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.

• Sikandar Ali alias Bhola vs The State2025 SCP 22, 2025 SCMR 552 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-01-13
  circumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtcriminal appealmurderappreciation of evidenceunnatural conduct of witnessjudicial confession
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the petitioner for the murder of the deceased under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including an alleged motive of illicit relations and a judicial confession by a co-accused. The Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution successfully established a continuous, unbroken chain of circumstances linking the accused to the crime. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Key deficiencies included a four-day delay in lodging the FIR, the failure to mention the alleged motive in the initial report, the unnatural conduct of the primary witness, and the lack of forensic evidence connecting the recovered items to the crime. Furthermore, the co-accused's confession was deemed exculpatory and inadmissible against the petitioner. Emphasizing that any missing link in a chain of circumstantial evidence mandates acquittal, the Court set aside the conviction, granted the petitioner the benefit of the doubt, and ordered his immediate release.

  Questions settled

  • Can an exculpatory judicial confession of a co-accused be used as evidence against an accused?
  • Does the failure to mention a motive in the FIR render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  • What is the legal consequence of a broken link in a chain of circumstantial evidence?
  • Can the evidence of a witness be discarded due to their unnatural conduct at the time of the occurrence?
  Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Ahmed Ghouri vs Syed Rafat Abbas Jafferi and others2025 SCP 114, 2025 PLD Supreme Court 449 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-21
  co-operative societiesarbitration awardtouching the business of a societytitle disputejurisdiction of registrarcivil court decreeimmovable property
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition challenges a judgment of the High Court of Sindh that allowed a constitutional petition filed by respondent No. 1, setting aside an arbitration award and subsequent lease deed in favor of the petitioner concerning a residential plot. The core legal question was whether the Registrar under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, possesses the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon disputes of title and ownership of immovable property, and whether such proceedings can override a final judgment and decree of a civil court. The Supreme Court held that disputes relating to title, ownership, and possession of immovable property do not touch the 'business of a society' under Section 54 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, and therefore fall outside the Registrar's jurisdiction. Furthermore, arbitration proceedings under the Act cannot nullify a final judgment and decree passed by a competent civil court. The principle laid down is that the Registrar's jurisdiction under Section 54 is strictly confined to internal disputes touching the actual business of the society and does not extend to determining civil property titles or overriding concluded civil court decrees.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Registrar while exercising powers under section 54 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 can decide the question of title or ownership?
  • Do disputes relating to ownership, title, and possession of immovable property fall within the purview of a co-operative society's business?
  • Can an arbitration award under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 override or nullify a judgment and decree passed by a competent civil court?
  Read full judgment →
• Sidra Tul Muntaha vs The Chairman, Federal Public Service Commission2025 PHC 68 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sial Muhammad alias Siyal vs The State etc2025 PHC 270 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-08-19Read full judgment →
• Shukar Jan and another vs Bashir and others2025 MLD 309 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-11-01Read full judgment →
• Shuhada Forum, Balochistan through its Patron in Chief, Nawabzada Jamal Raisani, Quetta Cantt and others, The Province of Punjab, through Secretary Punjab, Lahore, Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad, Federation of Pakistan through the2025 SCP 165, 2025 SCP 205 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-30
  military trialcivilianscourt martialintra court appealfundamental rightsseparation of powersfair trialnational security
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter consists of Intra Court Appeals filed under Section 5 of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023, challenging a prior judgment that declared the trials of civilians under the Pakistan Army Act 1952 ultra vires the Constitution. The core legal questions centered on whether civilians can be tried by military courts martial under Section 2(1)(d) and Section 59(4) of the Act, and whether such trials violate the separation of powers and fundamental rights, including the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A. By a majority of five to two, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned judgment and restoring the challenged provisions of the Pakistan Army Act 1952. The majority held that the provisions could not be declared ultra vires under Article 8(5) of the Constitution and referred the matter to Parliament to amend the law to provide an independent right of appeal to the High Court. The dissenting judges maintained that military courts, as executive bodies, lack jurisdiction to try civilians under Article 175(3) and that such trials violate fundamental rights.

  Questions settled

  • Whether civilians can be subjected to trial by military courts martial under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952?
  • Whether the trial of civilians by military courts violates the principle of separation of the judiciary from the executive under Article 175(3) of the Constitution?
  • Does the exemption from fundamental rights under Article 8(3)(a) of the Constitution apply to civilians accused of offences under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952?
  • Is the denial of an independent right of appeal to a High Court against a military court conviction violative of the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A?
  Read full judgment →
• Shreemati Sarswa ti Devi vs Shreemati Janki Bai2025 SHC 306 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-05Read full judgment →
• Shoukat Das and others vs Shazia Riaz alias POLY and others2025 PLJ Quetta 46 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-05-17Read full judgment →
• Shoukat Babar Virk vs The State & another2025 LHC 4784 · Lahore High Court · 2025-04-10
  post-arrest bailembezzlementcognizable offencerecidivismtrust propertyforgeryprohibitory clausecriminal conduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns a post-arrest bail application in a case involving allegations of embezzlement of funds from the A.Q. Khan Trust and forgery. The petitioner challenged the FIR's validity, arguing that the absence of a complaint by the State Bank of Pakistan violated the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. The court addressed whether this procedural defect invalidated the FIR and whether bail should be granted for offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that where an FIR includes a major, cognizable offence (Section 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860) alongside subservient offences, the cognizable offence serves as the controlling provision, rendering specific authorization requirements for the subservient offences redundant. Regarding bail, the court affirmed that it is not a rule of universal application for non-prohibitory offences. It held that courts may exercise discretion to refuse bail based on the accused's conduct, including previous or subsequent criminal acts, as relevant under Article 21 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, to assess the likelihood of recidivism and protect the public interest.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of a cognizable offence in an FIR render the procedural authorization requirements for subservient offences under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 redundant?
  • Is the grant of bail a rule of universal application for offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an accused's previous or subsequent conduct be considered by a court when determining whether to exercise discretion in granting bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Shoaib Rashid & Others vs Karachi Development Authority & Others2025 SHC 658 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-14Read full judgment →
• Shoaib Ahmed vs The State2025 MLD 621 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-10-24
  narcotic substancessafe custodyreasonable doubtcriminal appealMalkhana registerpolice rulesacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 3000 grams of Charas. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the safe custody and transmission of the recovered narcotics from the police station to the forensic laboratory. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody of the contraband because the Incharge of the Malkhana did not produce the relevant Register No. 19, which is mandatory for documenting the receipt and movement of case property. Consequently, the court found the prosecution's case doubtful, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant. The judgment lays down the principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proving the safe custody and transmission of narcotics in strict accordance with the Police Rules. Any deviation from the prescribed procedure regarding the handling of case property creates reasonable doubt, which must be resolved in favor of the accused, necessitating their acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to produce the Malkhana register create a reasonable doubt regarding the safe custody of recovered narcotics?
