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.

• Raja Mumtaz Hussain Arif vs The State and another2025 IHC 190 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-05
  pre-arrest bailbank guaranteevoluntary undertakingapprobate and reprobatecriminal procedureconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitutional petition before the Islamabad High Court assailing an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge confirming his pre-arrest bail subject to furnishing a cash/bank guarantee of Rs.3,000,000/-. The core legal question was whether a court can bind an accused to furnish a cash/bank guarantee when the accused had voluntarily submitted an affidavit undertaking to provide the same as a condition for bail, and subsequently challenged that condition. The Islamabad High Court held that since the petitioner voluntarily offered the undertaking through an affidavit without any allegation of duress, coercion, or misrepresentation, and having successfully obtained the benefit of pre-arrest bail on that basis, he could not subsequently resile from it or approbate and reprobate. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine, establishing that an accused who voluntarily undertakes to furnish a specific guarantee to secure pre-arrest bail is bound by such undertaking and cannot later challenge the condition.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused challenge a condition of pre-arrest bail that was incorporated upon the accused's own voluntary written undertaking?
  • Whether an accused who has taken the benefit of a pre-arrest bail order based on a personal undertaking can subsequently resile from that undertaking?
  • Does a court commit illegality by confirming pre-arrest bail in accordance with the terms mutually agreed upon and undertaken by the accused and the complainant?
  Read full judgment →
• Rai Hoider Ali Khan vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretory Ministry of Parliamentary Alfoirs, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others2025 PHC 260 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Rahmat Wali and others vs Residents of Munoor Garam Chashma, Chitral2025 PHC 20 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Rahim Shah Mian vs Muhammad Iqbal2025 SCP 253 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-06-12
  pre-emptionShafi KhalitShafi JaarTalb-i-MuwathibatTalb-i-Ishhadnon-production of informerrevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a pre-emption suit filed by the appellant regarding land situated in District Swat. The appellant claimed a superior right of pre-emption on the grounds of being a Shafi Khalit (contiguous owner) and a Shafi Jaar (participant in irrigation), asserting compliance with the mandatory demands (Talbs). While the Trial Court and Appellate Court decreed the suit, the High Court in civil revision set aside the judgments and dismissed the suit. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, holding that the High Court properly exercised its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to reverse concurrent findings based on misreading and non-reading of evidence. The Court held that contiguity was disproved by an intervening private passage owned by third parties, and irrigation participation was physically impossible due to land elevation. Furthermore, failure to produce the informer regarding Talb-i-Muwathibat was fatal to the claim, and Talb-i-Ishhad failed due to non-compliance with statutory notice requirements under Section 13 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act 1987.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court set aside concurrent findings of facts under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if they are based on misreading or non-reading of evidence?
  • Does the non-production of the informer fatal to proving the performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat under Section 13 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act 1987?
  • Can contiguity for the purpose of a pre-emption claim as Shafi Khalit be established when the lands are separated by an intervening private passage owned by a third party?
  Read full judgment →
• Rahila Shahid vs Shahid Perwaiz and others2025 IHC 106 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-18Read full judgment →
• Rahil Butt And 21 Others vs The Federation Of Pakistan Through Secretary2025 LHC 3087 · Lahore High Court
  quo warrantocivil service appointmentregularization of serviceFederal Public Service Commissionpast and closed transactionlocus poenitentiaecabinet sub-committeeconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition, filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, sought a writ of quo warranto against the appointment and regularization of respondents in the Federal Government Educational Institution. The core legal question was whether the regularization of these employees in BS-16 and above posts by a cabinet sub-committee, without adhering to the mandatory recruitment process of the Federal Public Service Commission, was lawful. The Court held that the regularization was void ab initio as the cabinet sub-committee lacked the authority to bypass statutory recruitment requirements. It rejected preliminary objections regarding laches, territorial jurisdiction, and the "past and closed transaction" doctrine, emphasizing that illegal appointments cannot be shielded by the passage of time. The key principle laid down is that quo warranto proceedings are inquisitorial in nature, and public offices must be filled in strict accordance with the law; consequently, illegal appointments cannot be regularized by executive committees lacking statutory power. The Court directed the appointing authority to refer the respondents' cases to the Federal Public Service Commission for a determination of fitness under Section 11-B of the Civil Servants Act, 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Can a cabinet sub-committee regularize the appointment of civil servants in BS-16 and above without the involvement of the Federal Public Service Commission?
  • Does the doctrine of 'past and closed transaction' protect an appointment that was void ab initio?
  • Is the principle of laches applicable to a writ of quo warranto challenging the legality of a public office holder?
  • Can a court issue a writ of quo warranto against a public office holder whose appointment was made without following the prescribed statutory procedure?
  Read full judgment →
• Rahib Ali s/o Sadaruddin Choliyani Chandio vs The State2025 SHC LAR 1576 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-15
  criminal appealfair trialcross-examinationcapital punishmentmiscarriage of justicede novo trialQatl-i-amd
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the Trial Court for the offence of Qatl-i-amd. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s failure to ensure cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, despite the defence counsel’s omission, violated the appellant’s constitutional right to a fair trial. The High Court held that the trial court’s reliance on unchallenged evidence in a capital case without intervention constituted a miscarriage of justice. The court emphasized that the right to a fair trial, guaranteed under Article 10-A of the Constitution, imposes an enhanced duty on the trial judge. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and remanded the matter for a de novo trial. The key principle laid down is that where defence counsel fails to cross-examine, the trial court must actively exercise its powers under Article 161 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, to put material questions to witnesses or ensure adequate legal representation is provided, thereby fulfilling its primary responsibility to discover the truth and ensure justice in capital proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does a trial court's failure to ensure cross-examination of prosecution witnesses in a capital case constitute a violation of the right to a fair trial?
  • What is the scope of a trial judge's duty under Article 161 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, when defence counsel fails to cross-examine witnesses?
  • Can a conviction be set aside and a case remanded for a de novo trial if the trial court fails to uphold procedural safeguards regarding cross-examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Raheem Ullah etc vs The State2025 PHC 104 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-05-08
  murderspot arrestweapon recoverysuppression of factsmitigating circumstancescommutation of sentencecapital punishmentjudicial complex shooting
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants for murder under sections 302 and 324 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an incident of firing inside a judicial complex that resulted in three deaths. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of evidence where both parties suppressed material facts, the evidentiary value of a spot arrest with weapon recovery versus conflicting ocular accounts, and the application of mitigating circumstances for sentencing. The Peshawar High Court held that while the spot arrest and recovery of matching firearms proved the active participation of two appellants, the suppression of facts by both sides and the uncertainty of events made the death penalty too harsh. Consequently, the court acquitted one co-appellant due to insufficient connecting evidence, and partially allowed the appeal of the remaining two appellants by commuting their death sentences to imprisonment for life, while dismissing the complainant's revision petition for sentence enhancement. The key principle laid down is that where both prosecution and defence conceal material facts and present conflicting narratives, courts must exercise extreme judicial caution in assessing evidence, and such mitigating uncertainties can warrant the commutation of capital punishment to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the suppression of material facts by both the prosecution and the defence warrants the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the ocular account of the sole eyewitness contradicts the physical evidence such as the site plan and recovery of empties?
  • Whether an accused not arrested on the spot and against whom no weapon of offence is recovered can be convicted solely on general allegations when the prosecution fails to establish his active participation?
  • Is the spot arrest of an accused coupled with the recovery of matching firearms sufficient to prove participation in a crime beyond a shadow of doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafique Rajput vs The State2025 SHC HYD 1866 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-11
  attempted murderinjured witnessappraisal of evidenceinvestigative lapsesmedical evidencebenefit of doubthurt provisionscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Sections 324, 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), and 337-F(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 for attempting to murder his estranged wife and causing injuries to his mother-in-law using a knife. The core legal questions involved the credibility of injured eyewitnesses, the effect of minor contradictions and investigative lapses, and the proof of murderous intent under Section 324 PPC. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentences, holding that the testimony of injured victims carries high probative value and is not undermined by minor discrepancies or police omissions. The court reaffirmed that a murderous intent under Section 324 PPC can be inferred from the weapon used, the vulnerable body parts targeted, and the surrounding circumstances, and that minor investigative failures do not vitiate an otherwise robust prosecution case supported by consistent medical evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of an injured eyewitness can be relied upon despite minor contradictions and relationship with the victims?
  • Does a defective investigation by itself entitle an accused to an acquittal when ocular and medical evidence are otherwise consistent?
  • What factors are determinative of a murderous intent under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860?
  • Can cumulative punishments for specific hurts under Chapter XVI co-exist with a conviction for attempt to commit murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafiq, Hakim Ali alias Hakoo vs The State2025 SHC SUK 1875 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-07
  criminal appealrobberydelayed FIRidentification paradeadverse inferencebenefit of doubtSection 342 examinationappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the trial court's judgment convicting the appellants for robbery under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite significant evidentiary gaps. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellants. The Court emphasized that an unexplained ten-day delay in registering the FIR, coupled with the failure to produce available CCTV footage, severely undermined the prosecution's credibility. Furthermore, the Court established that the failure to conduct a judicial identification parade for previously unknown accused renders dock identification unreliable. Additionally, the Court held that the prosecution's failure to produce key witnesses warrants an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Finally, the Court reaffirmed that incriminating evidence not put to the accused during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot be considered against them, and any lingering doubt must be resolved in the accused's favor.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in registering an FIR, despite the availability of electronic evidence, cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
  • Is the failure to conduct a judicial identification parade for previously unknown accused fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Can an adverse inference be drawn against the prosecution for failing to produce a key witness mentioned in the challan?
  • Does the failure to put incriminating evidence to an accused during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render that evidence inadmissible?
  Read full judgment →
• Rabi Khan vs The State2025 SHC KHI 1708 · Sindh High Court · 2025-06-04
  pre-arrest bailcall data reportenticing a womancriminal investigationbail dismissal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Sindh High Court through a bail application filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, whereby the applicant Rabi Khan sought pre-arrest bail in FIR No.415 of 2025 registered under Section 469-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involved was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail when the prosecution had collected incriminating material, including Call Data Records showing regular contact between the applicant and the complainant's missing wife. The court held that the material collected during investigation prima facie connected the accused with the alleged offence and no mala fide or ill will was established on the part of the police. Consequently, the court recalled the ad-interim pre-arrest bail and rejected the bail application, laying down the principle that direct involvement established through call data records and lack of mala fide disentitles an accused to pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when call data records prima facie connect the accused to the alleged offence?
  • Does the absence of previous enmity or mala fide on the part of the prosecution preclude the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail when confronted with incriminating call logs and unable to provide a satisfactory response?
  Read full judgment →
• Rabeeya Pervez and others vs Usman Zafar and others2025 IHC 474 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-07-09
  quo warrantopublic officestatutory corporationpublic servantbona fide litigantwhistleblowerintra-court appealcontract employment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from Intra-Court Appeals filed under the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, challenging a Single Bench judgment that dismissed a writ of quo warranto against the appointment and promotion of an Assistant Director (HR) in the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) due to the challenger's lack of bona fides, despite finding the requirements of quo warranto satisfied. The core legal questions were whether the administrative HR posts within the PTA constitute "public offices" amenable to quo warranto, and whether the challenger's conduct affected the maintainability of the petition. The High Court held that the posts of Assistant Director and Deputy Director of HR are not public offices because they were created under non-statutory service regulations rather than directly by the parent statute, do not involve sovereign state functions, and represent contract-at-will employment. Furthermore, being designated a "public servant" under Section 21 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 does not confer civil status or transform a post into a public office. The Court affirmed that a challenger's bona fides can be questioned, ultimately allowing the appeals of the employee and the PTA.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a subordinate administrative post created under non-statutory service regulations of a statutory body qualifies as a public office for the purpose of a writ of quo warranto?
  • Does the status of an employee as a public servant under Section 21 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 confer civil status or make their post a public office?
  • Can a court dismiss or refuse to entertain a writ of quo warranto on the ground that the petitioner or whistleblower lacks bona fides?
  • What is the test to determine whether a statutory corporation or body is performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz vs Shehzad Hassan, etc2025 SCP 108 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-26
  cancellation of bailpost-arrest bailperverse ordertentative assessmentleave to appealmisuse of liberty
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against an order of the High Court granting post-arrest bail to respondent No. 1 in a case involving charges under Sections 302, 427, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that respondent No. 1 acted in concert with a co-accused to commit murder using firearms. The petitioner sought the cancellation of the bail concession. The Supreme Court observed that the scope of interference in matters concerning the cancellation of bail is well settled. Bail, once granted, may generally be cancelled if the accused misuses the liberty by intimidating witnesses, tampering with evidence, committing further offences, violating court conditions, or if the granting order is perverse or passed in clear disregard of settled principles of bail law. Examining the record tentatively, the Supreme Court determined that no ground for cancellation was attracted, as the High Court's order was neither perverse, arbitrary, nor in disregard of bail principles. Consequently, the Supreme Court declined leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • On what grounds can the Supreme Court interfere to cancel bail granted by a lower court?
  • What constitutes a perverse order in the context of granting bail?
  • Is recovery of a weapon alone sufficient to decline or cancel post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz vs Director Central & others2025 SHC KHI 2215 · Sindh High Court · 2025-09-04Read full judgment →
• Qutubuddin Jakhrani vs The State2025 YLR 443 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-10
  murderocular evidenceinterested witnesscriminal appealmedical evidenceappreciation of evidencecorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, specifically evaluating the reliability of related eye-witnesses and the impact of alleged contradictions in their testimony. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence. The court held that the ocular account provided by the eye-witnesses was consistent, natural, and confidence-inspiring, despite their kinship with the deceased. The court established that mere relationship does not render a witness 'interested' absent a proven motive to falsely implicate the accused. Furthermore, minor discrepancies in testimony are natural and do not invalidate credible evidence. The court reaffirmed that the rule requiring corroboration of ocular testimony is one of abundant caution rather than a mandatory requirement, provided the direct evidence is unimpeachable. Additionally, medical evidence serves as confirmatory support regarding the nature and cause of injuries but does not independently establish the identity of the offender.

