Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 37,514 judgments in total from the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

• The Chairman Board of Governors, Medical Teaching institute (Mti) Lady2021 P SC 1075, 2021 SCMR 867, 2021 SCP 142 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-02-03
  deputationMedical Teaching Institutiontermination of deputationrepatriation to parent departmentBoard of Governorscivil servantswrit petition maintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the judgment of the Peshawar High Court which set aside the termination of deputation of the private respondents and directed their continued employment in the Medical Teaching Institution (MTI). The core legal question was whether the Board of Governors of an MTI is competent to terminate the deputation of civil servants working therein without assigning reasons, and whether a deputationist has an enforceable right to continue in such employment. The Supreme Court held that under Section 16(3B) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Medical Teaching Institutions Reforms Act, 2015, civil servants in an MTI are deemed to be on deputation, and the Board of Governors is fully competent to terminate their deputation at any time without assigning reasons, reverting their services to the government. The Court laid down the principle that a deputationist has no vested right to continue in deputation employment and cannot challenge an order of repatriation passed by the competent authority in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Board of Governors of a Medical Teaching Institution is competent to terminate the deputation of a civil servant without assigning any reason under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Medical Teaching Institutions Reforms Act, 2015?
  • Does a deputationist have a vested right to continue serving for the total period of deputation?
  • Whether a writ petition filed by a deputationist challenging the termination of deputation is maintainable when the employer acts within its statutory powers?
  Read full judgment →
• The Chairman Agriculture Policy Institute, Ministry of National Food Security2021 SCP 426, 2022 PSC 1094, 2022 SCMR 636 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-12-13
  verbal terminationservice lawsnatural justicereinstatementback benefitsgood governanceadministrative lawcontractual employment
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition challenged a judgment by the Federal Service Tribunal, which had set aside a verbal termination order and directed the reinstatement of the respondent, a driver at the Agriculture Policy Institute. The core legal question was whether an employer could terminate an employee’s services through a verbal order without providing written reasons or following due process. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the verbal termination was illegal and unjustified. The Court affirmed that verbal termination is alien to both labour and service laws and violates the principles of natural justice, which require that an affected party be given a fair opportunity to respond before any adverse action is taken. The Court emphasized that good governance necessitates that administrative decisions be conducted transparently and in accordance with established rules. Consequently, the Court upheld the Tribunal’s order for reinstatement with back benefits, ruling that all terminations must be executed through written orders containing explicit reasons to ensure fairness and prevent the miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employer terminate an employee's services through a verbal order?
  • Does the principle of natural justice apply to administrative decisions regarding the termination of employment?
  • Is a verbal termination order legally sustainable under service and labour laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Tasawar Hussain vs Deputy Commissioner District, Jhelum and others2021 SCMR 1367, 2021 SCP 260 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-06-08
  service matterabsence from dutyPEEDA Actdismissal from serviceremoval from serviceenhancement of penaltyregular inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellant's writ petition against his dismissal from service. The appellant, a Chowkidar in the Municipal Committee Pind Dadan Khan, remained absent from duty for twenty-three months without leave, during which a criminal case was registered against him and he absconded abroad. Following an inquiry, the competent authority imposed the major penalty of dismissal from service under Section 4(b)(vi) of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, modifying the inquiry officer's recommendation of removal from service under Section 4(b)(v). The core legal questions involved whether a regular inquiry is required when absence is admitted, and whether the competent authority must assign reasons when enhancing a recommended penalty. The Supreme Court held that where absence from duty is admitted, a regular inquiry is unnecessary. However, the Court ruled that when a competent authority enhances a penalty from removal to dismissal, it is under a legal obligation to assign justiciable reasons. The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the penalty from dismissal to removal from service.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a regular inquiry is required when absence from duty is admitted by an employee?
  • Is the competent authority bound to follow the recommendations made by an inquiry officer regarding the quantum of penalty?
  • Whether the competent authority is under a legal obligation to assign justiciable reasons when enhancing a recommended penalty?
  • What is the distinction in legal consequences between the penalty of removal from service and dismissal from service under the PEEDA Act, 2006?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mehmood vs The StatePLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 161, PLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 162, 2021 P SC (Crl.) 445, 2021 SCMR 471 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-11-02
  murder appealsafe administration of criminal justicefractional relianceindependent corroborationeyewitness credibilityacquittalbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  Criminal appeal by leave before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging the judgment of the High Court, which upheld the appellant's conviction for homicide and murderous assault while altering the death penalty to life imprisonment, following the acquittal of five co-accused. The primary legal issue was whether fractional reliance on ocular testimony disbelieved regarding the majority of the accused could safely sustain a solitary conviction without independent corroboration. The Supreme Court observed that the ocular evidence was inherently flawed, noting the implausibility of the eyewitnesses miraculously escaping point-blank gunfire, the lack of recovered casings, unsupportive forensic reports, and the discrediting of witnesses concerning their own assailants. The Court held that placing fractional reliance on such discredited testimony poses a serious risk of error and violates the principles of safe administration of criminal justice. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can the conviction of a solitary accused be safely sustained upon fractional reliance on ocular evidence that has been disbelieved regarding multiple co-accused?
  • Whether independent corroboration is required to uphold a conviction when ocular testimony is rejected qua the majority of co-accused?
  • What is the evidential effect of eyewitnesses miraculously escaping point-blank gunfire without supporting physical or forensic evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Ahmed and others vs National Accountability Bureau through Chairman and others2021 SCMR 871 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-04-14
  bailNational Accountability Bureauembezzlementcondition of depositSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions assailing orders of the High Court of Sindh at Sukkur granting anticipatory and post-arrest bails to accused individuals in various National Accountability Bureau references subject to the condition of depositing allegedly embezzled amounts. The core legal question concerns the legality of imposing such financial deposit conditions for bail and the propriety of wholesale treatment of bail petitions. The Supreme Court held that granting bail in an omnibus manner without regard to distinct facts, circumstances, and applicable legal regimes is impermissible, and that imposing a condition to deposit embezzled amounts is alien to law. The Court set aside the impugned orders, converted the petitions into appeals, and remitted the bail petitions back to the High Court for fresh decision on their own merits in accordance with settled principles.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a court can make the grant of bail conditional upon the deposit of allegedly embezzled amounts?
  • Is the wholesale treatment of bail petitions in an omnibus manner without regard to distinct facts and circumstances permissible?
  • What is the proper course of action when bail petitions are disposed of by the High Court without considering the distinct facts and applicable legal regimes of each case?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahsinullah vs Mst. Parveen (deceased) through her L.Rs and others.2021 SCP 410, 2022 SCMR 346 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-25
  gift mutationtamleekIslamic law of inheritancecondonation of delayco-owners possessionburden of proofvalid gift requisites
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a challenge to a High Court revision judgment that set aside an appellate court decree and restored the trial court's decision invalidating a gift mutation (tamleek) in favour of the appellant. The appellant claimed that his late father gifted him land via mutation attested on 4 June 1983; however, the sisters successfully challenged the gift via a civil suit. The Supreme Court observed that the appeal was time-barred despite applying the COVID-19 lockdown circular extension. On examining the merits, the Supreme Court noted that the acceptance of the gift was missing from the mutation record, and the alleged gift was made on the exact date of the father's death, rendering it highly suspect. The Court affirmed that the burden to prove a valid gift lay upon the beneficiary, which he failed to discharge. Upon a Muslim's death, legal heirs inherit their shares under Islamic Shari'ah automatically, and possession by one co-owner is deemed possession for all. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on merits and limitation with costs, directing the District Collector to implement the trial court decree and hand over possession to the legal heirs within three months.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of establishing a valid gift rest upon the beneficiary claiming under the gift mutation?
  • Does the possession of one co-owner/co-heir in inherited property constitute deemed legal possession for all co-heirs?
  • Can a gift mutation lacking recorded acceptance and allegedly executed on the day of the donor's death be sustained in law without strict proof?
  Read full judgment →
• Syeda Sumera Andleeb vs The State and another2021 SCP 204, 2021 SCMR 1227 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-06-07
  post-arrest baildishonored chequejoint accountprohibitory clausehabitual offendercriminal liabilitywoman accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, sought post-arrest bail for the petitioner, who was accused in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) regarding a dishonored cheque. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, a female co-account holder, was entitled to bail despite allegations of habitual offending and the dishonoring of a cheque issued from a joint account. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower courts' orders and granting bail. The Court held that the offence under Section 489-F PPC does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). Furthermore, the Court established the principle that the mere registration of multiple criminal cases against an accused is insufficient to deprive them of their liberty if they are otherwise entitled to bail. Additionally, the Court emphasized that the petitioner's status as a woman with minor children, combined with the non-prohibitory nature of the offence, warranted the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere registration of multiple criminal cases against an accused person constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail?
  • Does an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  • Is a co-account holder entitled to bail when the primary accused is a fugitive from law and the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Muddasar Shah Termizi and others vs Peshawar High Court, Peshawar through Registrar, Peshawar and others2021 KLR Criminal Cases 162, 2021 PLC (C.S. ) 440, 2021 P SC 246, 2021 SCMR 116 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-11-04
  civil servicesenioritycontractual appointmentdeeming provisionpensionary benefitsstatutory interpretationregularizationjudicial officers
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns whether judicial officers, initially appointed on contract and subsequently regularized, are entitled to seniority from the date of their initial contractual appointment. The appellants relied on the deeming provision in Section 19 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Act, 1973, which regularized certain contract appointments for pensionary purposes. The core legal question is whether this statutory fiction regarding regularization extends to the determination of seniority. The Supreme Court held that the deeming provision is strictly limited to the purpose of calculating pension and gratuity and cannot be extended to collateral matters like seniority. The Court affirmed that seniority is governed by separate statutory provisions and cannot be reckoned from a date prior to a civil servant's entry into regular service. Consequently, the Court ruled that while the appellants are deemed regularized for pensionary and monetary benefits, this does not affect their seniority, which must be determined according to the relevant service rules. The appeal was partly allowed to the extent of clarifying the scope of the deeming provision.

  Questions settled

  • Does a statutory deeming provision regularizing contract employees for pension purposes automatically entitle them to seniority from the date of their initial contract appointment?
  • Can a deeming provision in a statute be extended beyond the specific section in which it is enacted?
  • Is seniority for civil servants determined from the date of initial contractual appointment or from the date of entry into regular service?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Jawad Shah vs The State and others2022 SCMR 660, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 97, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 753 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-15
  bail cancellationpost-arrest bailmurderous assaultmisuse of libertyconstitutional jurisdictioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, assailing the High Court's order whereby post-arrest bail previously granted to the petitioner in a case registered under sections 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was cancelled. The core legal question revolves around the proper principles and justifications required for the cancellation of bail once granted, and whether the petitioner's non-appearance before the trial court warranted such cancellation. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, setting aside the impugned order of the High Court. The Court held that considerations for the grant of bail and its cancellation are distinct, and once bail is granted, exceptionally strong reasons—such as misuse of liberty or statutory grounds—are required to recall it. The Court emphasized that liberty is a precious constitutional right, and where an accused makes out a case on merits and provides plausible explanations for non-appearance, bail should not be lightly revoked.

  Questions settled

  • What are the exceptional grounds required for the cancellation of bail once it has been granted to an accused?
  • Whether the non-appearance of an accused before the trial court automatically justifies the cancellation of bail without considering mitigating circumstances?
  • Are the considerations for granting bail and those for recalling bail on entirely different footings?
  • Does an accused who has spent a considerable period behind bars in a case of ineffective firing make out a meritorious case for bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Iqbal Hussain Shah Gillani vs Pakistan Bar Council through its2021 KLR Supreme Court Cases 143, 2021 PLJ SC 209, 2021 P SC 651, 2021 SCMR 425, 2021 SCP 78 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-10-28
  Constitutional petitionWrit jurisdictionMaintainabilityPakistan Bar CouncilSupreme Court Bar Association PakistanDisqualification from electionsAutonomous bodyFundamental rightsNon-statutory body
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal challenging a High Court judgment that dismissed a constitutional petition as non-maintainable. The original constitutional petition sought to challenge the petitioner's disqualification by the Executive Committee of the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) from contesting elections for the Supreme Court Bar Association Pakistan (SCBAP). The core legal question before the Supreme Court was the maintainability of a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution against the PBC and its committees, including the SCBAP. The Court held that the PBC, established under the Legal Practitioners & Bar Councils Act, 1973, is an autonomous body, and neither it nor its committees perform public functions connected with the affairs of the Federation, Provinces, or Local Authority. Consequently, they are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199. The Court further clarified that the SCBAP is a non-statutory body, and its rules are non-statutory, meaning any violation of its rules is not enforceable through writ jurisdiction. The Court also determined that internal disqualification by such bodies does not constitute a violation of fundamental rights enforceable under Article 199, and factual disputes are unsuitable for resolution in writ jurisdiction. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Read full judgment →
• Syed Husnain Haider vs The State and another2021 P SC (Crl.) 825 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-06-14
  dishonoured chequesfinancial obligationnegotiable instrumentscriminal liabilitycivil disputeleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal petition seeking leave to appeal against the refusal of pre-arrest/judicial protection by the Lahore High Court in a case involving dishonoured bank cheques. The petitioner was accused by a close relative of issuing two cheques amounting to rupees one crore forty-seven lac in discharge of a financial obligation arising from a botched land transaction, which subsequently bounced upon presentation. The core legal question pertained to whether criminal liability regarding dishonoured cheques could be avoided through a bald plea that the instruments were handed over as security and that a civil declaratory suit was pending. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to establish any contractual clause supporting the claim of being a surety, and that statutory presumptions regarding valid negotiable instruments cannot be easily warded off by unverified assertions. The Court ruled that in the absence of mala fide or animus behind the prosecution, criminal proceedings must take their normal course. Leave to appeal was accordingly declined.

  Questions settled

  • Can a drawer ward off the consequences of a dishonoured cheque through a bald plea of being an unsuspecting surety?
  • Does the pendency of a civil declaratory suit relating to a family feud divert the usual course of criminal law regarding bounced cheques?
  • Whether statutory presumptions attached to negotiable instruments can be displaced without concrete contractual proof?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Hasnain Haider vs The State and another2021 SCMR 1466 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-14
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequescriminal breachstatutory presumptionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal seeking pre-arrest bail in a criminal case involving dishonoured bank cheques amounting to rupees one crore forty-seven lac, issued in connection with a disputed financial obligation. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner has made out a case for pre-arrest bail based on the contention that the cheques were handed over as security instruments rather than for a subsisting financial obligation, and whether the criminal process is being abused. The Supreme Court held that the instruments belonged to the petitioner and carried a statutory presumption of validity, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate any agreement showing he stood as a surety or to establish mala fides or improper motives on the part of the complainant for his arrest. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was declined, affirming the concurrent denial of pre-arrest bail by the lower forums.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a drawer can avoid the legal consequences of a dishonoured cheque through a bald plea of being an unsuspecting surety?
  • Does the issuance of a bank cheque carry a statutory presumption of being a valid instrument?
  • Whether long-delayed arrest in a non-bailable and cognizable offence without proof of mala fides warrants the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Hasnain Haider vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 337 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-14
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequestatutory presumptionfinancial obligationcriminal liabilitycognizable offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges the refusal of pre-arrest bail by the Lahore High Court in a case involving dishonoured bank cheques. The petitioner, accused of issuing cheques worth one crore forty-seven lac that subsequently bounced, contended that the instruments were provided as security for a family dispute rather than a valid financial obligation, and that they were fraudulently obtained. The petitioner further argued that a declaratory suit regarding the underlying transaction is currently pending before a Civil Court. The Supreme Court examined the instruments and noted that the petitioner failed to substantiate the claim that the cheques were issued as security or to provide any contractual basis for such a plea. The Court held that a drawer of a cheque cannot evade the legal consequences of dishonour through a bald assertion of being an unsuspecting surety, especially when the instrument carries a statutory presumption of validity. Finding no evidence of mala fide or animus to justify interfering with the concurrent findings of the lower courts in a cognizable offence, the Court declined leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a drawer of a cheque avoid criminal liability for a dishonoured instrument by claiming it was issued as a security instrument without providing evidence of the underlying contract?
  • Is a bald plea of being an unsuspecting surety sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption of a valid financial instrument?
  • Does the pendency of a civil declaratory suit regarding a transaction automatically entitle an accused to pre-arrest bail in a criminal case involving dishonoured cheques?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Hamad Raza vs The State & others2021 SCP 420, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 367, 2022 SCMR 640 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-16
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationmurderous assaultunlawful assemblycriminal investigationhomicide
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the pre-arrest bail granted by the Lahore High Court to Aqeel Abbas, an accused charged along with others for murderous assault and homicide following a dispute after a religious congregation, resulting in multiple casualties. The core legal question is whether pre-arrest bail was rightly granted to an accused with a specific role in a heinous crime on grounds of possible false implication or because his specific injury was categorized as bailable. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, setting aside the impugned order and cancelling the pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent. The court held that sweeping findings regarding mala fide without evidential foundations are unsustainable, and the specific role or injury of an accused in a non-bailable offence cannot be artificially isolated to dispense with the stringent requirements of pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that arrest in cognizable non-bailable offences is essential for smooth investigation, and the role in such crimes cannot be quantified at the pre-arrest stage to justify extraordinary judicial protection.