  • Is the prosecution required to strictly adhere to the Police Rules regarding the transmission of case property to a forensic laboratory?
  • Can a conviction be sustained under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, when the chain of custody of the contraband is not established?
  Read full judgment →
• Shiraz Ahmad vs The State, etc2025 LHC 3190 · Lahore High Court · 2025-05-14
  criminal revisioncognizance of offenceprior sanctionspecial statuteelectronic crimesjurisdictionstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, which declined the petitioner's application for obtaining government sanction under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, for taking cognizance of an offence under Section 295-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner was facing trial for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016. The core legal question was whether the requirement of prior sanction under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, applies to offences tried by a court established under the special provisions of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016. The Court held that the provisions of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, and the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, are interlinked, and that offences under the former are to be tried by a court specifically established under that Act. Consequently, the Court ruled that Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, does not apply to proceedings before a court constituted under a special statute when such application is inconsistent with the Special Act, thereby dismissing the revision petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does the requirement of prior sanction under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, apply to offences tried by a court established under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016?
  • Are the offences under Section 11 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, and Sections 295-A, 295-B, 295-C, and 298-C of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, interlinked for the purpose of trial?
  • Does the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, override the procedural requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, regarding sanction for prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheroz Yousaf, The State vs The State, Sheroz Yousaf2025 LHC 3308 · Lahore High Court · 2025-05-20
  Qatl-e-amdmurderous assaultocular accountmedical evidencemitigating circumstancesdeath sentence commutationcriminal appealforensic corroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal against the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of one individual and murderous assault on two others, alongside a murder reference for sentence confirmation. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the ocular account in light of alleged medical discrepancies and whether the circumstances warranted the capital punishment. The Lahore High Court upheld the conviction, finding the ocular account consistent and corroborated by forensic evidence, despite minor discrepancies regarding the number of injuries, which were explained by the victim falling after the initial gunshot. However, the Court modified the sentence, commuting the death penalty to life imprisonment. The ratio established that where the motive involves a sudden altercation or heat of passion without clear premeditation, it constitutes a mitigating factor for sentencing. The Court affirmed that while minor inconsistencies in witness testimony do not invalidate the prosecution's case, the absence of evidence regarding premeditation justifies leniency in capital sentencing, maintaining the conviction while reducing the penalty to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Does a discrepancy between the number of injuries stated in the FIR and the post-mortem report necessarily invalidate the prosecution's ocular account?
  • Can a sudden flare-up in the heat of passion constitute a mitigating factor for the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Are minor inconsistencies in witness testimony sufficient to destroy the credibility of the prosecution's case?
  • Does the recovery of a weapon and forensic matching of cartridge cases provide sufficient corroboration to an ocular account?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheraz, etc vs The State, etc2025 LHC 2663 · Lahore High Court · 2025-04-21
  adulterationPunjab Food Authority Actbenefit of doubtcriminal appealseizure procedurephysical evidencefood safety
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence handed down by a Judicial Magistrate under the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011, regarding allegations of operating a synthetic milk manufacturing unit. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the charges, specifically regarding the ownership of the premises, the production of physical evidence, and compliance with mandatory procedural requirements for seizures. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellants' ownership of the premises, neglected to produce or exhibit the seized physical evidence in court, and failed to comply with the mandatory requirement under Section 13(2) of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011, to provide a seizure statement to the accused. Furthermore, the court noted the absence of chemical analysis reports to substantiate the nature of the seized materials. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions, extending the benefit of doubt to the appellants. The judgment reinforces the principle that failure to produce material evidence and adhere to mandatory procedural safeguards vitiates a conviction, necessitating acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to produce and exhibit seized physical evidence in court vitiate a conviction?
  • Is the failure of a Food Safety Officer to provide a seizure statement to the accused a violation of mandatory procedural law?
  • Can a conviction be sustained under the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011, without chemical analysis proving the nature of the seized materials?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad vs The State2025 SHC HYD 1413 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-15
  narcoticssafe custody of case propertybenefit of doubtmaterial contradictionsinvestigating officer as complainantchemical examiner reportcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court under section 6/9-(c) of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, sentencing the appellant to rigorous imprisonment and fine. The core legal questions addressed by the court concern the existence of material contradictions in prosecution evidence regarding the weight of the recovered contraband, discrepancies in the testimony of official witnesses and mashirs, missing links in the safe custody and safe transmission of the case property, and the legality of the investigating officer acting as the complainant. The Sindh High Court held that multiple material contradictions, unproven safe custody of the case property, and a biased investigation vitiated the prosecution's case. The court established that a single reasonable doubt arising from broken chains of custody or flawed investigation entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, consequently setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does a variance in the weight of recovered narcotics between the recovery memo and oral testimony shatter the prosecution's case?
  • Is the safe custody and safe transmission of case property a mandatory duty of the prosecution in narcotics cases?
  • Can a police officer who acts as the complainant and raiding officer also properly conduct a fair investigation under the law?
  • Does a single material contradiction or missing link in the chain of custody entitle an accused to an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad vs The State and others2025 SHC KHI 2117 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-26Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad vs Karam Hussain2025 LHC 3050 · Lahore High Court · 2025-05-15Read full judgment →
• Sher Bahadur Khan Khattak S/o Amir Azam Khan vs SSP South & others2025 SHC KHI 1797, 2025 SHC KHI 1799 · Sindh High Court · 2025-06-04
  Section 22-A CrPCSection 561-A CrPCregistration of FIRJustice of Peacediscretionary jurisdictionabuse of processfrivolous complaints
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (Cr.P.C.) was filed challenging the order of the Ex-officio Justice of Peace rejecting an application under Section 22-A and B, Cr.P.C. for registration of an F.I.R. under Section 154, Cr.P.C. The legal issue was whether the Ex-officio Justice of Peace erred in exercising discretion to refuse a direction for registering an F.I.R. where the complaint appeared motivated by ongoing litigation and prior enmity. The High Court upheld the impugned order, holding that the jurisdiction under Section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C. is discretionary and not mechanical. The Court affirmed that Justices of the Peace must exercise caution to prevent the abuse of the criminal process for self-serving objectives, especially where alternate remedies exist and allegations lack primary factual backing or cognizable substance.

