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. 232594 judgments in total.

• MUHAMMAD IJAZ Versus State2025 SCMR 1591 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-07
  murderspousal homicideocular evidencemedical corroborationburden of proofshifting of onusabsconsionlife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose against the Lahore High Court judgment altering the appellant's sentence from death to life imprisonment for the murder of his wife under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The primary issue was whether the prosecution successfully established its case beyond reasonable doubt through ocular and medical evidence, and whether any burden of explanation shifted to the husband regarding his wife's unnatural death inside their shared home. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal, holding that prompt registration of the FIR, credible ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence, and the appellant's subsequent absconsion established guilt. The Court reiterated that where reliable direct prosecution evidence exists and a vulnerable dependent wife dies unnaturally within the matrimonial home, an onus shifts to the husband to provide a plausible explanation; failure to do so, combined with unconvincing denial, reinforces the prosecution's established case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the relationship of eyewitnesses to the deceased is sufficient by itself to discredit otherwise cogent and confidence-inspiring testimony?
  • Under what circumstances does an onus shift to an accused husband to explain the unnatural death of his wife inside their shared house?
  • Can a conviction be based on an accused's failure to discharge an explanatory onus if the prosecution fails to lead reliable evidence of its own?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BILAL Versus State2025 SCMR 1580 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-05
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtmurderocular testimonyunnatural conduct of witnessesmedical evidencerecovery of weaponmatricide
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of his mother under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the credibility of eyewitnesses and the consistency of the evidence. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with significant doubts, including material contradictions between the ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the number of injuries, the unnatural conduct of the eyewitnesses who failed to intervene or apprehend the assailant, and the failure to prove the alleged motive of drug addiction. Furthermore, the recovery of the weapon was deemed unreliable as it was from an accessible public place and lacked forensic verification. Consequently, the Court set aside the judgments of the lower courts and acquitted the appellant, establishing the principle that where significant doubts exist in the prosecution's case, the benefit of such doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of eyewitnesses to intervene during a violent assault render their presence at the scene doubtful?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when there are material contradictions between the ocular account and the medical evidence?
  • Is a recovery of a weapon from an open, public place sufficient to corroborate a prosecution case?
  • What is the legal consequence when the prosecution fails to prove the alleged motive in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• AMIR KHAN Versus State2025 SCMR 1572 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-12
  sudden fightlack of premeditationmurderconversion of sentenceheat of passionself-defenceenhancement of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court that had altered the petitioner's death sentence to imprisonment for life under Section 302(1) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, following a murder conviction. The core legal question was whether the facts of the case—specifically a sudden altercation over a mobile SIM card without premeditation—attracted liability under Section 302(b) or Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, read with Exception 4 to Section 300. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since the incident occurred spontaneously during a sudden fight without premeditation, undue advantage, or cruelty, the case fell squarely within Exception 4 to Section 300, warranting a conversion of the conviction to Section 302(c). The key principle laid down is that killings committed on the spur of the moment during a sudden quarrel without premeditation or undue advantage attract Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, rather than Section 302(b), reducing the sentence accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexpected physical altercation arising from a dispute over a mobile SIM card constitutes a sudden fight without premeditation attracting Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be altered to Section 302(c) when the offender acts in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel without taking undue advantage?
  • Does a solitary firearm injury inflicted during a spontaneous scuffle warrant the reduction of a life imprisonment sentence to a term of rigorous imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• OBAIDULLAH Versus State2025 SCMR 1558 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-02
  retracted judicial confessioncircumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtcriminal appealmurder convictioncorroborationSection 342 Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the petitioners for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, based on retracted judicial confessions and circumstantial evidence. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained in the absence of independent corroboration for the retracted confessions and given the inconsistencies in the prosecution's circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, setting aside the convictions and acquitting the petitioners. The Court emphasized that retracted judicial confessions, while admissible, require independent corroboration to sustain a conviction. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain linking the accused to the crime; any missing link necessitates acquittal. Additionally, evidence not put to the accused during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot be used against them. Finally, the Court ruled that the recovery of weapons and crime empties is inconsequential when they are kept together at the police station without explanation, as this creates significant doubt regarding the integrity of the investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of a retracted judicial confession without independent corroboration?
  • Does the failure to put incriminating evidence to an accused during their statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 preclude its use for conviction?
  • Is the recovery of a weapon and crime empties reliable when they are kept together at a police station for an unexplained period?
  • What is the standard of proof required for circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction in a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAMIN Versus State2025 SCMR 1552 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-04-09
  kidnapping for ransomterrorism definitionAnti-Terrorism Court jurisdictionheinous offencessentencingcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a conviction for kidnapping for ransom. The petitioners were convicted by the Anti-Terrorism Court under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and Section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which was upheld by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the offence of kidnapping for ransom, while triable by an Anti-Terrorism Court, automatically constitutes an act of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, warranting additional sentencing under Section 7(e). The Supreme Court held that while kidnapping for ransom is a heinous offence triable by an Anti-Terrorism Court, it does not per se constitute terrorism unless it meets the specific design or purpose criteria defined in Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Absent evidence of such design, the conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act cannot be sustained. The Court upheld the conviction under the Pakistan Penal Code but set aside the conviction and sentence under the Anti-Terrorism Act, establishing that Anti-Terrorism Courts may try heinous offences without necessarily invoking terrorism sentencing provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the offence of kidnapping for ransom under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 automatically constitute an act of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Can an Anti-Terrorism Court try a heinous offence that does not meet the definition of terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Is a conviction under Section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 sustainable for kidnapping for ransom if the prosecution fails to prove the intent to coerce, intimidate, or create a sense of fear in society?
  Read full judgment →
• AMIR SHAHZAD Versus State2025 SCMR 1542 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-19
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtweapon recoverycontradictions in evidenceocular evidencemedical evidenceacquittalsentence reduction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court challenged the appellant's conviction for murder under Section 302(b) and injury under Section 337-F(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, where the High Court had reduced the death sentence to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly concerning the motive, the recovery of the crime weapon, and the consistency of witness testimonies. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, acquitting the appellant by extending the benefit of doubt, and set aside the judgments of the High Court and Trial Court. The Court held that significant contradictions and doubts in the prosecution's evidence, such as the improbable recovery of a blood-stained weapon after 45 days from a non-exclusive location, and inconsistencies in witness accounts regarding the incident and weapon disposal, were sufficient to create reasonable doubt. It reiterated the principle that even a single or slightest reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained if there are significant contradictions and doubts in the prosecution's evidence regarding weapon recovery and witness testimonies?
  • Is the recovery of a blood-stained weapon credible if it occurs after a long delay and from a place not in the exclusive possession of the accused?
  • Does a single or slightest reasonable doubt in the prosecution case entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right?
  • What is the impact of unexplained over-writings in injury descriptions on the credibility of medical evidence?
  • Can a conviction be upheld if the motive for the crime remains unproven and the accused's presence at the scene is questionable?
  Read full judgment →
• COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-I, REGIONAL TAX OFFICE, SIALKOT Versus WHITE GOLD STEEL MILLS, S.I.E. DASKA2025 SCMR 1521 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-06-05
  deemed assessment orderrectification of mistakelegal fictionIncome Tax Ordinance 2001Commissioner Inland Revenuestatutory interpretationtax jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the jurisdiction of the Commissioner Inland Revenue under Section 221(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 to rectify mistakes apparent from the record in deemed assessment orders issued under Section 120. The core legal question was whether a deemed assessment order, resulting from a legal fiction, qualifies as an order passed by the Commissioner under Section 221(1). The Supreme Court held that the Commissioner possesses the jurisdiction to rectify such orders. The Court reasoned that Section 120(1) establishes two sequential deeming provisions: first, that the Commissioner made an assessment, and second, that the return is an assessment order. By legal fiction, this constitutes an application of mind by the Commissioner, rendering the deemed assessment order an order passed by the Commissioner for the purposes of Section 221(1). The Court emphasized that legal fictions must be given their full effect, including all inevitable corollaries. Consequently, the impugned judgments of the High Courts, which denied this jurisdiction, were set aside, confirming that deemed assessment orders are subject to rectification under the Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Commissioner Inland Revenue have jurisdiction under Section 221(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 to rectify mistakes in deemed assessment orders issued under Section 120?
  • Are the deeming provisions in Section 120(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 sequential in nature?
  • Does a deemed assessment order under Section 120 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 constitute an order passed by the Commissioner for the purposes of rectification under Section 221?
  Read full judgment →
• ASAD HUSSAIN Versus The CONTROLLER GENERAL OF ACCOUNTS FEDERAL CO-OPERATIVE BUILDING, SECTOR G-5/2, ISLAMABAD2025 SCMR 1515 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MISKEEN Versus State2025 SCMR 1512 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-04-10
  death sentencemitigating circumstancesinfluence of eldersdouble murdereyewitness testimonyinjured witness
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his convictions and death sentences on two counts of murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and for attempted murder under Section 324 of the same Code. The prosecution's case rested on consistent ocular accounts from natural eyewitnesses, including an injured witness, which were corroborated by medical evidence. The appellant's counsel argued for a reduction of the death sentence to life imprisonment, contending that the appellant had acted under the influence of his father. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal, holding that the principle of elder influence is strictly limited to offenders of an impressionable age. A mature adult of full comprehension cannot claim mitigation on the ground of parental instigation. The Court observed that the appellant launched a brutal firearm and hatchet attack over a trivial matter, killing two people and injuring neighbors attempting to rescue them. Finding no mitigating circumstances, the Court maintained the convictions and death sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused of mature age and comprehension claim mitigation of a death sentence on the ground of acting under the influence or instigation of their father?
  • Is the principle of elder influence as a mitigating factor in sentencing limited to offenders of an impressionable age?
  • Whether concurrent findings of guilt based on consistent ocular accounts of natural and injured witnesses corroborated by medical evidence can be interfered with in the absence of any misreading of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz FARHAT ABBAS Versus State2025 SCMR 1509 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-02
  pre-arrest bailrule of consistencyfurther inquirycriminal conspiracysupplementary statementmala fideanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner following the refusal of such relief by the Lahore High Court. The petitioner was implicated in FIR No. 103/2023, registered for the events of May 9, 2023, via a supplementary statement filed by the complainant after a significant delay, alleging criminal conspiracy. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the lack of nomination in the FIR, the reliance on social media evidence, and the claim of mala fide intent by the prosecution. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that he was not named in the FIR, no recovery was effected from him, and he had cooperated with the investigation. Furthermore, applying the rule of consistency, the Court noted that a co-accused facing similar allegations had already been granted bail. The Court concluded that the case against the petitioner fell within the ambit of further inquiry, confirming the ad-interim pre-arrest bail previously granted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule of consistency apply when a co-accused in the same FIR has already been granted pre-arrest bail?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to pre-arrest bail when they were not nominated in the initial FIR and were only implicated in a delayed supplementary statement?
  • Does the absence of any recovery from an accused justify the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• CHAUDHARY STEEL FURNACE Versus COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, SIALKOT ZONE, REGIONAL TAX OFFICE, SIALKOT2025 SCMR 1505 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-22
  Sales TaxAppellate Tribunal Inland RevenueRectification of mistakeJurisdictionReference jurisdictionRemand orderTaxation lawSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a sales tax dispute where the petitioner challenged a Lahore High Court order that accepted a Sales Tax Reference filed by the respondent-department. The core issue revolved around the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue's (ATIR) exercise of rectification jurisdiction under Section 57 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. After the ATIR's initial order in the petitioner's favor was partially overturned by the High Court, and a subsequent CPLA withdrawn, the petitioner filed an application before the ATIR for 'fixation/rectification' of its original order to address an unanswered question. The ATIR modified its order, which the High Court later set aside. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that the High Court's earlier order was not a remand order and that the ATIR's subsequent modification was beyond the scope of Section 57, which is limited to correcting mistakes apparent on the record and does not permit re-adjudication or a completely different decision, especially when the original appeal was fully disposed of and litigated up to the Supreme Court. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue exercise rectification jurisdiction under Section 57 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, to re-adjudicate an issue not addressed in its original order after the appeal has been fully disposed of and litigated up to the Supreme Court?
