Hussain vs The State2022 SCMR 1358 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-02-14
  homicidedomestic violencestrangulationArticle 122 Qanun-e-Shahadatburden of proofmedical evidencewithholding of witnessacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenged the Lahore High Court’s judgment maintaining the appellant's conviction for the homicide of his wife. The prosecution alleged that the appellant strangulated the deceased with a dupatta and wire inside his house. The core legal questions pertained to whether the husband satisfactorily discharged his burden under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and whether the ocular testimony was credible when evaluated against medical evidence and the conduct of witnesses. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution's case was full of doubts. The Court observed that although Article 122 casts a heavy onus on a husband regarding a wife's homicidal death in his house, the appellant's explanation was plausible when weighed against the prosecution's glaring lacunas. Specifically, the father of the deceased was withheld from the witness box, the medical evidence contradicted the alleged strangulation mechanism due to the absence of a ligature mark, the witnesses implausibly failed to intervene, and an identically placed co-accused had already been acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 cast a heavy onus on a husband to explain the homicidal death of his wife occurring inside his house?
  • Can an accused husband be acquitted under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 if his explanation is plausible and the prosecution case is contradicted by medical evidence and the unexplained absence of a key witness?
  • Whether the failure of eye-witnesses to intervene to rescue a victim being assaulted in their plain view, combined with a conflict between ocular account and autopsy findings, renders the ocular testimony doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Hussain vs StatePLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 266 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-02-14
  homicideburden of proofocular evidencemedical evidencereasonable doubtdomestic violenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which maintained the appellant's conviction for the homicide of his wife. The prosecution alleged the appellant strangulated his wife, witnessed by the complainant and others. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the inconsistencies between the ocular account and medical evidence, and the absence of the deceased's father as a witness. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's case was fraught with doubts. The Court noted that while Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, places a heavy onus on a husband to explain a wife's death in their home, the appellant's explanation, when weighed against the evidence, created reasonable doubt. Specifically, the autopsy report lacked evidence of ligature marks consistent with strangulation, and the failure of four witnesses to intervene during the alleged assault was improbable. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to establish the manner of death as alleged.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to produce the deceased's father as a witness create a reasonable doubt in a murder case?
  • Can a conviction for strangulation be sustained when the autopsy report shows no ligature marks?
  • What is the effect of the acquittal of a co-accused on the prosecution's case against the remaining appellant?
  • How does the burden of proof under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 apply to the death of a wife within the matrimonial home?
  Read full judgment →
• Shan Muhammad alias Shany vs Said Mashal2022 SCP 94, 2022 SCMR 1340 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-05-15
  pre-emption suitTalb-i-Ishhadlimitationpleadingsburden of proofmutationcivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a pre-emption suit concerning a sale mutation. The core legal questions were whether the failure to explicitly mention the date of the notice of Talb-i-Ishhad in the plaint renders the suit liable to dismissal, and whether the appellant successfully proved the delivery of physical possession prior to the mutation's attestation to establish the suit as time-barred. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the respondent's failure to mention the date of the notice in the plaint was not fatal to the case, as the notice was on record, the appellant failed to raise this specific objection in the written statement or lower courts, and the evidence established substantial compliance with the law. Furthermore, the Court held that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as revenue records, to substantiate the claim of prior possession. The key principle laid down is that a pre-emptor cannot be non-suited for a bona fide omission of non-mentioning the date of notice in the plaint when the notice is otherwise available on the record and the deficiency was not pleaded by the defendant.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to mention the date of the notice of Talb-i-Ishhad in the plaint automatically render a pre-emption suit liable to dismissal?
  • Can a party raise a factual plea for the first time in the Supreme Court that was not pleaded in the written statement or raised in the lower courts?
  • Is a mere statement by a party regarding the delivery of possession sufficient evidence to establish the date of possession in a pre-emption case?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamsher Ahmad vs The State2022 SCP 236, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 951, 2022 SCMR 1931 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-08-01
  murderocular accountmedical evidencelife imprisonmentsentence enhancementrelated witnessesmotivecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed a petition against the conviction of Shamsher Ahmad for murder under Section 302(b) PPC. The petitioner was originally sentenced to death by the Trial Court, which was later commuted to life imprisonment by the High Court. The prosecution's case rested on ocular testimony from the deceased's father and cousin, supported by medical evidence. The defense argued that the night-time occurrence, delay in FIR, and lack of independent witnesses invalidated the conviction. The Supreme Court held that the ocular account was consistent and reliable, noting that the parties were related and thus mistaken identity was improbable. The Court clarified that minor discrepancies in testimony do not vitiate a case if the core narrative remains trustworthy. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that while the failure to prove motive and the lack of forensic matching for the recovered weapon justified the reduction of the sentence from death to life imprisonment, the conviction itself was legally sound. Consequently, the petitions for acquittal and enhancement of sentence were both dismissed.