  Questions settled

  • Is the jurisdiction of an Ex-officio Justice of the Peace under Section 22-A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 discretionary or mandatory?
  • Can an Ex-officio Justice of the Peace refuse to direct the registration of an F.I.R. under Section 22-A, Cr.P.C. where the complaint appears motivated by prior enmity and pending litigation?
  • Under what circumstances should High Courts exercise inherent power under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. to interfere with an order passed under Section 22-A, Cr.P.C.?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Asfandyar Khan, Sajida Naeem, M/s Ofspace (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi,2025 SCP 166, 2025 SCP 167, 2025 PLJ SC 322 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  corporate oppressionsummary procedureshare transfersecondary evidencecompany lawdue processtrust over sharesmismanagement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a corporate dispute over the control and ownership of M/s Ofspace (Pvt.) Ltd., arising from allegations of oppression and mismanagement under Sections 290 and 291 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The core legal questions addressed whether the Company Judge correctly exercised summary jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Ordinance to resolve complex factual disputes involving allegations of forgery and fabrication without framing issues or recording evidence, and whether a claim of trust over shares is tenable given the statutory bar in Section 148. The Court held that while Section 9 mandates summary adjudication, it does not permit bypassing essential procedural safeguards when the authenticity of foundational documents is contested. Consequently, the Company Judge erred by failing to conduct a full evidentiary inquiry and improperly admitting secondary evidence in violation of Article 76 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The Court established that summary jurisdiction cannot be used to evade due process in cases of serious factual controversy, and that claims of trust over shares are legally untenable under the Companies Ordinance. The appeals were allowed, and the impugned judgments were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a summary procedure under Section 9 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 is appropriate for resolving disputes involving complex allegations of forgery and fabrication?
  • Can a Company Judge decide disputed questions of fact without framing issues and recording evidence?
  • Is a claim of trust over shares legally tenable in view of the bar under Section 148 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
  • Under what conditions is secondary evidence admissible in summary proceedings before a Company Judge under the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Ahmed, Alam Khan vs The State & another2025 SCP 256 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-13
  criminal appealbenefit of the doubtjudicial confessioninvestigationFIR registrationCode of Criminal ProcedureAnti-Terrorism Actretracted confessionpolice custody
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants, Sher Ahmed and Alam Khan, invoked the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Pakistan seeking leave against their convictions and sentences of death under sections 365-A and 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, as well as section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, which had been upheld by the High Court. The core legal questions involved the legality of conducting inquiries and interrogating suspects prior to the registration of a First Information Report under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the scope of a Magistrate's powers under section 156(3) to order an 'inquiry' rather than an investigation, and the evidentiary value and voluntariness of retracted judicial confessions recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after prolonged police custody. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and acquitted the appellants by extending the benefit of the doubt. The ratio decidendi is that police inquiries conducted prior to FIR registration and without adhering to the mandatory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the integrity of subsequent proceedings and render judicial confessions recorded during such custody doubtful and involuntary. The Court laid down that a Magistrate cannot order an 'inquiry' under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, that an investigation must follow the statutory registration of a cognizable case under section 154, that contradictory and exculpatory judicial confessions cannot sustain a conviction without strong independent corroboration, and that bypassing statutory checks through station diary entries ('madd') abuses coercive police powers.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Magistrate is empowered under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to order an inquiry rather than an investigation?
  • Can a police officer conduct an investigation or interrogate suspects for a cognizable offence prior to the registration of a crime report under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a retracted judicial confession that is exculpatory and unsupported by independent corroboration?
  • Does prolonged police custody prior to the recording of a judicial confession under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 affect its voluntariness?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Afzal, Muhammad Latif vs The State (in both cases)2025 SCP 94, 2025 SCMR 894 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-18
  death sentencemultiple murderinterested witnessminor discrepanciesreasonable doubteyewitness testimonyland dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  These criminal appeals arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the death sentences of two appellants convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the brutal daylight murder of five members of a single family due to a land dispute. The core legal questions pertained to whether minor contradictions in prosecution evidence, close relationship of eyewitnesses, and failure to recover empty shells created a reasonable doubt entitling the appellants to acquittal or reduction of sentence. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and maintained the convictions and death sentences. The Court held that reasonable doubt must be genuine and inherent rather than based on trivial discrepancies or arbitrary whims. Discrepancies that are immaterial or do not touch the core of the case do not shatter trustworthy ocular testimony. Furthermore, testimony of related eyewitnesses cannot be discarded solely due to kinship absent evidence of false implication or malice. Premeditated and cold-blooded mass murder over a land dispute warrants no leniency or mitigation of sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Do minor discrepancies in eyewitness testimony create a reasonable doubt sufficient to acquit an accused?
  • Does the close relationship of eyewitnesses to the deceased automatically render them interested witnesses whose testimony must be discarded?
  • Is the non-recovery or non-matching of weapon empty shells fatal to the prosecution where credible ocular account is corroborated by medical evidence?
  • Does premeditated mass murder over a land dispute justify commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Shell Pakistan Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan and others2025 PTD 538 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-04Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Shariq Hassan & Ors vs The State & others2025 SHC 224 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-24
  Justice of PeaceRegistration of FIRCognizable OffenceCriminal ProcedurePolice ReportJudicial Discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenges an order passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace directing the registration of an FIR against the applicants. The core legal question was whether the Justice of Peace exercised proper discretion under Section 22-A and 22-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in ordering the registration of an FIR despite a police report stating that no cognizable offence was disclosed. The Court held that the impugned order was passed mechanically without due care, noting that the police report explicitly found no cognizable offence and that the respondent's allegations were unsubstantiated. Consequently, the Court allowed the application, set aside the impugned order, and dismissed the respondent's petition for the registration of an FIR. The key principle laid down is that the Justice of Peace must exercise due care and prudence when entertaining applications under Section 22-A and 22-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, ensuring such applications are not decided in a mechanical manner, especially when police reports indicate the absence of a cognizable offence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Justice of Peace order the registration of an FIR in a mechanical manner without considering the police report?
  • Is a Justice of Peace required to exercise due care when entertaining an application under Section 22-A and 22-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the existence of a police report stating no cognizable offence is made out preclude the Justice of Peace from ordering an FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Raheel vs The State, etc2025 IHC 426 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-02
  Ex-officio Justice of Peaceregistration of FIRwrongful detentionabuse of authorityfundamental rightsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a constitutional petition filed against the order dated 02.05.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-III/Ex-officio Justice of Peace, Islamabad-West, whereby an application under Section 22-A and B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 filed by respondent No. 4 was allowed. The core legal question concerned the legality of the direction for registration of a criminal case regarding the alleged wrongful detention and abduction of the respondent's sons, despite prior criminal cases pending against them in Lahore. The Islamabad High Court held that the unexplained delay between the initial emergency call regarding the disappearance and the subsequent formal recording of arrest raised reasonable apprehension of unlawful custody and abuse of authority by the proposed accused. The court laid down the principle that the wrongful detention of a citizen by authorities constitutes a gross violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, and an order passed by an Ex-officio Justice of Peace directing legal action in such circumstances warrants no interference.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order passed by an Ex-officio Justice of Peace under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 warrants interference when based on a finding of wrongful detention?
  • Does unexplained delay between a missing person report and the formal recording of arrest give rise to a reasonable apprehension of unlawful custody?
  • Does the wrongful confinement of a citizen in police custody constitute a violation of fundamental rights under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Proteins Pvt. Ltd vs Punjab Food Authority, Lahore etc2025 LHC 2696 · Lahore High Court · 2025-04-30Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Naseem Akhtar vs Commissioner Inland Revenue (Legal) etc2025 LHC 2021 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-03Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Farzan Ahmed Mahmood vs Mohammad Yousuf and others2025 SHC KHI 2125 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-29Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Faisal Habib vs Yasir Ahmed Awan & Another2025 SHC 392 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-26Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Anwar ul Haq vs Abdul Ghaffar etc2025 LHC 4441 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-19Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Allah Bakhsh vs Additional District Judge, etc2025 LHC 4283 · Lahore High Court · 2025-05-07
  contempt of courtstatus quoviolation of court ordersui generis proceedingswillful disobedience
  Summary & questions settled

  This contempt petition was filed under Article 204 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, alleging that the respondents violated a status quo order passed by the Lahore High Court regarding the property in dispute. The petitioner claimed the respondents breached the order by breaking a boundary wall and starting construction. The respondents denied the violation, asserting lawful possession and denying any new construction, a fact supported by the local SHO's report. The Lahore High Court observed that contempt proceedings are sui generis, requiring clear, deliberate, and willful disobedience, and that the disputed possession of the property was already pending adjudication before the civil court. Finding that the petitioner failed to establish willful disobedience of its order through reliable material, the court held that no case for contempt was made out. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the contempt petition as devoid of force.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party be punished for contempt of court without establishing clear, deliberate, and willful disobedience of an order?
  • Are contempt proceedings bound by the technical rules of the Code of Civil Procedure or the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  • Whether contempt proceedings can be initiated when the underlying question of possession is seriously disputed and sub judice before a civil court?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Ali Jaffar vs The Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore2025 LHC 2391 · Lahore High Court
  misconductdisciplinary proceedingsreturning officerfunctus officiodouble jeopardyservice appealelection petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal challenges the dismissal of the appellant, a former Civil Judge and Returning Officer, from service following disciplinary proceedings. The core legal questions concern whether a Returning Officer possesses the legal authority to alter declared election results via a corrigendum after becoming functus officio, and whether such unauthorized action constitutes misconduct warranting dismissal. The Court held that a Returning Officer lacks the jurisdiction to modify election results once declared, as such disputes are exclusively reserved for Election Tribunals. The Court affirmed that the appellant’s unauthorized alteration of results and subsequent procedural irregularities constituted misconduct. Furthermore, the Court rejected the plea of double jeopardy, ruling that the disciplinary inquiry was an independent administrative process distinct from previous complaints. The judgment establishes that disciplinary proceedings are governed by the doctrine of preponderance of probabilities rather than the strict standards of criminal trials, and that a public officer’s deliberate departure from established legal procedure, especially in election matters, constitutes actionable misconduct justifying removal from service.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Returning Officer have the legal authority to alter election results after they have been officially declared?
  • Does the unauthorized alteration of election results by a Returning Officer constitute misconduct warranting dismissal from service?
  • Are disciplinary proceedings initiated after a previous administrative complaint barred by the principle of double jeopardy?
  • What is the standard of proof required in disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Akhtar Aziz vs Province of Punjab and others2025 MLD 55 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-12Read full judgment →
• Shehzore and others vs Province of Sindh and others2025 SHC 682 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-30
  deceased quotason quotapublic employmentconstitutional petitionultra viresfundamental rightspending applicationsstare decisis
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed constitutional petitions seeking appointment under the Deceased/Son Quota in various departments of the Government of Sindh pursuant to Rule 11-A of the Sindh Servants (Appointment, Promotion, and Transfer) Rules, 1974. The core legal question was whether pending applications for public employment under the deceased quota remain maintainable after Rule 11-A was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Sindh High Court held that the declaration of Rule 11-A as ultra vires applies to all pending applications and that the legal protection afforded by the Supreme Court is strictly restricted to appointments already effectuated prior to the ruling. The Court laid down the principle that the protection extended to past appointments does not encompass pending applications, and that an unlawful or irregular offer letter issued post-declaration cannot create a binding precedent or entitlement under the maxim ex injuria jus non oritur.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pending applications for appointment under the Deceased/Son Quota are maintainable after Rule 11-A of the Sindh Servants (Appointment, Promotion, and Transfer) Rules, 1974 was declared unconstitutional?
  • Does the protection granted by the Supreme Court to appointments already made under the deceased quota extend to pending applications?
  • Can an unlawful offer letter issued after a rule has been declared ultra vires create a binding precedent or legal entitlement for other applicants?
  Read full judgment →
• Shehzad Iftikhar S/O Iftikhar Ahmed Khan vs The State2025 SHC KHI 2180 · Sindh High Court · 2025-09-04
  pre-arrest bailconfirmation of bailbailable offencerule of consistencyfinal challandeletion of charge
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal pre-arrest bail matter before the High Court of Sindh concerned whether an applicant must be relegated to file a fresh bail application before the trial court after the non-bailable charge is dropped by the police during investigation. The case against the applicant was originally registered under Sections 420 and 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but the final challan accepted by the trial court dropped Section 406 PPC, leaving only Section 420 PPC, which is a bailable offence. The High Court held that where the remaining charge in the final challan is bailable, sending the applicant back to the trial court to file a fresh bail application would serve no useful purpose and would consume unnecessary time and resources of both the court and litigating parties. Additionally, applying the rule of consistency as a co-accused was already granted bail, the Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant subject to furnishing requisite surety.