  Questions settled

  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted on the mere ground of potential false implication or exaggeration without evidential foundations?
  • Whether the classification of a specific injury as bailable can justify the grant of pre-arrest bail when the accused is a participant in a non-bailable offence?
  • Is arrest in cognizable non-bailable offences necessary for the smooth conclusion of the investigative process?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Azam Shah vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Cabinet2021 SCP 416, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 383, 2022 SCMR 201 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-19
  monetization allowancecivil servantlocus poenitentiaeintelligible differentiareasonable classificationjudicial reviewservice lawtransport facility
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from the dismissal of a service appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the discontinuation of a monetization allowance previously granted to the appellant, a Principal (BS-20). The appellant contended that the withdrawal of the allowance after four years violated the principle of locus poenitentiae and was discriminatory compared to doctors and professors in government hospitals. The Supreme Court examined the 'Policy for Monetization of Transport Facility for Civil Servants (BS-20 to BS-22)' and observed that the allowance was contingent upon the prior entitlement and use of official vehicles, which the appellant failed to prove. The Court held that the exclusion of teachers and principals from the policy was based on a reasonable classification and 'intelligible differentia' given the nature of their duties compared to medical professionals. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the doctrine of locus poenitentiae does not protect benefits extended erroneously or without legal sanction, as illegal orders do not create perpetual rights. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

  Read full judgment →
• Syed Athar Hussain Shah vs Haji Muhammad Riaz and another2022 SCMR 778 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-24
  specific performancelimitationSection 53-Apart performancedeclaratory suitcancellation of sale deedcontinuous running of timerejection of plaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the concurrent dismissal of a third suit filed by the petitioner seeking specific performance of a 1997 sale agreement, cancellation of a subsequent 1998 sale deed, and a declaration of ownership. The petitioner's first suit was rejected for non-payment of court fees, and a second suit was withdrawn. The core legal question was whether the third suit, filed over five years after the agreement, was time-barred despite the inclusion of a declaratory prayer and reliance on Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The Supreme Court held that once limitation begins to run, it cannot be stopped by subsequent disability or the filing of fresh suits. The Court ruled that the substance of the relief governs limitation; adding a declaratory prayer (with a six-year limit) cannot save a suit where the primary reliefs of specific performance and cancellation are barred by the three-year limit under Articles 113 and 91 of the Limitation Act. Furthermore, Section 53-A is a shield for defense, not a weapon of offense for seeking title. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the addition of a declaratory relief with a longer limitation period can save a suit where the primary reliefs are already time-barred?
  • Does the withdrawal of a previous suit or the rejection of a plaint stop the continuous running of time under Section 9 of the Limitation Act?
  • Can Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act be used as a 'weapon of offense' to assert title in a declaratory suit?
  • Whether the period of limitation for a fresh suit instituted after the withdrawal of a previous suit is affected by the institution of the first suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Arshad Ali vs Secretary Ministry Of Housing And Works, Islamabad2022 SCMR 729 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-12-22
  inter se senioritycivil servantspromotiontransferservice appealseniority listCivil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal concerns the determination of inter se seniority between an appellant, who was promoted to the post of Assistant in 2003, and private respondents, who were transferred to the same post in the same calendar year. The core legal question was whether the appellant’s promotion entitled him to seniority over the transferees under the prevailing service rules. The Supreme Court held that the seniority list was correctly prepared. Relying on Rule 6 of the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993, the Court determined that the rule explicitly mandates that persons appointed by transfer in a particular calendar year shall, as a class, be senior to those appointed by promotion or initial appointment to such posts in that same year. Consequently, the Court found no illegality in the impugned judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal and dismissed the appeal. The principle established is that in the absence of specific contrary circumstances, the statutory classification in Rule 6 governs seniority disputes between promotees and transferees within the same calendar year.

  Questions settled

  • Does Rule 6 of the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993 grant seniority to transferees over promotees within the same calendar year?
  • Is a civil servant promoted to a post in a calendar year senior to a civil servant transferred to the same post in the same year?
  • Can a civil servant claim seniority based on promotion over those transferred to the same post in the same calendar year?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ahmad vs Ali Akbar, etc2021 P SC 566 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-03-11
  giftunregistered gift deedcompulsory registrationoral giftMuslim lawspecific performancerejection of plaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court which accepted a civil revision and upheld the rejection of the appellant's plaint in a suit for declaration and specific performance regarding immovable property. The core legal question was whether a suit based on an unregistered written gift deed or agreement/Hibba-nama of immovable property was competent under sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, read with sections 123 and 129 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that while an oral gift under Muslim law is valid if declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession are proved, and an unregistered written memorandum merely acknowledging a past oral gift does not require registration, a gift claimed strictly on the basis of a written gift deed itself is compulsorily registrable under section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. Since the appellant claimed the gift exclusively through an unregistered written document rather than pleading an independent oral gift, the suit was not competent under section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit for declaration and specific performance based on an unregistered written gift deed is competent in light of sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908?
  • Do sections 123 and 129 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 exempt an immovable property gift made in writing by a Muslim from compulsory registration?
  • What is the legal effect of relying upon an unregistered written gift instrument rather than pleading an independent oral gift under Muslim law?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ahmad vs Ali Akbar and others2021 SCMR 743 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-03-11
  unregistered gift deedoral giftMuhammadan Lawcompulsory registrationrejection of plaintspecific performancetransfer of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court whereby a suit for declaration and specific performance filed by the appellant-plaintiff, based on an unregistered written gift deed, was rejected under sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. The core legal question was whether a suit for declaration and specific performance is competent on the basis of an unregistered written gift deed where no oral gift was pleaded. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that while an oral gift under Muhammadan Law is valid without registration if the three essential conditions (offer, acceptance, and delivery of possession) are met, and a written memorandum acknowledging a past oral gift does not require registration, a gift claimed strictly on the basis of a written instrument or gift deed must be compulsorily registered under section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. The principle laid down is that where a plaintiff founds their claim on a written gift deed rather than an independent oral gift, the document is inadmissible to confer title without registration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit for declaration and specific performance is competent on the basis of an unregistered written gift deed?
  • Does a written gift of immovable property require compulsory registration under section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908?
  • What is the legal distinction between an oral gift under Muhammadan Law and a gift created through a written instrument?
  • What is the effect of non-registration of a gift deed under section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Suo Motu Case No. 4 of 2021 In the matter of vs N/A2021 SCMR 1602 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-08-20
  suo motu jurisdictionfreedom of the pressfundamental rightsjournalist safetyconstitutional petitionfreedom of profession
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from an application submitted by journalists alleging widespread violations of Fundamental Rights, including harassment, attacks, and censorship, allegedly involving state instrumentalities and the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA). The core legal question concerned whether matters relating to the infringement of press freedom, freedom of profession, right to liberty, and other constitutional guarantees raised issues of public importance requiring the invocation of original jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the application disclosed grave matters concerning the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and decided to treat it as a petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Notices were issued to various federal ministries, the Director General of FIA, the Chairman of PEMRA, the Inspector General of Police Islamabad, and representative bodies of the press to submit reports and explanations regarding the allegations. The key principle laid down is that the judiciary is mandated to protect Fundamental Rights, including the freedom of the press and expression, and state functionaries must ensure these rights are neither undermined nor violated.

  Questions settled

  • Can an application regarding systemic harassment and violations of journalists' fundamental rights be treated as a direct petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution?
  • Does the issuance of a press release by a state agency implying judicial involvement in registering cases against journalists undermine public confidence in the judiciary?
  • Whether the coercion of media houses to dismiss journalists violates the constitutional right to enter upon any lawful profession or occupation?
  • What are the obligations of law enforcement agencies and state ministries when fundamental rights such as liberty and freedom of speech of journalists are violated?
  Read full judgment →
• Suo Moto Case No. 4 of 2021 vs N/A2021 KLR Supreme Court Cases 365 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-08-26
  suo motu jurisdictionChief Justice of Pakistanjudicial procedureconstitutional jurisdictionSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the exercise of the Supreme Court's suo motu jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court addressed the procedural mechanism for invoking this jurisdiction, specifically clarifying the authority required to initiate such proceedings. The Court held that the Chief Justice of Pakistan is the sole authority empowered to invoke or assume suo motu jurisdiction. While the Chief Justice may exercise this discretion independently, they are obligated to do so if requested or recommended by a Bench of the Court. Crucially, the Court ruled that no individual Bench may take any step or issue any order that constitutes an exercise of suo motu jurisdiction—such as issuing notices, conducting inquiries, or summoning authorities—unless the Chief Justice has formally invoked or assumed that jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court recalled a previous order dated 20.08.2021 and disposed of the pending proceedings, directing that substantive claims be placed before the Chief Justice for consideration. This judgment establishes the exclusive procedural authority of the Chief Justice in initiating suo motu actions.

  Questions settled

  • Who is the sole authority empowered to invoke or assume the suo motu jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 184(3)?
  • Can a Bench of the Supreme Court exercise suo motu jurisdiction without the Chief Justice having invoked or assumed it?
  • Is the Chief Justice of Pakistan obligated to invoke suo motu jurisdiction if requested or recommended by a Bench of the Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd. through G.M. Hayatabad Peshawar vs Messrs Saif Textile Mills Ltd2021 SCMR 1395 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-06-30
  consumer protectiongas supply disputemeter tamperingpublic exchequerwrit jurisdictionstatutory interpretationleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute between Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited (SNGPL) and a textile mill regarding alleged gas meter tampering and subsequent financial loss to the exchequer. The respondent filed a writ petition in the Peshawar High Court, which was initially transmitted to the Consumer Court established under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumer Protection Act, 1997. Following multiple rounds of litigation where the Consumer Court dismissed the complaint, the High Court eventually accepted the respondent's appeal and allowed the complaint. The petitioner (SNGPL) challenged this before the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court erred in referring a matter involving factual controversies and technical verification to the Consumer Court. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that the respondent does not qualify as a 'consumer' and the petitioner is not a 'manufacturer' under the definitions provided in the Act. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the contentions raised require consideration, and suspended the operation of the impugned High Court judgment pending final adjudication, emphasizing the involvement of public funds.

  Questions settled

  • Does a dispute regarding gas meter tampering and alleged financial loss to the exchequer fall within the jurisdiction of a Consumer Court?
  • Can a commercial entity operating a textile mill be classified as a 'consumer' under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumer Protection Act, 1997?
  • Is a gas supply company considered a 'manufacturer' under the definitions provided in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumer Protection Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Legal2021 PTD 1582 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-03-05
  Income Tax Ordinance 2001delayed tax refundcapital receiptrevenue receipttaxable incomecompensation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the taxability of compensation paid to a taxpayer under Section 171 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, for delays in receiving tax refunds. The core legal question was whether such compensation constitutes a capital receipt or a revenue receipt, thereby determining its taxability. The taxpayer contended the amount was a capital receipt, while the tax department argued it was taxable income. The High Court ruled against the taxpayer, concluding that the compensation retains the character of the principal refund amount, which is revenue in nature. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision. The Court reasoned that because the underlying refund relates to revenue, the compensation for its delay cannot be classified as a capital receipt. Furthermore, the Court observed that the taxpayer’s own audited accounts disclosed the compensation as "Other Operating Income," contradicting their stance. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the compensation is taxable as revenue, while explicitly limiting the scope of this holding to the specific facts presented in this case.

  Questions settled

  • Is compensation received under Section 171 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 for a delayed tax refund considered a capital receipt or a revenue receipt?
  • Does compensation for a delayed tax refund retain the character of the principal refund amount for tax purposes?
  • Can a taxpayer claim that compensation for a delayed refund is a capital receipt if their own audited accounts classify it as operating income?
  Read full judgment →
• Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Legal2021 SCMR 1453 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-03-05
  income taxdelayed refundcapital receiptrevenue receiptcompensationtax assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose out of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001. The appellant-taxpayer challenged the High Court's judgment, which held that compensation paid under Section 171 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 (or Section 102 of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance 1979) for delayed payment of an income tax refund was a revenue receipt liable to tax, rather than a capital receipt. The Supreme Court examined whether compensation on a delayed refund takes the character of a capital or revenue receipt. The Court observed that the refund itself was on the revenue account and that the compensation paid on account of its delay retained the character of the principal payment. Additionally, the appellant's own audited accounts disclosed the compensation under 'Other Operating Income' in its Profit and Loss Account. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the compensation paid under Section 171 on a delayed refund under Section 170 cannot be regarded as a capital receipt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether compensation payable to a taxpayer under Section 171 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 on account of a delay in the payment of a refund is to be treated as a capital receipt or a revenue receipt?
  • Does the compensation paid for the delay of a refund retain the same character (capital or revenue) as the principal refund amount itself?
  • Can a taxpayer claim an amount is a capital receipt for tax purposes when it has been disclosed as part of 'Other Operating Income' in its own audited profit and loss accounts?
  Read full judgment →
• State, through Ag General KP, Peshawar vs Sabz Ali Khan2021 P SC (Crl.) 817 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-26
  criminal appealleave to appealacquittalhomicideocular evidencereappraisal of evidencemiscarriage of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a criminal petition for leave to appeal filed by the State against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which acquitted the respondent, Sabz Ali Khan, of charges related to the homicide of Sher Muhammad and a murderous assault on a witness. The respondent had originally been convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, by an Additional Sessions Judge and sentenced to death. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the High Court erred in its acquittal by disregarding the ocular account of witnesses, including an injured witness, and by placing undue weight on trivial investigative lapses and peripheral issues. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the arguments regarding the strength of the prosecution's evidence and the alleged artificiality of the High Court's reasoning, determined that the contentions merited consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to reappraise the entire evidence to prevent a miscarriage of justice and issued bailable warrants for the respondent's appearance. The principle established is that the Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal when the High Court's acquittal appears to ignore substantial, consistent prosecution evidence in favor of inconsequential investigative defects.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court have the authority to grant leave to appeal against a High Court acquittal when the prosecution alleges that the High Court ignored substantial ocular evidence?
  • Can investigative lapses that are deemed inconsequential by the prosecution be sufficient grounds for a High Court to overturn a conviction based on direct witness testimony?
  • Is the reappraisal of evidence by the Supreme Court warranted when the lower appellate court's judgment is alleged to be artificial and based on peripheral issues?
  Read full judgment →
• State through Director ANF vs Khurshid Khan2021 SCMR 1443 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-06-28
  narcotics controlacquittalreappraisal of evidencecriminal appealleave to appealpossession of contraband
  Summary & questions settled

  The State through Director ANF filed a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had acquitted the respondent of the charge under section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The respondent was initially tried and convicted by a Special Judge for possessing 22.550 kg of cannabis intercepted in a cab. The core legal question revolved around whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the conviction based on discrepancies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the defense testimony of the cab driver. The Supreme Court held that the admissions made by prosecution witnesses during cross-examination—specifically that no identifying papers were found on the contraband, it was not in the physical possession or lap of the accused, and no narcotics were recovered from his body search—coupled with the defense testimony of the driver denying the seizure, severely damaged the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the acquittal, laid down that material contradictions and admissions by prosecution witnesses can form a valid basis for sustaining an acquittal, and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contradictions and admissions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses can form a sufficient basis for upholding an acquittal in a narcotics case?
  • Can the testimony of a co-accused or vehicle driver examined as a defense witness outweigh prosecution evidence regarding the recovery of contraband?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court decline to interfere with an acquittal judgment passed by the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• State through Director ANF vs Aurangzeb and another2021 SCMR 1552, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 102 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-28
  narcotic substancesforensic analysisrepresentative samplesmethamphetaminecriminal appealsentencing reductionpsychotropic substances
  Summary & questions settled

  The respondents were arrested by the Anti-Narcotics Force with 18.600 kilograms of methamphetamine, consisting of 34,000 tablets, and were initially convicted under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, receiving life imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court, relying on the precedent set in Ameer Zaib v. State (PLD 2012 SC 383), deemed the forensic sampling deficient and reduced the convictions to Section 9(a) of the Act, resulting in sentences reduced to time served. The State challenged this decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court misapplied the sampling principle to the specific nature of the contraband. The State contended that because the drugs were in tablet form, the dispatch of 34 tablets from each lot constituted a representative sample, and that the High Court's interpretation undermined the legislative intent of the Act. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the High Court correctly applied the sampling requirements in the context of psychotropic substances manufactured in tablet form.