  Questions settled

  • Does the relationship between eye-witnesses and the deceased automatically render them 'interested witnesses' whose testimony requires independent corroboration?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained based on the testimony of a single eye-witness?
  • Do minor contradictions in prosecution witness statements necessitate the acquittal of an accused?
  • What is the legal status of medical evidence in establishing the identity of an accused in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Qurban Ali vs The State2025 SCP 191 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-06
  capital murderretracted confessionbenefit of doubtcircumstantial evidencemedical evidence conflictSection 302 PPCdeath sentence set asideacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail petition, converted into a criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, arose from the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the triple murder of his wife and two minor children, resulting in a death sentence affirmed by the High Court. The core legal questions before the Court were whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through circumstantial and medical evidence, and whether the appellant's retracted judicial confession, recorded under procedural infirmities, was sufficient to sustain the capital conviction. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant, extending him the benefit of doubt. The Court observed that the case lacked eyewitnesses, the chemical examiner's report returned negative for poison, no physical signs of strangulation were established, call data records were missing, and the retracted confession suffered from serious procedural lapses. Reaffirming established jurisprudence, the Court held that even a single material loophole or discrepancy in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favour of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted of murder on the basis of a retracted judicial confession that suffers from procedural defects and is alleged to have been procured under duress?
  • Does a conflict between the prosecution's narrative of poisoning or strangulation and negative medical/forensic findings entitle the accused to an acquittal?
  • Whether the failure to produce call records and an unexplained pre-FIR site visit by the investigating officer create reasonable doubt in a circumstantial murder case?
  • Can a capital conviction be sustained when the prosecution's circumstantial evidence contains material discrepancies and lacks corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Qurban Ali vs The State, etc2025 LHC 1400 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-25
  post-arrest bailfake advocateimpersonationPunjab Bar Councilstatutory interpretationcriminal procedurefurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by a petitioner accused of impersonating an advocate and committing fraud. The core legal question is whether a private complainant can directly initiate criminal proceedings against an alleged "fake advocate" without first engaging the Punjab Bar Council. The Court held that the Punjab Legal Practitioners & Bar Council Rules, 2023, mandate a specific inquiry process by the Executive Committee of the Punjab Bar Council before prosecution can be initiated under the Legal Practitioners & Bar Councils Act, 1973. The Court emphasized the principle that where the law prescribes a specific procedure for an act, it must be followed strictly. Since the complainant failed to involve the Punjab Bar Council or provide documentary evidence of the alleged impersonation, and the police failed to substantiate the allegations, the Court found the petitioner’s case fit for further inquiry. Consequently, the bail application was allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to post-arrest bail, reinforcing that private individuals must exhaust the prescribed Bar Council inquiry mechanism before pursuing criminal litigation against alleged fake advocates.