  Questions settled

  • Is it necessary for an accused to file a fresh bail application before the trial court when a non-bailable offence is dropped from the final challan leaving only a bailable offence?
  • Can interim pre-arrest bail be confirmed by the High Court when the offence remaining in the final challan is bailable?
  Read full judgment →
• Shehnaz Akhtar Zahoor Cheema and another vs The Additional District2025 MLD 552 · Lahore High Court · 2024-12-17Read full judgment →
• Shazia Jaffar and 4 others vs General Public and 2 others2025 PLD Balochistan 21 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-11-13Read full judgment →
• Sharifa E Shereen Sharifi vs Federation Of Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry Of Interior, Pakistan Secretariat, Islamabad, etc2025 IHC 356 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sharif Ahmad vs Rashid Ahmad and others2025 SCMR 215 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-27
  leave to appealreview applicationdismissal for non-prosecutionrestoration of casesuo motu jurisdictionrevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's review application. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in dismissing the review application, particularly in light of the petitioner's failure to provide a date of knowledge regarding the dismissal of the case for non-prosecution. The Supreme Court examined the petitioner's reliance on precedents regarding restoration but found those authorities inapplicable to the present circumstances. The Court held that no case for interference was established, consequently dismissing the petition and refusing leave to appeal. In its reasoning, the Court reaffirmed the established legal principle that while cases where a revisional court assumes suo motu jurisdiction should not be dismissed for non-prosecution, this principle does not apply to the petitioner's specific situation where the necessary procedural diligence regarding the date of knowledge was absent. The judgment emphasizes the requirement for litigants to provide specific details when seeking restoration of cases dismissed for non-prosecution.

  Questions settled

  • Is a case dismissed for non-prosecution subject to restoration if the applicant fails to state the date of knowledge of the dismissal?
  • Does the principle prohibiting dismissal for non-prosecution in suo motu revisional cases apply to all review applications?
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be granted when the petitioner fails to demonstrate procedural diligence in a restoration application?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamsuddin s/o Ahmed Khan Lankan vs Nadir Hussain Bhand(since2025 SHC LAR 1490 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shamim Akhtar vs Province of Sindh & others2025 SHC KHI 2216 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-27Read full judgment →
• Shamim Ahmed Siddiqui vs Karachi Metropolitan Corporation & others2025 SHC 120 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-20Read full judgment →
• Shamim Ahmed and others vs Custodian Evacuee Property, Azad Jammu2025 SC AJK 5 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2025-02-13Read full judgment →
• Shakir-ud-Din vs M/s Twin Badar and others2025 SHC 134 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-20Read full judgment →
• Shakir Abbas and 3 others vs The-State2025 YLR 399 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2024-07-06
  suspension of sentencestatutory baildelay in disposal of appealAnti-Terrorism Actspecial law versus general lawpost-conviction bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal miscellaneous petition filed under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking suspension of sentence on the statutory ground of non-disposal of the petitioners' appeal within the stipulated time under section 25 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question is whether an appeal filed under a special enactment, if not decided within the statutory timeframe, entitles the convict to release on bail pursuant to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that where an appeal is delayed beyond the statutory period without fault on the part of the appellants and a major portion of the sentence has been served, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding suspension of sentence and bail apply as they are not inconsistent with the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The court laid down the principle that the overriding effect of special legislation like the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 does not exclude the application of general procedural provisions for bail and suspension of sentence where the appeal remains undecided beyond reasonable periods through no fault of the convict.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal filed under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, if not decided within the stipulated timeframe, gives any right to the convict for release on bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Do the provisions of section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to cases tried under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • What is the extent of the overriding effect of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 over general laws like the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding post-conviction bail during the pendency of an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Khan etc vs Land Acquisition Collector & Others2025 PHC 8 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-02-04Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Ahmad vs The State2025 LHC 3222 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-20
  criminal appealmurder referenceplea of guiltbenefit of doubtocular evidencedishonest improvementdelayed FIRadverse inference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arose from a trial court judgment convicting the appellant, Shakeel Ahmad, for murder and causing hurt. The core legal questions concerned the sustainability of the conviction based on a qualified plea of guilt followed by a full trial, and the reliability of the prosecution's ocular and medical evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the conviction was unsustainable. The Court established that an unexplained delay in FIR registration is fatal to the prosecution's case. Furthermore, it affirmed that when a trial court proceeds with a full trial after an initial plea of guilt under Section 265-E of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, that confession cannot subsequently be used to the accused's detriment. The Court also held that dishonest improvements in witness testimony render them unreliable, and withholding cross-examination of a witness warrants an adverse inference under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Consequently, the Court granted the appellant the benefit of doubt, set aside the conviction, and answered the Murder Reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Can a confession made under Section 265-E of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used against an accused if the trial court proceeds to conduct a full trial?
  • Does the withholding of cross-examination of a prosecution witness allow for an adverse inference under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution witnesses make dishonest improvements to align their testimony with medical evidence?
  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR on the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Shakarganj Food Products Limited and another vs Federal Board of Revenue and others2025 PTD 659 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-04Read full judgment →
• Shaista Fazal & others vs Chairman, WAPDA & others2025 PHC 40 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-03-06Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Tahir Buksh and others vs Single Judge of Hon'ble High Court of Sindh and another2025 CLC 232 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-30Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Pipe Mills (Pvt.) Limited and others vs The Customs Appellate2025 SHC 294, PTCL 2025 CL. 625 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sunny Hakim vs The State, etc2025 LHC 5113 · Lahore High Court · 2025-07-10
  post-arrest bailcriminal prosecution serviceprosecutorial independencepublic intereststatutory delayidentification paradeburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail concerns an accused charged under Sections 394/411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court addressed significant procedural lapses by the prosecution, specifically the failure to prepare cases adequately and the inefficient handling of record production, contrary to Supreme Court directives. The judgment clarifies the independence of the Criminal Prosecution Service under the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2006, emphasizing that prosecutors are public servants who must act independently and in the public interest, free from government pressure. The Court held that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof regarding the identification of the accused, as the injured party did not participate in the identification parade. Furthermore, the Court found that the petitioner had completed the statutory period of incarceration without the trial concluding, and the delay was attributable to the prosecution. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, holding that the accused made a case for further inquiry on merits and satisfied the statutory grounds for bail due to trial delay.