  • Does Section 57 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, allow the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue to render a complete and altogether different decision under the guise of rectifying a mistake?
  • Is an order from the High Court in reference jurisdiction, which declines to answer a question of law due to lack of specific findings by the Tribunal, considered a remand order?
  • Can an appeal, once disposed of in its totality, be 'fixed' by the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue for a leftover issue without a pending lis?
  Read full judgment →
• ZULQARNAIN HAIDER alias Zain Versus State2025 SCMR 1457 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-04-22
  post-arrest bailcross-versioncounter versionfurther inquiryaggressor partyprolonged incarcerationfair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a petition seeking post-arrest bail by the petitioner in a case registered under Sections 302, 324, 337-H(2), 440, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the dismissal of his bail application by the Lahore High Court. The core legal questions pertained to whether the existence of cross-versions of the same occurrence rendered the case fit for further inquiry to grant bail, and the effect of prolonged incarceration without substantial trial progress. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed post-arrest bail to the petitioner. The Court held that in cases involving counter-versions arising from the same incident, bail is generally granted as a rule because determining which party acted as the aggressor and which version is true requires evaluation of pro and contra evidence at trial. The Court further observed that prolonged custody of 23 months without meaningful advancement in the trial impacted the right to a fair and expeditious trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the existence of cross-versions arising from the same incident makes a case fit for the grant of bail on the ground of further inquiry?
  • Can the extent or nature of injuries sustained by one party alone serve as conclusive proof to determine the aggressor in a cross-version case at the bail stage?
  • Whether prolonged incarceration without substantial progress in the trial justifies the grant of post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. KHALIDA BIBI Versus NAEEM KHAN2025 SCMR 1454 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-06-04Read full judgment →
• USMAN AHMED Versus State2025 SCMR 1442 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-04-15
  criminal appealmurderrobberytest identification paradebenefit of doubtrecovery of weaponrecovery of stolen articlesacquittaljuvenile justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged a High Court judgment that modified a trial court's conviction for murder and robbery. The core legal questions revolved around the evidentiary value of a test identification parade where the accused was seen by the eye-witness prior to the parade, and the reliability of recoveries made from open and accessible places. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Usman Ahmed, setting aside his conviction for murder and robbery by extending the benefit of doubt. The Court held that a test identification parade loses its evidentiary value if the possibility of the witness having seen the accused before the parade cannot be ruled out. Furthermore, recoveries made from open and accessible places are unsafe as they do not establish exclusive possession. The Court reiterated that if even a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt, the benefit of doubt must accrue to the accused, leading to acquittal. The appeal of co-accused Hamza Jehangir was dismissed as infructuous, as he had already served his sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Does a test identification parade hold evidentiary value if the identifying witness had the opportunity to see the accused before the parade?
  • Is a recovery of a weapon or stolen articles from an open and accessible place considered safe evidence?
  • Can a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt lead to an accused's acquittal?
  • What is the impact of a juvenile's age on sentencing for murder under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance?
  Read full judgment →
• SAFDAR ALI Versus State2025 SCMR 1437 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-04-07
  petition for leave to appealdelay in lodging FIRwithholding best evidenceuncorroborated testimonysole witness credibilitymedical evidencerapeacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard a petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld the petitioner's conviction for abduction and rape. The central issues were whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt in light of unexplained delays in lodging the FIR and conducting the medical examination, non-production of a material eyewitness, and reliance on uncorroborated testimony of a single witness whose statement was already disbelieved regarding acquitted co-accused. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the petitioner. The Court held that withholding a material eyewitness creates an adverse inference against the prosecution. Furthermore, the conviction of an accused cannot be exclusively based on the testimony of a single witness that has been disbelieved regarding co-accused, especially in the absence of independent corroboration and where medical evidence shows no signs of recent penetration.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR and conducting a medical examination undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case?
  • What is the legal effect of the prosecution withholding a natural and material eyewitness to the alleged occurrence?
  • Can a conviction be based exclusively on the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness whose statement has already been disbelieved with respect to acquitted co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. MADIHA BANO Versus SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE COMPLAINT CELL SOUTH KARACHI2025 SCMR 1435 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-25
  registration of FIREx-Officio Justice of Peacecognizable offencecriminal petitiondismissal of application
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a student whose admission was terminated due to poor academic progress and alleged misconduct, sought the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against the respondent by filing an application under Sections 22A and 22B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace. The application was dismissed after an inquiry revealed no cognizable offence was made out, and the petitioner's subsequent criminal miscellaneous application before the High Court met the same fate. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the two lower forums, noting that the dispute arose from academic disciplinary action and drop-out procedures rather than a cognizable criminal offence, while leaving open proper alternative remedies for the petitioner. Consequently, the criminal petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace is justified in dismissing an application for registration of an FIR when no cognizable offence is disclosed?
  • Can concurrent findings of lower courts refusing to order registration of an FIR be interfered with by the Supreme Court in the absence of legal error?
  • Does a dispute regarding the termination of a student's admission constitute a cognizable criminal offence warranting police intervention under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• ALTAF HUSSAIN Versus State2025 SCMR 1427 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-07
  murderocular accountappraisal of evidenceacquittal of co-accusedrelated witnessesnighttime occurrencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, Altaf Hussain, along with co-accused, faced trial for the murder of Muhammad Ashfaq and attempted murder of Muhammad Yasin. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302(b) and Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, sentencing him to imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment respectively. The Lahore High Court upheld the conviction. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court examined the ocular account provided by eye-witnesses, which remained consistent, corroborated by medical evidence, and unaffected by the nighttime setting due to adequate street illumination. The Court held that the relationship of the witnesses to the deceased does not discredit their testimony in the absence of animus, and the acquittal of a co-accused does not undermine the robust evidence establishing the appellant's specific role of burst firing with a Kalashnikov. However, since the firearm injury to the injured witness was attributed to an absconding co-accused, the conviction under Section 324 was set aside, while the conviction and sentence under Section 302(b) were upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of close relatives of a deceased can be discarded solely on the ground of their relationship in the absence of established animus?
  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused necessarily vitiate the conviction of another accused whose distinct role is proven through consistent ocular and medical evidence?
  • Can a conviction under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 be sustained when specific attribution of the injury points to an absconding co-accused rather than the appellant?
  Read full judgment →
• GHULAM QADIR Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD KALEEM2025 SCMR 1425 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-23Read full judgment →
• FATEH KHAN Versus State2025 SCMR 1408 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-06-04
  interested witnessblood feudmurderbenefit of doubtadverse inferenceabscondenceocular testimonycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from a brutal multiple-murder incident involving a blood feud where multiple persons were killed and injured. The core legal questions involved the reliability of interested and related eyewitnesses, delayed statements under section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1898, uncorroborated weapon recoveries, and whether abscondence alone can sustain a conviction. The Supreme Court held that the testimony of related and interested witnesses lacking independent corroboration, combined with material contradictions, dishonest improvements, and delayed police statements, could not safely form the basis of a conviction. Furthermore, an adverse inference was drawn under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 for withholding material witnesses, and it was reiterated that abscondence per se cannot prove guilt in the absence of trustworthy substantive evidence. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and sentences of the appellants, acquitted them of all charges, and dismissed the complainant's appeals for sentence enhancement and against co-accused acquittals.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related and interested witnesses can be relied upon without independent corroboration in cases involving previous enmity?
  • Does a stamp of a firearm injury on a prosecution witness per se act as a stamp of credence on their testimony?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the abscondence of an accused person in the absence of confidence-inspiring substantive evidence?
  • What is the legal effect under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 when the prosecution fails to produce key injured or eyewitnesses at the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD WAJID Versus State2025 SCMR 1399 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-15
  circumstantial evidencelast seen evidenceretracted judicial confessioncommutation of sentencecapital punishmenthomicidal asphyxiamitigating circumstancescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of a minor girl. The case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including last-seen testimony, a retracted judicial confession, and the recovery of the victim's belongings. The core legal question concerned the sufficiency of this circumstantial evidence to sustain a capital conviction and whether the sentence remained appropriate after the High Court acquitted the appellant of the rape charge. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of incriminating circumstances, rendering the conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, sustainable. The Court reaffirmed that while a capital conviction may rest on circumstantial evidence, it must exclude all hypotheses of innocence. However, noting the acquittal on the rape charge and minor inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence, the Court found these factors constituted mitigating circumstances. Consequently, the Court maintained the conviction but commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life, emphasizing that while circumstantial evidence can prove guilt, sentencing requires a nuanced assessment of all case facts.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence?
  • Does a retracted judicial confession require independent corroboration to support a conviction?
  • Can minor inconsistencies in prosecution evidence serve as a mitigating factor for the commutation of a death sentence?
  • Is the recovery of incriminating items on the pointation of an accused admissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• AMJAD Versus State2025 SCMR 1388 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-12
  criminal appealmurdersodomyFIR delaybenefit of doubtcontradictory evidenceacquittalevidentiary value of FIRpost-mortem reportprosecution case
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court challenged the convictions and death sentences of the appellants for sodomy and murder under Sections 302(b), 377, 341, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, upheld by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of a significant delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR) and numerous contradictions in witness testimonies. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the Trial Court and High Court. The Court held that an unexplained delay of 31.5 hours in lodging the FIR, coupled with the admitted fact that the FIR was registered after due consultation and preliminary police inquiry, cast a major dent on the prosecution's case, rendering it highly doubtful. The Court reiterated the principle that the benefit of doubt, which must be reasonable, always accrues to the accused, and that an FIR lodged after an inquiry loses its evidentiary value, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • What is the impact of an unexplained delay in lodging a First Information Report on the prosecution's case?
  • Does a First Information Report lodged after due consultation and preliminary police inquiry retain its full evidentiary value?
  • When does the benefit of doubt accrue to an accused in a criminal trial?
  • Can convictions and sentences be sustained if the prosecution's case is riddled with contradictions and omissions?
  • What is the significance of the 'golden rule' of benefit of doubt in criminal justice?
  Read full judgment →
• BASHIR-UD-DIN Versus State2025 SCMR 1380 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-08
  murderdacoityjudicial confessionidentification paradecircumstantial evidencemitigating circumstancessentence modificationlife imprisonmentdeath penaltycorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court heard appeals against convictions for murder and dacoity under Sections 302, 396, and 460 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal questions revolved around the reliability of identification parades, the sufficiency of medical and recovery evidence, and the evidentiary value of a judicial confession, particularly against co-accused. The Court upheld the convictions, finding that the prosecution had established guilt beyond reasonable doubt through ocular testimony, identification, recovery of incriminating weapons, and a judicial confession recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was held that a judicial confession has high evidentiary value and can be considered circumstantial evidence against co-accused under Article 43 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, even if retracted, provided it is corroborated. However, due to the motive being shrouded in mystery and the single fatal injury, the death sentences were modified to life imprisonment, with a fine payable as compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Can a judicial confession recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be considered circumstantial evidence against co-accused under Article 43 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a judicial confession in Pakistan's criminal law?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on a retracted judicial confession if other corroborative evidence exists?
  • Do an unproven motive or a single fatal injury constitute mitigating factors in sentencing for murder?
  • What is the standard of proof required in criminal cases in Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• AHSIN ALI Versus State2025 SCMR 1367 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-08
  Jappahreduction of death sentencemitigating circumstancefailure to prove motivebenefit of doubtqatl-i-amdattempted robberyhouse trespass
  Summary & questions settled