  Questions settled

  • Can a private individual directly initiate criminal proceedings against a person for impersonating an advocate without first exhausting the inquiry process under the Punjab Legal Practitioners & Bar Council Rules, 2023?
  • What is the procedure for initiating prosecution against a person alleged to be a 'fake advocate' under the Legal Practitioners & Bar Councils Act, 1973?
  • Which court has jurisdiction to try an offence committed under the Legal Practitioners & Bar Councils Act, 1973, and the Punjab Legal Practitioners & Bar Council Rules, 2023?
  • How should a conflict of jurisdiction between two courts regarding the trial of an offence be resolved under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Qurban Ali son of M. Chand Badshah and others vs The State2025 SHC KHI 1550, 2025 SHC KHI 1552 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-27
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirynarcotics smugglingchemical analysis reportpharmaceutical drugsstatutory classificationprocedural irregularityCNS Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns post-arrest bail applications filed by applicants charged under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for allegedly smuggling pharmaceutical products, including Rivotril, Gabica, and Tramal. The core legal question was whether these lawfully manufactured, registered pharmaceutical products constitute "psychotropic substances" under the Act, and whether the prosecution's chemical analysis report, which lacked specific testing protocols and was delayed, established a prima facie case. The Court held that the applicants were entitled to bail, determining that the case fell within the scope of "further inquiry" under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court reasoned that the classification of registered pharmaceutical drugs under the CNS Act remains legally ambiguous, and the chemical report was procedurally and substantively defective for failing to disclose analytical protocols. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that without direct evidence linking the applicants to the consignment, and given the non-prohibitory nature of the alleged quantity, continued incarceration was unjustified. The judgment reaffirms that ambiguous statutory classification and defective forensic reports necessitate further inquiry at the bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of registered pharmaceutical products, which are not explicitly listed in the schedules of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, constitute a case of further inquiry?
  • Is a chemical analysis report that fails to disclose the testing protocols used to identify substances legally admissible or sufficient to sustain a prima facie case?
  • Does the failure of a trial court to provide analytical reasoning in a bail rejection order constitute a jurisdictional error?
  • Can bail be granted when the prosecution fails to establish a direct nexus between the accused and the alleged contraband?
  Read full judgment →
• Qudsia Liaquat vs The State2025 IHC 108 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-28
  circumstantial evidencelast seen evidencebenefit of doubtrecovery memoabductionqatl-i-amdcriminal appealSection 103 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for abduction and murder under Sections 365 and 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the circumstantial evidence presented—specifically 'last seen' testimony, alleged recoveries, and call data records—was sufficient to sustain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The Islamabad High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges. Regarding abduction, evidence showed the deceased voluntarily left in his own vehicle, negating the element of compulsion or deceit. Regarding murder, the court found the recoveries unreliable due to non-compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as no independent witnesses were associated. Furthermore, the 'last seen' evidence was deemed insufficient to establish the accused's presence at the time of death, and the call data records were not properly authenticated. The court reaffirmed the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the benefit of any doubt must be extended to the accused, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and the appellant's acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for abduction under Section 365 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained where the victim voluntarily drove their own vehicle?
  • Does non-compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the association of independent witnesses during recovery proceedings create doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Can a witness whose statement was not recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be examined under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is circumstantial evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder when the prosecution fails to establish the accused's presence at the time of death?
  Read full judgment →
• Quality Schools Foundation vs Federation of Pakistan etc2025 LHC 392 · Lahore High Court · 2025-04-30Read full judgment →
• Qazi Mumtaz Hussain and others vs Government of Sindh through its2025 SCP 99, 2025 SCMR 939 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-21
  Doctrine of ElectionLand Reforms Act 1977resumption of landcivil court jurisdictionappellate hierarchyexcess land
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals filed under Article 185(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging the dismissal of civil suits regarding land resumption orders passed under the Land Reforms Act 1977. The core legal question is whether a party, having exhausted the appellate hierarchy provided under the Land Reforms Act 1977, can subsequently invoke the original jurisdiction of a Civil Court to challenge the same resumption order. The Supreme Court held that the appellants, having elected to pursue their remedies through the statutory appellate process under the Land Reforms Act 1977, were barred from initiating parallel civil litigation. Applying the Doctrine of Election, the Court determined that a litigant cannot pursue multiple, inconsistent forums for the same grievance once a choice has been made and the process concluded. The Court affirmed that the resumption of excess land by the Deputy Land Commissioner was lawful and within the statutory framework, finding no jurisdictional defect that would warrant interference by a Civil Court. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, upholding the finality of the statutory proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party invoke the jurisdiction of a Civil Court after exhausting the appellate remedies provided under the Land Reforms Act 1977?
  • Does the Doctrine of Election prevent a litigant from pursuing parallel remedies in a Civil Court after failing in a statutory appeal?
  • Is the resumption of excess land by a Deputy Land Commissioner under the Land Reforms Act 1977 subject to challenge in a Civil Court if no jurisdictional defect is proven?
  Read full judgment →
• Qasim and another vs The State2025 YLR 697 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-09
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular evidencefair trialacquittalappreciation of evidencerecovery evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellants for murder and causing injuries. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly when ocular evidence was inconsistent and co-accused charged with similar roles were acquitted by the trial court. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellants' guilt. The Court observed that the ocular evidence was contradictory regarding the specific injuries attributed to the appellants, and the recovery of weapons was procedurally flawed. Furthermore, the trial court's conviction under Section 334, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, without a formal charge, violated the appellants' right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Relying on the principle that if eye-witnesses are disbelieved regarding one accused, they cannot be relied upon for others without independent corroboration, the Court set aside the convictions. The appellants were granted the benefit of doubt as a matter of right, leading to their acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted for an offence under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for which they were not formally charged?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence entitle the remaining accused to acquittal if the ocular evidence is inconsistent?
  • Is it safe to base a conviction on corroborative evidence when the direct ocular evidence has been disbelieved?
  • Does the failure to send forensic evidence separately for analysis affect the reliability of the recovery?
  Read full judgment →
• Qari Shahid vs The State and another2025 LHC 4763 · Lahore High Court · 2025-04-28
  post-arrest bailsexual abusesimilar factschild abuseprohibitory clausedelay in F.I.R.
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an Imam of a mosque accused in case F.I.R. No. 1403/2024 under Section 377-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sought post-arrest bail after it was refused by the Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal questions involved whether the delay in lodging the F.I.R., lack of medical examination, and similar past allegations warranted the grant of post-arrest bail for offences involving sexual abuse of children. The Lahore High Court held that delay in reporting matters involving family honor is natural, lack of medical examination does not vitiate the charge where acts like sexual abuse do not require consummation, and evidence of similar facts showing a state of mind is admissible under Article 27 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984. The court ruled that the petitioner, facing habitual allegations of a heinous nature, was not entitled to bail due to the prima facie case falling under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, thereby dismissing the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delay in lodging an F.I.R. in cases involving sexual abuse and family honor can be resolved in favor of the accused?
  • Is a medico-legal examination mandatory for establishing an offence under Section 377-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Whether involvement in similar crimes is admissible as evidence of a particular state of mind under Article 27 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984?
  • Does the offence of sexual abuse under Section 377-A and 377-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 require the consummation of sexual intercourse?
  Read full judgment →
• Qamar-ul-Islam vs Province of Punjab, etc2025 LHC 3173 · Lahore High Court · 2025-05-07Read full judgment →
• Qalbe Saleem vs Mst. Reema Dildar and others2025 SHC 362 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-05Read full judgment →
• Qalandar and 2 others vs The State2025 PCRLJ 470 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-06
  attempted murderfirearm injuriesbenefit of the doubtinstigationnatural witnessesmedical corroborationminor contradictionscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting three appellants for offenses including attempted murder, criminal intimidation, and causing hurt. The core legal questions involve the proper application of Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code when firearm shots are not repeated, the evidentiary value of ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence, and the standard of proof required for an accused charged with instigation. The Sindh High Court held that pressing the trigger of a firearm to cause injury satisfies the ingredients of attempted murder under Section 324 regardless of whether shots are repeated, and that natural eye-witness testimony corroborated by medical evidence is sufficient for conviction absent material contradictions. However, with respect to the appellant charged solely with instigation without causing any physical injury, the Court found the evidence insufficient and extended the benefit of the doubt. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as to two appellants and allowed, resulting in acquittal, as to the third.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of repeated firing by an accused exclude the application of Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a criminal conviction be sustained solely on the basis of ocular testimony when corroborated by medical evidence?
  • What is the evidentiary value of minor contradictions and discrepancies in prosecution witness statements?
  • When is an accused charged with mere instigation entitled to the benefit of the doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Qalab Abbas, Amjad Pervaiz, Fateh Muhammad, The State vs The State &2025 LHC 3110 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Qaimuddin, Khalid Hussain, Javed, Mehtab vs The State2025 SHC SUK 398 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-20
  amendment of chargerecall of witnessesfair trialdue processcriminal appealremandSection 231 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentencing of the appellants by the Additional Sessions Judge, Daharki, following an amendment to the original charge. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted lawfully by permitting the prosecution to adopt previously recorded evidence after the charge was amended, rather than recalling and re-examining the witnesses. The High Court held that the trial court’s procedure was legally flawed and prejudicial to the appellants. Relying on established precedents, the Court determined that Section 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is mandatory; when a charge is altered or added, the prosecution and the accused must be allowed to recall and re-examine witnesses regarding the changes. The Court emphasized that the method of adopting prior evidence violates the constitutional right to a fair trial and due process under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the trial court for a fresh trial, requiring the re-examination of all prosecution witnesses.