  Questions settled

  • Does the dispatch of 34 tablets from a lot of psychotropic substances constitute a representative sample for forensic analysis?
  • Can the principle of sampling established in Ameer Zaib case be applied to contraband in tablet form?
  • Did the High Court err in reducing sentences after maintaining convictions under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• State through A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar vs Sabz Ali Khan2021 SCMR 1525 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-26
  leave to appealacquittalhomicideocular accountinjured witnessreappraisal of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the High Court, whereby the respondent was acquitted of charges under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the Qatl-i-Amd of the deceased and murderous assault. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the conviction based on peripheral issues, stated durations of time, and lapses by the investigating officer, notwithstanding the ocular testimony of an injured witness and prompt registration of the crime report. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised merit consideration and granted leave to appeal to reappraise the entire evidence to prevent a miscarriage of justice. The key principle laid down is that minor discrepancies, peripheral timelines, or investigative lapses do not outweigh a consistent ocular account supported by an injured witness, warranting a reappraisal of evidence by the apex court upon a petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court is justified in acquitting a respondent accused of homicide by relying on peripheral issues and trivial lapses in investigation?
  • Can the Supreme Court grant leave to reappraise the entire evidence when the prosecution relies on an ocular account furnished by an injured witness?
  • Do stated durations of time and minor discrepancies override the preponderance of evidence pointing towards the guilt of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• State through A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar vs Hakim Zada and others2021 SCMR 1485, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 712 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-08
  criminal appealacquittalmurdersuicide vs homicidemedical evidenceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal petition for leave to appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of the respondent by the Peshawar High Court for the Qatl-i-amd of his wife. The respondent had initially reported the death as suicide, but subsequent police investigation led to his trial and conviction for life imprisonment by the trial court. The High Court, however, set aside the conviction and acquitted the respondent, holding the death to be suicidal. The core legal question is whether the High Court failed to properly appreciate medical and circumstantial evidence, particularly the autopsy report indicating manual constriction of the neck by a ligature which ruled out suicide, in a case where the accused and the victim were residing under the same roof. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the acquittal warrants interference to secure the ends of justice, noting that the medical evidence escaped proper notice by the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court erred in appreciating the medical evidence regarding the cause of death?
  • Does an autopsy report showing ligature marks around the neck sufficiently rule out suicide to warrant leave to appeal against acquittal?
  • What is the extent of the obligation of an accused person to explain homicidal death occurring under the same roof?
  Read full judgment →
• State through A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar vs Amanat Khan and others2021 SCMR 1494 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-06
  murderleave to appealocular accountabsconsionforensic reportacquittalreappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal petition for leave to appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of the respondent for the daylight murder of Javed Ali Shah. The core legal question is whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the conviction and sentence of death handed down by the trial court based on peripheral investigative flaws and a negative forensic report, despite consistent ocular testimony by natural witnesses. The Supreme Court held that leave to grant appeal is warranted to reappraise the entire evidence, noting that the respondent was a previous convict who had absconded and that the ocular account had withstood cross-examination. The key principle laid down is that minor investigative flaws and a negative forensic match do not necessarily destroy the intrinsic value of reliable eyewitness testimony, particularly when corroborated by the accused's absconsion.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minor investigative flaws and a negative forensic report can outweigh consistent ocular testimony in a murder case?
  • Does the absconsion of an accused person affect the evidentiary value of prosecution witnesses?
  • Can the Supreme Court reappraise evidence to set aside an acquittal when the High Court relied on peripheral circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan vs Atta Ur Rehman2022 PSC 81 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-06-25
  life insuranceutmost good faithmaterial concealmentinsurance claimstatutory barfraudulent misrepresentationmedical examinationinsurance tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns a dispute over a life insurance claim rejected by the appellant, State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan, on the grounds of material concealment regarding the insured's pre-existing cardiac condition. The insured had passed away years after obtaining the policy. The Insurance Tribunal and the High Court ruled in favor of the respondent, holding the insurer liable. The Supreme Court addressed whether the insurer could avoid the contract for breach of the duty of utmost good faith (uberrimae fidei) and whether the statutory bar under Section 80 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, precluded the insurer from challenging the policy after two years. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the insurer failed to prove fraudulent misrepresentation. The Court affirmed that under Section 80, after two years, a life insurance policy cannot be avoided unless the insurer proves the statement was material, false, and made fraudulently with the insured's knowledge. Furthermore, the Court held that reliance on an insurer's own medical examination, which cleared the insured, negates the defense of non-disclosure.

  Questions settled

  • Can an insurer avoid a life insurance policy after two years on the ground of inaccurate statements without proving fraud?
  • Does an insurer's own medical examination of the insured preclude the defense of non-disclosure of pre-existing medical conditions?
  • What are the cumulative conditions an insurer must satisfy to avoid a life insurance policy under Section 80 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000?
  • Is the plea of the statutory bar under Section 80 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, required to be specifically pleaded by the claimant, or is it an automatic legal bar?
  Read full judgment →
• Sohail Ahmed vs Haji Shafqat Ali & others2021 SCP 228, 2021 PSC 1604, 2021 SCMR 1336 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-06-02
  Lambardar appointmentnon-speaking orderjudicial reviewrevenue hierarchyconcurrent findingsbona fide appointmentGeneral Clauses Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside the petitioner’s appointment as Lambardar of Chak 8-R/B. The core legal questions concerned the scope of the High Court's interference with concurrent findings of revenue authorities and the validity of a Lambardar's appointment who was a non-resident and obtained the position through suspicious land transactions. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly interfered because the revenue authorities' orders were non-speaking and failed to provide reasons, thereby violating the requirements of Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act 1897. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that a Lambardar must reside in the village to discharge duties efficiently. The Court affirmed that the appointment process lacked bona fides, particularly given the surreptitious nature of the candidate's selection and the failure of lower forums to address the limitation plea. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, upholding the High Court's decision to set aside the appointment and initiate the selection process afresh.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of revenue authorities if the orders are non-speaking?
  • Does the failure of a revenue authority to provide reasons for its decision violate Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act 1897?
  • Is the appointment of a non-resident Lambardar valid when the appointment process lacks bona fides?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Muneer vs Mst. Feezan2021 KLR Supreme Court Cases 372, 2021 PLD Supreme Court 538, PLJ 2021 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-02-25
  specific performanceagreement to sellproof of documentattesting witnessscribeQanun-e-ShahadatIslamic injunctionsfinancial obligationsfuture obligationswomen's property rightsburden of prooforal evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This case concerned a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell a house, which the respondent-defendant denied executing. The core legal questions revolved around the proof of execution of a document required by law to be attested, specifically whether a scribe could be considered an attesting witness and the requisite number of witnesses under the Qanun-e-Shahadat and Islamic injunctions. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner's appeal, affirming the lower courts' decision that the petitioner failed to prove the agreement's execution. The Court held that a scribe is not an attesting witness unless explicitly nominated as such in the document. It was further established that for documents pertaining to financial or future obligations, at least two attesting witnesses (two men or one man and two women) are mandatory for proof, as per Article 79 and Article 17(2)(a) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, read with Verse 282 of Al-Baqarah of the Holy Qur'an. The Court also reiterated that the burden to prove a witness's death or inability to be found lies with the party relying on the document, and oral evidence cannot contradict document contents without permission for secondary evidence. The judgment underscored the importance of Islamic injunctions regarding women's property rights and contractual autonomy.

  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Ishtiaq Ahmad, etc vs Muhammad Usman Ali Sheikh and another2021 P SC 1441, 2021 SCMR 1277, 2021 SCP 206 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-06-04
  pre-emptionShafi Jarplaint rejectionOrder VII Rule 11cause of actionpleadingsmaterial facts
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a pre-emption suit where the respondent claimed a superior right as a Shafi Jar regarding two plots but failed to plead or document ownership of the adjacent property in the plaint. The core legal question was whether a plaint failing to assert this essential ownership, which constitutes the foundation of the Shafi Jar right, warrants rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Supreme Court held that the plaints merited rejection as they failed to disclose a cause of action and were barred under the Punjab Pre-Emption Act, 1991. The Court emphasized that material facts must be explicitly pleaded; if a fact is not pleaded, no case can be founded upon it, and evidence cannot be led to support unpleaded claims. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the Trial Court's decision to reject the plaints for failing to disclose a cause of action and lacking the essential ingredients of the claimed pre-emptive right.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaint in a pre-emption suit be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, if the plaintiff fails to plead ownership of the adjacent property?
  • Is a plaintiff permitted to lead evidence to establish a material fact that was not pleaded in the plaint?
  • Does the failure to state ownership of the adjacent property in a suit claiming the right of Shafi Jar constitute a failure to disclose a cause of action?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Abdul Raheem vs The State and another2021 SCMR 822 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-03-30
  post-arrest baildishonestly issuing a chequeprohibitory clausestatutory periodexpeditious trialbail recall
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arose from the refusal of post-arrest bail by the Lahore High Court in a case involving Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that the alleged offence falls outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the petitioner had been in custody since September 2020. The Supreme Court observed that the maximum punishment for the offence is three years and noted that the petitioner had already secured bail in other pending cases. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal and granted bail, emphasizing that the trial had remained pending since 2017 despite previous High Court directions. The Court laid down the principle that for offences not falling within the prohibitory clause, bail is generally a rule and its refusal an exception, while also directing the trial court to conclude proceedings within a specific timeframe and authorizing the recall of bail if the concession is misused or the trial is delayed by the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an offence under Section 489-F PPC falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.?
  • Can bail be granted where the maximum punishment for the alleged offence is three years and the trial has been significantly delayed?
  • Does the involvement of an accused in other criminal cases automatically bar the grant of bail if they have already been allowed bail in those specific matters?
  • What are the consequences if an accused misuses the concession of bail or causes delays in the conclusion of the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Shehri - Citizens Fora Better Environment and others vs Federation Of Pakistan and others2021 PLD Supreme Court 743 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-06-14
  anti-encroachmentstorm water nallahsKarachi floodinginterim injunctionsrehabilitation of affecteesTribunal Anti-Encroachment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter came before the Supreme Court upon applications regarding interim stay and status quo orders passed by the Tribunal Anti-Encroachment, Karachi, which obstructed the court-ordered cleaning and removal of encroachments from major storm-water nallahs in Karachi. Heavy monsoon rains in 2020 had caused severe flooding and loss of life due to choking and illegal construction on nallahs. The core legal question concerned whether occupants and alleged leaseholders could stall anti-encroachment operations through Tribunal injunctions, and the adequacy of rehabilitation measures. The Supreme Court held that the purported leases were without lawful authority, and the interim injunctions granted by the Tribunal must be recalled and vacated to allow public safety operations to proceed. The key principle laid down is that unauthorized constructions and encroachments blocking natural drainage channels cannot be protected by judicial stay orders, provided the government ensures compensation and rehabilitation for dislocated affectees.

  Questions settled

  • Whether interim injunctions and stay orders passed by the Tribunal Anti-Encroachment can impede court-mandated cleaning and removal of encroachments from storm-water nallahs?
  • Do occupants claiming leases over nallah land hold valid rights when no lawful allotment scheme is established?
  • Whether the government's commitment to compensation and housing for dislocated affectees satisfies the requirement for reasonable rehabilitation?
  Read full judgment →
• Shazaib, etc vs The State, etc2021 SCP 302, 2021 PSC (Crl.) 931, 2021 PLD Supreme Court 886 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-29
  pre-arrest bailbail petitionnon-appearance of accusedSection 498-A Cr.P.C.dismissal for non-prosecutionexamination of meritsstatutory pre-conditionfresh bail petitionad interim bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order dismissing a pre-arrest bail petition for non-prosecution and on merits. The core legal question concerned the proper procedure for handling pre-arrest bail petitions when the accused-petitioner is absent, specifically interpreting Section 498-A Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court held that Section 498-A Cr.P.C. mandates the personal presence of the accused for a court to exercise jurisdiction in pre-arrest bail matters. Consequently, if the accused is not present, the petition must be dismissed for non-appearance, and the court is not authorized to examine the merits of the case, unless a satisfactory explanation for absence is furnished and accepted. The Court clarified that its earlier judgment in Muhammad Saleem Akhtar v. State pertained to post-arrest bail, not pre-arrest bail, and therefore did not support deciding pre-arrest bail on merits in the accused's absence. The appeal was partly allowed, setting aside the High Court's observations on the merits, while affirming the dismissal for non-appearance. Petitioners were permitted to file a fresh bail petition with a satisfactory explanation for their prior absence.

  Read full judgment →
• Sharafat Khan vs The State2022 PLD Supreme Court 281, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 66, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 1020 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-02-28
  narcotic drugsrepresentative samplechemical examinercontrol of narcotic substancesfair trialsentencing reductioncriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant was convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for possessing 25,000 grams of charas contained in 25 packets, each comprising 14 slabs. The trial court and High Court maintained his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine whether samples taken only from each packet, rather than from every individual slab, constituted a valid representative sample pursuant to the precedent in Ameer Zeb v. The State. By a majority of two to one, the Supreme Court held that to burden an accused with criminal liability for an entire bulk of narcotics, a representative sample must be drawn from every physically separate and independent unit, such as each slab, to satisfy the fair trial and due process guarantees under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. Since samples were only drawn from each of the 25 packets (covering 25 slabs equivalent to 1,785 grams), the conviction was maintained but the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone.