  Read full judgment →
• Shameem Bibi vs The State etc2022 SCP 276, 2022 SCMR 2077 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-09-22
  post-arrest bailabetmentconspiracyCall Data Recordfurther inquirycriminal conspiracyPakistan Penal CodeCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged the Lahore High Court's order denying post-arrest bail to the petitioner, who was implicated in a murder case under Sections 394/302/411/109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on a supplementary statement alleging abetment. The core legal question was whether the prosecution provided sufficient material to justify continued incarceration given the lack of direct evidence. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case of conspiracy, as the essential ingredients of abetment under Section 107 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860—instigation, engagement, and intentional aid—were missing. Furthermore, the Court determined that Call Data Records, in isolation and without proof of ownership, do not constitute conclusive evidence of guilt. Emphasizing that liberty is a precious constitutional right and noting that the investigation was complete, the Court granted bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, ruling that the petitioner’s guilt warranted further inquiry by the Trial Court rather than pre-trial detention.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Call Data Record, in isolation, sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of an accused in a criminal case?
  • What are the essential ingredients required to establish the offense of abetment under Section 107 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the submission of a challan and the completion of investigation influence the court's decision to grant bail?
  • Under what circumstances does a case fall within the purview of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahray Khan (decd.) through LRs etc vs Qadir Bakhsh (decd.) through LRs2022 SCP 354 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-11-17
  life estateinheritanceconcurrent findingslimited ownershipalienation of propertyleave to appealMuslim Personal Law
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment upholding concurrent findings regarding the inheritance of agricultural land. The core legal questions concerned the validity of an alienation of property by a widow holding a life estate and the correct determination of the deceased's legal heirs. The Supreme Court held that the widow, as a limited owner, lacked the legal authority to alienate the property to her relatives, and the assertion that such alienation was necessary to satisfy a debt remained unsubstantiated. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which determined that the estate devolved upon the widow, mother, and sisters of the deceased, thereby excluding the collateral and the widow's relatives. The Court reiterated the principle that it will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are shown to be against the evidence, perverse, or involve a grave miscarriage of justice. Finding no misreading of evidence or legal defect, the Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a widow holding a life estate validly alienate the property to third parties?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts?
  • Does the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962 affect the status of a limited owner?
  • Are sisters of a deceased person entitled to inherit the estate if the deceased left a widow and mother?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Zaib & another vs The State2022 SCP 9, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 626, 2022 SCMR 1225 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-02-17
  abduction for ransomsimple abductioncriminal appealanti-terrorismred-handed arrestconviction modification
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a judgment by the Lahore High Court, which upheld the appellants' convictions for abduction for ransom and terrorism. The prosecution alleged that the appellants kidnapped the victim, Farhan Saeed, for ransom, leading to a police chase, an encounter, and the victim's rescue. The appellants contended that the prosecution's narrative was inconsistent, particularly regarding the ransom note, and suggested the incident was a fabricated encounter. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the evidence, found that while the appellants were caught red-handed with the handcuffed victim, the prosecution failed to conclusively prove the specific charge of abduction for ransom under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court held that the circumstances supported a conviction for simple abduction rather than abduction for ransom or terrorism. Consequently, the Court converted the conviction from Section 365-A to Section 365 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reduced the sentence to seven years of rigorous imprisonment, and set aside the conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of a ransom note in an abandoned vehicle, without further corroborating evidence, conclusively prove the offense of abduction for ransom under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a conviction for abduction for ransom be converted to simple abduction if the prosecution fails to establish the element of ransom?
  • Does the mere act of abduction, absent specific evidence of terrorism, satisfy the requirements for a conviction under Section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Senior Superintendent Of Police (Operations), etc vs Shahid Nazir2022 PLJ SC 16 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-12
  departmental inquirymisconductservice appealcriminal proceedingsmajor penaltydispensing with inquiryacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal which partly allowed a service appeal and converted the dismissal of a police official into a forfeiture of two years of service. The core legal questions involved whether criminal and departmental proceedings can proceed concurrently, and whether dispensing with a regular departmental inquiry based solely on pending or decided criminal FIRs is legally sustainable when imposing a major penalty. The Supreme Court held that while criminal and departmental proceedings are distinct and can run concurrently, dispensing with a regular inquiry is not permissible where charges are based on disputed questions of fact rather than admitted documents, and an acquittal or stoppage of proceedings under Sections 249 or 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not automatically absolve the department from holding a regular inquiry. The key principles laid down are that departmental proceedings and criminal trials have different standards of proof and objectives, and although regular inquiries are not a mandatory prerequisite in every case, dispensing with them requires compelling, justiciable reasons in writing, particularly when charges involve disputed facts requiring witness examination.