  Questions settled

  • Are prosecutors under the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2006 considered civil servants?
  • Does the burden of proof 'beyond reasonable doubt' apply at the pre-trial bail stage?
  • Can a prosecutor be directed by government authorities to achieve a pre-determined outcome in a criminal case?
  • What is the legal effect of the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2006 on the applicability of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 to prosecutors?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Nasiruddin and others vs Ghulam Ali Kaderbhoy and others2025 YLR 1114 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-19Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Arshad Ali & others vs Province of Sindh & others2025 SHC KHI 2146 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-25Read full judgment →
• Shahzad vs The Collector of Customs, Model Collectorate of Customs2025 SCP 172, PTCL 2025 CL. 654 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-07
  customs smugglingconfiscation of conveyanceburden of proofsmuggled goodscustoms adjudicationreference jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld the confiscation of a vehicle used for smuggling. The core legal question was whether the Customs Appellate Tribunal erred in interpreting the Customs Act, 1969, specifically regarding the confiscation of a conveyance used to transport smuggled goods, and whether the owner could avoid confiscation by pleading ignorance of the smuggling activity. The Supreme Court held that the vehicle was liable to confiscation under Section 157 of the Customs Act, 1969, as it was used to transport smuggled high-speed diesel, and the owner failed to discharge the burden of proving a lack of nexus with the illegal activity. The Court emphasized that the presence of specially made cavities for smuggling, combined with the owner's failure to register the alleged hire contract or explain the presence of the vehicle's registration book inside the seized vehicle, precluded the owner from claiming relief. The principle laid down is that where a conveyance is used for smuggling, particularly when modified with hidden cavities, the owner bears the burden of proving no nexus, and mere private hire agreements are insufficient to avoid confiscation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proof lie on the owner of a vehicle to demonstrate no nexus with smuggled goods found therein?
  • Can a private hire agreement be sufficient to exempt a vehicle from confiscation under the Customs Act, 1969?
  • Are vehicles modified with hidden cavities for smuggling purposes eligible for release under the Customs Act, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Nazir vs Election Commission of Pakistan and 22 Others2025 LHC 3892 · Lahore High Court · 2025-02-18Read full judgment →
• Shahrukh son of Akbar and others vs The State2025 SHC KHI 2103 · Sindh High Court
  dacoity with murdervicarious liabilitytest identification parademitigating circumstancesdeath sentence reductionrecovery of weaponocular testimonycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of several criminal jail appeals and a death reference arising from an incident where multiple armed dacoits robbed a scrap shop, resulting in the murder of the owner and firearm injuries to two laborers. One accused was apprehended at the spot with an unlicensed weapon, while others were subsequently arrested and identified through test identification parades. The trial court convicted the appellants under sections 302(b), 396, 395, and 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and under the Sindh Arms Act 2013, sentencing them to death and imprisonment. Upon appeal, the Sindh High Court re-evaluated the ocular, medical, and forensic evidence, affirming that the prompt FIR, consistent eyewitness testimonies, and positive forensic reports firmly established the guilt of the accused. However, considering that the murder occurred during a robbery and arose on the spur of the moment when the victim raised cries, the High Court held that mitigating circumstances existed to warrant a reduction of the death sentence. Consequently, the High Court partly allowed the appeals by converting the death sentences to life imprisonment while maintaining the convictions and other penalties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the vicarious liability under Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 applies to all members of a gang conjointly committing dacoity when a murder is committed during the crime?
  • Does the absence of a suspect's physical description in the initial First Information Report render a subsequent test identification parade inadmissible?
  • Whether the sudden and spur-of-the-moment nature of a killing during a robbery constitutes a mitigating circumstance sufficient to reduce a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Can non-holding of an identification parade be fatal to the prosecution case if eyewitnesses consistently identify the accused in court and their testimony inspires confidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Saleem, Amir Karim Minhas vs The Director Labour and another2025 IHC 464 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-27
  gratuitypayment of wagesmanagerial positionworkmanindustrial relationswrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment of the Islamabad High Court, authored by Inaam Ameen Minhas, J., addresses two consolidated writ petitions filed by Shahid Saleem and Amir Karim Minhas challenging the dismissal of their gratuity claims under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The core legal question was whether employees holding managerial positions such as Production Incharge and Production Manager fall within the definition of 'person employed' or 'workman' so as to be entitled to claim benefits under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The Court held that the petitioners, performing managerial and supervisory duties involving autonomy and decision-making rather than skilled or unskilled manual or clerical labour, do not fall within the scope of Section 2(g) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 or the definition of 'worker' and 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. Consequently, they are not entitled to seek relief under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 apply to employees holding managerial or administrative positions?
  • Whether persons engaged in managerial or supervisory roles fall within the definition of workman under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Are employees working as Production Incharge or Production Manager entitled to claim gratuity under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Saleem vs Govt. of Punjab, etc2025 LHC 1174, 2025 PLJ Lahore 592 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-13
  PEEDA Act 2006disciplinary proceedingsde novo inquiryremandenhancement of penaltyprinciple of proportionalitylegitimate expectationdouble jeopardyright of appealremoval from service
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from disciplinary proceedings under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline & Accountability Act, 2006 (PEEDA). The petitioner was originally subjected to an inquiry for alleged misconduct and document tampering, where the inquiry officer recommended removal from service. However, the Competent Authority imposed a lesser penalty of demotion. The petitioner appealed, and the Appellate Authority set aside the order and remanded the matter for a de novo inquiry due to procedural shortcomings. Following the fresh inquiry on the identical allegations, the Competent Authority imposed the harsher punishment of removal from service along with a fine. The primary legal question before the High Court was whether the Competent Authority could inflict a more severe punishment post-remand on the same allegations absent any new material or aggravated misconduct. Allowing the petition, the Lahore High Court held that the imposition of an enhanced penalty violated procedural fairness, the principle of proportionality, and legitimate expectations. A public authority cannot subject an employee to worse detriment merely for exercising their legal right of appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a competent authority impose a harsher penalty post-remand upon a de novo inquiry when the remand was directed purely due to procedural shortcomings and no new misconduct was alleged?
  • Does the imposition of an enhanced punishment on the same set of allegations after an employee succeeds in obtaining a remand on appeal violate the principles of fairness and proportionality?
  • Can an individual be subjected to a more severe departmental penalty merely for exercising their statutory right of appeal against a lesser penalty?
  • Does the doctrine of estoppel prevent a competent authority from contradicting its earlier assessment of quantum of punishment in disciplinary proceedings on unchanged facts?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Rehman vs The State2025 IHC 256 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-22
  bailsurety bondreduction of surety amountcriminal appealfinancial hardshipCNS
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the order passed by the Special Court, Islamabad, dismissing the appellant's application for a reduction of the surety bond amount required for his release on bail. The core legal question revolves around whether excessive surety bond amounts that render bail practically ineffective due to an accused person's limited financial means should be reduced. The court held that bail, once granted, must not be rendered illusory or ineffective by imposing onerous financial conditions beyond the accused's capacity, and consequently allowed the appeal by reducing the surety amount. The key principle laid down is that trial courts must balance the objective of securing the attendance of the accused with ensuring that bail conditions do not impose excessive financial burdens that defeat the relief granted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail conditions can be reduced if the accused demonstrates limited financial capacity?
  • Does an excessive surety bond amount render the relief of bail ineffective in practice?
  • Can an accused deposit surety in cash when unable to arrange conventional sureties?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Mehmood & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Additional District Judge, Faisalabad2025 LHC 3661 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shahid Javed vs Government of Pakistan, etc2025 LHC 3866 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-04Read full judgment →
• Shahid Ali vs The State2025 SCP 250 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-06
  circumstantial evidencelast seen evidencechance witnesscustodial confessioninadmissibility of confessionmedia trialright to fair trialbenefit of doubtmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of a minor child, which was affirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court converted the leave petition into an appeal and acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of the doubt. The core legal questions involved the evidentiary value of circumstantial evidence, specifically the testimony of a chance witness, the reliability of last-seen evidence in capital cases, and the admissibility of an extra-judicial confession or interview recorded by a journalist while the accused was in police custody during physical remand. The Court held that last-seen evidence and testimonies of chance witnesses require strict corroboration, and confessions made while in police custody to third parties or media personnel—outside the purview of Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898—are inadmissible in evidence. The Court laid down key principles regarding the absolute inadmissibility of custodial confessions made to non-magistrates, the strict standards required for appreciating circumstantial evidence, and the prohibition against media trials and police facilitation of interviews of accused persons in custody.

  Questions settled

  • Whether last-seen evidence alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction in a capital punishment case without strong corroboration?
  • What is the evidentiary value and admissibility of a statement amounting to a confession made by an accused to a journalist while in police custody during physical remand?
  • Can a confession made while in the custody of a police officer be proved against an accused unless made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • How should the testimony of a chance witness be evaluated in criminal trials involving capital charges?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Ahmed s/o Nanhay Khan vs Kaiser Ahmed s/o Naseeruddin and2025 SHC KHI 2137 · Sindh High Court · 2025-09-01
  Ex-Officio Justice of Peacecriminal miscellaneous applicationcognizable offencerecording of statementprovident fundsuccession certificate
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed in the Sindh High Court to challenge an order passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Karachi East, which had directed the recording of a statement under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding a disputed provident fund cheque disbursement following the death of a school teacher. The core legal question concerned the propriety of the Justice of Peace's order directing police action where a provident fund cheque meant for the deceased's father (complainant) was allegedly deposited by an individual bearing the same name under suspicious circumstances. The High Court held that the disputed factual aspects, including the identity of the person who deposited the cheque and whether a cognizable offence was committed, warranted police inquiry and the recording of a statement. Consequently, the court upheld the impugned order and dismissed the application, affirming that factual controversies requiring investigation are appropriately addressed through initial police proceedings as directed by the Justice of Peace.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace is justified in directing the recording of a statement under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when a dispute arises over the wrongful encashment of a provident fund cheque?
  • Does an allegation regarding the disputed deposit of a cheque involving identity issues warrant police inquiry and further proceedings?
  • Can the High Court interfere with an order of the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace that orders police authorities to record a statement for potential cognizable offences when no legal defect is found in the impugned order?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaheen Baig vs Zaheer Ahmed Loan2025 LHC 906 · Lahore High Court · 2025-02-20Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz Mustafa and another vs The State & another2025 LHC 4778 · Lahore High Court · 2025-04-14
  post-arrest bailrobberyidentification paradeCCTV footagemodern devicesrecovery of cashhistory sheeters
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 392 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the refusal of bail by the Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal question was whether the lack of an identification parade entitled the petitioners to bail, given that they were not named in the FIR and CCTV footage captured the incident, alongside substantial recovery of looted cash and prior criminal records. The Lahore High Court held that holding an identification parade is not mandatory in every case where the identity of the accused is established through other relevant evidence such as CCTV footage under Articles 22 and 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The court established that modern devices and CCTV recordings provide admissible evidence of identity, rendering an identification parade unnecessary when such material exists, and declined to exercise discretion in favor of history-sheeters.