  Questions settled

  • Does the adoption of previously recorded evidence after the amendment of a charge satisfy the requirements of Section 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the failure to recall and re-examine witnesses upon the amendment of a charge an incurable procedural defect?
  • Does the practice of adopting prior evidence after a charge amendment violate the constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Qaim vs The State2025 YLR 785 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-08
  post-arrest bailcross-versionfurther inquirymedical discrepancycriminal procedureaggressor determinationPakistan Penal Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, who was charged under sections 324, 147, 148, 149, 114, 506, and 504 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the existence of a counter-version of the incident, undisclosed injuries to the applicant's side, and a discrepancy between the medical evidence and the FIR allegations regarding the weapon used. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail. The court reasoned that the presence of cross-versions, where both parties sustained injuries and the aggressor remains undetermined, necessitates a trial to establish the primary aggressor. Furthermore, the medical report's finding of a blunt injury, contrary to the FIR's claim of a sharp hatchet blow, created a discrepancy requiring further inquiry. The court established the principle that in cases of cross-versions and conflicting medical evidence, the matter falls within the scope of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, warranting the concession of bail pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of a cross-version FIR where both parties sustained injuries entitle an accused to bail under the principle of further inquiry?
  • Can a discrepancy between the medical evidence and the FIR allegations regarding the weapon used constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is it the role of the bail court or the trial court to determine the identity of the aggressor in cases involving cross-versions of the same incident?
  Read full judgment →
• Qadeer Hussain and others vs Province of Sindh and others2025 SHC 218 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-24
  fake appointmentsservice matterconstitutional jurisdictionlachesdoctrine of unclean handspolice servicesalary stoppage
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by individuals claiming to be Police Constables, challenging an order stopping their salaries and suspending them from service. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were validly appointed civil servants entitled to salary, or if their appointments were fraudulent, and whether the High Court could exercise jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 given the bar under Article 212. The Court held that the petition was meritless and non-maintainable. It found that the petitioners failed to produce any evidence of valid appointment, while the department demonstrated through a formal inquiry that the petitioners were fake appointees involved in a financial scam. The Court dismissed the petition on grounds of laches, as it was filed years after the impugned action, and applied the 'Doctrine of Unclean Hands,' holding that positions secured through illegal means cannot be protected. The principle laid down is that the High Court will not interfere in service matters where the petitioner fails to establish a valid appointment and where the petition is barred by laches and the doctrine of unclean hands.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition regarding service matters in light of the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the doctrine of unclean hands apply to individuals seeking relief for employment positions obtained through fraudulent means?
  • Can a constitutional petition be maintained when it is filed with significant delay without a reasonable explanation for laches?
  Read full judgment →
• Qadeer Ali, etc vs Province of Punjab, etc2025 LHC 5221 · Lahore High Court · 2025-07-23Read full judgment →
• Province of the Punjab through its Chief Secretary etc vs Chand Iqbal etc2025 LHC 3999 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-16
  intra court appealpafper leakageprobationary periodtermination of servicelocus poenitentiaesuo motu jurisdictionpublic service commission
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal addresses the legality of the termination of services of Deputy Accountants (BS-16) and the simultaneous withdrawal of recommendations and cancellation of recruitment tests by the Punjab Public Service Commission following a widespread question paper leakage scandal investigated by the Anti-Corruption Establishment. The core legal questions involve whether the PPSC has the authority to withdraw its recommendations under its regulations and the principle of locus poenitentiae, whether a probationer's services can be terminated without notice, and whether the High Court can exercise suo motu jurisdiction in writ petitions. The Lahore High Court held that the PPSC retains jurisdiction to withdraw recommendations tainted by fraud or irregularity, that a probationer can be terminated simpliciter without notice or show cause during probation, and that the High Court cannot grant unpleaded relief through suo motu action. The court set aside the single bench judgment and dismissed the respondents' writ petitions, establishing that maintaining merit, transparency, and public trust outweighs individual claims where an entire examination process is compromised by systematic cheating.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Punjab Public Service Commission possess the authority to withdraw recommendations for appointment after detecting errors, omissions, or leakage in examination papers?
  • Can the services of a civil servant be terminated without notice during their initial or extended period of probation?
  • Whether the High Court can assume suo motu jurisdiction to grant relief not specifically prayed for in a constitutional petition?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae prevent an authority from rescinding an order or recommendation that was initially tainted by illegality or fraud?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of the Punjab etc vs Mirza Waseem Baig2025 LHC 5021 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-24
  civil servantprobationerPunjab Service Tribunalconstitutional petitionIntra-Court Appealmaintainabilityterms and conditions of servicedischarge of inefficient
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra-Court Appeal arose from a judgment of the learned Judge-in-Chambers which accepted a constitutional petition and set aside orders rescinding the respondent's appointment as a Traffic Assistant. The core legal questions involved whether a probationer is a civil servant under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, whether an order of discharge under Rule 12.21 of the Police Rules 1934 is appealable before the Punjab Service Tribunal, and whether a constitutional petition is maintainable when a statutory service appeal is available. The Lahore High Court held that a probationer qualifies as a civil servant, that the bar against departmental appeals under Rule 12.21 does not exclude the statutory right of appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal under Section 4 of the Act, and that termination based on alleged fraudulent entry or misconduct relates to terms and conditions of service rather than fitness. Consequently, the High Court laid down the principle that subordinate departmental rules cannot override the exclusive judicial jurisdiction of service tribunals established under Article 212 of the Constitution, rendering the constitutional petition and the resulting Intra-Court Appeal barred.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a probationer falls within the definition of a civil servant under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974?
  • Does Rule 12.21 of the Police Rules 1934 bar the statutory right of appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal under Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974?
  • Is an order of discharge based on allegations of fraudulent entry into service considered a matter of fitness or a matter of terms and conditions of service?
  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 is maintainable against a departmental termination order when an alternate statutory remedy before the Service Tribunal is available?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of the Punjab and two others vs Akbari Begum (deceased)2025 LHC 1390 · Lahore High Court · 2025-02-20Read full judgment →
• Province of Sindh through Secretary Government of Sindh, Karachi and others vs Mst. Sorath Fatima and another2025 SCP 278 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  family pensiondivorced daughterexecutive circularconstitutional entitlementright to lifegender discriminationmarital status
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition arises from an order of the High Court of Sindh granting a divorced daughter family pension after the dissolution of her marriage. The core legal questions concerned whether an executive circular can restrict family pension eligibility based on a daughter's marital status at the time of the pensioner's death, and whether conditioning a daughter's right to family pension on marital status violates constitutional guarantees. The Supreme Court held that pension is a legal right earned through service, protected under the Constitution as part of the right to life and dignity, and cannot be curtailed or modified by executive circulars or administrative directives that go beyond the parent statute and rules. The Court further declared that tying family pension eligibility solely to a daughter's marital status reflects a patriarchal and discriminatory dependency model violating Articles 9, 14, 25, and 27 of the Constitution. The key principles laid down are that administrative circulars cannot override statutory rules, that pension rights crystalize in favor of legal heirs without unwarranted time-of-death restrictions, and that women must be recognized as autonomous right-holders entitled to social protection based on actual need rather than presumptive dependency.