  Questions settled

  • Can criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings be conducted concurrently against a civil servant on the same allegations?
  • Is it mandatory to hold a regular departmental inquiry in every case before imposing a major penalty?
  • Does an acquittal or stoppage of proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 debar an employer from exercising disciplinary powers under service rules?
  • When can a competent authority lawfully dispense with a regular departmental inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Senior Superintendent Of Police (Operations) and others vs Shahid Nazir2022 SCMR 327, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 679, 2022 PLJ SC 16, 2022 PSC 1257 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-12
  service lawregular inquirymisconductmajor penaltycriminal acquittaldisciplinary proceedingspolice departmentnatural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a Punjab Service Tribunal judgment which converted the respondent's dismissal from service into a forfeiture of two years of service. The respondent, a police constable, was dismissed following a show-cause notice under the Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975, citing involvement in eight criminal cases. The department dispensed with a regular inquiry, relying on documentary evidence of the FIRs. The core legal question was whether a regular inquiry could be dispensed with when charges of misconduct involve disputed facts and criminal allegations. The Supreme Court held that while criminal and departmental proceedings are distinct and can proceed concurrently, a regular inquiry is mandatory when findings of fact depend on witness testimony or when major penalties are contemplated. The Court noted that acquittal in criminal court does not bar disciplinary action, but the presumption of innocence requires that mere registration of FIRs without conviction cannot justify dispensing with an inquiry. Finding the department's conduct negligent in failing to challenge the respondent's acquittals, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling that remanding for an inquiry after significant delay would serve no constructive purpose.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a departmental inquiry can be dispensed with when the charges of misconduct are based on disputed questions of fact?
  • Does an acquittal in a criminal case under Section 249 or 249-A Cr.P.C. debar an employer from exercising disciplinary powers under service rules?
  • Is the mere registration of an FIR sufficient documentary evidence to dispense with a regular inquiry before imposing a major penalty?
  • What is the distinction between the standard of proof required in criminal trials versus departmental disciplinary proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary, M/o Finance, Islamabad, etc vs DG, Fde, Government Of2022 PLJ SC 90 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Islamabad-and others vs Tayyaba Halim2022 SCMR 77, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 514, 2022 PSC 864 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-01-27
  daily wage employeespensionary benefitspay protectionartificial breaksstop-gap arrangementdiscriminationservice tribunalregularization
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal and associated petitions arose from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which directed the government to provide pay protection and count the daily-wage services of teachers and lecturers towards their pensionary benefits. The appellants contended that under Civil Service Regulations (CSR) 361 and Article 352, daily-wage service does not qualify for pension as it lacks a substantive and permanent character. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal and petitions, holding that the continuous service of the respondents for many years, despite artificial breaks created by the employer, proved the permanent nature of their establishment and posts. The Court ruled that denying pay protection and pension benefits to daily-wage employees while granting them to ad-hoc employees was discriminatory, violating Articles 3, 25-A, and 38 of the Constitution. The Court laid down that artificial breaks in service cannot negate the continuous nature of employment, and long-term daily-wage service in permanent establishments must be counted towards pensionary benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Can service rendered on a daily wage basis be counted towards pensionary benefits and pay protection if the employee has served continuously for several years?
  • Does the creation of artificial breaks by an employer negate the continuous and permanent nature of an employee's service?
  • What constitutes a 'stop-gap arrangement' in service jurisprudence, and can long-term employment extending over several years be classified as such?
  • Is it discriminatory and unconstitutional under Articles 3 and 38 of the Constitution to deny pension benefits to regularized daily-wage teachers while granting them to ad-hoc teachers?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Islamabad and others vs Tayyaba Halim2022.PLC (C.S.) 514, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 514 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-01-27
  daily wage employeespensionary benefitspay protectionservice regularizationartificial breaks in servicestop-gap arrangementfundamental rightsservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the entitlement of employees, specifically teachers and lecturers, to have their prior service rendered on a daily wage basis counted towards pay protection and pensionary benefits. The appellants challenged the Federal Service Tribunal's decision, which had allowed these benefits, arguing that daily wage service does not qualify for pension under the Civil Service Regulations (CSR) and that such employment was merely a stop-gap arrangement. The Supreme Court held that the respondents' long-term service, despite artificial breaks, constituted substantive and permanent employment rather than a stop-gap arrangement. The Court emphasized that the government cannot exploit employees by creating artificial breaks to deny them service benefits. Relying on the principle of equality and the state's obligation to eliminate exploitation, the Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, ruling that the respondents' daily wage service must be counted towards their pension and pay protection. The Court further deprecated the practice of hiring teachers on a daily wage basis, noting it contradicts constitutional principles and the importance of education.