  Questions settled

  • Whether holding an identification parade is a mandatory legal requirement in every criminal case for establishing the identity of an accused?
  • Is CCTV footage admissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 to establish the identity of an accused without an identification parade?
  • Does the recovery of substantial looted cash and a history of previous criminal cases disentitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz Latif vs DIG Pakistan Railways Headquarters Officer, Lahore etc.2025 SCP 197 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-19
  irregular appointmentsalary recoveryquantum meruitadministrative acquiescencepublic employmentunjust enrichment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a petition against an order directing the recovery of fifteen years' salary from the petitioner, who was found to have been irregularly appointed due to securing 377 marks in Matriculation against the required threshold of 399 marks. The core legal question was whether an employee whose initial public appointment was void or irregular due to lack of eligibility, but who rendered continuous and unblemished service for fifteen years without any fraud or misrepresentation on his part, is liable to refund the salary received for that period. The Supreme Court held that while the termination of service due to initial ineligibility was valid, the recovery of salary for services actually performed was illegal and inequitable. The Court applied the principles of quantum meruit and administrative acquiescence, holding that where an employer accepts and benefits from services knowingly rendered, retrospective recovery of salary is impermissible in the absence of employee fraud. Consequently, the Court set aside the recovery order while upholding the dismissal.

  Questions settled

  • Is an employee whose appointment is void ab initio liable to refund salary for services actually rendered in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation?
  • Does the doctrine of quantum meruit prevent an employer from retrospectively recovering wages for unblemished services knowingly accepted and utilized?
  • Can administrative delay and silence over fifteen years estop a public authority from seeking retrospective recovery of salary from an employee?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz Akmal Jandran vs Province of Punjab through Director General, Excise and Taxation, Lahore2025 LHC 2944 · Lahore High Court · 2025-04-15Read full judgment →
• Shahban Ali Burdi and another vs The State2025 SHC 1629 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-05
  pre-arrest bailextortiondelay in lodging FIRCall Detail RecordCDR evidencePolice Rules 1934further inquiryunseen incident
  Summary & questions settled

  This pre-arrest bail application was filed by two applicants in connection with Crime No. 29 of 2025 registered under Sections 384, 435, and 427 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Pir-jo-Goth. The prosecution alleged that after extortion demands were made to the complainant, his property and crops were damaged, with Call Detail Records (CDR) indicating communication between the applicants and co-accused. The applicants contended that the occurrence was unseen, the FIR was delayed by nearly two months without explanation, and the mobile number used to make extortion calls did not belong to them. The High Court observed that an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR creates doubt in the prosecution's case. It further held that CDR alone does not constitute conclusive evidence unless corroborated, especially when the Investigating Officer failed to seize the applicants' cell phones as required by Rule 25.2 of the Police Rules 1934. Finding the case to be one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the High Court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail of the applicants.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Call Detail Record (CDR) evidence alone is sufficient to prove telephonic communication without independent corroboration and seizure of mobile phones?
  • Does an unexplained, long delay in lodging an FIR create reasonable doubt entitling the accused to pre-arrest bail?
  • Can a case based on an unseen incident and indirect phone records fall within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Zamin and others vs The State and another2025 PHC 6 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-01-23Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad son of Sher Muhammad vs Province of Sindh and others2025 SHC SUK 1571 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-13Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad Khan and others vs The State through Additional2025 PCRLJ 80 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-02
  preventive detentionjudicial reviewfundamental rightsrule of lawpublic orderlibertyconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment concerns 19 constitutional petitions challenging preventive detention orders issued by Deputy Commissioners against political workers under the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, following political agitations in May 2023. The core legal question was whether these detention orders were passed with lawful authority and in a lawful manner, particularly regarding the sufficiency of material supporting the detaining authority's satisfaction. The Peshawar High Court allowed the petitions, setting aside the impugned detention orders. The Court held that while preventive detention is an executive power, it is subject to judicial review. The detaining authority bears the initial burden of proving the legality of the detention by producing sufficient, objective material. The Court established that satisfaction must be real, meaningful, and reasonable, rather than based on conjecture or vague, indefinite grounds. An order lacking supporting evidence or failing to demonstrate that the authority applied its mind to specific material is unsustainable. Consequently, the Court emphasized that preventive detention cannot be weaponized against political dissent and must strictly comply with constitutional safeguards and the objectives of the authorizing statute.

  Questions settled

  • Does a detaining authority have an initial burden to produce material justifying a preventive detention order?
  • Is the subjective satisfaction of a detaining authority under the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, immune from judicial review?
  • Can a preventive detention order be sustained if the grounds provided are vague and indefinite?
  • What is the standard of satisfaction required for a valid preventive detention order?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Jahan and others vs Mst. Haseena Bibi and others2025 CLC 992 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-02-24Read full judgment →
• Shah Jahan & another vs Province of Punjab & others2023 LHC 1127, 2025 CLC 650 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-06Read full judgment →
• Shah Hussain vs The State2025 SCMR 967 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-14
  explosive substancesbenefit of doubtcriminal appealpossession of explosivessafe custody of case propertyanti-terrorismacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the petitioner under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, regarding the possession of explosive substances. The petitioner was apprehended while riding as a passenger on a motorcycle driven by a co-accused, which was found carrying a bag containing explosives. The core legal question was whether the prosecution sufficiently established the petitioner's conscious possession and control over the explosive material, given that the motorcycle was driven by an acquitted co-accused and the prosecution's evidence regarding the bag's location conflicted with the FIR. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the petitioner's ownership or control over the motorcycle or the bag. Furthermore, the Court noted a failure to prove the safe custody and transportation of the case property. Emphasizing the principle that a single circumstance creating doubt in the prosecution's case is sufficient for acquittal, the Court set aside the lower courts' judgments, acquitted the petitioner, and ordered his immediate release, extending the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contradiction between the FIR and the testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding the physical possession of incriminating material create reasonable doubt?
  • Is the failure to produce the Moharrar Maal Khana to prove the safe custody and transportation of case property fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Can an accused be convicted for the possession of contraband found on a vehicle driven by another person without proof of the accused's ownership or control over the vehicle?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Hussain vs Shafiq Ur Rahman2025 PHC 196 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-07-03Read full judgment →
• Shah Faisal etc. vs Mst. Zainab etc2025 PHC 22 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-02-19Read full judgment →
• Shagufta Shaheen and others vs Federal Board of Revenue Islamabad2025 IHC 568 · Islamabad High Court
  service matterexclusive jurisdictioncivil servantpromotionFederal Service Tribunalconstitutional petitionterms and conditions of servicemaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed by civil servants seeking directions for promotion to the post of Inspector (Customs) based on their successful completion of a 2003 Departmental Promotion Examination. The petitioners challenged a 2018 circular and a 2021 rejection order, alleging administrative inaction and discriminatory treatment regarding the departmental promotion quota. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute concerning the promotion and eligibility of civil servants, or if such matters were exclusively reserved for the Federal Service Tribunal. The Court held that issues regarding the promotion, seniority, and eligibility of civil servants constitute terms and conditions of service under the Civil Servants Act, 1973. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the Federal Service Tribunal to adjudicate such matters. The principle laid down is that the High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 is ousted in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants, which must be addressed before the appropriate Service Tribunal. The petition was dismissed as not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate a petition concerning the promotion and eligibility of a civil servant?
  • Are disputes regarding the promotion of civil servants considered matters relating to the terms and conditions of service?
  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal possess exclusive jurisdiction over service matters under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafqat Ali, Tariq Mehmood, Tariq Mehmood vs The State, etc2025 LHC 1269, PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 386 · Lahore High Court
  criminal appealmurderburden of proofQanoon-e-Shahadat Orderacquittaldouble presumption of innocencedomestic homicideeyewitness testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant, Shafqat Ali, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his wife, Mst. Humaira Bibi. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of eyewitness testimony, the validity of the appellant's alibi, and the burden of proof when a crime occurs within the accused's private residence. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction based on consistent eyewitness accounts and the appellant's failure to provide a credible explanation for the death occurring within his home. The court held that under Article 122 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, when a crime is committed inside the accused's house, the burden shifts to the accused to explain the circumstances leading to the death. Furthermore, the court dismissed the complainant's revision for sentence enhancement and the appeal against the acquittal of co-accused, emphasizing the double presumption of innocence attached to acquittal orders. The judgment reinforces the necessity of credible evidence and the specific evidentiary obligations of inmates in domestic homicide cases.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused to explain the circumstances of a death occurring within their private residence?
  • Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal order where the trial court has provided valid and plausible reasons?
  • Is a delay in the registration of an FIR fatal to the prosecution's case if the delay is explained by the surrounding circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafi Muhammad Tunio vs The State and others2025 SHC SUK 2122 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-29
  Illegal Dispossession Actforum shoppingmultiplicity of proceedingsabuse of processcriminal revisionsuccessive complaintscivil and criminal remedies
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenged the dismissal of a criminal complaint filed under Section 3(2) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The core legal question concerned the maintainability of successive and overlapping criminal complaints for illegal dispossession amidst pending civil litigation and prior criminal proceedings. The Sindh High Court held that the filing of multiple successive criminal complaints seeking identical relief based on substantially similar allegations constitutes impermissible forum shopping, an abuse of the judicial process, and renders the current revision application infructuous, particularly where a third direct complaint has already been taken cognizance of. The court laid down the principle that while parallel civil and criminal remedies may be permissible under special statutes, a litigant cannot institute unlimited successive criminal complaints for the same subject matter, as the law abhors multiplicity of proceedings and abuse of the judicial process.