  Questions settled

  • Can an executive circular or administrative directive curtail or override the scope of statutory pension rules?
  • Does conditioning a daughter's eligibility for family pension solely on her marital status at the time of the pensioner's death violate fundamental rights under the Constitution?
  • Is pension a bounty, charity, or ex gratia payment, or is it a legal entitlement protected as part of the right to life and dignity?
  • Does tying a daughter's right to family pension to her marital status perpetuate unconstitutional patriarchal assumptions and gender discrimination?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through District Collector/ District Officer (Rev), Lahore2025 SCP 83, 2025 SCMR 830 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-06
  land acquisitioncompensationmarket valuepotential valuetime-barred appealreferee courtoffice objectionsland valuation
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil appeals were filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging the Lahore High Court's judgment concerning the enhancement of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The Province's appeal before the High Court had been returned for removal of office objections but was re-submitted long after the prescribed period without rectification, rendering it time-barred. On the merits regarding the landowners' appeal for further enhancement, the Supreme Court held that the determination of compensation under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 is not restricted solely to the market value at the time of the Section 4 notification. Factors such as potential value, location, commercial nature, and escalation in property value due to delay between the notification and the award must be considered to ensure compensation is 'gold for gold' and not 'copper for gold'. Finding the Referee Court's enhanced rate of Rs. 210,000/- per marla fair and well-reasoned, the Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, noting the cross-appeal was also time-barred.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appeal re-submitted after the expiry of the time granted for removing office objections become time-barred?
  • Is market value at the time of Section 4 notification the sole criterion for determining compensation under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  • Can potential value and future escalation of property be taken into consideration when assessing land acquisition compensation?
  Read full judgment →
• Professor Dr. Syeda Azra Qamar, vs Kifayat Academy & others, Dr.2025 SHC 394 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-26Read full judgment →
• Professor Dr. Samina Sabir, Kashmir Institute of Economics, University of AJ&K, Muzaffarabad and others vs University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and others2025 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 110 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2025-02-14Read full judgment →
• Professor Dr. Naznain Habib, Chairman Sociology and Psychology Department, University of Azad Jammu2025 PLJ AJ&K 44 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Professor Dr. Naznain Habib, Chairman Sociology and Psychology Department, University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Muzaffarabad and others vs University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir through Registrar, Muzaffarabad and others2025 MLD 589 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-11-22Read full judgment →
• Professor Dr. Hamid Mehmood vs Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Medical2025 IHC 152 · Islamabad High Court
  termination during probationprobationary periodaudi alteram partemcompetent authorityuniversity syndicatesimpliciter termination
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a constitutional petition challenging the notification terminating the services of the petitioner, a Professor in BPS-21 at Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Medical University, Islamabad. The core legal questions concern whether the termination of a probationer during the probationary period without a show-cause notice or personal hearing violates fundamental rights, and whether the Syndicate of the University acted within its competent jurisdiction. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that an employee serving on probation has no vested right to continue in service or claim protection under the maxim audi alteram partem for a pre-termination show-cause notice when services are terminated for unsatisfactory performance. The Court established that under the statutory framework and the specific terms of the appointment letter, the Syndicate is the competent authority to terminate a BPS-21 employee during probation without assigning reasons, and such simpliciter termination is unexceptionable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a probationer has a vested right to continue in service or claim protection under the principle of audi alteram partem before termination?
  • Does the termination of an employee during the probationary period require a show-cause notice or formal inquiry?
  • Is the Syndicate of Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Medical University the competent authority to terminate an employee in BPS-21?
  • Can an appointment during probation be terminated without assigning reasons as per the terms of the appointment letter?
  Read full judgment →
• Professor Dr. Almazeb Manan & five others vs Executive Officer2025 PHC 158 · Peshawar High Court
  property tax exemptioncantonment boardretired government servantslegitimate expectationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by retired employees of Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad, challenging demand notices for enhanced annual property tax issued by the Cantonment Board Abbottabad under Section 60 of the Cantonments Act, 1924. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, as retired government servants, are entitled to 100% property tax exemption under SRO 156(I)/2004, and whether their status as government servants was affected by subsequent organizational changes. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioners retired when the institution was a government entity and thus retained their status as retired government servants entitled to the tax exemption. The court ruled that the impugned notices, issued without lawful justification or withdrawal of the exemption through a transparent process, violated principles of natural justice and legitimate expectation. The key principle laid down is that retired public servants fulfilling the criteria of SRO 156(I)/2004 are entitled to property tax exemptions, and subsequent autonomous transitions of institutions do not retrospectively strip employees who retired prior thereto of their vested retirement benefits and status.

  Questions settled

  • Whether retired employees of a former government medical institution are entitled to property tax exemptions under SRO 156(I)/2004?
  • Does a subsequent statutory transition of a hospital into an autonomous body affect the retirement status and accrued benefits of employees who retired prior to the change?
  • Are property tax demand notices issued without affording an opportunity of hearing sustainable under the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Prem son of Amreshi @ Bacho Kachi Kolhi and others vs The State2025 SHC HYD 1953 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-23
  criminal appealmurdercircumstantial evidencelast seen evidencebenefit of doubtunidentified dead bodyhearsay evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 302(b), 201, and 365 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentencing them to imprisonment for life and concurrent prison terms. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt based on circumstantial and last-seen evidence, alongside an unidentified dead body and hearsay testimonies. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused, as the dead body was unidentified at recovery, the medical evidence indicated death by drowning without signs of violence, witnesses were interested and based their accounts on hearsay, and material contradictions existed. The Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, laying down the principle that last-seen evidence is a weak type of circumstantial evidence requiring strong independent corroboration, and that a gruesome nature of a crime cannot override the fundamental requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the benefit of any doubt must go to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on weak circumstantial and last-seen evidence without independent corroboration?
  • Does an unidentified dead body recovered from a canal, subsequently linked to a missing person without proper identification procedures, weaken the prosecution's case?
  • Is the benefit of doubt to be extended to the accused when the prosecution witnesses are related and their testimonies rely entirely on hearsay?
  • Does the heinous or gruesome nature of an offense permit a court to relax the standard of proof required in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Pir Hussain Shah s/o Noor Haider Shah r/o Chelihana Riyali Tehsil2025 SC AJK 3 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2025-02-03Read full judgment →
• Pinggao-Akay-Transmark Joint Venture vs Public Procurement Regulatory2025 IHC 312 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Phaphi alias Fatima and another vs The State and another2025 LHC 788 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-10
  pre-arrest bailcriminal breach of trustmala fidefamily disputefemale accusedSection 406 PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought pre-arrest bail for two female petitioners accused of offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the refusal of bail by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the transfer of gold rings and money for marriage expenses constituted criminal breach of trust or a civil/family dispute, and whether the petitioners were entitled to relief. The court held that the transfer of property in the context of marriage arrangements did not satisfy the essential ingredients of entrustment required for Section 406 PPC, characterizing the transaction as a gift. Consequently, the court confirmed the pre-arrest bail. The key principles laid down are that mala fide intent can be inferred from the inherent weakness of the prosecution's case and surrounding circumstances, even in the absence of direct evidence. Additionally, the court affirmed that for female, non-convict petitioners where no recovery is pending, judicial discretion should be exercised to protect their modesty and prevent irreparable harm from unnecessary arrest.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential ingredients required to constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can mala fide intent be inferred from the weakness of the prosecution's case in a bail application?
  • Does the transfer of property for marriage expenses constitute an entrustment for the purposes of criminal breach of trust?
  Read full judgment →
• Petrosin Cng (Private) Limited vs Oil And Gas Regulatory Authority (Ogra), etc2025 IHC 290 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Peter Ahsan son of Ahsan Inayat vs M/s Fast Cables Pvt. Ltd. through2025 SHC 718 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-09
  Justice of PeaceFIR registrationcognizable offenceSection 22-A Cr.P.C.criminal proceduremisappropriationinvestigative powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Miscellaneous Application challenged orders passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace directing the recording of a complainant's statement regarding alleged misappropriation and fraud. The core legal question concerned the scope of the Justice of Peace's authority under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in matters involving the registration of an FIR. The Court held that the Justice of Peace is not empowered to conduct a detailed factual inquiry, act as an investigative agency, or determine the merits of the case. The holding emphasized that the primary function of the Justice of Peace is limited to ascertaining whether the facts narrated in a complaint prima facie disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. If such a disclosure is present, the Justice of Peace must direct the police to record the statement under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application, affirming the direction for the Station House Officer to proceed in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • What is the scope of the powers of an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a Justice of Peace authorized to conduct a detailed factual inquiry or act as an investigative agency before directing the registration of an FIR?
  • What is the legal duty of a Station House Officer when information regarding a cognizable offence is brought to their knowledge?
  Read full judgment →
• Peshawar Medical College vs Pakistan Medical & Dental Council (PMDC) &2025 PHC 54 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sahib Zaman son of Toor Khan vs The State & another2025 PHC 26 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Peshawar Electric Supply Company Ltd. (PESCO), WAPDA House, ShamiPTCL 2025 CL. 687 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2024-11-12Read full judgment →
• Perwaiz Ahmed Shaikh (Late) s/o Muhammad Taqi vs Muhammad Tahir2025 SHC 207 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pervaiz Khan vs The State and another2025 IHC 76 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-07
  pre-arrest bailabsence of accusedmandatory appearancecriminal proceduread-interim bailstatutory compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Pervaiz Khan, in relation to FIR No. 299/2024 registered under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether a court can proceed with and grant a pre-arrest bail application in the absence of the accused, despite the petitioner's counsel citing medical reasons for the petitioner's non-attendance. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the physical presence of the accused is a mandatory prerequisite for the adjudication and grant of pre-arrest bail. Relying on the statutory mandate of Section 498-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court affirmed that the presence of the accused is required throughout the proceedings of a pre-arrest bail petition. The judgment establishes the principle that when a statute prescribes a specific manner for the performance of an action, it must be adhered to strictly; consequently, the failure of the accused to appear rendered the petition unsustainable, leading to the recall of the previously granted ad-interim bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is the physical presence of the accused a mandatory prerequisite for the adjudication of a pre-arrest bail application?
  • Can a court grant or continue pre-arrest bail if the accused fails to appear at the hearing?
  • Does the granting of ad-interim bail on the first hearing absolve the accused from the requirement of appearing on subsequent dates?
  Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Ahmed Soomro vs Muhammad Umar @ Ameer Ali Soomro2025 SHC LAR 1605 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-30Read full judgment →
• Peoples Steel Mills Ltd., and another vs M/s Asian Counsel Engineer (Pvt.)2025 SHC KHI 1955 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Peer Muhammad s/o Basheer Khan vs The State2025 SHC KHI 2116 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-28
  post-arrest bailtraffic accidentAfghan nationalflight riskprohibitory clausefurther inquiryresidency documentation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by an Afghan national accused of causing a traffic accident resulting in injury. The core legal question was whether the applicant should be denied bail solely on the ground of his nationality and alleged flight risk, and whether the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that bail should be granted, noting that the prosecution's reliance on precedents involving narcotics trafficking was distinguishable. The court emphasized that nationality alone does not justify withholding bail, particularly when the accused possesses valid residency documentation. Furthermore, the court observed that the alleged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the case required further inquiry. The key principle laid down is that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, and the court must assess each case on its own merits rather than applying a blanket policy against foreign nationals.