  Questions settled

  • Is a sample taken from a bulk narcotic seizure considered representative if it is not drawn from every physically independent and separate unit?
  • Does the failure to draw representative samples from each slab of recovered charas limit the accused's criminal liability to the quantity actually tested?
  • Does testing a representative sample of a narcotic drug amount to the test and analysis of the entire quantity under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Does drawing representative samples from all separate units of a recovered narcotic substance flow from the right to fair trial and due process under Article 10A of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamona Badshah Qaisarani vs Election Tribunal, Multan etc2021 P SC 1387, 2021 SCMR 988, 2021 SCP 152, 2022 PLJ SC 107 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-03-16
  permanent disqualificationSadiq and Ameennomination papersnon-disclosure of assetselection petitiondishonest intentinherited propertyRepresentation of the People Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution arose from the disqualification of the appellant by the Election Tribunal and the High Court under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution. The disqualification was based on the appellant's failure to disclose inherited agricultural land in her nomination papers for a bye-election. The core legal question was whether every non-disclosure of assets in nomination papers automatically warrants permanent disqualification for lack of being 'Sadiq' and 'Ameen'. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the disqualification. The Court held that Article 62(1)(f) requires a finding of dishonest intent or the acquisition of assets through corrupt practices to justify a lifetime ban. The Court clarified that inadvertent omissions, bad judgment, or negligence regarding legitimately acquired assets (such as inherited property) do not constitute dishonesty. The ratio decidendi establishes that a declaration of disqualification must be based on affirmative evidence of a dishonest act intended to gain an illegal advantage, rather than mere technical omissions or surmises.

  Questions settled

  • Whether every non-disclosure or mis-declaration of assets in nomination papers is sufficient to permanently disqualify a candidate under Article 62(1)(f)?
  • Can an Election Tribunal issue a declaration of disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) without recording affirmative evidence of dishonest intent?
  • Does the omission of an inherited asset due to bad judgment or negligence, without proof of corrupt practices, constitute 'dishonesty' for the purpose of election law?
  • Whether a declaration of disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) must be based on a reasoned judgment following due process and fair trial under Article 10A?
  Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Shah vs The State, etc2022 SCMR 1, 2021 PSC (Crl.) 1024, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 33 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-04
  post-arrest bailstatutory baildelay in trialhardened criminalright to libertyfair trialcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition challenged the Islamabad High Court's refusal to grant post-arrest bail to the petitioner, who was charged under sections 392, 411, and 75 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned the interpretation of the statutory right to bail under the third proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, specifically regarding the delay in trial conclusion and the exceptions for 'hardened, desperate or dangerous' criminals. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail as the trial had not concluded within the statutory one-year period and the delay was not attributable to him. The Court established that the statutory right to bail is rooted in the constitutional right to liberty and fair trial under Articles 9 and 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. It clarified that the 'hardened, desperate or dangerous' exception must be interpreted ejusdem generis with offences punishable by death or life imprisonment, requiring evidence of a serious threat to society, and that mere adjournments do not automatically constitute a concerted effort to delay trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the statutory right to bail under section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply when a trial for a non-death penalty offence exceeds one year?
  • What constitutes a 'hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal' under the fourth proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can mere adjournments sought by an accused's counsel be considered a concerted effort to delay a trial for the purpose of denying statutory bail?
  • How should the phrase 'hardened, desperate or dangerous' be interpreted in the context of bail exceptions?
  Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Ahmad Zaidi and others vs Secretary, Higher Education, Government of Punjab, Lahore and others2021 PLC (C.S. ) 560, 2021 P SC 1054, 2021 SCMR 474, 2021 SCP 80 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-01-13
  locus poenitentiaeSpecial Allowancerecovery of overpaymentillegal ordervested rightHigher Education Departmentbona fide receiptservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging the judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding the recovery of a Special Allowance paid erroneously to government employees. The appellants, originally Instructors absorbed into the Higher Education Department, were paid a Special Allowance meant exclusively for General Cadre Lecturers. Subsequently, the department discontinued the allowance and initiated recovery from their salaries. The appellants argued that having received the payment bona fide, the amount could not be recovered pursuant to the principle of locus poenitentiae. The Supreme Court held that the exception to the doctrine of locus poenitentiae is strictly confined to benefits received bona fide under an order that was lawfully passed by a competent authority before being subsequently withdrawn. Because the underlying order sanctioning payment to the appellants was patently illegal, unauthorized, and contrary to clear notifications, no vested right could accrue. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court's order allowing recovery of the overpaid amount in easy installments, and dismissed the appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government employee invoke the exception to the doctrine of locus poenitentiae to prevent recovery of financial benefits granted under an unlawful or unauthorized order?
  • Whether recovery of excess financial benefits received by an employee can be ordered if the underlying payment was made in clear contradiction of the governing notification?
  • Can a valid and vested right be founded upon an order that is fundamentally illegal and passed without competence?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzada Qaiser Arfat @ Qaiser vs The State, etc2021 PLD Supreme Court 708, 2021 P SC (Crl.) 589, 2021 SCP 134 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-02-03
  pre-arrest bailmalafideright to fair trialconspiracyabetmentpolice power of arrestfundamental rightscriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arose from the denial of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who was nominated as an abettor in a triple murder case. The petitioner contended that he was in Saudi Arabia at the time of the occurrence and that his nomination was based on malafide. The Supreme Court examined the scope of pre-arrest bail in the context of the constitutional right to liberty and fair trial under Article 10A. The Court held that while pre-arrest bail is often termed an 'extraordinary relief', it serves as a vital check on the police's power to arrest. The Court clarified that the existence of the power to arrest under Section 54 Cr.P.C. does not automatically justify its exercise; the police must show sufficient grounds and a valid purpose for detention. Furthermore, the Court ruled that independent proof of malafide is not a mandatory prerequisite for pre-arrest bail if there is a lack of incriminating material. Finding only vague allegations of conspiracy with no requirement for physical recovery, the Court granted the bail.

  Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Shahmir and others vs Government Of Sindh through Chief2021 PSC 1173, 2021 SCMR 824, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 316 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-04-12
  contract employmentBPS-17Sindh Public Service Commissionproject-based appointmentillegal appointmentservice lawconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh regarding the termination of contract appointments for Headmasters/Headmistresses (BPS-17) under the Second Sindh Education Sector Reform Project (SERP-II). The core legal question was whether the petitioners, appointed on contract for a project that had already concluded, possessed a valid legal right to continue their employment, particularly when such appointments bypassed the Sindh Public Service Commission. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the appointments were illegal on their face. The Court reasoned that the project for which the petitioners were hired had ceased to exist, and the Sindh Government had not absorbed these positions into the non-development budget. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the principle that appointments to BPS-17 posts must be conducted through the Sindh Public Service Commission as mandated by the Constitution, and contract appointments bypassing this statutory process are inherently unlawful. Consequently, the petitioners held no vested right to continued employment.

  Questions settled

  • Can contract appointments be made to BPS-17 posts bypassing the Sindh Public Service Commission?
  • Does an employee have a right to continue in a post when the project for which they were hired has ceased to exist?
  • Are appointments made in violation of statutory recruitment processes considered illegal?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahin Shah vs The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Irrigation Department, Peshawar and others_2022 SCP 269, 2023 PLJ 155, 2022 SCMR 1810 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-06-20
  arbitration awardrule of courtmisconduct of arbitratorenlargement of timeappealable orderssubstantial compliancelimitation period
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court setting aside a trial court decree that made an arbitration award a rule of court and remanding the matter. The core legal questions involved whether the trial court's order making the award a rule of court was appealable under the Arbitration Act, 1940, whether the arbitrators misconducted themselves by delaying the award, and whether statutory notice and limitation rules were properly applied. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its appellate jurisdiction by entertaining grounds outside Section 17 and Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and misread the record regarding arbitrator misconduct, notice, and limitation. The Court affirmed that an extension of time granted by the trial court in the presence of the parties cured the delay, and substantial compliance with notice requirements sufficed where parties actively participated in proceedings. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the trial court's judgment making the arbitration award a rule of court.

  Questions settled

  • Is an order of the trial court making an arbitration award a rule of court appealable beyond the grounds specified in Section 17 and Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
  • Does the failure of arbitrators to file the arbitration award within the initial four-month period constitute legal misconduct under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 when extensions have been granted by the court?
  • Whether strict formal notice under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 is mandatory when the parties are present in court and have knowledge of the filing of the arbitration award.
  • Does Article 178 of the Limitation Act, 1908 apply to arbitrators for filing an award or to parties seeking to make an award a rule of court?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Sultan Durrani vs The State and others2021 SCMR 827 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-03-03
  pre-arrest baildishonest issuance of chequefinancial disputecompromisecriminal breach
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition filed by Shahid Sultan Durrani challenging the order of the Peshawar High Court refusing him pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 555 dated 12.09.2020 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Shabqadar, District Charsadda. The core legal question concerns the grant of pre-arrest bail where the accused expresses readiness to settle the financial dispute by paying the disputed cheque amount. The Supreme Court disposed of the petition based on the consensus between the parties, granting interim protection subject to the condition that the petitioner pays the entire disputed amount of Rs. 40,00,000 to the complainant within a specified timeframe. The holding establishes that if the petitioner honors the commitment, the protective arrangement holds, but failure to pay results in the automatic lapse of the restraining order, allowing the police to proceed with the arrest.

  Questions settled

  • Can pre-arrest bail be disposed of on the basis of a settlement or undertaking given by the accused to pay the disputed amount?
  • What is the legal consequence if an accused fails to honor an undertaking given to the court for the payment of a disputed cheque amount in a pre-arrest bail matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Shafiq Alam Faridi and another vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2021 SCMR 1210, 2021 PSC CRI 24, 2021 KLR Supreme Court Cases 87, PLJ 2022 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-11-25
  post-arrest bailunconscionable delayprinciple of consistencyaccountability referenceprolonged incarcerationtrial delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order refusing post-arrest bail to the petitioners in a National Accountability Bureau reference. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of unconscionable delay in the conclusion of their trial, particularly when a co-accused with a shorter period of incarceration had already been granted bail by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and admitted the petitioners to bail. The Court held that keeping the petitioners incarcerated, when a co-accused had been granted bail for unconscionable delay and the trial proceedings were significantly delayed without the petitioners being solely responsible, would be unjust. The Court applied the principle of consistency, noting that the delay in the trial, with seventy-five prosecution witnesses still to be examined, rendered continued incarceration unconscionable. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds, while emphasizing that the petitioners could not leave the country without the trial court's permission.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of consistency require the grant of bail to an accused when a co-accused has been granted bail on the ground of unconscionable delay?
  • Can prolonged incarceration of an accused in a National Accountability Bureau reference constitute grounds for the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Is the grant of bail appropriate when the responsibility for trial delay cannot be entirely attributed to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Aslam vs The State2022 SCMR 737, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 244 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-05
  post-arrest bailpre-arrest bailcheque dishonourfinancial settlementrecovery forumcriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the refusal of post-arrest bail to the petitioner, who was initially booked for issuing a dishonoured bank cheque and had earlier secured pre-arrest bail by undertaking before the High Court to pay the complainant, which undertaking he subsequently failed to honour, leading to his re-arrest. The core legal question was whether pre-arrest bail can be denied or conditioned upon financial settlements and undertakings to complainants, and whether subsequent default warrants continued incarceration when the alleged offence does not attract the statutory prohibitory clause. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that a court is a neutral arbiter owing responsibility to the law alone and cannot use bail proceedings to secure financial recoveries or allow a party to barter their freedom, and that established parameters for pre-arrest bail must be followed faithfully. The Court laid down the principle that criminal courts must decide bail matters strictly on legal parameters rather than acting as a recovery forum for financial disputes.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court condition the grant of bail upon financial undertakings made by an accused to a complainant?
  • Whether the failure to honour a financial settlement before a court justifies the denial of post-arrest bail when the statutory prohibitory clause does not apply?
  • Is it permissible for a court to act as a recovery forum in criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Abbas vs The State etc2021 SCP 387, 2021 PSC (Crl.) 989 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-12
  pre-arrest bailbailfurther inquirydelay in FIRmedico-legal reportfalse implicationfabrication of evidencecriminal justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition, filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged the Lahore High Court's order declining pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in a case registered under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question revolved around whether sufficient grounds existed for granting pre-arrest bail, particularly concerning the principle of 'further inquiry' under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court noted an inordinate delay of 23 days in registering the FIR without plausible explanation, and critically, that the medico-legal report was obtained approximately 7-8 hours *prior* to the alleged occurrence. Furthermore, a medical board's report indicated that the possibility of fabrication for the head injury could not be ruled out, and civil litigation was pending between the parties. The Court held that these circumstances raised sufficient grounds to consider the petitioner's case as one requiring further inquiry into his guilt. Consequently, the petition was converted into an appeal, allowed, and the pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner was confirmed.

  Questions settled

  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted where there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR?
  • Does a medico-legal report obtained prior to the alleged occurrence constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail matter?
  • Can the possibility of fabrication of injury, as indicated by a medical board, support a claim for pre-arrest bail?
  • Is the existence of pending civil litigation between parties a relevant factor when considering pre-arrest bail in a criminal case?
  • Under what circumstances does a case fall within the ambit of 'further inquiry' under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for granting bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Abbas vs The State and others2021 SCMR 2082 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-12
  pre-arrest bailfurther inquirydelayed FIRmedico-legal reportfalse implicationcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had declined the petitioner's request for pre-arrest bail in a criminal case involving charges of house trespass and causing injuries. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the specific allegations and the surrounding circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court observed that the FIR was registered after an inordinate delay of 23 days without a plausible explanation. Furthermore, the Court noted a significant discrepancy where the medico-legal report indicated the injured was examined hours before the alleged occurrence, casting doubt on the prosecution's narrative. Additionally, the existence of pending civil litigation between the parties suggested the possibility of false implication. The Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry, as contemplated by the law. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and confirmed the petitioner's pre-arrest bail, establishing that unexplained delays in FIR registration and contradictory medical evidence are valid grounds for granting bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inordinate, unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR constitute a ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Can a discrepancy between the time of an alleged occurrence and the time of a medico-legal examination justify the grant of bail?
  • Whether the existence of prior civil litigation between parties is a relevant factor when considering the possibility of false implication in a criminal case?
  • When does a case qualify for 'further inquiry' under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaheen Ijaz alias Babu vs The State2021 SCMR 500 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-09-10
  murderconvictionappealocular accountforensic evidenceacquittal of co-accusedmotiveproof beyond doubtdefense plealeave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerned an appeal against the conviction of the petitioner for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner was initially sentenced to death, later commuted to life imprisonment by the High Court. The core legal questions addressed the sufficiency of evidence, particularly the impact of the acquittal of co-accused (the petitioner's sons) on the prosecution's case against the main accused, the reliability of the ocular account, and the weight of forensic evidence despite an alleged procedural irregularity in the dispatch of exhibits. The Supreme Court declined leave to appeal, thereby upholding the conviction. The Court held that the acquittal of co-accused with inconsequential roles does not necessarily weaken the prosecution's case against the main accused, especially when the ocular account is straightforward and consistent. It was further affirmed that prompt reporting of an incident excludes possibilities of deliberation, and a preposterous defense plea of accidental fire, inconsistent with multiple gunshot wounds, merits outright rejection. The Court found the prosecution evidence constituted "proof beyond doubt."