  Jail petitions were filed challenging the Lahore High Court's judgment that upheld the trial court's convictions and sentences of the petitioners for murder under Section 302(b), attempt to commit robbery under Section 393, and house trespass under Section 449 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court considered whether an allegation of merely catching hold of the deceased ('Jappah') without inflicting injuries justified conviction, and whether the prosecution's failure to establish the alleged motive warranted the reduction of a death sentence. The Court held that attributing the role of 'Jappah' was unnatural and doubtful where the co-accused inflicted repeated hatchet blows, acquitting Muhammad Ramzan alias Jani. Regarding Ahsin Ali, although the direct ocular evidence and recovery proved his guilt for murder, the failure to prove the alleged motive of robbery or premeditation served as a mitigating circumstance. Consequently, the Supreme Court commuted Ahsin Ali's death penalty to life imprisonment and acquitted him under Sections 393 and 449 PPC.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted of murder solely on the allegation of catching hold of the deceased ('Jappah') when a co-accused inflicted repeated fatal blows?
  • Does the prosecution's failure to establish the alleged motive serve as a mitigating circumstance to reduce a death sentence to life imprisonment in a murder case?
  • Can convictions for attempted robbery and house trespass be sustained when the prosecution fails to establish that any attempt was made to steal or loot property?
  Read full judgment →
• IFTIKHAR KIYANI alias Khara Versus State2025 SCMR 1360 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-04-28
  murderrelated witnessesinterested witnessocular evidence versus medical evidenceappellate jurisdictioncriminal appealconviction alteration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court which maintained the conviction of the appellant for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, while altering his sentence from death to imprisonment for life. The core legal questions involved the credibility of related eye-witnesses, the effect of minor contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, and the standard of proof required to sustain a murder conviction. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that related witnesses are not inherently interested witnesses unless motivated by extraneous considerations, and that minor discrepancies between ocular and medical testimony do not undermine a trustworthy eyewitness account. The key legal principles laid down are that the testimony of related witnesses, if confidence-inspiring, is reliable in the absence of a proved motive for false substitution, and that trustworthy ocular evidence takes precedence over medical evidence regarding minor discrepancies.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere relationship of a witness to the deceased render their testimony unreliable or classify them as an interested witness?
  • Can minor inconsistencies between ocular testimony and medical evidence form the sole basis for the acquittal of an accused?
  • Whether trustworthy ocular evidence takes precedence over medical evidence in criminal trials?
  • What constitutes an interested witness under Pakistani criminal jurisprudence?
  Read full judgment →
• RAB NAWAZ Versus SHEHZAD HASSAN2025 SCMR 1357 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-26
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationmurdertest identification paradeleave to appealappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the order of the High Court granting post-arrest bail to respondent No. 1 in a case registered under Sections 302, 427, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, seeking cancellation of the same. The core legal question was whether the High Court's order granting bail was perverse or contrary to the principles governing the grant of bail, warranting interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the delay in holding the test identification parade and the corroborative nature of the recovery were valid tentative considerations, and that none of the established grounds for cancellation of bail—such as a perverse order or disregard of legal principles—were attracted. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that appellate interference in bail matters requires clear perversity or illegality in the impugned order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court should interfere with an order granting post-arrest bail when the order is not perverse or in disregard of legal principles?
  • Can the delayed holding of a test identification parade be considered a valid ground for granting post-arrest bail tentatively?
  • What are the established grounds for the cancellation of bail by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• GHAZI KHAN PATHAN Versus State2025 SCMR 1351 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-04-23
  constructive possessionnarcotics recoveryofficial witnessesdriver liabilitypassenger acquittalcontrol of narcotic substances
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail petition arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh upholding the conviction of the petitioners under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of narcotics and weaponry from a truck. The core legal questions involved the evidentiary value of official excise witnesses, the doctrine of constructive possession regarding the vehicle's driver, and the criminal liability of a passenger sitting in the front seat. The Supreme Court held that the testimony of official witnesses remains reliable unless malafide or enmity is proven, and that the driver of a vehicle is presumed to have constructive possession and knowledge of contraband concealed therein, especially when attempting to flee from police. However, the Court held that a mere passenger without control over the vehicle cannot be presumed to have knowledge of concealed narcotics in the absence of independent incriminating evidence. Consequently, the petition of the driver was dismissed while the passenger was acquitted. The key principles laid down include the rule on constructive possession of narcotics by a vehicle's driver and the distinction in liability between a driver and a mere passenger.