  Questions settled

  • Can bail be denied to an accused solely on the basis of their nationality or foreign status?
  • Does the possession of valid residency documentation, such as an Afghan Citizen Card, mitigate the flight risk of an accused for bail purposes?
  • Is a traffic accident case involving injury, where the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, generally entitled to the concession of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Peer Bux vs The State2025 SHC HYD 1699 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-27Read full judgment →
• PEB Steel Alliance Limited vs Earthquake Reconstruction & Rehabilitation2025 IHC 10, 2025 CLC 605, 2025 PLJ Islamabad 109 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-03Read full judgment →
• PC Niaz Ahmed and 3 others vs The State2025 YLR 801 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-24
  defective chargesection 342 Cr.P.C.incriminating evidencede novo trialmurder trialcriminal appealmiscarriage of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Dadu, convicting and sentencing the appellants under sections 302(b), 324, 337-F(iii), 34, and 114 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved were whether a defective charge lacking material particulars and omitting specific roles vitiates the trial, and whether failure to put crucial incriminating prosecution evidence, such as weapon recoveries and medical reports, to the accused during their examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 renders the conviction unsustainable. The Sindh High Court held that a misleading and defective charge causing serious prejudice to the accused vitiates the trial, and that prosecution evidence not put to the accused under section 342 cannot be used for conviction. The court laid down the principle that a trial is vitiated by a materially defective charge, and that all incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence must be explicitly put to the accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, resulting in the setting aside of the judgment and a remand for a de novo trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does a defective charge lacking material particulars and specific roles vitiate the entire trial?
  • Can incriminating prosecution evidence not put to the accused during examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used to award a conviction?
  • Whether failure to comply with section 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 results in serious prejudice to the accused?
  • Must circumstances appearing in cross-examination and re-examination be put to the accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Parveen Akhtar vs Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Pakistan, etc2025 IHC 68 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-18Read full judgment →
• Parvaiz Saleh vs The Federation Of Pakistan Through Secretary2025 IHC 280 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-15Read full judgment →
• Parks & Horticulture Authority vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, etc2025 LHC 463 · Lahore High Court · 2025-02-20
  permanent workmandaily wagersregularization of serviceindustrial and commercial establishmentParks and Horticulture Authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition addresses whether daily-wage workers who have served for approximately ten years at the Parks and Horticulture Authority (PHA) qualify as 'workmen' under labor legislation and are entitled to regularization and permanent status. The core legal questions involve determining the applicability of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010, and the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, to employees of a statutory authority like the PHA, and distinguishing between a declaration as a permanent workman and the administrative process of regularization. The Lahore High Court held that the PHA functions as a commercial establishment regarding its horticultural maintenance, rendering continuous daily-wage manual workers eligible to be declared permanent workmen by operation of law after fulfilling the statutory duration. However, the court held that labor courts lack the jurisdiction to order regularization, which is an administrative process governed by civil service laws and specific government policies. The court maintained the Labour Court's declaration of permanent workman status while setting aside the Labour Appellate Tribunal's direction for regularization.