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of co-accused necessarily cast away the entire prosecution case against the main accused?
  • Can an ocular account be relied upon if the alleged motive is disbelieved by the High Court?
  • Is a defense plea of accidental fire plausible when the deceased sustained multiple gunshot wounds to different body parts?
  • Does prompt reporting of an incident to the police exclude the possibility of deliberation or consultation?
  • Does the even-dated dispatch of casings and a gun necessarily render a forensic report inconsequential if it confirms injuries consistent with the weapon?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaheen Airport Services and another vs National Industrial Relations2021 P C T L R 1284, 2021 P SC 1201, 2021 SCMR 294 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-12-07
  review petitioncharitable organizationindustrial relationsstatutory immunitytrade union registration
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from civil review petitions filed by Shaheen Airport Services seeking review of paragraph 22 of a previous judgment dated 28.3.2018 passed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether the review petitioner, Shaheen Airport Services, qualifies as a charitable organization and is thereby excluded from the operation of industrial relations legislation under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 and the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions, holding that the petitioner's establishment exists for making profit and merely yields its profits to the Shaheen Foundation for charitable purposes, which does not render the establishment itself a charitable organization. Consequently, the petitioner cannot claim statutory immunity under the exclusion clauses of the respective industrial relations statutes.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an establishment that yields its profits to a charitable foundation qualifies as a charitable organization under industrial relations laws?
  • Does an establishment operating for profit enjoy immunity from the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 and the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013?
  • Can concurrent findings regarding the status of an establishment as a non-charitable entity be disturbed in review proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Jehan and another vs Raheem Shah and others2021 PSC (Crl.) 996, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 29, 2022 SCMR 352 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-20
  Section 540 CrPCsummoning of witnesseshostile witnessescriminal trialevidentiary lacunare-examination of witnessesrevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, challenged a High Court judgment regarding an application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerned the permissible scope of summoning or re-summoning witnesses during a criminal trial to fill evidentiary gaps. The Supreme Court held that while Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 allows the court to summon witnesses, it cannot be used to fill lacunas in the prosecution's case at a belated stage. The Court upheld the trial court's refusal to re-summon hostile witnesses whose cross-examination was complete, noting that changing testimony is not grounds for re-examination. Furthermore, the Court disallowed summoning the deceased's father as a new witness after a 14-month delay, as he was not cited in the initial report. However, the Court permitted the summoning of an eye-witness already named in the crime report. The key principle established is that the power to summon additional witnesses under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is discretionary but must be exercised cautiously to ensure a just decision, not to permit parties to fill evidentiary lacunas or introduce witnesses after significant, unexplained delays.

  Questions settled

  • Can the court allow the re-summoning of prosecution witnesses for further cross-examination solely because they turned hostile?
  • Is it permissible to introduce a new witness under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after a significant delay when that witness was not cited in the initial police report?
  • Does the power of the court to summon witnesses under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 extend to filling evidentiary lacunas in the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafa Ullah Khan vs The State and another2021 SCMR 2005 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-09-17
  Control of Narcotic Substances ActSection 9(c)Punjab Forensic Science Agencyforensic reportprotocol detailsSection 510 CrPCsafe custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which affirmed the appellant's conviction and sentence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The appellant contended that he was entitled to acquittal because the report of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency omitted the details of the protocol applied during the testing of the seized narcotics, relying on established precedents. The core legal question was whether the absence of detailed protocol descriptions in a forensic report invalidates the prosecution's case when the tests, protocol name, and positive results are stated. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the report sufficiently specified the tests applied, protocol, and results, and that any ambiguity could have been resolved by invoking Section 510 Cr.P.C. The Court reaffirmed that minor omissions in protocol details do not automatically destroy the evidentiary value of a forensic report where reliable recovery and safe custody are independently proven.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the omission of detailed descriptions of forensic protocols in a Punjab Forensic Science Agency report invalidates a conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can an ambiguity in a forensic analyst's report regarding testing protocols be resolved by the trial court under the proviso to Section 510 of the Criminal Procedure Code?
  • Does a forensic report satisfy evidentiary requirements under narcotic laws if it specifies the test applied, protocol, and result, even if protocol details are not elaborated?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain vs The State2021 P S c (Crl.) 157, 2021 SCMR 198 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-09-09
  narcoticsdrug traffickingofficial witnessespublic witnessesforensic reportlife imprisonmentleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal arose from the conviction of the petitioner and his wife for possession of 15.600 kg of narcotics under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment, a decision upheld by the High Court. The core legal questions involved the credibility of official witnesses in the absence of independent public witnesses, the reliability of a forensic report dispatched with alleged delay, and the probability of the accused using his family as a cover for drug trafficking. The Supreme Court held that the testimony of official witnesses, if found straightforward and confidence-inspiring, is sufficient for conviction, noting that public reluctance to testify is a common social reality. The Court further ruled that the forensic report conclusively established the narcotic nature of the substance, especially as the petitioner failed to challenge the analyst during the trial. Finding the prosecution's case proved beyond reasonable doubt, the Court declined leave to appeal and maintained the convictions.

  Read full judgment →
• Shaban Akhtar and another vs The State through Prosecutor General PunjabPLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 291, 2021 SCMR 395, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 819 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-10-20
  abduction for ransomhomicideproof beyond reasonable doubtlast seen evidenceforensic evidenceacquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of Shaban Akhtar for abduction and homicide, originally sentenced to death by the Anti-Terrorism Court, later commuted to life imprisonment by the Lahore High Court. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the acquittal of his co-accused on identical evidence and the lack of forensic corroboration. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's case suffered from significant evidentiary gaps, including the failure to produce digital forensic data to link the accused to ransom calls, and the unreliable nature of the 'last seen' evidence provided by a partisan witness. Furthermore, the court noted that the timeline of the crime, the ransom demand, and the medical evidence regarding the time of death were inconsistent. Emphasizing that conviction requires proof beyond doubt rather than mere suspicion, the Court ruled that maintaining the conviction was unsafe, especially given the acquittal of the co-accused on the same evidence. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to produce available digital or forensic data regarding telephonic communication invoke adverse consequences under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution's evidence is inconsistent with the established timeline of the crime and the medical evidence regarding the time of death?
  • Is it safe to maintain a conviction against one accused when a co-accused has been acquitted on the same set of evidence?
  • Does 'proof beyond doubt' in criminal cases permit conviction based on moral satisfaction or suspicion?
  Read full judgment →
• Senior General Manager/CEO, Pakistan Railways Headquarters, Lahore and2021 KLR Supreme Court Cases 416, 2021 SCP 160, 2021 PSC 1539, 2021 SCMR · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-04-19
  service appealquantum of penaltymisconductdepartmental inquiryrailway safetydisciplinary actiondismissal from service
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that modified a railway employee's penalty from dismissal to compulsory retirement following a catastrophic train collision. The respondent, an engine driver, was dismissed after a departmental inquiry found him responsible for a collision that resulted in significant financial loss and the loss of four lives. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal erred in interfering with the quantum of penalty imposed by the departmental authority, given the respondent's admitted negligence and failure to adhere to safety signals. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal lacked valid grounds to mitigate the penalty. The Court observed that the respondent had failed to substantiate his defenses regarding reliance on a gate man's hand signal or a change in signal aspect, and that his own reply to the charge-sheet effectively admitted to moving the train while the signal was at danger. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and restored the original penalty of dismissal, emphasizing that serious misconduct resulting in loss of life and property warrants strict disciplinary action.

  Questions settled

  • Can a service tribunal interfere with the quantum of penalty imposed by a departmental authority in cases of gross negligence?
  • Does an employee's failure to substantiate a defense regarding safety signal compliance justify the upholding of a dismissal order?
  • Is a service tribunal permitted to mitigate a penalty for misconduct when the employee has admitted to the factual basis of the charges?
  Read full judgment →
• Securities And Exchange Commission Of Pakistan vs Nadeem H. Shaikh and others2021 CLD 381, 2021 SCMR 343 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-10-27
  dismissal for non-prosecutionprocedural complianceappellate jurisdictiondue diligenceCompanies Ordinancejudicial time
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as an appeal against an order dated 21.1.2009 passed by the Islamabad High Court in Criminal Original No. 73 of 2008, which initiated proceedings under section 282-K of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, against two respondents while exonerating others. The Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan challenged the exoneration of the majority of respondents. Following the grant of leave to appeal in 2010, the appellant consistently failed to provide the necessary addresses for the respondents despite repeated court directions and opportunities. By February 2020, the Court issued a final warning that failure to comply would result in the dismissal of the appeal. Upon the hearing, the appellant's counsel failed to provide the required information, offering inconsistent explanations and requesting substitute service, which the Court rejected. The Supreme Court held that the appellant's persistent failure to comply with procedural directions warranted dismissal. The Court affirmed the principle that the law assists the vigilant and that judicial time and public expense must not be wasted by parties failing to pursue their cases with due diligence.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appeal be dismissed for non-compliance with court directions regarding the provision of respondent addresses?
  • Does the law assist a party that fails to pursue its case with due diligence?
  • Is a request for substitute service permissible when the appellant has failed to comply with prior court orders to provide respondent addresses?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad vs Imtiz Ahmad Malik, Director Anti-Corruption, Establishment Sahiwal and others2021 KLR Criminal Cases 153, 2021 PLC (C.S. ) 480, 2021 P SC 599, 2021 SCMR 166, 2021 SCP 2 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-11-27
  Police Service of Pakistanencadrementretrospective senioritypro forma promotioncivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed whether an officer encadred in the Police Service of Pakistan (PSP) from a provincial police cadre can claim retrospective seniority and encadrement based on a pro forma promotion received in their previous rank. The core legal question concerned the prospective versus retrospective nature of encadrement and appointments into the PSP under the relevant service rules. The Supreme Court held that appointments and encadrement into the PSP from provincial cadres take effect prospectively from the date actual encadrement is effected, and retrospective effect cannot be granted for the purpose of claiming seniority over other groups. The key principle laid down is that while inter se seniority among provincially encadred officers may be determined under Rule 11(2)(c) of the Police Service of Pakistan (Composition, Cadre and Seniority) Rules, 1985, the foundational encadrement itself is strictly prospective, and judgments of the Supreme Court on this point are binding under Article 189 of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether encadrement and appointment into the Police Service of Pakistan from a provincial cadre can be made with retrospective effect?
  • Does Rule 11(2)(c) of the Police Service of Pakistan (Composition, Cadre and Seniority) Rules, 1985 permit determining seniority between initial appointees and provincially encadred officers?
  • Is a judgment of the Supreme Court regarding the prospective nature of PSP encadrement binding on service tribunals under Article 189 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary To Government Of The Punjab, School Education Department, Lahore and others vs Syed Zakir Ali2022 SCMR 951, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 1177 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-03-21
  wilful absence from dutyservice appealdeputationex-pakistan leavedepartmental inquirydismissal from service
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal which partially allowed a service appeal by setting aside a dismissal order and ordering a de novo inquiry into the respondent's alleged wilful absence from duty. The core legal question was whether a regular departmental inquiry is mandatory under the PEEDA Act, 2006, when a civil servant explicitly admits to prolonged unauthorised absence from duty and gainful employment abroad. The Supreme Court held that where the factum of wilful absence from duty is admitted by the employee—in this case, remaining absent for over sixteen years while teaching in Saudi Arabia—no regular or de novo inquiry is required, as settled by precedent. The Court established the principle that an admitted, undisputed wilful absence from service obviates the necessity of a formal inquiry, and a dismissal order can take effect from the date the unauthorized absence commenced.

  Questions settled

  • Is a regular departmental inquiry required when the fact of wilful absence from duty is admitted by the employee?
  • Can a civil servant claim entitlement to a de novo inquiry regarding absence from duty when employment abroad is conceded?
  • Whether a dismissal order for wilful absence from service can take effect from the date the absence originally commenced?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary Local Government, Election Rural Development, KPK etc vs Muhammad Tariq Khan2021 KLR Supreme Court Cases 442, 2021 SCP 272, 2021 PSC 1266, 2021 SCMR · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  contract employeesproject employeesregularizationres judicatadiscriminationtermination of servicecivil appeals
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated civil appeal arises from the termination of contract and temporary employees of the Provincial Urban Development Board in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The core legal questions involve whether project employees possess a vested right to regularization upon project completion, whether the principle of discrimination applies to re-appointment when relief was restricted to parties in prior litigation, and whether subsequent writ petitions are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The Supreme Court held that contract and project employees have no vested right to regularization or continuity beyond the project tenure unless appointed via regular recruitment against sanctioned vacancies. Furthermore, successive petitions concerning the same termination are barred by res judicata, and selective re-appointment of some individuals does not constitute actionable discrimination where prior relief was strictly confined to specific litigants. The key principle laid down is that temporary project employees cannot claim regularization upon project closure, and repetitious litigation after a matter has attained finality is barred.

  Questions settled

  • Do temporary or project-based employees have a vested right to be retained in service or regularized after the expiry of the project?
  • Whether subsequent writ petitions challenging the same termination order are barred by the principle of res judicata?
  • Can a claim of discrimination be sustained for the failure to re-appoint an employee when prior judicial relief was strictly restricted to specific parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary Elementary & Secondary Education Department, Government of KPK, Peshawar and others vs Noor-ul-Amin2021 SCP 150, 2021 SCMR 959, 2022 PSC 359, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 132 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-02-22
  service lawunauthorized absencedepartmental inquirypenalty modificationcompulsory retirementremoval from serviceservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a service appeal filed by a Primary School Teacher (PST) against his removal from service due to unauthorized absence following the expiry of his ex-Pakistan leave. The KPK Service Tribunal had partially allowed the respondent's appeal, converting the penalty of removal from service to compulsory retirement, citing the lack of a regular inquiry and the respondent's ten-year service record. The Supreme Court of Pakistan set aside the Tribunal's modification of the penalty. The Court held that where the fact of unauthorized absence is undisputed, a regular departmental inquiry is not mandatory, as there are no disputed facts requiring investigation. Furthermore, the Court rejected the Tribunal's reasoning that long service justifies leniency for prolonged unauthorized absence. The Court emphasized that an employee cannot use their length of service as a license to abandon their duties, particularly when evidence suggests the employee was engaged in other activities abroad and lacked interest in continuing their employment. Consequently, the original penalty of removal from service was restored.

  Questions settled

  • Is a regular departmental inquiry mandatory when the fact of an employee's unauthorized absence is undisputed?
  • Can an employee's length of service be used as a ground to mitigate a penalty for prolonged unauthorized absence?
  • Does the absence of a regular inquiry in cases of undisputed misconduct invalidate a disciplinary penalty?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary Agriculture, Livestock & Cooperation Department, Peshawar & others vs Anees Ahmad2021 SCP 214, 2021 PSC 1378, 2021 SCMR 1266, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 104 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-06-08
  service lawpro forma promotionDepartmental Promotion Committeeright to be considered for promotionsuperannuationadministrative delayservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a service appeal regarding the denial of promotion to a government servant who retired before his Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting. The respondent, an Office Assistant, was eligible for promotion to Superintendent (BPS-17) and his case was prepared in a working paper before his retirement. However, the DPC meeting was adjourned and subsequently held after the respondent's retirement, at which point the DPC refused to consider his promotion solely due to his superannuation. The core legal question was whether a government servant, whose case for promotion had matured and was placed before the DPC while in service, can be denied consideration for promotion simply because the DPC meeting occurred after their retirement. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that while there is no vested right to promotion, there is a legal right to be considered for it. The Court ruled that the DPC's failure to consider the respondent's case due to administrative delays constituted a miscarriage of justice, establishing that a department cannot rely on its own non-vigilance to deny a rightful consideration for promotion.