  Questions settled

  • Does the testimony of official excise witnesses lose its evidentiary value solely due to the absence of private witnesses?
  • Is the driver of a vehicle presumed to have knowledge and constructive possession of narcotics found hidden inside the vehicle?
  • Can a passenger sitting in the front seat of a vehicle be held criminally liable for concealed narcotics without independent evidence showing their knowledge?
  • What constitutes sufficient intent to flee so as to establish the driver's knowledge of contraband in a vehicle?
  Read full judgment →
• QURBAN ALI Versus State2025 SCMR 1344 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-06
  benefit of doubtretracted confessionmurder convictioncriminal appealmedical evidence contradictioncircumstantial evidenceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the petitioner for the murder of his wife and two children under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, given the retracted judicial confession, significant contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, and the absence of independent witnesses or corroborative proof. The Supreme Court observed that the chemical examiner's report returned negative for poison, contradicting the prosecution's theory, and noted procedural lapses in the recording of the confession and the investigation. Furthermore, the Court highlighted material discrepancies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding the cause of death and the involvement of other acquitted co-accused. Holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt, the Court laid down the principle that any single loophole, lacuna, or glaring conflict in the prosecution's evidence entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt, which must be extended automatically.

  Questions settled

  • Does a retracted judicial confession, when unsupported by other evidence and marred by procedural irregularities, suffice for a murder conviction?
  • What is the legal effect of a glaring conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence in a criminal trial?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to material contradictions in witness testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• KHIZAR HAYAT Versus State2025 SCMR 1339 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-04-28
  benefit of doubtocular accountcorroborationdelayed FIRcriminal appealacquittalmotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for murder and causing injuries, which had been upheld in part by the High Court. The Supreme Court examined the ocular account, the delay in lodging the FIR, and the failure to prove the alleged motive. The Court noted that the incident occurred at night without the recovery of the alleged torch, casting doubt on the identification of the culprits. Furthermore, the Court highlighted a significant delay in reporting the incident to the police and observed that the prosecution witnesses had been disbelieved regarding other co-accused who were attributed similar roles. The Court reiterated that if eye-witnesses are disbelieved against some accused, they cannot be relied upon against others without independent corroboration. Additionally, the medical evidence conflicted with the ocular account, and the prosecution failed to establish the motive it had set up. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can eye-witnesses who have been disbelieved against some accused persons be believed against another accused person without independent corroboration?
  • What is the consequence for the prosecution when it sets up a motive but fails to prove it?
  • Is an injured witness's testimony automatically reliable without corroboration when there is a conflict with medical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• SHER ASFANDYAR KHAN Versus NEELOFAR SHAH2025 SCMR 1307 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-08
  corporate oppressionsummary procedureshare transfersecondary evidencetrust over sharescompany jurisdictionforgery allegations
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals, by leave of the Court, challenged the common judgment of the High Court of Sindh upholding the Company Judge's decision in favor of the Shah Group regarding corporate control and share transfers of Messrs Ofspace (Pvt.) Ltd. The core legal questions involved whether a summary procedure under Section 9 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 permitted adjudication without framing issues or recording evidence, whether the claim of trust over shares was barred by Section 148 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, and whether secondary evidence of disputed agreements was properly admitted under Article 76 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. In a majority decision, the Supreme Court held that the Company Judge erred in proceeding summarily without recording evidence on complex factual disputes involving forgery allegations, that the claim of trust was barred by statute, and that secondary evidence was improperly admitted, thereby setting aside the lower court judgments and remitting the matter to civil suits. The key principles laid down include the limits of summary jurisdiction in corporate disputes involving serious factual controversies and the strict evidentiary requirements for admitting secondary evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a summary procedure under Section 9 of the Companies Ordinance provides the appropriate forum for resolving a corporate dispute involving complex factual issues and allegations of forgery?
  • Whether the claim of trust over shares is legally tenable given the statutory bar under Section 148 of the Companies Ordinance?
  • Whether secondary evidence of a disputed agreement can be admitted without fulfilling the strict conditions prescribed under Article 76 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Whether a Company Judge can decide disputed questions of fact in a petition under Section 290 of the Companies Ordinance without framing issues and recording evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• WAK LIMITED MULTAN ROAD, LAHORE Versus COLLECTOR CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, LAHORE (NOW COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LTU, LAHORE)2025 SCMR 1280 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-14
  mandatory vs directory provisionsstatutory limitationsales tax adjudicationorder-in-originalfiscal statutesstatutory interpretationtax recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter came before a larger Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan to determine the correctness of the judgment in Collector of Sales Tax, Gujranwala v. Super Asia Mohammad Din (2017 SCMR 1427), which held that statutory time limits for passing an order-in-original under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, and related indirect tax laws, are mandatory rather than directory. The core legal question was whether the use of 'shall' in the relevant provisions, particularly when coupled with the phrase 'in no case,' necessitates strict compliance, or if such provisions are merely directory to ensure expeditious disposal without extinguishing tax liability. The Court held that the provisions are indeed mandatory. It reasoned that the legislative intent, evidenced by the specific time-bound language and the 'hard edge' of the negative phrasing, indicates that non-compliance invalidates the adjudicatory order. The Court affirmed the principles in Super Asia, including the judicial imposition of a six-month outer limit for extensions granted under Section 74 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, to ensure legal certainty and prevent indefinite tax liability.