  Questions settled

  • Whether daily wage employees of the Parks and Horticulture Authority fall under the definition of workman under the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 and the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • What is the legal distinction between the regularization of service and the declaration of an employee as a permanent workman?
  • Does a Labour Court have the authority to direct the administrative regularization of daily-wage employees in public authorities?
  • Does the existence of statutory service rules exempt a statutory organization from the application of labor laws for employees performing manual work?
  Read full judgment →
• Palwasha Nageen vs The State2025 LHC 563 · Lahore High Court · 2025-02-24
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtjuvenile offendereye-witness testimony contradictioncircumstantial evidenceweapon recoveryacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, a juvenile, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of her husband. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in light of contradictions in eyewitness testimony, the absence of corroborative forensic evidence such as matching crime empties, and an implausible motive. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, as the presence of the eyewitnesses was doubtful, the recovery of the weapon was unreliable, and the unnatural death of a spouse inside a house alone is insufficient to secure a conviction without independent supporting evidence. The court laid down the principle that a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right, resulting in the setting aside of the conviction and the acquittal of the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the unnatural death of a husband inside a house where he lived with his wife is by itself sufficient to establish the wife's guilt in the absence of other connecting evidence?
  • Does a contradiction regarding the number of fire shots and recovered crime empties create a reasonable doubt as to the presence of eyewitnesses?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on the basis of a motive that has been expressly discarded by the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Television Corporation Limited vs The Appellate Tribunal Inland2025 IHC 394 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd, Islamabad and others vs Imran Aziz and others2025 SCP 260, 2025 SCP 261 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-07-10
  pensionary benefitsstatutory interpretationtransferred employeescivil servant statustelecommunication sectorvested rightsPTCL
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns multiple civil appeals and petitions regarding the pensionary entitlements of former employees of the Telegraph and Telephone (T&T) Department transferred to the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation (PTC) and subsequently the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL). The core legal question was whether these transferred employees, having ceased to be civil servants, retain a right to pensionary benefits, including periodic revisions, akin to those granted to federal government civil servants. By a 2-1 majority, the Supreme Court held that while these employees lost their civil servant status upon transfer, the statutory framework of the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Act, 1991 and the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996 guarantees the preservation of their existing pensionary rights. The Court affirmed that pensionary benefits are dynamic, evolving rights protected by statute. Consequently, transferred employees who were civil servants at the time of transfer are entitled to the continuation of pensionary benefits, including revisions notified by the federal government, as these rights were statutorily safeguarded against adverse alteration, ensuring their character as living rights rather than frozen benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Do employees transferred from the Telegraph and Telephone Department to the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited retain their status as civil servants?
  • Does the statutory guarantee of 'existing terms and conditions' in the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act 1996 include the right to periodic pension revisions notified by the federal government?
  • Does the Pakistan Telecommunication Employees Trust have the authority to unilaterally alter the pensionary entitlements of transferred employees?
  • Are former employees of the Telegraph and Telephone Department who accepted the Voluntary Separation Scheme entitled to claim residual pensionary revisions?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Telecom Mobile Limited (Ufone) etc vs The Learned Full Bench, NIRC, Islamabad etc2025 IHC 278 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-15Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Limited through its Authorized Officer vs National Industrial Relations Commission, Islamabad & others2025 IHC 262, 2025 PLJ Islamabad 230 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-29
  Collective Bargaining AgentIndustrial Relations Act 2012Voters listReferendumTrade union registrationNIRCWorkmen
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the decision of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) to treat the employer-provided list of workmen as the final voters' list for a Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) referendum. The core legal question was whether the Registrar could finalize the voters' list under Section 19(5) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 without verifying the lists of members submitted by contesting trade unions against the employer's list. The Court held that the NIRC’s approach was legally flawed. The statutory scheme mandates that only members of contesting trade unions are eligible to vote in a CBA referendum. Consequently, the Registrar must verify the trade unions' membership lists against the employer’s list of workmen to ensure compliance with the eligibility criteria, including employment duration and union membership. The Court distinguished the present case from precedents under the repealed Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, noting that the 2012 Act establishes a distinct, more rigorous process. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh, compliant election process.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Registrar of Trade Unions finalize a voters' list for a CBA referendum based solely on the employer's list of workmen without verifying it against the members' lists of contesting trade unions?
  • Are workmen who are not members of a contesting trade union eligible to vote in a referendum for the determination of a Collective Bargaining Agent?
  • Does the statutory scheme of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 regarding CBA elections differ from the scheme prescribed under the repealed Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan State Oil Company Limited (PSO) vs M/s. Gillani (Pvt. Ltd. &2025 SHC 126 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways through Chief Controller of Purchases, Pakistan Railways, Lahore vs CRRC Ziyang Co. Limited, Lahore2025 SCP 215 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-04-29
  arbitration awardobjections to awardjudicial interventionarbitral misconductframing of issuesrecording of evidencefinality of award
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside a Civil Court order. The Civil Court had framed issues and directed the recording of evidence regarding objections filed against an arbitration award under the Arbitration Act, 1940. The core legal question was whether a court, when considering objections to an arbitral award, must necessarily frame issues and conduct a trial by recording evidence. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court correctly set aside the Civil Court's order. The Court affirmed that arbitration is intended to be a swift, final dispute resolution mechanism, and judicial intervention must be limited to the narrow grounds specified in Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The Court established the principle that civil courts should not act as appellate bodies or engage in de novo fact-finding. Consequently, courts must avoid framing issues and recording evidence in objection proceedings unless absolutely necessary, as doing so undermines the legislative intent of efficiency and finality inherent in the arbitral process.

  Questions settled

  • Is a civil court required to frame issues and record evidence when considering objections to an arbitration award under the Arbitration Act, 1940?
  • Does the court exercise appellate jurisdiction when deciding objections to an arbitration award?
  • Are arbitrators bound by the strict procedural rules of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • What is the scope of judicial interference in arbitration proceedings under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways thr. its Chairman Pakistan Railways, Islamabad &2025 SCP 100, 2025 PLJ SC 224, 2025 SCMR 646, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 699 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-12-11
  Federal Service TribunalSection 12(2) CPCOrder VII Rule 11 CPCdoctrine of mergerupgradation of postservice lawleave to appealfinality of judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenged an order of the Federal Service Tribunal (FST) dismissing the petitioner Railway department's application under Section 12(2) read with Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC). The application sought to dismiss an implementation petition and recall a final judgment directing the upgradation of Signal Maintainers (SMRs) from BS-9 to BS-10, alleging misrepresentation and fraud. The original FST judgment had already been affirmed by the Supreme Court in earlier proceedings. The Supreme Court examined the maintainability and applicability of Section 12(2) CPC before the Service Tribunal post-affirmation. The Court held that under the doctrine of merger, once a judgment is affirmed by the Supreme Court, it attains finality and cannot be reopened via Section 12(2) CPC before the FST. Furthermore, Section 12(2) requires specific pleadings of fraud, misrepresentation, or lack of jurisdiction, which were absent. Order VII Rule 11 CPC was also held wholly inapplicable post-finalization of an appeal. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is maintainable before the Federal Service Tribunal to challenge a judgment that has been affirmed by the Supreme Court?
  • What specific essential elements must be pleaded to invoke the remedy under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply after a service appeal has been finally decided and affirmed by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railway Advisory and Consultancy Services vs Assistant2025 LHC 4464 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-25Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Petroleum Limited vs Ayesha Chowdhry & others2025 SHC 312 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-27Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Muslim League (N) through its President, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa vs The Election Commission of Pakistan through its Secretary and others2025 PHC 228 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pakistan Muslim League (N) through its President Lahore and others vs Sunni Ittehad Council through its Chairman, Faisalabad and others (in all cases)2025 SCP 242 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-06-27
  reserved seatscivil review petitionselection commission of pakistanconstitutional benchpolitical affiliationreturned candidatesde novo exercise
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a series of Civil Review Petitions filed against the Supreme Court's majority judgment dated 12.07.2024 regarding the allocation of reserved seats for the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC). The core legal question involved the validity of the previous judgment and the appropriate allocation of reserved seats among political parties. Following the reconstitution of the Constitutional Bench due to the recusal of a member, the Court delivered a majority decision. By a majority of seven judges, the Court allowed the review petitions, set aside the impugned majority judgment, and dismissed the Civil Appeals filed by the SIC, effectively restoring the judgment of the Peshawar High Court. One judge partly allowed the petitions, maintaining the original order regarding 39 seats while reviewing the judgment concerning 41 seats. Two other judges allowed the petitions with a specific directive for the Election Commission of Pakistan to conduct a de novo examination of the nomination papers and declarations of the 80 returned candidates to resolve factual controversies regarding their political affiliation within 15 days.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court review its own majority judgment regarding the allocation of reserved seats?
  • Is the Election Commission of Pakistan empowered to conduct a de novo examination of nomination papers to resolve factual disputes over political affiliation?
  • What is the effect of a majority decision in review proceedings on the underlying judgment of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Mobile Communications Limited (PMCL) vs The Commissioner2025 IHC 384 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-11Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Medical & Dental Council having its office in G- 10_4, Mauv_094da6522025 SC AJK 7 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Limited vs Rahila Iftikhar w/o2025 IHC 558 · Islamabad High Court
  wrongful dismissaldisciplinary inquirynatural justiceindustrial relationsback benefitsdiscretionary powerreinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the dismissal of an employee by Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Limited, which had been set aside by the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC). The core legal question was whether the disciplinary proceedings and subsequent dismissal were conducted in accordance with the law and principles of natural justice. The Court held that the dismissal was unlawful, noting that the inquiry was based on unsubstantiated allegations without credible evidence or witness testimony. The Court emphasized that discretionary powers, even when vested in an employer, cannot be exercised arbitrarily or whimsically and must be supported by concrete evidence. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that where the law prescribes a specific manner for performing an act, it must be strictly followed. Because the Petitioner failed to provide a fair hearing, failed to confront the employee with evidence, and ignored the lack of proof, the Court upheld the NIRC’s decision, directing the reinstatement of the employee with full consequential financial and service benefits, affirming that disciplinary autonomy does not permit the abuse of authority.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employer exercise discretionary disciplinary powers in the absence of concrete evidence?
  • Does the failure to confront an employee with specific evidence during an inquiry violate the principles of natural justice?
  • What is the legal consequence of failing to cross-examine a witness whose testimony supports the opposing party's case?
  • Must disciplinary proceedings strictly follow the procedural requirements mandated by the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Limited vs Federation of Pakistan and others2025 YLR 521 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority and another, Federation of Pakistan vs Shoukat Ali and another2025 IHC 362 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pak Telecom Mobile Limited vs Federal Board Of Revenue, Etc2025 IHC 110 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-27Read full judgment →
• Owner of M/s Simba Enterprises vs Federation of Pakistan & Another2025 SHC 614 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-08Read full judgment →
• Oshaque Ahmed son of Ali Hassan Khokhar vs The State2025 SHC 676 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-07
  misappropriationcriminal breach of trustpublic servantwheat stock embezzlementprevention of corruptionland revenue arrearscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant, an Incharge of a Provincial Reserve Centre, for the misappropriation of government wheat stock. The core legal question was whether the prosecution sufficiently established the entrustment and subsequent embezzlement of wheat stock, and whether the trial court acted within its jurisdiction by ordering the recovery of the misappropriated amount as land revenue arrears. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence. The court held that the prosecution successfully proved the entrustment of property and the appellant's failure to account for significant stock shortages. The court affirmed that public servants exercising dominion over government property bear the burden of explaining discrepancies in stock. Furthermore, the court laid down that ordering the recovery of misappropriated funds as government arrears under the Land Revenue Act is a legally tenable mechanism for enforcing fines under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, aimed at deterring corruption and protecting the national exchequer.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a public servant to explain discrepancies in government stock under their control satisfy the requirements for conviction under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a trial court order the recovery of a fine imposed for corruption as government arrears under the Land Revenue Act?
  • Does the presumption of regularity under Article 129(e) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 apply to inspection reports produced by government officials in corruption cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Osama Nadeem vs Mst.Minha Khan2025 SHC KHI 2077 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-13Read full judgment →
• Osama and another vs The State and another2025 YLR 215 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-10-29
  circumstantial evidencelast seen evidencejudicial confessionrecovery of dead bodypointationco-accused confessionenhancement of sentencemurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and revision petition arose from a trial court judgment convicting two appellants for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the admissibility of last-seen evidence, and the evidentiary value of a co-accused's judicial confession. The High Court held that while the case rested on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of events, including last-seen evidence, pointation of the crime scene, and recovery of the dead body and weapon. Consequently, the court maintained the conviction of the primary appellant for murder. However, regarding the second appellant, the court found insufficient evidence of direct involvement in the murder, setting aside his conviction under Section 302(b) and instead convicting him under Sections 201 and 202 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for disposing of evidence and failing to report the crime. The court affirmed that last-seen evidence, when corroborated by other facts, is reliable, and that a co-accused's confession serves as valid circumstantial evidence under Article 43 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984. The revision petition for sentence enhancement was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be based on circumstantial evidence if the chain of events is complete?
  • Under what conditions can last seen evidence be relied upon for a criminal conviction?
  • Can a judicial confession of one co-accused be used as circumstantial evidence against another co-accused?
  • Does the recovery of a dead body on the pointation of an accused constitute admissible evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• OMV Maurice Energy Limited vs Pakistan, through Secretary Finance and others2025 IHC 182 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Omer Khalid Anwar, Jibran Ali, Muhammad Musarat ul Haq vs FOP through the Secretary Establishment, Pak Secretariat, Islamabad, & Others, Director Excise and Taxation Department & 2 others, Federation of Pakistan & Others2025 IHC 566 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-08Read full judgment →
• Omer Farooq and another vs SHO P.S K.I. A and others2025 SHC KHI 1924, 2025 SHC KHI 1923 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Oil & Gas Regulatory Authority, Islamabad, Hydrocarbon Development2025 SCP 42, 2025 PLD Supreme Court 351, 2025 PLJ SC 301 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-14
  review petitionstatutory interpretationper incuriamleave to appealdelegation of powersregulatory authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses two matters arising from a review petition and a miscellaneous application seeking to review a prior order of the Supreme Court, which had refused leave to appeal against an Islamabad High Court judgment. The High Court had set aside a fine imposed by the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority (OGRA) on a petroleum company because OGRA had improperly authorized the Hydrocarbon Development Institute of Pakistan to take samples on its behalf. The core legal question was whether a review petition can be entertained merely to reargue a pure question of statutory interpretation, and whether a co-respondent who failed to file a leave petition can seek review on the ground of not being heard when leave was refused at the pre-notice stage. The Supreme Court dismissed both the review petition and the application, holding that where a decision turns solely on a pure question of law and statutory interpretation, a review is not maintainable unless the judgment is shown to be per incuriam, and that a party failing to appeal cannot complain of lack of notice when another party's leave petition is dismissed <i>in limine</i>. The key principle laid down is that disagreement with the statutory interpretation in a judgment does not constitute a valid ground for review in the absence of a per incuriam case.