  Questions settled

  • Does a government servant have a vested right to promotion?
  • Can a Departmental Promotion Committee refuse to consider a candidate for promotion solely because they retired after the case was placed before the committee?
  • Are Service Tribunals competent to review a Departmental Promotion Committee's failure to consider a government servant for promotion?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary (M-v) Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad vs Zeenat Bangash2021 SCP 166, 2021 PSC 1399, 2021 SCMR 1151, 2021 PCTLR 1444 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-04-29
  deputation allowancecivil servicelimitationfinancial claimrule of consistencyretrospective effect
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 arose from a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that granted deputation allowance to the respondent. The respondent, a Postal Group officer, served on deputation in the Federal Board of Revenue from 1994 to 2001 but was denied deputation allowance. The appellant argued that the claim was barred by limitation and that the relevant Office Memorandum dated 04.07.2007 applied only to fresh cases without retrospective effect. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the Office Memorandum dated 04.07.2007, which implemented earlier judicial decisions, applied to both old and fresh cases of deputation. Denying the allowance to the respondent while granting it to similarly situated colleagues would violate the rule of consistency and Article 25 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Court ruled that because the matter was of a financial nature, the limitation period did not adversely affect the respondent's claim. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Office Memorandum granting deputation allowance applies retrospectively to older cases of deputation under the rule of consistency?
  • Does the limitation period bar a civil servant's claim for deputation allowance if the claim is of a financial nature?
  • Is it discriminatory under Article 25 of the Constitution to deny deputation allowance to one civil servant while granting it to other similarly situated employees?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad and others vs Imam Bakhsh (decd) thr. LRs and others2021 PLJ SC 233, 2021 SCP 20, 2021 SCMR 391, KLR 2022 Supreme Court Cases · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-12-15
  sale mutationrevenue proceedingsfraud and misrepresentationsummary jurisdictionconcurrent findingsbona fide purchaserregistered sale deedcivil court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court that reversed concurrent findings of the courts below and dismissed the appellants' suit seeking the setting aside of orders passed by revenue authorities and the cancellation of a registered sale deed. The core legal question was whether a Deputy District Officer (Revenue) has the power in summary proceedings to cancel a sale mutation on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation. The Supreme Court held that revenue proceedings are summary in nature and complex questions of fact and law, such as allegations of fraud, fall within the exclusive domain of civil courts, making the DDO(R)'s cancellation of the mutation illegal and without jurisdiction. Furthermore, the subsequent purchasers could not claim the status of bona fide purchasers without notice. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that revenue authorities cannot adjudicate upon pleas of fraud through summary proceedings, and a sale deed executed following an illegal cancellation of mutation cannot survive once the original mutation is revived.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Deputy District Officer (Revenue) have the power to cancel a sale mutation on the ground of fraud through summary proceedings?
  • Whether complex questions of fact and allegations of fraud fall within the exclusive domain of civil courts rather than revenue authorities?
  • Can a subsequent purchaser of property claim to be a bona fide purchaser without notice when they acquired the land immediately after the cancellation of a mutation with knowledge of the dispute?
  • Do High Courts possess the justification to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in revisional jurisdiction under the circumstances of this case?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Abdul Rehman vs Abdul Kareem Khetran and others2021 SCMR 82 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-10-06
  election petitionmaintainabilityverification of pleadingsmandatory statutory provisionsre-pollwitness examinationaffidavit evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against the judgment of the Election Tribunal, Balochistan, which set aside the election of the appellant from PB-08 Barkhan and ordered a re-poll. The core legal question was whether an election petition is maintainable when the petitioner fails to personally verify the petition and its annexures, instead delegating this mandatory statutory requirement to an attorney, and whether an affidavit sworn by an attorney on behalf of the petitioner satisfies the requirements for evidence under the applicable procedural laws. The Supreme Court held that the election petition was non-maintainable due to the petitioner's failure to comply with the mandatory verification requirements under the Elections Act, 2017. The Court emphasized that while the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 allows for representation, the Elections Act, 2017 specifically mandates personal verification by the petitioner. Furthermore, the Court established that an affidavit sworn by an attorney cannot substitute for the personal oath and testimony of the petitioner, as this violates the fundamental scheme of witness examination under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, rendering the petition fatally flawed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Elections Act, 2017 require an election petition to be verified personally by the petitioner?
  • Can an attorney verify an election petition and its annexures on behalf of a petitioner under the Elections Act, 2017?
  • Is an affidavit sworn by an attorney on behalf of a petitioner sufficient to satisfy the requirements of evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Does the failure to personally verify an election petition render it non-maintainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Samira Mahamadi vs Federation Of Pakistan and others2021 SCMR 1080 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-05-05
  COVID-19 pandemicjudicial oversightpublic procurement transparencyprice regulationmedical supply chainaccountability of public institutionscivil aviation misconduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the Supreme Court's ongoing monitoring of the state's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically regarding the availability of medical supplies, oxygen, and the financial transparency of government agencies. The Court addressed multiple applications concerning the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan (DRAP), the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), and provincial governments. The core legal questions involved the regulation of oxygen prices, the transparency of NDMA procurement processes, and the accountability of public institutions like the Pakistan International Airline Corporation (PIAC) and the Civil Aviation Authority regarding delinquent employees. The Court held that the Ministry of Industries and Production must establish a proper price mechanism for oxygen within one week. It expressed dissatisfaction with NDMA's vague reporting on equipment procurement and cash payments, ordering the Chairman to appear personally. The Court emphasized the necessity for government departments to vigorously prosecute criminal cases against delinquent employees rather than allowing them to lapse due to poor evidence, and mandated that provincial governments provide detailed, transparent reports on resource allocation and pandemic management.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Ministry of Industries and Production responsible for regulating the price of oxygen and oxygen cylinders?
  • Can the Supreme Court mandate government departments to vigorously pursue criminal prosecutions against delinquent employees to prevent acquittals due to lack of evidence?
  • Does the Supreme Court have the authority to demand detailed financial and operational reports from provincial governments regarding the allocation of funds for public health and education?
  Read full judgment →
• Sami Ullah vs The State2021 PLJ SC (Cr.C. ) 232, 2021 SCMR 729 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-03-03
  post-arrest bailcounterfeit currencyfurther inquirycriminal petitionbail bond
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises from the refusal of post-arrest bail by the Peshawar High Court to the petitioner, who was charged under Section 489-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with an FIR involving the recovery of forged currency notes. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the grant of bail pending trial, given the nature of the allegations and the evidence presented. Upon review, the Court observed that the FIR contents suggested the potential applicability of Section 489-C, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, rather than Section 489-B, as there was no immediate allegation of the petitioner using the counterfeit notes as genuine. The Supreme Court held that the case against the petitioner warranted further inquiry under the provisions of Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and granted bail to the petitioner subject to the furnishing of a bail bond. The principle established is that where the specific nature of the offence remains a matter for trial determination, the case may fall within the scope of further inquiry for bail purposes.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of forged currency without evidence of usage as genuine attract Section 489-B or Section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • When does a criminal case fall within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the determination of the specific offence charged a matter for the trial court to decide after recording evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Salman Abro vs Government of Sindh and others2021 P SC 896, 2021 SCMR 658, 2021 SCP 70 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-02-09
  private complaintcounter versionleave to appealcriminal trialdelayed afterthoughtself defence
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition and upheld the trial court's order dismissing his private complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The petitioner, facing trial for murder under the Pakistan Penal Code and the Anti-Terrorism Act, sought to bring on record a counter-version through a private complaint after an earlier attempt by a third party was dismissed up to the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the lower courts rightly dismissed the private complaint aimed at introducing a delayed counter-version at a late stage of the trial. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were well-reasoned, finding the private complaint to be an afterthought and a delayed attempt to build a defense, especially since the matter was already at the stage of final arguments. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal refused, establishing that a belated and repetitive counter-version cannot be allowed to stall an advanced criminal trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a private complaint seeking to introduce a counter-version can be entertained when a similar attempt has already been dismissed in an earlier round of litigation?
  • Can a delayed counter-version filed at the verge of final arguments in a criminal trial be used to stall proceedings?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts refusing to issue process on a private complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C.?
  Read full judgment →
• Salman Abro and another vs Government Of Sindh and othersPLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 228 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-01-09
  counter-versionprivate complaintleave to appealcriminal trialself-defenseclean hands doctrineAnti-Terrorism Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, facing trial for murder, sought leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld the dismissal of his private complaint. The petitioner had attempted to register a counter-version of the incident, which had previously been rejected in earlier litigation initiated by a third party. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could initiate a private complaint to register a counter-version when previous attempts had failed and the trial was at the stage of final arguments. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit, noting that the petitioner had not approached the court with clean hands and that the counter-version was an afterthought intended to create a defense. The Court affirmed that the petitioner’s grievances regarding the incident could be agitated before the trial court during the final arguments based on the evidence already recorded. The principle laid down is that a belated counter-version, especially when previous attempts have reached finality, does not warrant interference, and trial courts should not be bypassed when the trial is near conclusion.

  Questions settled

  • Can a private complaint for a counter-version be entertained when previous attempts to register the same version have attained finality?
  • Does the filing of a belated counter-version after the conclusion of evidence in a criminal trial constitute a valid ground for interference by the Supreme Court?
  • Can a court dismiss a private complaint on the grounds that the complainant has not approached the court with clean hands?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleem Khan vs The State and another2021 SCMR 1472 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-12-12
  criminal appealacquittalocular evidencemedical evidencecontradiction in evidencemurder trialleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two criminal petitions for leave to appeal filed against the acquittal of respondents in a murder case involving the death of Ajmal Khan. The core legal question was whether the High Court's judgments acquitting the accused were sustainable given the evidence presented. The Supreme Court examined the prosecution's case, noting significant evidentiary flaws: the failure to produce a key injured eye-witness who resided in the same village as the complainant; the contradiction between the medical evidence showing charring of wounds, indicating close-range firing, and the ocular testimony; and the implausibility of the prosecution's narrative regarding the eye-witnesses, who allegedly shared a motive with the deceased yet escaped injury during the incident. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the High Court's findings were consistent with the record. Consequently, the Court declined to grant leave to appeal, upholding the acquittals. The key principle reaffirmed is that material contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, coupled with the unexplained absence of key witnesses, undermine the prosecution's case, justifying acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to produce an injured eye-witness cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
  • Can contradictions between medical evidence regarding charring and ocular testimony justify acquittal?
  • Is the acquittal of an accused person sustainable when the prosecution fails to prove the presence of eye-witnesses at the crime scene?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleem Khan vs State and othersPLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 359 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-12-12
  criminal petitionleave to appealacquittalocular accountmedical evidencecontradictionsmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from criminal petitions seeking leave to appeal against the judgments of the Peshawar High Court upholding the acquittal of the respondents accused of the murder of Ajmal Khan. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court erred in acquitting the respondents based on evidentiary discrepancies, including the failure to produce an injured eye-witness, contradictions between the medical report showing charring and the ocular account, and the implausibility of the purported eye-witnesses escaping uninjured despite the alleged motive. The Supreme Court held that the reasons advanced by the High Court for acquittal were sound and well-supported by the record, as the non-production of the injured witness and the glaring medical contradictions cast serious doubt on the prosecution case. The Court laid down the principle that concurrent findings of acquittal based on sound appreciation of evidence and material discrepancies in the prosecution case shall not be interfered with, and accordingly declined leave to appeal and dismissed the petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether leave to appeal against acquittal can be granted when the prosecution fails to produce a material injured eye-witness?
  • Does a contradiction between the medical report showing charring and the ocular testimony warrant the acquittal of the accused?
  • Whether concurrent findings of acquittal by the courts below are liable to be interfered with in the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Salamat Mansha Masih vs The State and another2022 SCP 242 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-08-23
  post-arrest bailblasphemycorroborationfair trialIslamic jurisprudencedue processcriminal investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought post-arrest bail for charges under sections 295-A, 295-B, and 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of blasphemy. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidentiary record and the nature of the accusations. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the prosecution's case rested solely on the uncorroborated testimony of four witnesses, which appeared improbable. The Court emphasized that in cases involving religious offences, which carry severe penalties, the State must conduct meticulous investigations, and courts must ensure due process. The judgment established that when evidence is solely oral and lacks corroboration, the principle of 'avoiding punishments in case of doubt' derived from Islamic jurisprudence must be applied to prevent the conviction of the innocent. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the charge framed by the trial court was deficient and that the prosecution failed to recover any incriminating material, rendering the case one for further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Is corroboration required for oral testimony in cases involving religious offences?
  • Does the principle of 'avoiding punishments in case of doubt' apply to criminal proceedings involving religious offences?
  • Can an investigating officer discriminate or give preference to witnesses on religious grounds?
  • Is the preaching of Christianity a crime under the Pakistan Penal Code?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmad Khan vs Mohammad Saleem Alvi & others2021 P SC 539, 2021 SCMR 415, 2021 SCP 6 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-10-20
  specific performanceagreement to sellattesting witnessconcurrent findingssham transactionpossessioncivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a suit for specific performance filed by the petitioner based on an agreement to sell. The trial court, appellate court, and the High Court concurrently dismissed the suit, holding that the agreement and advance payments were not proved in accordance with Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 because only one of the two attesting witnesses was produced. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the second attesting witness was residing abroad and unavailable, and that the execution of the agreement was supported by overwhelming evidence, including the scribe's identity, notary public attestation, and physical possession of the property. The Court held that where a witness is unavailable, strict non-production should not defeat a genuine transaction on a hyper-technicality. Finding that the lower courts' concurrent findings suffered from misreading and non-reading of material evidence, the Supreme Court set aside the concurrent judgments, cancelled the subsequent sham transactions, and decreed the suit in favor of the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a document's execution can be proved under Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 if one of the two attesting witnesses is residing abroad and unavailable to testify?
  • Can a simple denial of an agreement to sell as fake and fictitious be legally sufficient without specific proof or rebuttal evidence by the executant?
  • Does the non-production of a second marginal witness due to unavailability abroad invalidate an agreement to sell when there is other overwhelming evidence of its execution?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajid Hussain @ Joji vs The State and anotherPLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 311, 2021 SCP 360, 2021 PLD Supreme Court 898, 2021 PSC · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-09-06
  pre-arrest baildelayed statementmurder caseevisceration of testimonyfurther inquiryliberty
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a petition seeking pre-arrest bail in a murder case registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the petitioner was initially cited as a prosecution witness in the FIR but subsequently arrayed as an accused based on a belated statement recorded after a considerable lapse of time. The core legal questions involved the evidentiary value of statements of prosecution witnesses recorded with inordinate delay and the scope of pre-arrest bail in capital cases. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the delayed recording of a statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 reduces its value to nil unless plausibly explained, and that the scope of pre-arrest bail has been broadened to touch upon the merits of the case in the interest of safe administration of criminal justice and protection of personal liberty. The ratio established is that pre-arrest bail may be granted in murder cases where the prosecution's case rests on belated and uncorroborated statements of witnesses, adhering to the principle that basic law is bail not jail.

  Questions settled

  • What is the evidentiary value of a statement of a prosecution witness recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 with inordinate delay?
  • Whether the scope of pre-arrest bail extends to examining the merits of the case in criminal matters?
  • Does the delayed recording of statements by eyewitnesses justify the grant of pre-arrest bail to an accused in a capital case?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeeda Sultan vs Liaqat Ali Orakzai and others2021 PLD Supreme Court 671, 2021 P SC (Crl.) 490, 2021 SCP 88 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-11-04
  contempt of courtexecution of decreecivil contemptpartition suitwillful disobedienceSupreme Court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a criminal miscellaneous application seeking contempt of court action for the alleged non-implementation of a Supreme Court order dated 17.3.2010 concerning a partition decree in a civil suit originating in 1970. The core legal question addressed is whether contempt of court proceedings can be invoked as a substitute for execution proceedings to implement judgments, decrees, or orders of the apex court. The Supreme Court dismissed the application, holding that civil contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and cannot be utilized to execute or implement a decree or order where an alternative, exhaustive remedy is provided under the law. The Court laid down the key principle that where an order, judgment, or decree originating from a lower court reaches the Supreme Court for final adjudication, such final decision must be implemented and executed by the court of first instance through execution proceedings under Section 38 read with Order XLV Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, rather than through the extraordinary and sparingly used jurisdiction of contempt.