  Questions settled

  • Are the time limits prescribed for passing an order-in-original under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, mandatory or directory?
  • Does the use of the term 'shall' coupled with the phrase 'in no case' in a fiscal statute indicate a mandatory legislative intent?
  • Can the Supreme Court set an outer limit for the exercise of discretionary powers under Section 74 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, where the statute itself is silent?
  Read full judgment →
• MAQBOOL ALI Versus Mst. RAHEELA2025 SCMR 1275 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-13
  constitutional jurisdictionwrit of certiorarirecovery of dowerconcurrent findingsremand of casesubstitution of findingsfamily court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition assailing a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had allowed a writ petition filed by Respondent No. 1 against concurrent judgments of the Family Court and the appellate Court dismissing her suit for recovery of dower. The High Court had not only set aside the concurrent dismissal orders but also proceeded to decree the suit itself. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court, while issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 199 of the Constitution against concurrent decisions dismissing a dower suit, possesses the jurisdiction to substitute its own findings and decree the suit. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court may interfere with concurrent findings of fact if tainted by misreading or non-consideration of evidence, it cannot arrogate to itself the powers of a trial court or court of appeal to substitute its own views or issue a decree. The proper course upon interfering with findings of fact is to remand the matter to the lower forum. The Court laid down the principle that in constitutional writ jurisdiction, the High Court must remand the case for fresh determination rather than substituting its own decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan can substitute its own findings of fact for those of the courts below and decree a suit?
  • What is the proper course of action for the High Court when it finds that the concurrent findings of fact by subordinate courts or tribunals are based on a misreading or non-consideration of evidence?
  • Does a High Court acting in writ jurisdiction act as a court of appeal to re-evaluate the merits of a dispute and issue judicial decrees?
  Read full judgment →
• HABIB-UR-REHMAN Versus ABDUL KARIM2025 SCMR 1262 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-28Read full judgment →
• COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LAHORE Versus EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE LIMITED, LAHORE2025 SCMR 1248 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-02
  minimum taxtax creditcarry forwardfiscal statute interpretationretrospective operationincome taxstatutory construction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the interpretation of Section 113(2)(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, specifically whether taxpayers could carry forward minimum tax paid under Section 113(1) for adjustment against future tax liabilities when they had no actual tax payable due to losses. The Supreme Court addressed whether this benefit was available prior to the 2021 amendment. The Court held that the statutory language "actual tax payable" required the existence of a tax liability in the relevant year for the carry-forward mechanism to be triggered. Consequently, taxpayers with zero tax liability due to losses were not entitled to this credit before the 2021 legislative amendment. The Court affirmed that fiscal statutes must be construed strictly according to their plain language, rejecting arguments for equitable interpretation or retrospective application of subsequent amendments. It emphasized that courts cannot add words to a statute or grant retrospective effect to remedial provisions unless the legislature explicitly provides for such operation. The appeals were decided in favor of the Revenue, confirming the prospective nature of the 2021 amendment.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 113(2)(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, allow for the carry-forward of minimum tax paid by a company that had no actual tax liability due to losses prior to the 2021 amendment?
  • Can a fiscal statute be interpreted to provide relief to taxpayers based on equity where the statutory language is clear and unambiguous?
  • Does the substitution of a proviso in a fiscal statute by the Finance Act, 2021, have retrospective effect?
  • Is the 'actual tax payable' a mandatory prerequisite for claiming a tax credit under Section 113(2)(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, as it stood before 2021?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus State2025 SCMR 1240 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-04-08
  criminal appealmurderdeath sentencebenefit of doubtcontradictory ocular testimonycorroborative evidencerecovery of weaponreappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court whereby the accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced to death under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of two children, along with compensation under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to reappraise the evidence. Upon review, the Court noted significant contradictions and improvements in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding the weapons used, inconsistencies between the ocular account and the post-mortem report concerning the nature of injuries, major flaws and the lack of public witnesses in the police recovery proceedings, and the questionable track record of the investigating officer. Emphasizing that recovery is merely corroborative and cannot sustain a conviction when substantive evidence fails, the Court held that the prosecution case was fraught with serious doubts and mysteries. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower courts' judgments, extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant, and ordered his immediate release.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contradictions and improvements in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses are sufficient to create reasonable doubt warranting the acquittal of an accused?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of corroborative evidence such as the recovery of an alleged weapon of offence when the substantive ocular evidence is disbelieved?
  • What is the legal effect on the prosecution case when the medical evidence contradicts the ocular account regarding the nature of injuries and weapons used?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of law?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD DAWOOD Versus Mst. SAKEENA FAROOQUE2025 SCMR 1229 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-26Read full judgment →
• AATIKA HINA MUSHTAQ Versus SECRETARY SPECIAL EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, SPECIAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT LAHORE2025 SCMR 1221 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-04-21
  service appealpromotionDepartmental Promotion Committeeright to be considered for promotionright to livelihoodcivil bureaucracyservice rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of the petitioner's service appeal by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which had upheld the rejection of her promotion from Physical Education Teacher (BS-09) to Lecturer Physical Education (BS-17) by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). The core legal question was whether the DPC could lawfully defer a civil servant's promotion on the pretext that the governing service rules required prospective amendment. The Supreme Court held that the DPC is bound to enforce existing rules and lacks the mandate to question their legality or withhold promotions awaiting contemplated amendments. The Court laid down that while a civil servant does not possess a vested right to promotion, they have an enforceable right to be considered fairly and transparently in accordance with the law, which is an integral facet of the right to life and livelihood under Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan, and that a professional civil service must remain merit-based, politically neutral, and independent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Departmental Promotion Committee can defer a civil servant's promotion on the ground that the governing service rules are subject to future amendments?
  • Does a civil servant have an enforceable right to be considered for promotion in accordance with the law?
  • Whether fair and transparent consideration for promotion forms an essential facet of the right to livelihood under Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LAHORE Versus EDUCATIONAL SERVICES (PRIVATE) LIMITED, LAHORE2025 SCMR 1214 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-04-24
  federal excise dutyfranchise serviceslegal incidence of taxdelegated legislationtax liabilitystatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises under the Federal Excise Act, 2005, concerning whether the liability to pay federal excise duty on franchise services for the tax period 2012 lay upon the franchiser or the franchisee. The respondent taxpayer, a local franchiser, argued that under Rule 43A of the Federal Excise Rules, 2005, the duty was payable by the franchisees. The Commissioner Inland Revenue contended that under section 3(5) of the Act, the legal incidence of the duty fell on the person providing the service, namely the franchiser. The Appellate Tribunal and the High Court both ruled in favor of the taxpayer. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that section 3(5) of the Act unambiguously places the legal liability to pay excise duty on the person providing the services within Pakistan, and delegated legislation such as Rule 43A cannot override or alter the clear mandate of the parent statute unless expressly authorized. The Court concluded that Rule 43A applies only to foreign franchisers, answered the question of law in the affirmative in favor of the Department, converted the leave petition into an appeal, and allowed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the liability to pay excise duty on franchise services under the Federal Excise Act, 2005 lies on the franchiser or the franchisee?
  • Can subordinate legislation or rules framed under a statute alter the clear statutory provisions of the parent Act regarding the legal incidence of tax?
  • Whether Rule 43A of the Federal Excise Rules, 2005 applies to domestic franchisers or is restricted to foreign franchisers?
  • Does a procedural defect in citing the wrong statutory provision for a tax reference in the High Court vitiate the proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ABRAS Versus State2025 SCMR 1145 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-12
  criminal appealbenefit of doubttest identification paradeforensic evidenceSection 161 Cr.P.C.murderous assaultappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for murder and murderous assault. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given the lack of identification, procedural irregularities, and evidentiary contradictions. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of doubt. The Court established that while injuries sustained by a witness confirm their presence at the scene, they do not inherently validate the truthfulness of their testimony. Furthermore, the Court held that the failure to record a crucial eye-witness's statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 causes significant prejudice to the accused, undermining the fairness of the trial. Additionally, the Court ruled that substantial delays in transmitting crime scene evidence to forensic laboratories strip the resulting reports of evidentiary significance. Finally, the Court affirmed that identification in darkness is unreliable, and a test identification parade is rendered useless if witnesses have had prior access to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of a firearm injury on a prosecution witness automatically establish the truthfulness of their testimony?
  • What is the legal consequence of failing to record a witness's statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a significant delay in sending crime scene evidence to a forensic laboratory render the forensic report devoid of evidentiary value?
  • Can a test identification parade be considered reliable if the witnesses had access to the accused at the police station prior to the parade?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMJAD NAEEM Versus State2025 SCMR 1130 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-19
  post-arrest bailcriminal breach of trustentrustmentprohibitory clausebail jurisprudencecivil disputebusiness transactionjudicial precedent
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of criminal breach of trust regarding vehicle transactions. The core legal question was whether a business transaction involving the sale of vehicles with partial payment constitutes "entrustment" under Section 405 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and whether bail should be granted for offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the transaction was a commercial sale, not an entrustment, as ownership had transferred; thus, the ingredients of criminal breach of trust were absent. Furthermore, since the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court reiterated that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception. The key principle laid down is that civil disputes cannot be converted into criminal cases to exert pressure, and subordinate courts must strictly adhere to the binding precedent regarding bail jurisprudence established by the Supreme Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does a business transaction involving the sale of property with partial payment constitute 'entrustment' under Section 405 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the grant of bail a rule and refusal an exception for offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the mere use of the term 'amanat' or 'trust' in an FIR establish the offence of criminal breach of trust if the underlying transaction is commercial in nature?
  • Are subordinate courts bound by the bail jurisprudence principles established in Supreme Court precedents under Article 189 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• MUNIR AHMAD Versus State2025 SCMR 1123 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-04-09
  Qatl-e-Amdmitigating circumstanceproof of motiveocular accountinterested witnesscapital punishmentcommutation of sentencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court confirming the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Munir Ahmad, for the Qatl-e-Amd of his father and brother under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the ocular testimony of close relatives, the evidentiary value of forensic firearm matching, and whether the failure to prove motive or the presence of minor inconsistencies serves as a mitigating circumstance for reducing the death penalty to imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt through consistent eyewitness accounts and corroborative forensic and medical evidence. However, because the prosecution failed to establish the alleged motive and minor inconsistencies were present in the evidence, the Court exercised judicial discretion to partly allow the appeal by maintaining the conviction under Section 302(b) while converting the sentence of death on two counts to rigorous imprisonment for life. The key principle laid down is that the failure of the prosecution to prove an alleged motive, coupled with minor inconsistencies in the evidence, constitutes a mitigating circumstance warranting the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the unproved motive alleged by the prosecution can be treated as a mitigating circumstance for the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Can the testimony of close relative eyewitnesses be relied upon in a murder trial in the absence of any ulterior motive or animus for false implication?
  • Do minor discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses warrant the outright acquittal of an accused?
  • Whether positive forensic matching of crime empties with a weapon recovered on the pointation of the accused serves as reliable corroborative evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• AYESHA TAYYAB Versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION CANTT. DISTRICT SIALKOT2025 SCMR 1117 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-22Read full judgment →
• IMTIAZ HUSSAIN SHAH Versus State2025 SCMR 1110 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-14
  murderbenefit of doubtocular evidencepostmortem delayidentification of accusedcriminal appealacquittalQanun-e-Shahadat
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt, considering alleged contradictions in ocular testimony, the absence of a light source at the nighttime crime scene, and an unexplained delay in the postmortem examination. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions, and acquitted the appellants. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of eye-witnesses, noting material contradictions and the lack of illumination at the scene. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that an inordinate, unexplained delay in conducting a postmortem examination raises a strong inference that the time was utilized to fabricate evidence or procure witnesses. Additionally, the failure to examine a material witness warrants an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The Court reaffirmed that a single reasonable doubt is sufficient to entitle an accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in conducting a postmortem examination create a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case?
  • Can an adverse inference be drawn under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, when the prosecution abandons a material witness?
  • Is the identification of an accused in a nighttime occurrence reliable if no source of light is mentioned in the FIR or site plan?
  • Is it necessary to have multiple circumstances to extend the benefit of the doubt to an accused in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• JABRAN Versus State2025 SCMR 1099 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-21
  post-arrest bailmoney launderingprohibitory clausefurther inquirypredicate offencebail criteriasentencing speculation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought post-arrest bail in a money laundering case registered under the Anti-Money Laundering Act 2010. The core legal question was whether the minimum or maximum sentence prescribed for an offence determines if it falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that the maximum sentence prescribed for an offence is the correct criterion for determining the application of the prohibitory clause, rejecting the argument that the minimum sentence should be considered. The Court clarified that speculating on the likely sentence at the bail stage is prohibited as it constitutes a deeper appreciation of evidence. On the merits, the Court found the case to be one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting that the petitioners had already been granted bail in the predicate offences and that the timing of the property acquisitions appeared to predate the alleged predicate crimes. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals and admitted the petitioners to bail, emphasizing that these findings were tentative.