  Questions settled

  • Can a review petition be maintained against a judgment that turns solely on a pure question of law and statutory interpretation merely on the ground that the interpretation is incorrect?
  • Is a party who was a respondent in a leave petition entitled to complain about lack of notice when the leave petition is dismissed without notice?
  • What is the required ground to successfully challenge a judgment based on statutory interpretation through a review petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Occidental Petroleum (Pakistan) Inc And Others vs The Commissioner2025 SHC KHI 2078, 2025 SHC KHI 2079, 2025 SHC KHI 2080 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Obaidullah and others vs The State and others2025 SCP 177 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-02
  retracted judicial confessioncircumstantial evidencecriminal appealbenefit of doubtmurderSection 342 statementcorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves criminal jail petitions challenging the conviction of the petitioners for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether convictions could be sustained solely on retracted judicial confessions without independent corroboration, and whether the prosecution successfully established a chain of circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court observed that the retracted confessions lacked independent corroboration, were contradicted by medical evidence, and were not supported by the recovery of the weapon. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that incriminating evidence not put to an accused during their statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot be used for conviction. The key principle laid down is that in cases of circumstantial evidence, every link must form a continuous chain connecting the accused to the crime; if any link is missing, the benefit must go to the accused. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the petitioners.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on a retracted judicial confession without independent corroboration?
  • Does the failure to put incriminating evidence to an accused during their statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render such evidence inadmissible for conviction?
  • In cases of circumstantial evidence, what is the legal requirement for the chain of evidence to be considered complete?
  • Is the recovery of a weapon and positive forensic report reliable when the weapon and crime empties are deposited together at the police station for an unexplained period?
  Read full judgment →
• Obaid Muhammad Khan Niazi vs Muhammad Iqbal and others2025 SHC 156, 2025 MLD 953 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-31Read full judgment →
• Oaun Yazdani Mughal vs The State2025 SHC KHI 1786 · Sindh High Court · 2025-06-26
  pre-arrest bailcriminal breach of trustdelay in FIRprohibitory clausefurther inquirytentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a pre-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Oaun Yazdani Mughal, in relation to FIR No. 38 of 2025, registered under Section 406 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail considering the significant, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and the nature of the alleged offense. The Court held that the unexplained delay of over two months in registering the FIR created serious doubts regarding the prosecution's case, suggesting potential deliberation and afterthought. Additionally, the Court noted that the offense under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail, reaffirming the principle that for offenses outside the prohibitory limb, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, a principle binding on all courts under Article 189 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR create sufficient grounds to doubt the prosecution's case for the purpose of bail?
  • Is the grant of bail for offenses not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 the rule rather than the exception?
  • Are the legal principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan constitutionally binding on all courts under Article 189 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Nusrat Sadiq vs Nadeem Asghar etc2025 LHC 3883 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-02Read full judgment →
• Nunchi Marine Pte Ltd vs Cnergyico Pk Limited2025 SHC KHI 2246 · Sindh High Court · 2025-09-12Read full judgment →
• Nouman Ali vs The State2025 YLR 687 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-10-11Read full judgment →
• Norang Khan, etc vs The Federation Of Pakistan, etc2025 IHC 272 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-23Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad, etc vs Mst. Sardar Begum, etc2025 LHC 2264 · Lahore High Court · 2025-04-17Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad and another vs The IInd Rent Controller Khi (West) &2025 SHC KHI 1501 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Noor Ellahi vs The United Insurance Company of Pakistan and another2025 IHC 430 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-30Read full judgment →
• Noor Elahi vs Zulfiqar Hussain2025 IHC 42 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-06Read full judgment →