  Questions settled

  • Does the filing of multiple successive criminal complaints for the same subject matter constitute an abuse of process and impermissible forum shopping?
  • Whether the pendency of civil litigation bars criminal proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Can a criminal revision application be dismissed as infructuous upon the subsequent filing and cognizance of a third criminal complaint regarding the same dispute?
  • Does an incomplete sale transaction due to non-payment of full consideration affect the complainant's standing to maintain criminal proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafi Muhammad Sarki vs The State2025 SHC LAR 1475 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-20
  control of narcotic substancessafe custody and transmissionbenefit of doubtmodern devices in investigationvideo recording of recoveryindependent witnessescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Trial Court convicting the appellant under Section 9(i)(3)(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 2000 grams of Charas and sentencing him to nine years rigorous imprisonment. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the police-only recovery from an urban area without associating independent witnesses, contradictions in prosecution evidence, lapses in the safe custody and transmission of samples to the chemical laboratory, and the necessity of utilizing modern technology like video recording during narcotic recoveries. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the safe custody and transmission of the contraband, and that non-association of independent witnesses alongside glaring contradictions created reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant. The key principles laid down include the imperative for law enforcement agencies to record search, seizure, and recovery proceedings using modern devices under Articles 46-A, 78-A, and 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and the rule that a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-association of independent witnesses during a narcotics recovery in a populated urban area create a doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Is it mandatory for law enforcement agencies to record search, seizure, and recovery proceedings through modern devices such as mobile phone cameras under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • What is the legal consequence of failing to establish safe custody and safe transmission of narcotic samples to the chemical laboratory?
  • Can a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind lead to the acquittal of an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabir Ahmed Abbasi vs Ghulam Murtafa and others2025 SHC LAR 2243 · Sindh High Court · 2025-09-08
  illegal dispossessionacquittal appealland grabbersantecedentsremand of casejoint property
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged a trial court judgment that acquitted the respondents of charges under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The appellant alleged that the respondents forcibly and illegally dispossessed him of his property on the show of weapons. The trial court had acquitted the accused on the ground that they lacked antecedents or characteristics of professional land grabbers or a land mafia. The High Court examined the legal question regarding whether prior antecedents as land grabbers are a precondition for prosecution under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, and held, relying on Supreme Court precedents, that no such precondition exists and any person committing illegal dispossession is amenable to prosecution. However, noting crucial gaps in the evidence regarding actual physical possession—specifically the failure to examine a key joint owner, the widow of the co-owner—the court set aside the acquittal, allowed the appeal, and remanded the matter back to the trial court for a fresh decision after recording the missing evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the antecedents or past history of an accused as a professional land grabber are a necessary precondition for prosecution under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Can an appellate court set aside an acquittal and remand the case back to the trial court for recording additional essential evidence?
  • Does a dispute over possession between co-owners or their legal heirs in a joint property fall within the ambit of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabeer Ali vs The State2025 SCP 66, 2025 SCMR 802 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-20
  framing of chargefair trialcapital punishmentmitigating circumstancesunborn childproof of motivesection 342 statementcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court maintaining the appellant's conviction and death sentences under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for multiple murders, including that of an unborn child, alongside other offenses. The core legal questions involved the effect of omitting to frame a charge for a distinct offense, the requirement of confronting the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether mitigating circumstances justified commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court held that the complete omission to frame a charge for a distinct offense and the failure to confront the accused regarding it under Section 342 vitiate the trial to that extent, violating the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Furthermore, the Court held that unproven motive and the absence of premeditation constitute mitigating circumstances warranting the commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment. The key principles laid down are that framing a charge for every distinct offense is a mandatory statutory requirement, not a mere technicality, and that a spontaneous act lacking premeditation and unproven motive justify lesser capital punishment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the complete omission to frame a charge for a distinct offense vitiate the trial to that extent?
  • Can an accused be convicted of an offense for which no charge was framed and no opportunity of defense was provided under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive serve as a mitigating factor for commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Whether a spontaneous act lacking premeditation justifies the imposition of capital punishment?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hassan vs The State through Fida Ali2025 PCRLJ 532 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2024-11-10
  Qatl-e-amdextra-judicial confessionmitigating circumstancescircumstantial evidencesentence reductioncriminal appealmurder conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal and a revision petition arising from a conviction for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question was whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the charge of murder through circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confessions, and whether the trial court’s sentence of life imprisonment was appropriate. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that the prosecution successfully established guilt through consistent extra-judicial confessions, which were corroborated by medical evidence, recovery of the weapon, and the accused’s own statement under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court affirmed the conviction but exercised judicial discretion to reduce the sentence from life imprisonment to fourteen years rigorous imprisonment. The key principle laid down is that while an extra-judicial confession is a weak form of evidence, it becomes reliable when corroborated by independent circumstantial evidence. Furthermore, the Court established that an accused's post-offence conduct—specifically refraining from repeating the attack, attempting to seek medical aid for the victim, and voluntarily surrendering to authorities—constitutes significant mitigating circumstances warranting a reduction in the quantum of sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Can an extra-judicial confession, when corroborated by circumstantial evidence, sustain a conviction for murder?
  • Does the post-offence conduct of an accused, such as seeking medical aid for the victim and surrendering, constitute a mitigating circumstance for sentencing?
  • Is a conviction for murder sustainable in the absence of direct eye-witnesses if the prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence and judicial confession?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmed & another vs M/s JS Global Capital Ltd2025 SHC 404 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-18Read full judgment →
• Shabana Parveen vs Malik Mohsin Hassan Rasheed etc2025 LHC 2894 · Lahore High Court · 2025-05-06Read full judgment →
• Seeta Ram vs The State2025 SCP 259 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-21
  FIR registrationretracted confessioncriminal investigationCode of Criminal Procedurebenefit of doubtpolice dutyjudicial confessionocular evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which was upheld by the High Court. The core legal questions concerned the evidentiary value of a retracted judicial confession, the impact of a significant delay in the registration of the First Information Report (FIR), and the reliability of the prosecution's ocular evidence. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found the ocular testimony unreliable and the judicial confession inadmissible due to procedural lapses, including the failure to ensure voluntariness and adherence to mandatory safeguards. The Court laid down the principle that the registration of an FIR under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is a mandatory statutory duty of the officer in charge of a police station, which cannot be delayed or refused. Furthermore, any inquiry prior to FIR registration is prohibited, and police must not use daily diaries to circumvent the statutory requirement of immediate FIR registration.