  Questions settled

  • Does the minimum or maximum sentence prescribed for an offence determine its inclusion in the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is it permissible for a court to speculate on the likely sentence at the bail stage to determine if an offence falls within the prohibitory clause?
  • Does the grant of bail in predicate offences constitute a ground for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a related money laundering case?
  Read full judgment →
• SURFACTANT CHEMICALS COMPANY (PVT.) LIMITED, KARACHI Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad2025 SCMR 1096 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-04-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AZEEM Versus State2025 SCMR 1093 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-04-07
  cross-version casesummoning of accusedpolice reportcognizancecriminal petitioninvestigation reportcounterblast FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal, converted into an appeal and allowed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a criminal revision against the trial court's summoning order in a cross-version case. The core legal question was whether the trial court could validly summon the petitioners—who were eye-witnesses in the primary murder FIR and had been placed in column No. 2 by the police report—to face trial in a belated counter-version case without identifying any material error or illegality in the police investigation. The Supreme Court held that both the trial court and the High Court erred in ignoring the facts, the inordinate delay in lodging the counter-version, and the police report exonerating the petitioners, while failing to point out any infirmity in the investigation before taking cognizance. The key principle laid down is that a trial court cannot discard a police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and summon accused persons in a cross-version without properly examining the entire material or finding tangible legal error in the investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court can summon accused persons placed in column No. 2 of a police report without pointing out any illegality in the investigation?
  • Can a belated counter-version FIR be entertained to summon eye-witnesses of the primary murder case as accused without sufficient connecting material?
  • Is it mandatory for the trial court to examine the entire material and investigation report before differing with the police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.?
  Read full judgment →
• WAQAS AHMAD Versus State2025 SCMR 1087 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-04-09
  qatl-e-amdFIR delaypostmortem delaydishonest improvementseyewitness credibilitysource of lightabandonment of witnessesbenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard a petition for leave to appeal converted into a criminal appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had maintained the petitioner's conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his paternal uncle but reduced his death sentence to life imprisonment. The core legal questions addressed were whether unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and conducting the post-mortem, dishonest improvements by the sole eyewitness, absence of proof of light during a night-time incident, abandonment of material witnesses, and contradictions with medical evidence vitiate a conviction. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the petitioner. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to unexplained reporting delays, material dishonest improvements undermining ocular testimony, lack of illuminated visibility at the scene, and medical findings indicating an earlier time of death. The Court reaffirmed that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR and conducting a post-mortem examination on the prosecution's case?
  • How do material and dishonest improvements in an eyewitness's court testimony affect the probative value of that witness?
  • What presumption arises under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 when the prosecution abandons material eyewitnesses named in the FIR?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitle an accused person to acquittal as a matter of right in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus State2025 SCMR 1082 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-04-07
  murderbenefit of doubtdelay in FIRocular account and medical evidenceunnatural conduct of eyewitnessescriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which was upheld by the High Court. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the eyewitnesses, the effect of delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR), discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence, and the reliability of an alleged motive and consequential weapon recovery. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant, holding that gross, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, unnatural conduct and doubtful presence of eyewitnesses, direct contradiction between medical evidence and the ocular account, and an unproved vague motive collectively created profound doubts in the prosecution's case. The key principle laid down is that multiple circumstances creating reasonable doubt in the prosecution's narrative warrant the extension of the benefit of the doubt resulting in an acquittal, and corroborative pieces like weapon recoveries cannot sustain a conviction once direct evidence has been disbelieved.

  Questions settled

  • Does a gross and unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report create doubt regarding the truthfulness of the prosecution story?
  • Can the un-natural conduct of close-relative eyewitnesses who stood as silent spectators during an assault render their testimony unreliable?
  • Whether a conflict between the ocular account regarding the time of occurrence and the medical evidence undermines the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be maintained solely on the basis of a weapon recovery and a positive chemical examiner report when the direct evidence has been disbelieved?
  Read full judgment →
• The CHIEF COMMISSIONER REGIONAL TAX OFFICE, BAHAWALPUR Versus SHAHEEN YOUSAF2025 SCMR 1076 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-04-16Read full judgment →
• COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, CORPORATE ZONE, REGIONAL TAX OFFICE, FAISALABAD Versus NATIONAL PUBLIC WELFARE SOCIETY, JINNAH COLONY, FAISALABAD2025 SCMR 1073 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-04-23
  income taxtax creditnon-profit organizationretrospective application of lawprospective application of lawstatutory regulatory ordertaxation lawwelfare society
  Summary & questions settled

  This Civil Petition challenged a Lahore High Court order that dismissed an income tax reference concerning a welfare society's entitlement to tax credit. The core legal question was whether SRO No.754 (I)/2016, issued on 15.08.2016, which amended Rule 214 of the Income Tax Rules, 2002 to limit the validity of non-profit organization approvals under Section 2(36) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2002 to three years, applied retrospectively. The Petitioner-Commissioner contended that an approval granted in 2007 expired in 2010 due to the SRO. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the High Court's decision. It held that the SRO applies prospectively, as the words "subsequent three years" do not suggest retrospective application, and no provision in the SRO explicitly mandated it. The Court reiterated the settled principle that retrospective application of law, particularly in tax matters, requires specific provision. Consequently, the taxpayer's 2007 approval remained valid until August 2019, entitling them to tax credit for the tax year 2019.