  Questions settled

  • Can civil contempt proceedings be initiated to execute or implement a judgment, decree, or order of the Supreme Court?
  • What is the appropriate legal remedy for enforcing a final decree or order upheld or modified by the Supreme Court?
  • What constitutes 'willful disobedience' in the context of civil contempt proceedings?
  • How should the extraordinary jurisdiction of contempt of court be exercised by the judiciary?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Yousaf vs The State and anotherPLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 308, 2021 SCP 218, 2021 SCMR 1295 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-06-15
  post-arrest bailabsconsionfurther inquirycriminal liabilitymedico-legal reportvicarious liabilitymurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arose from a case registered under Sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of murder and attempted murder. The petitioner sought bail after the Trial Court and High Court declined the relief. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, despite being nominated in the FIR and having absconded, was entitled to bail, particularly when the medical evidence regarding injuries was suspect and no recovery was made from him. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, finding that the case fell within the scope of "further inquiry" under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court established that mere absconsion does not constitute conclusive proof of guilt and cannot deprive an accused of bail if a strong case is made out on merits. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that criminal liability cannot be shifted to an accused simply because co-accused remain at large. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the petitioner was admitted to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does mere absconsion of an accused constitute conclusive proof of guilt?
  • Can criminal liability be shifted from one accused to another solely because co-accused are at large?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail if the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Saddaruddin (since decd) thr. LRs vs Sultan Khan (since decd) thr. LRs etc2021 KLR Revenue Cases 19, 2021 P SC 608, 2021 SCMR 642, 2021 SCP 90 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-01-13
  oral agreementspecific performancedeclaration of ownershippleadingsevidencerevisional jurisdictionprolonged possessiontitle documentsjirga
  Summary & questions settled

  This direct appeal arose from a suit for declaration of ownership filed by the appellant in 2004, claiming he purchased the subject property via an oral agreement in 1971. The respondent contested the claim, asserting the appellant was a tenant and that title documents were handed over only for utility purposes. The trial court dismissed the suit, the appellate court reversed it, and the High Court subsequently restored the dismissal in its revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court examined whether the appellant had established the oral sale agreement. The Court held that the appellant failed to plead material facts, including the names of witnesses to the oral sale and the details of a subsequent 'jirga', in his plaint. It reaffirmed the principle that parties must lead evidence in consonance with their pleadings and no evidence can be considered for a plea not taken in the pleadings. Furthermore, in cases of oral sale, specific terms, conditions, and witnesses must be detailed in the plaint. The Court concluded that mere prolonged possession and possession of title documents do not establish ownership if the underlying sale is not proven.

  Read full judgment →
• Saboor Khan vs Chairman WAPDA, WAPDA House, Lahore and others2021 SCP 64, 2021 PSC 1166, 2021 SCMR 667, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 449 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-01-27
  service appealdepartmental inquiryremoval from servicedismissal from servicemandatory waiting periodcompetence of appealWAPDA employeesSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 arises from a consolidated judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which converted the penalty of dismissal from service into removal from service for security guards who physically attacked their supervisor. The core legal questions involved whether a proper regular inquiry was conducted under service rules and whether service appeals filed before the expiry of the mandatory ninety-day waiting period following departmental appeals were competent. The Supreme Court held that a regular inquiry fulfilling all legal requirements was duly conducted pursuant to the WAPDA (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1978, and that the service appeals were premature and incompetent under Section 4(1)(a) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, as they were filed before the lapse of ninety days without awaiting departmental adjudication. The key principles laid down are that departmental inquiries must follow prescribed statutory procedures ensuring the right of cross-examination, and that failure to observe the statutory ninety-day waiting period renders a service tribunal appeal legally incompetent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether service appeals filed before the expiration of the ninety-day period following a departmental appeal are competent under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
  • Does an inquiry conducted under Section 6 of the WAPDA (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1978 satisfy the legal requirements of a regular departmental inquiry?
  • Is the appearance of an injured person mandatory in departmental disciplinary proceedings as it is in criminal trials?
  • Does a petition under Article 212(3) of the Constitution require a substantial question of law of public importance to grant leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Rooh Ullah, etc vs The State, etc2022 PSC (Crl.) 187, 2022 SCMR 888, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 159 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-03
  criminal petitionhomicidemurderous assaultinjured witnesseyewitness testimonyleave to appealcriminal jurisprudence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the High Court, which maintained the conviction of the petitioners under charges of homicide and murderous assault resulting from a property feud in which two persons were shot dead and one injured. The core legal question involves the reliability of eyewitness testimony, particularly that of an injured prosecution witness, in the presence of alleged contradictions, unproved motive, and failure to recover a weapon from one of the petitioners. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully established its case through consistent eyewitness accounts, prompt reporting of the daylight incident, and corroborative medical evidence, which together excluded the possibility of deliberation or fabrication. The Court affirmed the conviction and dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that minor investigative shortcomings, such as the non-recovery of a weapon, do not undermine credible and consistent eyewitness testimony corroborated by an injured witness.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of an investigating officer to recover a weapon from an accused undermine otherwise credible prosecution evidence?
  • Whether the testimony of an injured prosecution witness can be relied upon in the absence of corroborative recovery.
  • Do bald denials by an accused override consistent prosecution evidence supported by prompt reporting and medical examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Rooh Ullah and others vs The State and others2022 SCMR 888 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-03
  criminal appealmurderinjured eye-witnessprompt FIRleave refused
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged their conviction and sentences for double murder and murderous assault arising from an incident on 11.06.2007 in District Nowshera, which resulted in life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment upheld by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the prosecution case was fraught with contradictions, unproved motive, and lack of weapon recovery, rendering the testimony of the injured eye-witness untrustworthy. The Supreme Court held that the testimony of the injured eye-witness was consistent, reliable, and supported by a promptly lodged FIR and medical evidence, and that minor investigation flaws such as non-recovery of a weapon from one petitioner do not undermine the overwhelming prosecution proof. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. The key principle laid down is that the testimony of a credible injured eye-witness, supported by prompt reporting and medical corroboration, sustains a conviction notwithstanding minor investigative shortcomings like unrecovered weapons.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of an injured eye-witness can be relied upon despite minor investigation lapses?
  • Does the failure to recover a weapon from an accused invalidate the prosecution case when ocular account is strong?
  • Whether prompt reporting of a daylight crime excludes the possibility of deliberations?
  Read full judgment →
• Resham Khan and another vs The State through Prosecutor General2021 SCMR 2011, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 3 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-07
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirymedical evidence contradictionColumn No. 2tentative assessmentmurdercriminal jurisprudenceocular account
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal arose from the Lahore High Court's dismissal of a post-arrest bail application in a murder case involving sections 302, 109, 148, 149, and 114 of the PPC. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail under the 'further inquiry' principle of section 497(2) Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court observed significant contradictions between the ocular account in the FIR and the medical evidence; specifically, the FIR alleged shots to the front of the abdomen, while the post-mortem report showed entry wounds from the back. Furthermore, the investigating agency had declared the petitioners innocent, placing their names in Column No. 2 of the challan based on CCTV footage. The Court held that while an investigator's opinion is not binding, it cannot be ignored without cogent reasons. Finding no tangible evidence or reasonable grounds to believe the petitioners committed the offence, the Court converted the petition into an appeal and granted bail, emphasizing that the purpose of trial is to ensure attendance, not to punish under-trial prisoners.

  Read full judgment →
• Regional Operation Chief, National Bank of Pakistan, Human Resource2021 SCP 104 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-10-23
  service appealabatement of proceedingssurvival of right to suelegal heirsservice benefitspensionary benefitsfundamental rightsFederal Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition before the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed whether an appeal filed by a civil servant before the Federal Service Tribunal abates upon his death or if his legal heirs can pursue it. The decedent, an officer who was penalized through reduction in pay, passed away while his departmental service appeal was pending before the Tribunal, which subsequently allowed his legal heirs to be impleaded as parties. The petitioners contended that employment grievances do not survive a civil servant's death under the relevant service laws. The Court held that a service appeal concerning terms and conditions does not automatically abate upon the death of the appellant if the right to sue survives and if potential pecuniary, pensionary, or back benefits devolve upon the legal heirs. The Court laid down the principle that service disputes often involve property and financial rights connected to the estate and family of the deceased, and fundamental rights to livelihood, property, dignity, and fair trial under the Constitution protect survivable interests, allowing legal representatives to continue pending service proceedings to their logical conclusion.

  Questions settled

  • Does a service appeal filed by a civil servant abate upon his death or can his legal heirs pursue the same?
  • Whether the right to sue in an employment dispute survives the death of a civil servant for the purpose of claiming back benefits and pensionary rights?
  • Do fundamental rights under the Constitution protect the survivable interests and reputation of a deceased civil servant enabling legal heirs to continue pending legal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Regional Operation Chief, National Bank Of Pakistan, Human Resource2021 SCMR 702 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-12-23
  service appealabatement of appealsurvivability of claimlegal heirspensionary benefitsback benefitsfundamental rightsFederal Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns whether an appeal filed by a civil servant before the Federal Service Tribunal abates upon his death or if his legal heirs can pursue it. The decedent civil servant had challenged a major penalty of reduction in rank before the Tribunal and passed away during its pendency. The Tribunal permitted his legal heirs to be impleaded as parties, prompting the petitioners to seek leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question addresses the survivability of an employment-related claim and service appeal upon a civil servant's death. The Supreme Court held that service disputes involving potential pecuniary, pensionary, and back-benefit entitlements do not abate upon the death of the civil servant; rather, the right to sue survives for the legal heirs. The Court laid down that employment claims carrying survivable financial interests, as well as the right to vindicate a deceased civil servant's reputation and dignity, pass to the legal heirs and are protected under fundamental constitutional rights to livelihood, property, dignity, and fair trial. Leave to appeal was consequently declined.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appeal filed by a civil servant before the Service Tribunal abate upon his death?
  • Can the legal heirs of a deceased civil servant continue a service appeal relating to terms and conditions of service?
  • Do employment-related claims involving back benefits and pensionary rights survive the death of a civil servant?
  • Are the equitable principles of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applicable to proceedings before the Service Tribunal regarding the survival of a right to sue?
  Read full judgment →
• Reference No. 1 Of 2020: In the matter of vs N/A2021 PLD Supreme Court 825 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-03-01
  advisory jurisdictionsecret ballotSenate electionsElection Commission of Pakistancorrupt practiceselectoral transparencypresidential reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This Presidential Reference under Article 186 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 sought the advisory opinion of the Supreme Court of Pakistan on whether the condition of 'secret ballot' under Article 226 applies exclusively to direct constitutional elections or also extends to Senate elections conducted under the Elections Act 2017. By a 4-1 majority, the Supreme Court declared that Senate elections are held 'under the Constitution' and law, and thus fall within the constitutional purview. The Court held that secrecy of the ballot under Article 226 is not absolute, but must be tempered by practical considerations to ensure transparency and prevent corruption. The Court laid down that under Article 218(3) of the Constitution, the Election Commission of Pakistan bears a duty to organize free, fair, and honest elections and guard against corrupt practices using all available technologies and measures. The Parliament cannot legislate under Article 222 to abridge or take away these constitutional powers of the Election Commission.

  Questions settled

  • Are elections to the Senate of Pakistan held under the Constitution within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is the requirement of secrecy of the ballot under Article 226 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 absolute in nature?
  • Does the Election Commission of Pakistan have a duty under Article 218(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to utilize technology and measures to prevent corrupt practices during elections?
  Read full judgment →
• Reference by the President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, under2021 KLR Supreme Court Cases 104, 2021 PLD Supreme Court 480, PLJ 2021 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-03-01
  presidential referenceadvisory jurisdictionsecret ballotSenate electionsElection Commission of Pakistanconstitutional interpretationcorrupt practices
  Summary & questions settled

  This presidential reference under Article 186 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, sought the advisory opinion of the Supreme Court on whether the requirement of a 'secret ballot' under Article 226 applies exclusively to elections held directly under the Constitution, such as those for the President, Speakers, and Prime Minister, or if it also extends to elections for members of the Senate conducted under the Elections Act, 2017. By a majority of four to one, the Court opined that elections to the Senate are held under the Constitution and the law, and consequently fall within the mandatory ambit of a secret ballot as stipulated by Article 226. The Court emphasized that while the Elections Act, 2017 provides procedural machinery, the substantive requirement of secrecy originates from the Constitution. Furthermore, the Election Commission of Pakistan remains under a constitutional duty pursuant to Articles 218(3) and 220 to ensure elections are conducted fairly and transparently, utilizing available technologies to guard against corrupt practices, while noting that ballot secrecy is not absolute but must be tempered by practical electoral processes as established in precedent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether elections to the Senate of Pakistan are held under the Constitution or solely under the Elections Act, 2017?
  • Does the requirement of a secret ballot under Article 226 of the Constitution apply to the election of members of the Senate?
  • What are the duties and powers of the Election Commission of Pakistan under Article 218(3) of the Constitution to ensure transparent and corruption-free elections?
  • Is the secrecy of the ballot an absolute principle or is it subject to practical considerations in the electoral process?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Hanif Khan (Deceased) through LRs vs Saddiq Khan2022 SCMR 852 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-12-14
  civil jurisdictionforeign propertylimitationrecovery of moneyterritorial jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal is directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court which set aside a trial court decree and held that the Civil Courts of Pakistan lacked jurisdiction to entertain a suit for recovery of compensation and damages, and that the suit was also barred by time. The core legal questions involved the territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction of Pakistani civil courts over a dispute concerning foreign immovable property and foreign income, as well as the question of limitation. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under Sections 16 and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, Pakistani courts lack jurisdiction where the subject matter property is situated abroad and the defendant permanently resides outside Pakistan, and that the claim was hopelessly barred by time. The key principle laid down is that the presence of a defendant within the territorial jurisdiction of Pakistan does not confer jurisdiction upon Pakistani courts under Sections 16 or 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the property and cause of action are situated outside Pakistan.