  Questions settled

  • Can service rendered on a daily wage basis be counted towards pensionary benefits and pay protection?
  • Does the creation of artificial breaks in employment negate the permanent nature of a position?
  • Can the government deny pensionary benefits to employees by classifying their long-term service as a stop-gap arrangement?
  • Is the hiring of teachers on a daily wage basis consistent with the constitutional obligations of the state?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary Schools Education, Government of Punjab and others vs Asghari2022 SCMR 2096 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-12-22
  Service lawBogus appointmentDepartmental appealLachesVexatious litigationService TribunalDismissal from serviceReinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns civil petitions filed by the Secretary Schools Education, Government of Punjab, challenging the Punjab Service Tribunal's decisions to reinstate two teachers who were dismissed for procuring and utilizing bogus appointment and transfer orders. The core legal questions involved whether the Tribunal erred in ignoring evidence of the respondents' fraudulent conduct and whether the respondents had exhausted proper departmental remedies before approaching the Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal’s decisions were unsustainable, as the respondents were afforded ample opportunities to defend themselves through multiple show-cause notices but failed to do so, instead engaging in vexatious litigation. Furthermore, one respondent failed to file a timely departmental appeal, and the other failed to challenge the withdrawal of her initial appointment for nineteen years, invoking the principle of laches. The Court established that a litigant who sleeps on their rights cannot claim relief, and that the Tribunal cannot entertain service appeals where mandatory departmental appeals were not filed within the prescribed statutory period. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's judgments and upheld the dismissals.

  Questions settled

  • Can a service appeal be maintained before the Service Tribunal if the aggrieved party failed to file a departmental appeal within the statutory period?
  • Does the principle of laches apply to a challenge against an order of withdrawal of appointment made nineteen years prior?
  • Is the competent authority empowered to impose a penalty greater than that proposed in a show-cause notice if the circumstances warrant it?
  • Can a service tribunal set aside dismissal orders without considering evidence of fraudulent appointment or transfer documents?
  Read full judgment →