  Questions settled

  • Can a statutory regulatory order (SRO) be applied retrospectively without explicit provision?
  • Does an amendment to tax rules limiting the validity period of approvals apply retrospectively to approvals granted before the amendment?
  • What is the principle governing the retrospective application of law, particularly in tax cases?
  • When does the three-year validity period for non-profit organization approvals, as introduced by SRO No.754 (I)/2016, commence?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN2025 SCMR 1066 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-04-03Read full judgment →
• The PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh, Karachi Versus ABID ALI JATOI2025 SCMR 1058 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-20
  disabled persons quotaemployment rightsbeneficial legislationjudicial reviewconstitutional equalitycivil service recruitmentnon-discrimination
  Summary & questions settled

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

  Questions settled

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

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

  Questions settled

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

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

  Questions settled

  • Can a vehicle frozen under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, be released on superdari under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does the failure to challenge a freezing order under Section 13 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, preclude an accused from seeking interim custody of property under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Are the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, applicable to proceedings under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • What is the requirement for judicial authorities when exercising discretionary powers under the General Clauses Act, 1897?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus SHAFAQAT ALI2025 SCMR 1032 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-27Read full judgment →
• MANZAR ABBAS Versus State2025 SCMR 1024 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-13
  murderdelay in FIRpost-mortem delaychance witnessbenefit of the doubtblood feudmotiveacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

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

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report creates a fatal suspicion regarding the prosecution's case?
  • Does a noticeable delay in conducting the post-mortem examination suggest consultation and the planting of eye-witnesses?
  • What is the evidentiary effect of abandoning a material eye-witness who gave a statement contrary to the prosecution's version?
  • Is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt sufficient for extending the benefit of the doubt to an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• PIOA SHAH Versus AMIN KHAN2025 SCMR 1018 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-01-13Read full judgment →
• QAYUM NAWAZ Versus GULAB KHAN2025 SCMR 1015 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-04-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUSAWAR RAFIQ Versus State2025 SCMR 1008 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-24
  review petitionbenefit of doubtchain of custodyexplosive substancesillegal confinementappreciation of evidencemiscarriage of justice
  Summary & questions settled

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

  Questions settled

  • Can a Supreme Court judgment be reviewed if material evidence was overlooked at the time of the original pronouncement?
  • Does a contradiction between prosecution witness testimony and forensic reports regarding the chain of custody of case property entitle an accused to acquittal?
  • Is the existence of prior habeas corpus petitions regarding illegal detention relevant to assessing the credibility of a subsequent criminal recovery case?
  • Does a discrepancy in the complainant's name on recovery memos constitute a sufficient ground to doubt the authenticity of recovery proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. HUMAIRA WAZIR Versus MUHAMMAD FAISAL2025 SCMR 1003 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-07
  family lawdowerNikahnamaleave to appealmisreading of evidenceancestral propertyrecovery of dowry
  Summary & questions settled

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

  Questions settled

  • Can a wife claim a specific property as dower if the Nikahnama entry regarding ancestral property is vague and lacks specific identification?
  • Does the voluntary handing over of gold ornaments by a wife to her husband constitute 'snatching' for the purpose of a recovery claim?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in family matters?
  Read full judgment →
• The PUNJAB EMPLOYEES SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION, LAHORE Versus JAVED IQBAL2024 SCMR 559 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-18
  reinstatementregularization of servicedisciplinary proceedingsmala fideevaluation reportscontract employee
  Summary & questions settled

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

  Questions settled

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

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

  Questions settled

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

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

  Questions settled

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

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

  Questions settled

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

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

  Questions settled

  • Whether the unproven motive of a crime can be considered a mitigating factor to reduce the sentence from death to imprisonment for life?
  • Does delay in lodging the FIR vitiate the prosecution's case where the delay is sufficiently explained by the hospitalization of the injured victim?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the consistency and credibility of ocular and medical evidence in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• WAPDA through Chairman Versus ALAM SHER2023 SCMR 981 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-03-28Read full judgment →
• PUBLIC INTEREST LAW ASSOCIATION OF PAKISTAN Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Lower Mall, Lahore2023 SCMR 969 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-02-02Read full judgment →
• ZAKIR MEHMOOD Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (D.P), PAKISTAN SECRETARIAT, RAWALPINDI2023 SCMR 960 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-04-12Read full judgment →
• KAUSER PARVEEN Versus KASB BANK2023 SCMR 890 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-02-22
  recovery decreebanking courtmortgaged propertycourt auctionsale certificatethird-party rightsobjection petitionexecution proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

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

  Questions settled

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

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

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a related eye-witness should be discarded solely on the ground of their relationship with the deceased?
  • What is the distinction between a related witness and an interested witness in criminal jurisprudence?
  • Does a failure to prove the motive part of the prosecution case render the direct ocular account unreliable?
  • How do minor discrepancies in witness statements differ from fatal contradictions affecting the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION Versus Mst. RAZIA AMEER2023 SCMR 826 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-03-06
  Group insuranceLiquidated damagesInsurance Ordinance 2000Delayed insurance claimImplied terms of contractLegal heirsInsurance repudiation
  Summary & questions settled

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

  Questions settled

  • Are legal heirs entitled to claim liquidated damages under Section 118 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000?
  • Does the absence of an express clause for liquidated damages in an insurance contract negate the statutory right to such damages under the Insurance Ordinance, 2000?
  • Do legal heirs have the standing to initiate proceedings for the recovery of insurance claims and liquidated damages under the Insurance Ordinance, 2000?
  Read full judgment →
• DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, POSTAL SERVICES, D.G. KHAN Versus NADEEM RAZA2023 SCMR 803 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-01-17
  service tribunalmisappropriationmoral turpitudeproportionality testdisciplinary proceedingscivil servantquantum of punishment
  Summary & questions settled

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

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have the authority to reduce a penalty imposed by a department on a civil servant?
  • Under what circumstances can a court or tribunal interfere with the quantum of a penalty imposed by a competent authority?
  • Is the test of proportionality applicable when reviewing penalties imposed for misconduct involving moral turpitude?
  • Does the temporary nature of misappropriation mitigate the severity of the misconduct for a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• PRESIDENT NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN Versus WAQAS AHMED KHAN2023 SCMR 766 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-01-16Read full judgment →
• COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE ZONE-I, REGIONAL TAX OFFICE, QUETTA Versus HAJVAIRY STEEL INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED, QUETTA2023 SCMR 681 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-01-30
  sales taxspecial proceduresteel re-rolling millsnon obstante clausecharging provisionprecedentleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

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

  Questions settled

  • Whether section 3(1A) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 overrides the special procedure prescribed under section 71 of the said Act for steel re-rolling mills?
  • Does the payment of sales tax at fixed rates through electricity bills under the Sales Tax Special Procedures Rules, 2007 amount to a final discharge of tax liability?
  • When does an earlier order of the Supreme Court declining leave to appeal constitute a binding precedent under Article 189 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• PAKISTAN TELEVISION CORPORATION Versus NOOR SANAT SHAH2023 SCMR 616 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-09-27Read full judgment →
• FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Chairman Federal Board of Revenue FBR House, Islamabad Versus ZAHID MALIK2023 SCMR 603 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-12-26
  misconductdepartmental inquiryright of cross-examinationfair trialnatural justiceservice tribunalefficiency and discipline rulesreinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

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

  Questions settled

  • Whether a departmental inquiry conducted without recording oral evidence and denying the accused the right to cross-examine witnesses violates the rules and principles of natural justice?
  • Does an accused civil servant have a vested right to cross-examine witnesses and the departmental representative during disciplinary proceedings?
  • Can a case be remanded to the lower authorities solely to cure procedural flaws and deliberate omissions committed by the inquiry officer during a departmental inquiry?
  • Does the failure to provide an opportunity for cross-examination in a departmental inquiry infringe upon the fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed HAMMAD NABI Versus INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE PUNJAB, LAHORE2023 SCMR 584 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-11-02Read full judgment →
• AMIR MUHAMMAD KHAN Versus State2023 SCMR 566 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-01-18
  benefit of the doubtmurderocular account and medical evidencedelayed FIRunproved motivecriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

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

  Questions settled

  • Whether contradictions between the ocular account and medical evidence are sufficient to create reasonable doubt warranting the acquittal of an accused?
  • Does an unexplained delay of several hours in lodging the First Information Report cast doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a recovery of a weapon of offence made from an open and easily accessible place?
  Read full judgment →
• COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MODEL CUSTOMS COLLECTORATE, PESHAWAR Versus WASEEF ULLAH2023 SCMR 503 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-07-06
  customs duty exemptionhybrid electric vehiclesstatutory regulatory ordertax interpretationfiscal statuteadministrative circular
  Summary & questions settled