  Questions settled

  • Do Civil Courts in Pakistan have jurisdiction to entertain a suit where the subject-matter property is situated outside Pakistan and the defendant permanently resides abroad?
  • Whether the presence of a defendant within the territorial jurisdiction of Pakistan grants jurisdiction to Pakistani courts under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the property in question is situated outside Pakistan?
  • Can a suit filed decades after the termination of a financial relationship and after the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation be maintained in a civil court?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Basit Rice Mills Private Limited vs Shaheen Insurance Company and another2021 SCP 268, 2021 CLD 960, 2021 SCMR 1413, 2022 PCTLR 396 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-06-24
  insurance claimboard resolutionmaintainability of petitioncurable defectratificationArticles of Associationliquidated damagesInsurance Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a private limited company, suffered stock and machinery losses due to a severe storm and lodged an insurance claim with the respondent insurer. The insurer's appointed surveyor assessed the loss, but the claim was not paid within the statutory period, prompting the appellant to file an insurance petition before the Insurance Tribunal. The insurer raised a preliminary objection that the petition was not accompanied by a Board Resolution authorizing the Chief Executive to file it, seeking rejection under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Tribunal allowed the appellant's application to amend the petition and place the subsequent Board Resolution on record, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant on merits. The Lahore High Court accepted the insurer's appeal and set aside the Tribunal's order solely on the ground of the initial absence of the Board Resolution. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the initial absence of a Board Resolution does not invalidate the institution of a suit or petition if the Articles of Association empower the person, and such a procedural defect is curable by a subsequently produced resolution or ratification. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the Insurance Tribunal's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of a Board Resolution at the time of filing a suit or petition by a company invalidate the proceedings ab initio?
  • Can a procedural defect regarding the lack of authorization to file a legal proceeding on behalf of a company be cured by placing a Board Resolution on record at a subsequent date?
  • When are the Articles of Association of a company sufficient to empower a person or director to institute legal action without a separate Board Resolution?
  • Whether the subsequent ratification of an unauthorized legal proceeding by a principal cures the initial defect under the doctrine of agency?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafeed Niaz vs The State and another2021 SCMR 1467 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-06-17
  post-arrest bailattempted murdermedical evidencefurther inquiryCode of Criminal Procedurebail criteriagrievous hurt
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged the denial of post-arrest bail by the High Court in a case registered under sections 324 and 427 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner was entitled to bail, specifically considering the evidentiary value of a medical report that declared an injury "grievous" without specifying its dimensions or statutory classification. The Supreme Court held that the medical report was materially deficient because it failed to define the nature of the injury or provide necessary dimensions, rendering it insufficient as material evidence. Consequently, the Court determined that the petitioner’s case fell within the scope of "further inquiry" as envisaged under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Given that the investigation was complete and the petitioner was no longer required for further proceedings, the Court set aside the impugned order and admitted the petitioner to bail. The judgment establishes that a vague medical opinion lacking specific statutory classification or physical dimensions does not constitute sufficient evidence to deny bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does a medical report declaring an injury 'grievous' without specifying its dimensions or statutory classification constitute sufficient evidence to deny bail?
  • When does a criminal case qualify for 'further inquiry' under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a medical report that fails to provide the dimensions of an injury considered materially deficient for the purpose of bail adjudication?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafeed Niaz vs State and-anotherPLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 338 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-06-17
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryattempted murdermedical report deficiencygrievous injurySection 497 CrPCConstitution of Pakistan Article 185(3)
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose out of a post-arrest bail application filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 in a case registered under Sections 324 and 427 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was accused of firing at his sister's brother-in-law, inflicting an injury on his buttock. The petitioner contended that the medical evidence was deficient as the doctor declared the injury grievous without specifying its dimensions or standard legal classification under the statute, making the case one of further inquiry. The Supreme Court observed that although the medical report labeled the injury grievous, it failed to state the category or dimensions of the injury, rendering the medical report deficient in material detail and insufficient as conclusive material evidence. Concluding that the investigation was complete and further incarceration served no useful purpose, the Court held that the case fell within sub-section (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the impugned order, and admitted the petitioner to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does a medical report declaring an injury grievous without specifying its dimension or statutory classification render the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the investigation is complete and the medical evidence is materially deficient regarding the nature of the injury?
  Read full judgment →
• Rabia Ahmad vs Bilal Ejaz2022 SCMR 733, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 88, 2022 PSC 598 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-12-01
  transfer of proceedingsFamily Courtcomplete justicelegislative lacunaIslamabad Capital Territoryexecution proceedingsinherent powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for the transfer of execution proceedings from a Family Court in Rawalpindi to a Family Court in Islamabad. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court possesses the authority to transfer cases between a court in a province and a court in the Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT) under Section 25-A(2-B) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964. The Court held that Section 25-A(2-B) of the Act, which permits transfers between provinces, does not explicitly cover transfers to or from the ICT, creating a legislative lacuna. However, the Court determined that it could exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 187 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to ensure 'complete justice' by filling this gap. The principle laid down is that where statutory provisions for case transfer are insufficient to address the needs of litigants in the ICT, the Supreme Court may invoke its inherent powers under Article 187 to order such transfers to prevent injustice and facilitate expeditious disposal of proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 25-A(2-B) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 authorize the transfer of cases between a court in a province and a court in the Islamabad Capital Territory?
  • Can the Supreme Court exercise its jurisdiction under Article 187 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to fill a legislative gap regarding the transfer of cases?
  • Does the Supreme Court have the power to transfer family court proceedings to ensure complete justice where the statute is silent?
  Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz Khan vs Javed Khan Swati2021 CLD 1261, 2021 SCMR 1890, 2022 PSC 217 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-11-12
  negotiable instrumentscheque dishonoursummary suitpresumption of considerationburden of proofrevalidation of cheque
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a suit filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the recovery of Rs. 620,000 based on a dishonoured cheque. The respondent contended that the cheque was not meant for encashment but was merely issued as an acknowledgment or receipt for an investment. The trial court and the High Court dismissed the suit, suggesting the appellant recover the amount through pending suits for rendition of accounts. The Supreme Court set aside the lower courts' findings, holding that under Section 6 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, a cheque is a bill of exchange payable on demand and intended for immediate payment. Furthermore, under Section 118(a) of the Act, there is a rebuttable presumption that every negotiable instrument is drawn for consideration. The Court ruled that a bare denial is insufficient to rebut this presumption, and the burden of proof lies on the defendant. Since the respondent failed to produce independent evidence and had even revalidated the cheque, the presumption stood unrebutted, and the appeal was allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a cheque can be legally treated as a mere acknowledgment or receipt rather than an instrument for immediate payment?
  • On which party does the burden of proof lie to rebut the presumption of consideration under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881?
  • Is a bare denial by the defendant sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption that a negotiable instrument was drawn for consideration?
  • What is the legal effect of a drawer revalidating a dishonoured cheque on their subsequent claim that the cheque was not meant for encashment?
  Read full judgment →
• Quetta Development Authority through Director General vs Abdul Basit and others2021 PSC 1654, 2021 SCMR 1313, 2022 KLR Supreme Court Cases 94, 2022 PLC · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-05-31
  Appointment cancellationReinstatementEqual treatmentArticle 25 of the ConstitutionLachesRes judicataConstitutional petitionService mattersQuetta Development AuthorityWithdrawal of appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  This case concerns appeals filed by the Quetta Development Authority (QDA) against a High Court judgment that ordered the reinstatement of employees whose appointments were initially cancelled. The QDA had withdrawn appointment orders for various posts, citing financial difficulties. In an earlier round of litigation, the High Court set aside similar cancellation orders for other affected employees, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court. The present respondents, similarly affected but not part of the initial litigation, sought reinstatement, which was granted by the High Court. The Supreme Court considered whether the respondents' petitions were barred by laches and if they were entitled to equal treatment under Article 25 of the Constitution. The Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the issue of appointment cancellation was res judicata and could not be re-agitated. It affirmed that the respondents, being similarly placed as those who received relief earlier, were entitled to the same treatment under Article 25, and the principle of laches would not apply to deny a fundamental right in such circumstances, especially when earlier judgments had attained finality.

  Read full judgment →
• Qaiser Khan vs The State through Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, PeshawarPLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 196, 2021 SCMR 363, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 816 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-12-07
  narcoticschain of custodysafe transmissionchemical analysisFSL reportacquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, where the petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment following the alleged recovery of 15 kilograms of charas. The Supreme Court examined the chain of custody regarding the seized contraband. The Court observed that while the narcotics were allegedly transported from the crime scene to the police station by a specific constable, said official was neither examined as a witness nor was his statement recorded. Furthermore, the Investigating Officer could not identify who delivered the samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). The record was silent regarding the safe custody of the narcotics during the two-day interval between the seizure and their receipt at the laboratory. Applying established jurisprudence, the Court held that failure to prove the safe custody and transmission of narcotics through reliable evidence is fatal to the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.

  Read full judgment →
• Qaisar Mehmood and another vs The State2021 P SC (Crl.) 461, 2021 SCMR 662 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-12-02
  last seen evidencecircumstantial evidenceextrajudicial confessionminoritydeath sentencelife imprisonmentsexual assaultchild murder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from convictions under Section 302(b) and Section 364-A of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and Section 10(4) of the Offense of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The appellants were convicted and sentenced to death for the abduction, sexual assault, and murder of a 3.5-year-old child. The core legal questions pertained to the sufficiency and reliability of a chain of circumstantial evidence, including 'last seen' evidence, extrajudicial confession, and recoveries of bloodstained items, as well as the validity of defense arguments alleging false substitution by police. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that circumstantial evidence, when forming an unbroken chain without missing links, provides sufficient proof of guilt. The Court clarified that evidence cannot be categorized as inherently weak or strong based on rigid empirical parameters; rather, Courts must assess the integrity and adequacy of available evidence under principles of safe administration of criminal justice. Finding one appellant to have been a minor at the time of the offense, the Court modified his death sentence to life imprisonment, while dismissing the appeal of the co-convict.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence including 'last seen' testimony?
  • Are there fixed empirical parameters that categorize 'last seen' evidence or extrajudicial confessions as inherently weak pieces of evidence?
  • Whether the death penalty can be maintained against a convict who was a minor at the time of the commission of the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Qaisar Khan vs Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary2021 PLC (C.S.) 738, 2021 SCMR 67, 2022 PSC 198 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-10-05
  service matterdomicilepublic service commissionsub-inspector legalrenunciation of domicileconstitutional petitionSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from an impugned order dated 12.01.2010 passed by the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the appellant's writ petition challenging the appointment of respondent No. 5 as Sub-Inspector Legal. The core legal question involves the validity of appointment based on domicile and the interpretation of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission Regulations, 2003, specifically regarding multiple or changed domiciles. The Supreme Court held that under Regulation 20(c) of the said Regulations, a domicile once produced shall be final, and producing a domicile of a settled area implies the renouncement of a tribal agency domicile, provided there is no malpractice or mis-declaration. The court concluded that respondent No. 5 validly obtained the domicile of Mardan and secured the first position on merit. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's order and dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs, establishing that a newly produced domicile is final and operates as a renunciation of a previous tribal domicile without requiring explicit counter-renouncement provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the production of a new domicile for a settled area finalise the candidate's residency status under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission Regulations, 2003?
  • Whether obtaining a domicile in a settled area implies the renunciation of a previous tribal agency domicile in the absence of express statutory prohibition?
  • Can an appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector Legal be challenged solely on the ground that the candidate previously held a tribal agency domicile?
  Read full judgment →
• Punjab Public Service Commission, etc vs Husnain Abbas, etc2021 PLC (C.S.) 979, 2021 P SC 841, 2021 SCMR 1017, 2021 SCP 184 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-03-16
  zonal quotavested rightlegitimate expectancycivil servicemerit listcorrigendumquota reservation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court that set aside a corrigendum and a revised merit list issued by the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC), which had reserved 20% of the advertised Senior Chemist (BS-17) posts for special zones under a provincial notification. The High Court had directed the appointment of the respondent based on the initial merit list on the ground of 'legitimate expectancy'. The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed two key questions: whether the reservation of zonal quotas violated Article 27 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and whether a candidate acquires a vested right to appointment by merely being placed on an initial merit list. The Supreme Court held that the 40-year constitutional limit under Article 27 was validly extended and that the provincial government had statutory authority to prescribe zonal quotas. It further ruled that no vested right accrues to a candidate merely by appearing on a merit list, and the rules in force at the time of appointment govern the process. Consequently, the High Court's judgment was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does a candidate acquire a vested right to a civil service appointment merely by having their name appear on an initial merit list?
  • Which rules and conditions govern a public sector recruitment process—those in force at the time of the advertisement or those in force at the time of the actual appointment?
  • Does the reservation of posts for specific zones or classes under a valid government notification violate Article 27 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a High Court strike down an administrative corrigendum on the ground of 'legitimate expectancy' while leaving the underlying statutory notifications intact?
  Read full judgment →
• Provincial-Selection Board, Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chairman_Chief Secretary, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa vs Hidayat Ullah Khan Gandapur2021 SCMR 1904, 2021 SCP 368, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 486, 2022 PSC 369, 2022 PSC · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-01
  pro-forma promotionplea bargainNational Accountability Ordinancemisconductparitydeemed convictiondisqualification from public office
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a Peshawar High Court judgment directing the Provincial Selection Board, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, to grant antedated pro-forma promotion in BS-20 to the respondent. The respondent, a retired Superintending Engineer, had faced disciplinary dismissal after entering into a plea bargain with the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, but was reinstated by the Service Tribunal before seeking pro-forma promotion. The primary legal issue was whether a civil servant who admitted guilt and entered into a plea bargain with NAB is legally entitled to claim pro-forma promotion as a matter of right on the basis of parity with another similarly placed employee. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment, holding that entering into a plea bargain under Section 25(b) amounts to a deemed conviction and constitutes misconduct under Section 15 of the Ordinance. The Court established that an unlawful benefit previously granted to another employee does not create a vested right or legal foundation for parity, applying the principle that two wrongs do not make a right.

  Questions settled

  • Does entering into a plea bargain under Section 25(b) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 amount to a deemed conviction resulting in disqualification from holding public office under Section 15?
  • Can a civil servant who has admitted guilt through a plea bargain in a corruption reference claim pro-forma promotion as a vested legal right?
  • Can a party claim parity or equal treatment under the law based on an earlier unlawful benefit or wrongful order granted to another person?
  Read full judgment →
• Provincial Selection Board, Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through its2021 SCP 368 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  plea bargainpro-forma promotiondeemed convictionnational accountabilitycivil servantmisconductparity and equalitypublic office
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court which directed the Provincial Selection Board to grant pro-forma promotion in BS-20 to the respondent, a retired Superintending Engineer in the Irrigation Department. The respondent had earlier been arrested by NAB for corruption, entered into a plea bargain, and was released. Though reinstated through a Service Tribunal decision after his dismissal, his request for pro-forma promotion was refused due to the plea bargain. The core legal question was whether a civil servant who has availed the benefit of a plea bargain under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, is entitled to claim pro-forma promotion as a vested right, and whether parity can be claimed based on a previous allegedly wrongful grant of benefit to another employee. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that a plea bargain results in a statutory deemed conviction, disqualifying the person from holding public office or claiming service benefits like pro-forma promotion, and that the principle of equality cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality. The key principle laid down is that a plea bargain under the accountability law carries the consequence of a conviction, rendering the offender ineligible for promotion, and two wrongs do not make a right to establish a claim of discrimination.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant who enters into a plea bargain under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 is deemed to be convicted of corruption?
  • Does a civil servant who has availed the benefit of a plea bargain have a vested right to claim pro-forma promotion after retirement?
  • Can a civil servant claim parity and equal treatment based on an unlawful benefit previously granted to another employee under the principle of discrimination?
  Read full judgment →
• Province Of The Punjab through Secretary School Education, Government2021 P SC 291, 2020 SCMR 1519, 2020 PLC (C.S.) 1311 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-07-24
  ad hoc appointmentregularizationseniorityservice tribunalsecondary school teachers
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions filed by the Province of the Punjab against the Punjab Service Tribunal's order granting respondents regularization of their service from their initial ad hoc appointment as Secondary School Teachers. The core legal question was whether ad hoc employees are entitled to claim seniority from the date of their initial ad hoc appointment rather than from the date of their subsequent regularization. The Supreme Court held that in view of the explicit statutory provisions and established jurisprudence, ad hoc appointments do not confer any right to count ad hoc service towards seniority upon regular appointment, and seniority must be reckoned from the date of regularization. The Court set aside the impugned order of the Service Tribunal, establishing that ad hoc service cannot count towards seniority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether ad hoc service can count towards seniority in grade upon regularization?
  • Does an ad hoc appointment confer any right to regular appointment or seniority under the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1974?
  • From which date should seniority be reckoned for employees whose services are regularized after initial ad hoc appointment?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab, etc vs Hafiz Muhammad Ahmad2021 SCP 298, 2021 SCMR 1492, 2022 PSC 486 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-26
  judicial precedentcitation of case lawheadnotesleave to appealjudicial practicelegal research
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Province of Punjab against an order passed by the High Court. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no legal error in the impugned order, concluding that it was well-reasoned and did not warrant interference; consequently, the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was declined. However, the Court took the opportunity to address a procedural issue regarding the citation of case law. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had relied upon headnotes of law reports in its judgment. The Court clarified that headnotes are prepared by editors to facilitate readers and are not part of the actual judicial pronouncement. Because headnotes can occasionally be misleading or inconsistent with the text of the judgment, the Court held that they should not be cited as authoritative dicta. The Court laid down the principle that courts, including High Courts and District Courts, must cite the actual text of a judgment when relying on precedents, rather than relying upon or citing the headnotes thereof.

  Questions settled

  • Are headnotes of law reports considered part of a judicial judgment?
  • Is it appropriate for courts to cite headnotes as authoritative dicta in their judgments?
  • What is the correct practice for courts when referring to precedents in their orders?
  Read full judgment →