  Questions settled

  • Is the registration of an FIR under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a mandatory statutory duty that cannot be delayed?
  • Can a police officer conduct an inquiry into the truth of information regarding a cognizable offence before registering an FIR?
  • What are the mandatory procedural safeguards that must be observed to ensure a judicial confession recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is voluntary?
  • Does the failure to register an FIR promptly and the use of a daily diary instead constitute a violation of the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Securities & Exchange Commission of Pakistan vs Adnan Faisal & another2025 SHC 540 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-22
  insider tradingmisuse of official positionnon-banking finance companybenefit of doubtcriminal original complaintcircumstantial evidenceacquittalspecial law vs general law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a criminal original complaint filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan against the accused, an officer of a Non-Banking Finance Company, alleging misuse of confidential information and official position for personal gain under the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The core legal questions pertained to whether the prosecution successfully established the misuse of official authority beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether the special law relating to insider trading ought to have been invoked instead of general corporate provisions. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to bring forth credible, direct, or unbroken circumstantial evidence connecting the accused to the alleged offences, noting significant contradictions and missing links in the evidence. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the accused was acquitted of the charges on the basis of benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution successfully established the charge of misuse of official position under Section 282-K of the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
  • Does a special law governing insider trading prevail over general corporate provisions when dealing with securities transactions by company officers?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal when the prosecution relies solely on circumstantial evidence with missing links in the chain of proof?
  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of prosecution witnesses who lack personal knowledge of underlying facts can sustain a criminal conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary to Government of the Punjab Law & Parliamentary Affairs2025 SCP 2, 2025 SCMR 489, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 549 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-23
  service appealdisciplinary proceedingswillful absencemisconductservice tribunalfact-findingextraordinary leaveproportionality of punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a civil petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had set aside a disciplinary penalty imposed on a civil servant. The respondent had been penalized for willful absence from duty, unauthorized foreign travel, and submission of fabricated medical certificates. The Tribunal had allowed the respondent's appeal primarily on the basis that the competent authority had regularized the period of absence as extraordinary leave without pay, rendering the penalty a nullity. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal erred by failing to decide the case on its merits. The Court clarified that regularizing an absence period as leave without pay for administrative purposes does not exonerate a civil servant from charges of misconduct or render disciplinary proceedings redundant. The Court emphasized that Service Tribunals, as the primary fact-finding appellate forums, are duty-bound to examine the inquiry proceedings and evidence to determine the validity of the charges. The principle laid down is that the regularization of absence does not automatically negate the finding of misconduct, and Tribunals must adjudicate on the merits of the disciplinary action rather than relying on procedural technicalities.

  Questions settled

  • Does the regularization of a period of absence as extraordinary leave without pay automatically exonerate a civil servant from charges of misconduct?
  • Is a Service Tribunal required to decide a service appeal on its merits rather than relying solely on procedural grounds?
  • Can a Service Tribunal set aside a disciplinary penalty without examining the inquiry proceedings and report?
  • What is the scope of the appellate jurisdiction of a Service Tribunal regarding the proportionality of punishment imposed by a departmental authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary to Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Communication & Works2025 SCP 46, 2025 PLD Supreme Court 371, 2025 CLD 680 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-17
  limitationcondonation of delaydue diligencegood faithpecuniary jurisdictionarbitration awardstatute of repose
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged a High Court judgment that dismissed a revision petition against an appellate court's order, which had rejected an appeal as time-barred. The dispute originated from an arbitration award made a rule of court. The petitioner had initially filed an appeal in the High Court, despite the pecuniary jurisdiction lying with the District Court, leading to significant delay. The core legal question was whether the time spent pursuing an appeal in a wrong forum could be condoned under the Limitation Act, 1908, and whether the government is entitled to special treatment regarding limitation. The Supreme Court held that the government is treated like an ordinary litigant and must adhere to strict limitation periods. The Court ruled that the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, requires proof of "good faith" and "due diligence," which were absent here. Consequently, the delay could not be condoned, and the petition was dismissed. The principle established is that limitation laws are statutes of repose to be strictly construed, and negligence in choosing the wrong forum precludes condonation of delay.

  Questions settled

  • Can the time spent pursuing an appeal in the wrong forum be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, without proof of due diligence and good faith?
  • Is the government entitled to be treated differently from an ordinary litigant regarding the application of the law of limitation?
  • Does the law of limitation permit the condonation of delay based on equitable considerations or hardship?
  • Can a party invoke Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, to condone delay in filing an appeal if the delay was caused by the party's own negligence in selecting the wrong forum?
  Read full judgment →
• Sayed Nasir Ali & Others vs The Revisional Authority & Ors2025 SHC HYD 2115 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-05Read full judgment →
• Savaid Ahmed son of Muhammad Khursheed Qureshi vs The State and others2025 SHC KHI 2089 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-07
  registration of FIREx-Officio Justice of Peaceillegal dispossessioncivil disputequashingconstitutional jurisdictioncognizable offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge acting as Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, whereby the applicant's petition seeking directions for the registration of a first information report against private individuals for alleged illegal occupation of a property was dismissed. The core legal question revolves around whether the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace was justified in refusing to order the registration of a criminal case where the underlying dispute is essentially civil in nature. The court held that the dispute pertained to immovable property and civil rights, and no cognizable offence was made out to warrant interference through constitutional or criminal machinery, noting that giving a criminal color to a civil dispute is impermissible. The court laid down the principle that where a matter constitutes a civil dispute regarding property possession, the appropriate remedy lies under specialized civil legislation such as the Illegal Dispossession Act rather than invoking criminal investigation or seeking directions for FIR registration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace is bound to order the registration of an FIR when the dispute between the parties is primarily of a civil nature?
  • Can a criminal miscellaneous application be maintained for the lodgment of an FIR regarding property possession disputes?
  • Is the Illegal Dispossession Act the appropriate remedy for a person aggrieved by the alleged illegal occupation of immovable property?
  Read full judgment →
• Saudi Arabian Airlines Corporation vs Muhammad Ali & others2025 SHC KHI 1852 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-14Read full judgment →
• Sarwat Ghazi Uddin vs Province of Sindh and others2025 SHC 324 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-10Read full judgment →
• Sarwat Bibi and 3 others vs Muhammad Idrees Kiani and another2025 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 91 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-11-26
  acquittal appealdouble presumption of innocencebenefit of doubtevidentiary value of police filecriminal appealmurder trialappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court, which acquitted the respondent of murder and related charges by extending the benefit of the doubt. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the number of gunshots fired and the reliability of the deceased's statements. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, holding that the prosecution failed to substantiate its claims with consistent evidence. The Court found that the deceased's initial statement in the FIR mentioned only two gunshots, contradicting the prosecution's later assertion of a third shot, which was unsupported by the medical report. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that documents contained solely in the police file, such as a statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, hold no evidentiary value unless properly introduced into the court record. The key principle laid down is that an acquitted person carries a double presumption of innocence, and an appellate court cannot interfere with an acquittal unless the judgment is shown to be perverse, arbitrary, or capricious.

  Questions settled

  • Does a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which is kept only in the police file and not made part of the court record, constitute substantive evidence?
  • What is the standard of interference by an appellate court in a judgment of acquittal?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution's ocular evidence contradicts the medical report regarding the number of injuries sustained?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarja etc vs Syed Zahid Hussain Shah etc2025 LHC 3281 · Lahore High Court · 2025-05-02Read full judgment →
• Sarfaraz Ali and Ors vs V.C. SMBBMU, Larkana and Ors2025 SHC LAR 1586 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-15Read full judgment →
• Sardar Waseem Ilyas vs Federation of Pakistan and others2025 PTD 282 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-07Read full judgment →
• Sardar Imran Latif vs Sofia Mughal2025 SC AJK 4 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2025-02-06Read full judgment →
• Sardar Amber Maqood vs Federation of Pakistan, Privatisation2025 LHC 5392 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-27Read full judgment →
• Saqib and another vs The State and another2025 YLR 277 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-13
  illegal arms possessionrecovery on pointationcriminal appealKhyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Actappreciation of evidenceconviction maintenance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-IV/Judge MCTC, Haripur, which convicted the appellants for the illegal possession of firearms under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act. The appellants were convicted and sentenced to two years of simple imprisonment after the prosecution established that they had led the police to the recovery of a repeater and a 30-bore pistol during the investigation of a separate murder case. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the recovery of the weapons on the pointation of the appellants and if the conviction was sustainable in the absence of valid licenses. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the recovery through consistent witness testimony and documentary evidence, which remained unrebutted during cross-examination. The Court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no material contradictions or loopholes in the prosecution's case. The principle laid down is that multiple accused can be held responsible for information leading to the discovery of incriminating evidence, and such recovery, when verified and unrebutted, constitutes sufficient grounds for conviction under the Arms Act.

  Questions settled

  • Can multiple accused be held responsible for information leading to the discovery of incriminating evidence under the law?
  • Is a conviction for illegal possession of firearms sustainable when the accused fails to produce a valid license or rebut the recovery evidence?
  • Does the failure to object to a recovery memo during trial preclude the accused from challenging its validity on appeal?
  Read full judgment →