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

  Questions settled

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

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

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused re-assert the ground of statutory delay for bail if a previous bail application based on the same ground was withdrawn?
  • Is a trial court obligated to adjourn proceedings due to the absence of the complainant's advocate?
  • Does a trial court have the authority to appoint another advocate if the accused's counsel is absent and causing trial delays?
  • Does the right to a fair trial and due process prohibit the indefinite adjournment of trials due to lawyer strikes?
  Read full judgment →
• AMANULLAH KHAN Versus HOSPITAL DIRECTOR, KTH (MTI), PESHAWAR2023 SCMR 418 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-12
  upgradationpromotionvested rightservice rulesnon-joinder of necessary partiescivil petition
  Summary & questions settled

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

  Questions settled

  • Is upgradation of a post considered a vested right for an employee?
  • What is the distinction between upgradation and promotion in service matters?
  • Can an employee claim upgradation with retrospective effect and parity with another employee without fulfilling eligibility rules?
  Read full judgment →
• IJAZ BADSHAH Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, CABINET BLOCK, CONSTITUTION AVENUE, ISLAMABAD2023 SCMR 407 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-12
  civil servicedismissal from servicejudicial reviewdoctrine of proportionalitymisconductpassport fraudadministrative discretioncompulsory retirement
  Summary & questions settled

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

  Questions settled

  • Is the doctrine of proportionality applicable to the judicial review of disciplinary actions taken against civil servants?
  • Does the possession of multiple passports by a civil servant without departmental permission constitute gross misconduct warranting dismissal?
  • Can a court interfere with a disciplinary penalty if the punishment is found to be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YASIN Versus The DIRECTOR GENERAL, PAKISTAN POST OFFICE, ISLAMABAD2023 SCMR 394 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-01-09
  leave to appealdepartmental competitive exameligibility criteriaage limitright to equalityequal protection of lawnegative equalityservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

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

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 guarantee the right to claim a benefit that was granted to another person in violation of the law?
  • Can a candidate claim exemption from mandatory recruitment eligibility criteria on the ground that another ineligible person was previously allowed to compete?
  • Does a previous unlawful act or administrative irregularity create a binding precedent for claiming similar relief under the principle of non-discrimination?
  Read full judgment →
• SUMMIT BANK LIMITED, LAHORE Versus M. M. BROTHERS, PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN2023 SCMR 374 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-04Read full judgment →
• DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT POSTAL SERVICES FAISALABAD Versus KHALID MAHMOOD2023 SCMR 354 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-06
  back benefitsregularization of serviceadmission of liabilityOrder XII Rule 6 CPCapprobate and reprobateService Tribunal powerscondonation of delay
  Summary & questions settled

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

  Questions settled

  • Can a party challenge a court or tribunal's order that was passed on the basis of its own clear and unambiguous admission?
  • Does the Service Tribunal have the powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to dispose of an appeal on admissions under Order XII Rule 6?
  • Does the doctrine of approbate and reprobate prevent a department from disputing a commitment made in its written comments before a tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD GHAFFAR (DECEASED) Versus ARIF MUHAMMAD2023 SCMR 344 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-11-22Read full judgment →
• ABDUL QUDOOS Versus COMMANDANT FRONTIER CONSTABULARY, KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA, PESHAWAR2023 SCMR 334 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-04
  Frontier Constabularycivil servantsFederal Service Tribunalremand of caseactus curiae neminem gravabitex debito justitiaeservice appeal
  Summary & questions settled

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

  Questions settled

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

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

  Questions settled

  • Can a court cancel bail after the commencement of the trial?
  • Does the opinion of an Investigating Officer regarding the innocence of an accused bind the court if it lacks supporting material?
  • Is an order granting bail considered perverse if it ignores material evidence of the accused's involvement?
  • Can bail be cancelled if the accused is misusing the concession to hamper trial proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• CHIEF ENGINEER, GUJRANWALA ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY (GEPCO), GUJRANWALA Versus KHALID MEHMOOD2023 SCMR 291 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-03
  compulsory retirementlaw of limitationvoid orderregular inquiryservice appealgrievance petitionabatement of proceedingsdisciplinary action
  Summary & questions settled

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

  Questions settled

  • Does the abatement of a service appeal in the Supreme Court preclude an employee from seeking alternative remedies in a Labour Court?
  • Can a party invoke the doctrine that 'no limitation runs against a void order' to excuse an inordinate delay in filing an appeal?
  • Does the acceptance of terminal dues by an employee automatically estop them from challenging an order of compulsory retirement?
  • Is a regular inquiry mandatory in all disciplinary proceedings involving major penalties?
  Read full judgment →
• SDO, PESCO DAUDZAI SUB-DIVISION RING ROAD, PESHAWAR Versus WADAN SHER2023 SCMR 236 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-08-25Read full judgment →
• DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL DIRECTORATE OF SAVINGS Versus ABID HUSSAIN2023 SCMR 2100 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-12-08
  withholding taxnational savings schemesTribal Areasconstitutional petitionIncome Tax Ordinancestatutory obligationalternate remedy
  Summary & questions settled

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

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Central Directorate of National Savings is under a statutory obligation to deduct withholding tax on profit from national saving certificates under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • Can a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution be maintained when an adequate and efficacious remedy is available under the relevant tax statute?
  • Whether disputed questions of fact regarding residence and purchase of certificates can be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Defence Rawalpindi Versus Mst. ZAKIA BEGUM2023 SCMR 2092 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  land acquisitioncompensationmarket valuepotential valuereview petitionrevenue classification
  Summary & questions settled

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

  Questions settled

  • Whether revenue classifications of land are relevant for calculating compensation when land is acquired for a single project?
  • Can the calculation of potential value of acquired land be left to the discretionary assessment of courts and collectors without statutory guidelines?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a uniform valuation of acquired land based on the willing buyer and willing seller formula?
  Read full judgment →
• CANTONMENT BOARD PESHAWAR, PESHAWAR CANTT. Versus RACO ADVERTISERS2023 SCMR 2075 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-06-13
  arbitration awardwrit jurisdictionexhaustion of remediesalternative dispute resolutionconstitutional petitiondisputed questions of factArbitration Act 1940
  Summary & questions settled

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

  Questions settled

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

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

  Questions settled

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

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

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule of consistency apply to the grant of pre-arrest bail when a co-accused with a similar role has been granted bail?
  • Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception for offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the merits of a case be considered by the court while deciding an application for pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YASEEN Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INTERIOR AND NARCOTICS CONTROL, NARCOTICS CONTROL DIVISION, ISLAMABAD2023 SCMR 1691 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-07-25Read full judgment →
• JAWAD AHMAD MIR Versus Prof. Dr. IMTIAZ ALI KHAN, VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF SWABI, DISTRICT SWABI, KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA2023 SCMR 162 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-18
  quo warrantostopgap arrangementlook-after chargeVice Chancellor appointmentpublic officewrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

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

  Questions settled

  • What conditions are necessary for the High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto against a public office holder?
  • Does assigning temporary look-after charge as a stopgap arrangement create a substantive right or constitute usurpation of a public office?
  • Can an outgoing public official whose tenure has expired claim an extension of service as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD TAHIR Versus COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-II, REGIONAL TAX OFFICE, ABBOTTABAD2023 SCMR 149 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-10-31
  Provincially Administered Tribal AreasIncome Tax OrdinanceConstitutional LawPresidential OrderTax RefundTribal Area StatusLegislative Competence
  Summary & questions settled

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

  Questions settled

  • Does an order issued by the President under Article 247(6) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, declaring an area to cease to be a tribal area, automatically extend the application of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 to that area?
  • Is there a legal distinction between the President's power to change the status of a tribal area under Article 247(6) and the power to extend laws to a tribal area under Article 247(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can income tax be validly levied in an area that has ceased to be a tribal area pursuant to a Presidential Order under Article 247(6) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• NATIONAL DATABASE AND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY (NADRA) Versus JAWAD KHAN2023 SCMR 1381 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-05-08
  legitimate expectationpromissory estoppelconstitutional petitionwrit jurisdictionrecruitment processpublic functionariesfairness in administration
  Summary & questions settled

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

  Questions settled

  • Whether candidates who qualified for an advertised post but were appointed to a lower post on a promise of future appointment can invoke the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Does the doctrine of legitimate expectation apply to compel public authorities to fulfill explicit promises or assurances made during a recruitment process?
  • When can the doctrine of promissory estoppel be invoked against state functionaries and government authorities?
  • Are judgments barring contractual employees from challenging termination or seeking regularization applicable to candidates seeking enforcement of initial recruitment promises?
  Read full judgment →